Tedizolid: A comprehensive review of pharmacology, clinical applications and future directions in antimicrobial resistance

Tedizolid has a noninferior antimicrobial property in comparison to linezolid.  On the other hand, its adverse effects profile is much lesser.  Thus, tedizolid is an upcoming drug of choice for Gram positive bacterial infections, particularly those due to multi-drug resistant organisms.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics. Absorption, Distribution, and Metabolism

Tedizolid phosphate is a prodrug that is rapidly converted to its active form,tedizolid, following oral or intravenous (IV) administration. It is well absorbed with high bioavailability (~91%), enabling straightforward oral-to-IV conversion without the need for dose adjustments. The drug has a half-life of approximately 12 hours, allowing for once-daily dosing. Tedizolid has a high volume of distribution and penetrates well into tissues, including subcutaneous adipose and skeletal muscle tissue. This distribution is critical for its efficacy in treating skin and soft tissue infections [4].

Pharmacodynamic Considerations

The primary pharmacodynamic parameter predicting tedizolid efficacy is the AUC/MIC ratio (Area Under the Concentration-Time Curve to Minimum Inhibitory Concentration). Tedizolid demonstrates a lower required AUC/MIC ratio compared to linezolid (3-10 for tedizolid versus 50-80 for linezolid), indicating that it is more potent at inhibiting bacterial growth at lower concentrations​. This feature also contributes to its reduced side-effect profile [5].

Clinical Efficacy

Tedizolid has been extensively studied in patients with ABSSSI and has shown non-inferior efficacy compared to linezolid in clinical trials. The ESTABLISH-1 and ESTABLISH-2 phase III trials evaluated tedizolid's efficacy in treating ABSSSI and demonstrated its comparable effectiveness to linezolid with a shorter duration of therapy (six days versus 10-14 days for linezolid)​.

Use in Bone and Joint Infections (BJI)

Tedizolid's role in treating bone and joint infections (BJI) has also been explored, particularly in patients with hardware-associated infections and osteomyelitis​. In a study by Miller et al., tedizolid was used for up to 12 weeks to treat patients with BJIs caused by Gram-positive pathogens. The results showed that tedizolid was well-tolerated with no significant adverse hematologic or neurologic effects, and clinical cure rates were comparable to those seen with other antibiotic regimens​. These findings support the potential use of tedizolid as a safe and effective option for prolonged oral therapy in BJIs, particularly in the context of multidrug-resistant organisms.^6,7

Safety and Tolerability

Tedizolid has a favorable safety profile, especially concerning hematologic toxicity. One of the key limitations of linezolid is its association with myelosuppression, particularly thrombocytopenia. Tedizolid, in contrast, demonstrates a significantly lower incidence of myelosuppression, which is a critical advantage, especially in patients requiring prolonged therapy. This difference is likely due to tedizolid's reduced affinity for mitochondrial ribosomes, which are implicated in linezolid-induced cytopenias [8].

In clinical trials, tedizolid's most common side effects were mild and included gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, which were reported in less than 10% of patients​. In long-term studies, no significant changes in platelet counts were observed, even with treatment durations of up to 12 weeks​ [9].

Special Populations and Off-Label Uses

Immunocompromised Patients

Tedizolid has shown promise in treating infections in immuno-compromised patients, including those undergoing chemotherapy or organ transplantation​. Immunosuppressed individuals are at increased risk for infections caused by MDROs, and Tedizolid's favorable safety profile makes it an attractive option in these populations. While data is still limited, tedizolid's reduced risk of myelosuppression is particularly advantageous for patients with already compromised bone marrow function​ [10].

Use in Prolonged Infections

Tedizolid has also been evaluated for use in prolonged infections, including chronic osteomyelitis and prosthetic joint infections, where long-term therapy is often required. Studies have shown that tedizolid is well-tolerated for durations longer than the typical 6-day course, with no significant increases in adverse effects​. This makes tedizolid a viable option for managing complex infections requiring extended treatment.

Tedizolid Versus Linezolid: A Comparative Analysis [11,12,13]

Dosing and Administration

One of the most notable advantages of tedizolid over linezolid is its once-daily dosing. Tedizolid's longer half-life allows for more convenient dosing and may improve patient compliance, particularly in outpatient settings​. In contrast, linezolid requires twice-daily dosing, which may be burdensome for patients with long-term therapy requirements.

Safety Profile

Tedizolid's improved safety profile is a key differentiator. Linezolid's association with thrombocytopenia, anemia, and peripheral neuropathy limits its use in patients who require extended treatment courses. Tedizolid has shown a much lower incidence of these side effects, making it a safer option for long-term use​​.

Drug Interactions

Both linezolid and tedizolid are weak monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), which can theoretically lead to interactions with serotonergic drugs, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). However, tedizolid has a lower risk of causing serotonin syndrome compared to linezolid, making it a safer choice for patients taking these medications​.

Challenges and Future Directions

Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)

Tedizolid plays an important role in combating antimicrobial resistance (AMR) due to its potency and favorable pharmacokinetics. However, as with all antibiotics, the indiscriminate use of tedizolid should be avoided to prevent the development of resistance. Clinicians must adhere to guidelines promoting antibiotic stewardship, ensuring tedizolid is reserved for infections caused by susceptible pathogens​.

Real-World Data and Long-Term Use

While clinical trials have demonstrated tedizolid's efficacy and safety, real-world data is still needed to confirm its long-term utility across a broader range of infections. Further studies are required to assess its effectiveness in diverse patient populations, including those with more severe or refractory infections, and to explore its potential role in combination therapies.

Off-Label Uses and Expanded Indications

Although tedizolid is currently approved only for ABSSSI, its use in treating other infections, such as pneumonia, bacteremia, and central nervous system infections, is being explored​. Off-label use has shown promise, but larger studies are needed to validate these findings and expand tedizolid's indications​ [14].

CONCLUSION

Tedizolid phosphate represents a significant advancement in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections, particularly for those caused by multidrug-resistant organisms such as MRSA. Its pharmacokinetic profile, which includes high oral bioavailability and a longer half-life, allows for once-daily dosing, distinguishing it from linezolid. Additionally, tedizolid's shorter recommended treatment duration (6 days vs. 10-14 days for linezolid) contributes to enhanced patient compliance and potentially reduced development of resistance.

Clinically, tedizolid has demonstrated non-inferiority to linezolid in treating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI), with a comparable efficacy profile. Its safety profile is notably better than linezolid's, with fewer incidences of myelosuppression, thrombocytopenia, and peripheral or optic neuropathy, making it particularly advantageous for long-term therapy. Studies also suggest its suitability for use in immunocompromised patients due to its reduced risk of hematological toxicity​​.

However, despite these promising features, tedizolid's use beyond its approved indication of ABSSSI, such as in treating more complicated infections like bone and joint infections, requires further exploration. The need for additional real-world evidence and long-term safety data is critical to fully understanding its role in the broader clinical context. Future studies should focus on tedizolid's efficacy in other infection types, especially in populations with significant comorbidities or compromised immune systems, and its long-term effects when used as part of antimicrobial stewardship programs.

In conclusion, tedizolid offers an effective and safer alternative to linezolid for the treatment of serious Gram-positive infections, with the potential to play a key role in combating antimicrobial resistance. However, prudent use in line with the principles of antibiotic stewardship is essential to ensure its long-term efficacy and to prevent the development of resistance. Further research is warranted to solidify its place in the treatment of more diverse infections and special populations.

Conflict of Interest:  The authors declare no conflict of interest

Funding Sources:  No funding

Author Contributions:  

Study was conceptualized by SSS and RC.  Manuscript drafted and written by SSS, RC, SM, SV.  MB, JP, NC, SJ supervised the work.  All authors confirmed the final version of manuscript.