Tedizolid in vitro activity against Gram-positive clinical isolates causing bone and joint infections in hospitals in the USA and Europe (2014-17)

12Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Despite the advances in current healthcare, bone and joint infections (BJIs) are a major clinical challenge that frequently involve prolonged systemic antibiotic use. Healthcare providers consider tedizolid an attractive candidate for therapy in adults and children with BJI. Objectives: We tested tedizolid against a US and European collection of Gram-positive BJI isolates (n"797) consecutively collected from 2014 to 2017. Methods: Organisms were tested by broth microdilution susceptibility methods following current CLSI guidelines and interpreted by both CLSI and EUCAST breakpoint criteria. Results: Staphylococcus aureus (59.3%; 58.6% in the USA and 60.4% in Europe) was the most common pathogen with a 29.6% MRSA rate and tedizolid MIC 50/90 of 0.12/0.25 mg/L (100% susceptible). CoNS (15.0% of BJI in adults and ,5% in children) had tedizolid MIC50/90 values of 0.12/0.12 mg/L (99.1% susceptible). Tedizolid exhibited MIC50/90 values of 0.12/0.25 mg/L for all streptococci and enterococci. Overall, high susceptibility rates (.95%) for vancomycin, daptomycin and linezolid were observed and, based on MIC90 values, tedizolid (MIC90 0.12-0.25 mg/L) was 4-to 8-fold more potent than linezolid (MIC90 0.5-2 mg/L) against this collection of Grampositive pathogens causing BJI. Conclusions: This study showed that tedizolid had potent in vitro activity against contemporary Gram-positive cocci causing BJI in adults and children in US and European hospitals.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Carvalhaes, C. G., Sader, H. S., Flamm, R. K., & Mendes, R. E. (2019). Tedizolid in vitro activity against Gram-positive clinical isolates causing bone and joint infections in hospitals in the USA and Europe (2014-17). Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 74(7), 1928–1933. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkz120

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free