Abstract
Background
Infections due to multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria are increasing both in hospitals and in the community and are characterized by high mortality rates. New molecules are in development to face the need of active compounds toward resistant gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. In particular, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has supported the initiative to develop ten new antibacterials within 2020. Principal targets are the so-called ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumanii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacteriaceae).
Purpose
To review the characteristics and the status of development of new antimicrobials including new cephalosporins, carbapenems, beta-lactamase inhibitors, aminoglycosides, quinolones, oxazolidones, glycopeptides, and tetracyclines.
Conclusions
While numerous new compounds target resistant gram-positive pathogens and have been approved for clinical use, very few new molecules are active against MDR gram-negative pathogens, especially carbapenemase producers. New glycopeptides and oxazolidinones are highly efficient against methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), and new cephalosporins and carbapenems also display activity toward MDR gram-positive bacteria. Although new cephalosporins and carbapenems have acquired activity against MRSA, they offer few advantages against difficult-to-treat gram-negatives. Among agents that are potentially active against MDR gram-negatives are ceftozolane/tazobactam, new carbapenems, the combination of avibactam with ceftazidime, and plazomicin. Since a relevant number of promising antibiotics is currently in development, regulatory approvals over the next 5 years are crucial to face the growing threat of multidrug resistance.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The dramatic increase in resistance of both gram-negative and gram-positive pathogens poses a great concern since these infections are characterized by high mortality rates, prolonged hospitalization, and associated costs [1, 2]. Bacteria bearing resistance to one or more antimicrobials from at least three different antimicrobial classes, defined as multidrug resistance (MDR) bacteria, have become increasingly common, especially in the hospital setting [3].
The acronym “ESKAPE pathogens” refers to the most frequently reported MDR bacteria, including Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacteriaceae, and it underlines their ability to escape the antimicrobial treatment [1].
Specifically, gram-negative bacteria have shown increasing resistance to penicillins, cephalosporins, and quinolones [4]. In particular, the emergence of MDR strains of P. aeruginosa and extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs)-producing Enterobacteriaceae has significantly narrowed the choices for a targeted antimicrobial therapy [4]. As a consequence, broad-spectrum antimicrobials (e.g., piperacillin/tazobactam, carbapenems, fluoroquinolones) have registered a progressive increase in their use, leading to the emergence of isolates that are resistant to all current available molecules, called extreme drug-resistant strains (XDR) [5, 6]. In the past decades, the increase in gram-negative MDR bacteria has not been counterbalanced by the availability of new molecules; thus, the emergence of infections for which there are limited treatment options currently represents a critical unmet medical need [7].
Due to the limited therapeutic options, clinicians aiming to target MDR gram-negative bacteria had to rediscover the use of old drugs, such as polymixins and fosfomycin, or to increase the recommended dose of broad-spectrum antimicrobials, such as carbapenems or tigecycline, in order to achieve therapeutic benefit. Nevertheless, these strategies may be correlated to an increase in drug-related toxicity.
Novel pharmaceutical molecules such as linezolid, daptomycin, and tigecycline have been discovered and introduced into clinical practice in the last few years to target resistant gram-positive bacteria. Neverthelass, pathogens such as methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) are still extremely challenging to eradicate. Furthermore, S. aureus (including MRSA) is the leading cause of hospital-acquired infections (HAI) in the USA, with the global spread of some strains approaching epidemic proportions [8]. Although vancomycin has been considered the drug of choice for MRSA and is still extensively used for this indication, recent studies suggest that vancomycin is less effective against MRSA in the presence of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values that are at the high end of the susceptibility range [9–11].
In this dramatic scenario, the need of new molecules to address the presence of both gram-negative and gram-positive pathogens is mandatory. In the past 10 years, the lack of new antibiotics has been the main concern of professional agencies such as the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) that have stressed the necessity of new pharmaceutical investments in the area of antimicrobial development [12]. In 2010, the IDSA launched the so-called 10 × ′20 initiative in order to develop ten new antibiotics by 2020 and address the limited number of novel therapeutics in development to treat drug-resistant pathogens [13].
In this review, we have reported the characteristics of the most recently developed antimicrobials for the treatment of resistant gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria that have completed at least phase 2 trials.
Beta-lactams
Cephalosporins
Cephalosporins are among the most prescribed antimicrobials due to their broad spectrum of activity and a favorable safety profile. Like other beta-lactams, their mechanism of action consists in binding to penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs) leading to irreversible inhibition of the bacterial cell wall synthesis.
New, fifth generation cephalosporins include ceftaroline and ceftobiprole that are characterized by an extended spectrum of activity toward resistant gram-negative pathogens and a unique activity against MRSA
Ceftaroline fosamil is a novel semisynthetic anti-MRSA cephalosporin with broad-spectrum activity, which is currently completing phase 4 clinical trials. Ceftaroline presents enhanced activity toward MDR gram-positive pathogens including MRSA, heteroresistant vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (hVISA), and vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA). Its activity against MRSA is due to a higher effect on PBP2a inhibition compared to other beta-lactams [14]. Although ceftaroline maintains good activity against gram-negative pathogens, increased MIC and potential selection of resistance have been shown toward AmpC-producing strains [15, 16]. Furthermore, the activity of ceftaroline was lower compared to aztreonam toward P. aeruginosa and Proteus mirabilis [17]. Ceftaroline has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010 and by the European Medical Agency (EMA) in 2012 for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Pooled success frequency in the treatment of CAP, including infections with MDR S. pneumoniae, was 84.3 % [18]. For the treatment of ABSSSI, including infections with MRSA, pooled success frequency was 91.6 % [17].
Ceftobiprole medocaril is a new cephalosporin with expanded activity against gram-positive bacteria. Similarly to ceftaroline, it has high affinity for PBP2a. Ceftobiprole is stable against class A temoneira (TEM-1) and class C AmpC beta-lactamase but, similarly to ceftazidime, is labile to hydrolysis by class B, class D, and class A ESBL and carbapenemases [19]. Ceftobiprole is active against Enterococcus faecalis but not against E. faecium. Toward P. aeruginosa, ceftobiprole activity is superior to that of cefepime [20]. In vitro activity of ceftobiprole against S. pneumoniae showed MIC90 of 0.5 μg/mL, the lowest among all other cephalosporins. Ceftobiprole has been approved for use in Canada and Switzerland and is under review in the USA and Europe. In phase 3 trials, ceftobiprole was non-inferior to linezolid in association with ceftazidime or ceftriaxone in hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and CAP requiring hospitalization, respectively [21]. In patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ceftobiprole is not recommended since its non-inferiority was not demonstrated in this subset of patients. Good results were also shown in the treatment of complicated SSSIs [22]. Ceftobiprole was generally well tolerated.
Ceftozolane/tazobactam represents the association of a novel cephalosporin and the beta-lactamase inhibitor tazobactam. The chemical structure of ceftolozane is similar to that of ceftazidime, with the exception of a modified side chain at the third position of the cephem nucleus, which confers potent antipseudomonal activity. Ceftolozane displays increased activity against gram-negative bacilli, including those that harbor classical beta-lactamases such as TEM-1 and SHV-1 [23]. Similar to other cephalosporins, such as ceftazidime and ceftriaxone, ESBL and carbapenemases may compromise its activity. The addition of tazobactam expands its spectrum and allows activity against ESBL-producing bacteria and Bacteroides spp. [24]. Thanks to its ability to escape various resistance mechanisms (e.g., PBP mutations, efflux pumps), ceftolozane offers unique activity versus P. aeruginosa, including carbapenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, ceftazidime-resistant, and MDR isolates [25]. Overall efficacy including superiority to levofloxacin in complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) and comparable efficacy to meropenem in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) have been recently demonstrated in phase 3 trials [26–29]. A favorable safety profile was demonstrated in phase 3 cUTI and cIAI trials in which ceftolozane/tazobactam was administered intravenously (IV) as 1.5 g every 8 h. A phase 3 trial to assess the safety and efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam at a dose of 3 g every 8 h compared to meropenem for the treatment of HAI is expected to be completed in 2018.
Carbapenems
Carbapenems are broad-spectrum beta-lactam antibiotics characterized by stability to hydrolysis by the majority of ESBLs. Currently, meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin are widely used and are recommended for treatment of HAP, cUTIs, cIAIs, and bloodstream infections (BSI). New molecules differ regarding their activity toward difficult-to-treat non-fermenting pathogens (such as P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii) and MRSA. Similarly to other widely used compounds, such as imipenem and meropenem, new carbapenems that are active toward P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii but not MRSA include doripenem and biapenem. Conversely, tomopenem and razupenem display activity against MRSA but not against non-fermenting bacilli. Panipenem and tebipenem, like ertapenem, do not have activity against non-fermenting pathogens and MRSA.
Tebipenem/pivoxil is a novel oral carbapenem for the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Its activity includes MDR S. pneumoniae and other gram-positives, K. pneumoniae and Escherichia coli [30]. Phase 2 clinical studies are ongoing in Japan.
Panipenem/betamipron is a parenteral carbapenem approved in China, Korea, and Japan and for the treatment of UTIs, lower RTI, obstetrical/gynaecological, and surgical infections. The combination of panipenem with betamipron, similarly to imipenem/cilastatin, is necessary because betamipron inhibits the renal uptake of panipenem. Panipenem is highly active against Enterobacteriaceae such as E. coli, K. pneumoniae, Proteus spp. and Citrobacter spp., but is inactive against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Its activity toward P. aeruginosa is comparable to imipenem but significantly lower than meropenem. Good activity has also been demonstrated against Bacteroides fragilis [31]. The clinical efficacy of panipenem/betamipron was demonstrated in three randomized phase 3 clinical trials in comparison with imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of adults with respiratory and UTIs [32]. Panipenem/betamipron is administered as 0.5/0.5 g twice daily. Mild adverse effects have been associated with panipenem; its co-administration with valproic acid can favor the occurrence of seizures and is contraindicated [32].
Doripenem has a molecular structure that confers beta-lactamase stability and resistance to inactivation by renal dehydropeptidases [33]. Doripenem is characterized by a broad spectrum of activity against gram-negative pathogens. Its activity is similar to that of meropenem against E. coli, Citrobacter spp., and Burkholderia cepacia; higher MIC compared with meropenem have been displayed toward ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae, P. mirabilis, Serratia spp., B. fragilis, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii. Doripenem is active against MSSA, S. pneumonia, and CoNS but it is not active against MRSA and VRE. Doripenem is effective against ESBL or AmpC producers, but reduced activity has been documented against metallo beta-lactamases [34]. Combination of doripenem with colisitin showed in vitro synergistic action against colistin-resistant, carbapenemase producing K. pneumoniae (KPC). In vivo, doripenem has been used with benefit used in dual carbapenem therapy (e.g., in association with ertapenem) against pandrug-resistant KPC infections [35–37]. The benefit was thought to be related to a preferential affinity of carbapenemase for ertapenem that is consumed by the enzyme leaving higher concentrations of doripenem to exert its antibacterial effect. An alternative explanation is based on the initial reduction in inoculum density by ertapenem thereby permitting doripenem to express its successful activity [38]. The recommended dosage of doripenem is 500 mg IV every 8 h with dose adjustments in patients with moderate renal impairment [39]. Doripenem was approved by the FDA in 2007 for the treatment of pyelonephritis, cUTI, and cIAIs. Doripenem has also been approved by the EMA for the treatment of HAP and VAP. The most frequent adverse events reported are nausea (3.7 %) and diarrhea (2.5 %); the incidence of seizures with doripenem was lower compared to other carbapenems [39].
Biapenem is a new parenteral carbapenem that has been approved in Japan in 2002, and it is currently undergoing phase 2 clinical studies in the USA. Biapenem is characterized by an optimal penetration in the respiratory tissue along with a broad spectrum of activity including penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, E. cloacae, S. marcescens, and Citrobacter freundii. Moderate activity has been displayed against P. aeruginosa; biapenem is not active against MRSA and Enterococci [40]. Biapenem is administered at a dosage of 300 mg twice daily and requires dose adjustment in case of reduced glomerular filtration rate. A multicenter randomized controlled clinical study comparing biapenem with imipenem/cilastatin in RTIs and UTIs showed similar efficacy and tolerability profile [41]. The most commonly reported adverse effects with biapenem were nausea, skin eruption, vomiting, and diarrhea in 2 to 3.4 % of cases [42].
Tomopenem (CS-023) is characterized by a spectrum of activity that includes both MDR gram-positive and gram-negative strains. Tomopenem has a good activity against penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae, ceftazidime-resistant P. aeruginosa, ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, and MRSA [43, 44]. Other favorable features include a wide distribution in vivo due to a low rate of protein binding and a reduced potential for selection of resistances [45]. Tomopenem has been studied for the treatment of cSSSI and HAP.
Razupenem (PTZ601) has a broad-spectrum activity against gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens, including penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae MRSA, vancomycin-resistant E. faecium, ampicillin-resistant H. influenzae, and ESBL-producing bacteria [46, 47]. Razupenem has reduced activity against AmpC enzymes and carbapenemases [46, 48]. Razupenem has shown excellent activity in the treatment of cSSSI.
Beta-lactamase inhibitors
Beta-lactamase inhibitors enhance the activity of beta-lactam agents by protecting them from enzymatic hydrolysis. The goal of the new combinations of beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors is to expand the activity against class C and class D beta-lactamases.
Avibactam (NXL104) is a beta-lactamase inhibitor characterized by high affinity with class A and class C beta-lactamases and the potential to inhibit ESBLs, KPCs, OXA, and AmpC [49].
Avibactam is currently being investigated in phase 3 studies in combination with ceftazidime and is in clinical development in association with ceftaroline and aztreonam (phase 1 trials). Specifically, its combination with aztreonam offers a potential option against NDM-1 producing bacteria [50].
Ceftazidime/avibactam combination has shown in vitro activity against strains OXA-48, ESBL or AmpC strains, and Klebsiella KPC, but not against metallo-beta-lactamase producers [51, 52]. Results of ceftazidime-avibactam phase 2 trials in cUTIs compared to imipenem reported 70.4 and 71.4 % success rates, respectively [53]. In cIAIs with meropenem as comparator, success rates among microbiologically documented infections were over 90 % in both arms. Among isolates presumed to be ESBL producers, the clinical efficacy of both arms was 96 % [54]. Phase 3 studies are ongoing to investigate the activity of avibactam/ceftazidime in cIAIs, cUTIs, HAP, and VAP.
MK-7655 is a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor under investigation in combination with imipenem/cilastatin showing in vitro activity against class A and class C carbapenemases [55]. Two phase 2 trials are ongoing for the treatment of cIAIs and cUTIs [9].
Glycopeptides
Glycopeptides include well known molecules such as vancomycin and teicoplanin. Glycopeptides display a limited spectrum of action and are effective mainly against gram-positive cocci. Their mechanism of action consists in the inhibition of a late stage in bacterial cell wall synthesis binding to acyl-D-alanyl-D-alanine in peptidoglycan [56]. New derivatives of this class, telavancin, oritavancin, and dalbavancin, have been developed to overcome the emergence of MRSA strains with reduced susceptibilities to vancomycin and to increase the penetration into tissues and into the cerebrospinal fluid. These new molecules are lipoglycopeptides (i.e., they present a lipophilic side chains linked to glycopeptides) and are characterized by longer half-life compared to vancomycin, this allowing for infrequent dosing, greater potency, and less potential for development of resistant organisms.
Telavancin is a vancomycin derivative characterized by the addition of a hydrophobic side chain and a hydrophilic group. Its mechanism of action consists in the blockage of both the transpeptidation and transglycosylation steps and in a direct effect on the bacterial membrane causing changes in cellular permeability. Telavancin has a time-dependent killing activity. Its half-life is around 8 h, and it has shown a high level of protein binding (93 %) in plasma [57]. Compared with vancomycin, telavancin is administered once daily and characterized by a potent in vitro antibacterial activity against a broad range of gram-positive bacteria, including MRSA, penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae, and isolates with reduced glycopeptide susceptibility including glycopeptide-intermediate S. aureus (GISA) and Van-A type Enterococci [58–61]. Specifically, telavancin displays excellent activity toward Staphylococci. MICs for MRSA were two to eight times lower than those observed for vancomycin, teicoplanin, and linezolid [62]. Regardless of MRSA subset, telavancin had MIC90 and MIC100 results of 0.06 and 0.12 μg/mL, corresponding to a susceptibility of 100 % [63]. Telavancin received approval from the FDA for the treatment of cSSSI. Results from phase 2 and 3 clinical trials demonstrated similar efficacy and tolerability compared to standard anti-staphylococcal beta-lactams and vancomycin [64–67]. The overall results of the two phase 3 studies, including a total of 40 % documented MRSA cSSSI, were analyzed [68]. Cure rates were 91 % for telavancin and 90 % for vancomycin among patients with major abscesses, 87 % and 88 % for telavancin and vancomycin-treated patients, respectively, in infective cellulitis and 85 % in the telavancin group and 86 % in the vancomycin group in patients with wound infections. Cure rates for each type of cSSSI in patients infected with MRSA were similar between the treatment arms and among patients infected with Panton-Valentine leucocidin (PVL)-positive MRSA. Telavancin has also shown good penetration in the alveolar macrophages, and unlike daptomycin, its activity is not affected by pulmonary surfactant [62]. Telavancin demonstrated non-inferiority compared to vancomycin for the treatment of HAP, including HAP due to MRSA [69, 70]. Nevertheless, in patients with pre-existing renal impairment (CrCl < 50 mL/min), telavancin presented an increased mortality compared to vancomycin. Based on the results of the clinical trials, telavancin was approved by EMA for the treatment of adult with HAP and VAP suspected or known to be caused by MRSA only when other alternatives are not suitable. Telavancin use has been related to the potential elevation of serum creatinine. Otherwise, it displays a favorable safety profile, with gastrointestinal discomfort being the most common side effect [71]. A phase 3 is ongoing to evaluate the efficacy of telavancin in S. aureus bacteremia [72].
Oritavancin is characterized by a rapid bactericidal activity against gram-positive bacteria, including resistant MRSA, methicillin-resistant CoNS, and VRE isolates [73]. No resistance to oritavancin has been observed among S. aureus strains including VISA, but VAN-A and VAN-B strains of Enterococci with reduced susceptibility to oritavancin have been obtained in vitro. Its concentration-dependent activity and long half-life (393 ± 73.5 h) allow for single-dose treatment. Furthermore, oritavancin does not require dosage adjustment for renal or mild to moderate hepatic dysfunction. The results of a randomized, double-blind trial in over 1000 adults with ABSSSIs receiving either a single intravenous 1200-mg dose of oritavancin or 7–10 days of vancomycin have been recently published [74]. Clinical cure and proportion of patients with at least 20 % reduction in lesion area were 83 vs 81 % and 85.9 vs 85.3 % for oritavancin vs vancomycin, respectively. The efficacy by pathogen, including MRSA, and the frequency of adverse events were also similar between treatment groups [73]. In 2014, the FDA approved oritavancin for the treatment of ABSSSIs due to MSSA, MRSA, Streptococcus spp,. and E. faecalis.
Dalbavancin
Dalbavancin has shown in vitro activity against MSSA, MRSA, VISA, meticillin-resistant S. epidermidis (MRSE) and Enterococci, although poor activity was demonatrated toward VanA-type Enterococci and VRSA [75–77]. Due to its long half-life (range, 147 to 258 h), the standard dose of dalbavancin is 1000 mg once a week [78]. Two randomized phase 3 studies showed non-inferiority of dalbavancin compared to vancomycin and linezolid in ABSSTI [79, 80]. A pooled analysis of the trials showed an early clinical response in 80 % of patients in both dalbavancin and vancomycin–linezolid groups. For patients infected with MRSA, clinical success was 91 % for patients treated with dalbavancin and 94 % of those treated with vancomycin–linezolid. Adverse events were less frequent in the dalbavancin group compared to comparators and included nausea, diarrhea, and pruritus [79].
In 2014, the FDA approved dalbavancin for treatment of adults with skin infections, including those caused by MRSA.
Oxazolidinones
Oxazolidinone antibiotics are a relatively new class of synthetic antibiotics with activity against a broad spectrum of gram-positive pathogens including MRSA and VRE. The first member of this new class to be commercialized, linezolid, was approved in 2000, and it is nowadays widely used in clinical practice for the treatment of severe gram-positive infections. Linezolid is characterized by excellent oral bioavailability and tissue penetration in bone, lung, and cerebrospinal fluid. New oxazolidinones with potent activity toward MDR gram-positive pathogens have been recently developed.
Tedizolid phosphate (TR-701) has been studied for the treatment of infections caused by MDR gram-positive bacteria, including strains showing linezolid, vancomycin, or daptomycin resistance [81]. Similarly to linezolid, tedizolid can be administered both orally and intravenously and has shown optimal tissue penetration, but its in vitro efficacy against Staphylococcus spp., Streptococcus spp., and Enterococcus spp. is superior than linezolid. Compared to linezolid, tedizolid can be admnistered once daily and displays a better safety profile. No hematological side effects were reported at the therapeutic dose of 200 mg [82]. Furthermore, tedizolid has low potential for interactions with serotonergic drugs since it does not inhibit the monoamine oxidase pathway [82]. Overall rates of related adverse effects were similar to linezolid, with nausea being the most commonly reported adverse effect associated with tedizolid use in 16 % of patients. Tedizolid has been compared with linezolid in a phase 3 study for the treatment of ABSSTI. In this indication, a short, 6-day course of tedizolid was as effective as a 10-day course of linezolid with 85 and 83 % of the patients achieving early clinical response, respectively [83]. In 2014, tedizolid received FDA approval for the use in ABSSSI. Studies investigating the potential role of tedizolid in the treatment of pneumonia and bacteremia have been planned.
Radezolid (RX-1741) is characterized by an excellent activity toward linezolid susceptible and resistant gram-positive bacteria, as well as certain gram-negative bacteria commonly found in CAP. Radezolid showed higher efficacy than linezolid against S. pneumoniae and S. pyogenes. MIC90 values ranged from 1 to 4 μg/mL for Staphylococci and from 0.5 to 1 μg/mL for Enterococci [84]. Among gram-negatives, radezolid was active against H. influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis, with MIC90 of 1 and 0.5 μg/mL, respectively [85]. Radezolid has succesfully completed two phase 2 clinical trials. One trial was for uncomplicated SSSI in comparison with linezolid and the other clinical trial was for CAP [86, 87]. Phase 3 studies to further assess its tolerability and efficacy are awaited [88].
Quinolones
Quinolones were introduced into clinical practice with nalidixic acid in 1962. Since then, new molecules have been synthetized and widely used after the addition of a fluorine atom. Fluoroquinolones have a unique mechanism of action targeting two enzymes in DNA replication (i.e., DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV) and show a good tissue penetration [89]. An activity mainly against gram-negative pathogens was displayed by the fluoroquinolones that were initially used, such as norfloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and ofloxacin [90]. To meet the target of efficacy toward gram-positive pathogens, new compounds such as moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin were then developed and widely used in CAP and HAP. Quinolones have shown an overall good safety profile and are currently used in RTIs, UTIs, SSSI, and IAIs [90–92]. Starting from the mid-1990s, the resistance to fluoroquinolones began to increase in almost all gram-positive and gram-negative species. Recent surveillance studies demonstrated a continued increase in the resistance rates, preventing their use in certain clinical indications [93]. New molecules in this class have been developed to be active against MDR bacteria and to provide a low potential for developing bacterial resistance.
Delafloxacin has a chemical structure that differs from other fluoroquinolones since it lacks a strongly basic group at the C-7 position, resulting in weak acidity. This feature enhances its antibacterial potency in environments with reduced pH, such as the urinary tract during infections and the phagolysosomes where the MICs of delafloxacin are reduced [94]. Various in vitro studies have supported delafloxacin low potential for the selection of resistances due to a dual mechanism of inhibition of DNA targets (i.e., gyrase and topoisomerase IV), supporting its potential use in empirical therapy [95]. Delafloxacin has shown potent antibacterial activity against quinolone susceptible and resistant strains of MRSA and against gram-negative MDR isolates such as K. pneumoniae and E. coli [95–97]. Furthermore, delafloxacin demonstrated potent activity against resistant strains of S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, M. catarrhalis and against Legionella thus representing a valid choice for the treatment of CAP and HAP. Furthermore, delafloxacin can be administered both IV and orally, this supporting its role in sequential therapy. Delafloxacin showed comparable efficacy to tigecycline in the treatment of cSSSI including S. aureus (85 % of cases with approximately 70 % of MRSA strains) [74]. Delafloxacin’s MIC90 against all MRSA, including quinolone-resistant MRSA strains, was 0.06 μg/mL. Another phase 2 trial compared the efficacy of IV formulations of delafloxacin (300 mg twice daily), linezolid, and vancomycin in 256 adults with SSSI. Success rates for delafloxacin, linezolid, and vancomycin were 74.4, 73.3, and 68.4 %, respectively. A reduction of over 20 % of erythema was more common in delafloxacin-treated patients compared to vancomycin [98]. Delafloxacin is currently evaluated in two phase 3 studies for the treatment of ABSSSI caused by gram-positive (including MRSA) and gram-negative bacteria [99, 100].
Nemonoxacin (TG-873870) is a novel, non-fluorinated quinolone characterized by an excellent activity against pathogens responsible for CAP. Since three different mutations are required in resistance determining regions, nemonoxacin has a low predisposition for selecting resistance [101]. Nemonoxacin has a half-life of more than 10 h. Higher efficacy compared with levofloxacin has been demonstrated against gram-positive bacteria including ciprofloxacin-resistant MRSA, levofloxacin-resistant S. pneumoniae and VRE, and gram-negative pathogens [102]. Similarly to moxafloxacin, reduced activity has been shown toward P. aeruginosa. Phase 2 and phase 3 studies of oral nemonoxacin (500 or 750 mg once daily) and phase 2 studies of IV nemonoxacin have been completed in patients with CAP demonstrating its efficacy and safety compared to levofloxacin [103, 104]. A phase 3 study of IV nemonoxacin in the treatment of CAP is currently ongoing [105].
Zabofloxacin (DW-224a) is a novel fluoroquinolone that showed higher activity compared to ciprofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gemifloxacin against gram-positive strains, including MRSA, S. pyogenes, and E. faecalis. Zabofloxacin has shown efficacy against pathogens involved in CAP and COPD exacerbation such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and M. catarrhalis [106]. Similarly to other new molecules of this class, zabofloxacin displays a low potential for the selection of resistances due to a double mechanism of binding to the DNA–enzyme complex. No adverse effects on the central nervous system, cardiovascular system and respiratory system have been shown, although a QT interval prolongation has been reported [107]. In a phase 2 clinical trial, zabofloxacin administered 400 mg orally displayed the same clinical and microbiological results as moxifloxacin in patients with mild-to-moderate CAP [108]. The study comparing zabafloxacin with levofloxacin in the treatment of CAP was terminated for financial reasons [109].
Finafloxacin (BAY35) is characterized by lower MIC at acidic pH against E. coli, K. pneumoniae, MRSA, and P. aeruginosa compared to levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin. For this reason, finafloxacin can be used to treat infections located within the urinary tract, gastric mucosa, or skin where the pH is lower [110]. Finafloxacin has also shown activity toward ciprofloxacin-resistant strains of A. baumannii [111]. Compared to other fluoroquinolones, finafloxacin did not show electrocardiogram changes or neurotoxicity during safety studies. A phase 2 study has been completed showing comparable efficacy finafloxacin administered 300 mg bid versus ciprofloxacin 250 mg bid in uncomplicated UTIs [112]. A phase 2 clinical trial is ongoing comparing IV and oral finafloxacin (800 mg once daily) with ciprofloxacin (400 mg bid IV or 500 mg bid orally) in cUTI and acute pielonephritis [113].
Compound named JNJ-Q2 has a dual mechanism of action on DNA enzymes similarly to other new molecules of this group. Furthermore, its activity does not seem affected by efflux pumps. JNJ-Q2 displays good activity against MRSA (MIC50 values 0.12 μg/mL); toward S. pneumoniae, it was 16 times and 128 times more potent than moxifloxacin and levofloxacin, respectively. Good activity was also demonstrated against H. influenzae, M. catarrhalis, and N. gonorrhoeae [114]. A phase 2 clinical trial in SSTI compared with linezolid was successfully completed while a trial in CAP was suspended because the number of participants recruited was not sufficient [115, 116].
Other new quinolones include WCK771, that has high activity against MRSA and S. pneumoniae, and two topic compounds, ozenoxacin and besifloxacin [117]. Ozenoxacin has excellent activity toward gram-positive pathogens and has been studied to reduce the time of treatment of cSSSI [118]. Besifloxacin is a topical ophthalmic fluoroquinolone, approved by the FDA in 2009 to treat bacterial conjunctivitis. Besifloxacin is active against S. aureus, S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and VRE [119].
Aminoglycosides
The aminoglycosides are antibiotics mainly prescribed alone or in combination with other molecules (e.g., beta-lactams or quinolones) for the treatment of infections caused by aerobic gram-negative bacilli. Although resistance to this class has been increasing in the past years, the emergence of strains resistant to molecules such as gentamycin and amikacin is less common compared to other antimicrobials.
Plazomicin (ACHN-490) is a new aminoglycoside characterized by a dose-depending activity against both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens [120]. In vitro synergism was shown with daptomycin and ceftobiprole against MRSA and VISA and with doripenem, imipenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, and cefepime against P. aeruginosa [121]. A phase 2 study showed comparable efficacy to levofloxacin in patients with cUTI and acute pielonephritis [122]. A phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of patients with BSI or HAI due to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae comparing plazomicin to colistin in association with a second antibiotic (e.g., tigecycline or meropenem) is currently ongoing [123].
Tetracyclines
Tetracyclines are a group of broad-spectrum antibiotics whose use in clinical practice has been reduced due to the development of bacterial resistance. Doxycycline and minocycline are nowadays used in certain indications. Tigecycline is the defining member of a new class of tetracyclines known as glycylcyclines, which greatly extend the spectrum including tetracycline-resistant microorganisms.
Eravacycline is a novel, broad-spectrum fluorocycline developed for the treatment of infections caused by tetracycline-resistant bacteria. Eravacycline is not subject to mechanisms conferring specific resistance to other tetracycline derivatives such as efflux pumps and ribosomal protection proteins [124]. Eravacycline has shown potent, broad-spectrum gram-positive and gram-negative antibacterial effect exhibiting activity against MRSA, VRE, and Enterobacteriaceae expressing resistance genes from multiple classes of ESBL or carbapenemases [125, 126]. Compared with tigecycline, eravacycline demonstrated lower MIC toward difficult-to-treat gram-negative pathogens and, similarly to tigecycline, has no activity against P. aeruginosa [126]. Eravacycline has been studied for both IV and oral administration and is promising for the treatment of cIAI. In fact, its wide spectrum of activity includes pathogens from the enteric tract that are frequently the cause of peritonitis and abdominal abscesses. One prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase 2 study evaluating the safety and efficacy of eravacycline dosed once or twice daily versus ertapenem in cIAI has been completed. The results demonstrated clinical cure rates above 90 %, including infections caused by ESBL-producing, levofloxacin, and ertapenem-resistant organisms [127]. This study also displayed good tolerability for eravacycline when compared with ertapenem. Phase 3 clinical trials are planned to further evaluate its efficacy for the treatment of cIAIs and cUTIs.
Omadacycline (PTK796) is a semisynthetic aminomethylcycline with in vitro activity against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. It presents activity against MSSA, MRSA, VRE, S. pneumonia, K. pneumoniae, Proteus spp., Providencia spp., Morganella morganii, and Bacteroides fragilis [128]. In a phase 2 study in SSSI, the efficacy of omadacycline administered 100 mg once daily IV and subsequently 200 mg oral step-down was comparable to linezolid [129]. A phase 3 study in ABSSSI has been suspended in order to comply with the new FDA guidance on cSSTI trials.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the indications, the development status of the new drugs, and their spectrum of microbiological activity.
Conclusions
The spread of MDR pathogens is causing an unprecedented public health crisis. The incidence of MDR bacteria continues to increase despite the efforts of implementing the antimicrobial stewardship and stringent measures of infection control in hospitals. Gram-negative bacteria such as carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, XDR A. baumannii, and P. aeruginosa present very limited therapeutic options and remain a serious problem.
Among agents that are potentially active against gram-negatives are ceftozolane/tazobactam, new carbapenems, the combination of avibactam with beta-lactamsinhibitors and plazomicin. Nevertheless, although fifth generation cephalosporins and new carbapenems have acquired activity against MRSA, they offer few advantages against difficult-to-treat gram-negatives. Associations of beta-lactams with beta-lactamase inhibitors seem promising against MDR pathogens, but their real clinical utility will be known only after results of large clinical trials are available.
Less critical appears the situation toward MDR gram-positive pathogens. New glycopeptides and oxazolidinones are highly efficient against MRSA and VRE, and new cephalosporins and carbapenems also display activity toward MDR gram-positive bacteria.
Since 2010, when the IDSA established its initiative for developing ten new antibiotics by 2020, five new antibiotics have been approved (mainly targeting gram-positive bacteria) and eight new antibiotics targeting MDR gram-negative bacilli are in phase 2 or 3 trials. A relevant number of promising antibiotics is currently in development and has reached a preclinical stage or is involved in phase 1 trials. Thus, regulatory approvals are crucial over the next 5 years to achieve the possibility to use new antibiotics to face the growing threat of multidrug resistance.
References
Boucher HW, Talbot GH, Bradley JS, Edwards JE, Gilbert D, Rice LB, Scheld M, Spellberg B, Bartlett J (2009) Bad bugs, no drugs: no ESKAPE! An update from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 48:1–12
Giske CG, Monnet DL, Cars O, Carmeli Y, ReAct-Action on Antibiotic R (2008) Clinical and economic impact of common multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 52:813–821
Kallen AJ, Srinivasan A (2010) Current epidemiology of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli in the United States. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 31(Suppl 1):S51–S54
Kanj SS, Kanafani ZA (2011) Current concepts in antimicrobial therapy against resistant gram-negative organisms: extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mayo Clin Proc 86:250–259
Gupta N, Limbago BM, Patel JB, Kallen AJ (2011) Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: epidemiology and prevention. Clin Infect Dis 53:60–67
Munoz-Price LS, Poirel L, Bonomo RA, Schwaber MJ, Daikos GL, Cormican M, Cornaglia G, Garau J, Gniadkowski M, Hayden MK, Kumarasamy K, Livermore DM, Maya JJ, Nordmann P, Patel JB, Paterson DL, Pitout J, Villegas MV, Wang H, Woodford N, Quinn JP (2013) Clinical epidemiology of the global expansion of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases. Lancet Infect Dis 13:785–796
Hersh AL, Newland JG, Beekmann SE, Polgreen PM, Gilbert DN (2012) Unmet medical need in infectious diseases. Clin Infect Dis 54:1677–1678
DeLeo FR, Chambers HF (2009) Reemergence of antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the genomics era. J Clin Invest 119:2464–2474
Hidayat LK, Hsu DI, Quist R, Shriner KA, Wong-Beringer A (2006) High-dose vancomycin therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: efficacy and toxicity. Arch Intern Med 166:2138–2144
Moise-Broder PA, Sakoulas G, Eliopoulos GM, Schentag JJ, Forrest A, Moellering RC Jr (2004) Accessory gene regulator group II polymorphism in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is predictive of failure of vancomycin therapy. Clin Infect Dis 38:1700–1705
Sakoulas G, Moise-Broder PA, Schentag J, Forrest A, Moellering RC Jr, Eliopoulos GM (2004) Relationship of MIC and bactericidal activity to efficacy of vancomycin for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol 42:2398–2402
Piddock LJ (2012) The crisis of no new antibiotics–what is the way forward? Lancet Infect Dis 12:249–253
Infectious Diseases Society of A (2010) The 10 × '20 initiative: pursuing a global commitment to develop 10 new antibacterial drugs by 2020. Clin Infect Dis 50:1081–1083
Poon H, Chang MH, Fung HB (2012) Ceftaroline fosamil: a cephalosporin with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Ther 34:743–765
Biek D, Critchley IA, Riccobene TA, Thye DA (2010) Ceftaroline fosamil: a novel broad-spectrum cephalosporin with expanded anti-Gram-positive activity. J Antimicrob Chemother 65(Suppl 4):iv9–iv16
Sader HS, Fritsche TR, Kaniga K, Ge Y, Jones RN (2005) Antimicrobial activity and spectrum of PPI-0903 M (T-91825), a novel cephalosporin, tested against a worldwide collection of clinical strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:3501–3512
Corey GR, Wilcox M, Talbot GH, Friedland HD, Baculik T, Witherell GW, Critchley I, Das AF, Thye D (2010) Integrated analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ceftaroline versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in complicated skin and skin-structure infection. Clin Infect Dis 51:641–650
File TM Jr, Low DE, Eckburg PB, Talbot GH, Friedland HD, Lee J, Llorens L, Critchley I, Thye D (2010) Integrated analysis of FOCUS 1 and FOCUS 2: randomized, doubled-blinded, multicenter phase 3 trials of the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 51:1395–1405
Queenan AM, Shang W, Kania M, Page MG, Bush K (2007) Interactions of ceftobiprole with beta-lactamases from molecular classes A to D. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51:3089–3095
Walkty A, Adam HJ, Laverdiere M, Karlowsky JA, Hoban DJ, Zhanel GG, Canadian Antimicrobial Resistance A (2011) In vitro activity of ceftobiprole against frequently encountered aerobic and facultative Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial pathogens: results of the CANWARD 2007-2009 study. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 69:348–355
Nicholson SC, Welte T, File TM Jr, Strauss RS, Michiels B, Kaul P, Balis D, Arbit D, Amsler K, Noel GJ (2012) A randomised, double-blind trial comparing ceftobiprole medocaril with ceftriaxone with or without linezolid for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalisation. Int J Antimicrob Agents 39:240–246
Noel GJ, Bush K, Bagchi P, Ianus J, Strauss RS (2008) A randomized, double-blind trial comparing ceftobiprole medocaril with vancomycin plus ceftazidime for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 46:647–655
Titelman E, Karlsson IM, Ge Y, Giske CG (2011) In vitro activity of CXA-101 plus tazobactam (CXA-201) against CTX-M-14- and CTX-M-15-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 70:137–141
Sader HS, Rhomberg PR, Farrell DJ, Jones RN (2011) Antimicrobial activity of CXA-101, a novel cephalosporin tested in combination with tazobactam against Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Bacteroides fragilis strains having various resistance phenotypes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:2390–2394
Moya B, Zamorano L, Juan C, Ge Y, Oliver A (2010) Affinity of the new cephalosporin CXA-101 to penicillin-binding proteins of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:3933–3937
Clinicaltrials.gov. Study comparing the safety and efficacy of intravenous CXA-201 and intravenous levofloxacin in complicated urinary tract infection, including pyelonephritis. Identifier NCT01345929.
Clinicaltrials.gov. Study comparing the safety and efficacy of intravenous CXA-201 and intravenous levofloxacin in complicated urinary tract infection, including pyelonephritis. Identifier NCT01345955
Clinicaltrials.gov. Study comparing the safety and efficacy of intravenous CXA-201 and intravenous meropenem in complicated intraabdominal infections. Identifier NCT01445678
Clinicaltrials.gov. Safety and efficacy of intravenous CXA-201 and intravenous meropenem in complicated intra-abdominal infections. Identifier NCT01445665
Sato N, Kijima K, Koresawa T, Mitomi N, Morita J, Suzuki H, Hayashi H, Shibasaki S, Kurosawa T, Totsuka K (2008) Population pharmacokinetics of tebipenem pivoxil (ME1211), a novel oral carbapenem antibiotic, in pediatric patients with otolaryngological infection or pneumonia. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 23:434–446
Papp-Wallace KM, Endimiani A, Taracila MA, Bonomo RA (2011) Carbapenems: past, present, and future. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:4943–4960
Goa KL, Noble S (2003) Panipenem/betamipron. Drugs 63:913–925, discussion 926
Hilas O, Ezzo DC, Jodlowski TZ (2008) Doripenem (doribax), a new carbapenem antibacterial agent. P T Peer Rev J Formul Manag 33:134–180
Queenan AM, Shang W, Flamm R, Bush K (2010) Hydrolysis and inhibition profiles of beta-lactamases from molecular classes A to D with doripenem, imipenem, and meropenem. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:565–569
Bulik CC, Nicolau DP (2011) Double-carbapenem therapy for carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:3002–3004
Ceccarelli G, Falcone M, Giordano A, Mezzatesta ML, Caio C, Stefani S, Venditti M (2013) Successful ertapenem-doripenem combination treatment of bacteremic ventilator-associated pneumonia due to colistin-resistant KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:2900–2901
Giamarellou H, Galani L, Baziaka F, Karaiskos I (2013) Effectiveness of a double-carbapenem regimen for infections in humans due to carbapenemase-producing pandrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:2388–2390
Thomson KS (2012) Double-carbapenem therapy not proven to be more active than carbapenem monotherapy against KPC-positive Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:4037, author reply 4038
Matthews SJ, Lancaster JW (2009) Doripenem monohydrate, a broad-spectrum carbapenem antibiotic. Clin Ther 31:42–63
Chen HY, Livermore DM (1994) In-vitro activity of biapenem, compared with imipenem and meropenem, against Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains and mutants with known resistance mechanisms. J Antimicrob Chem 33:949–958
Jia B, Lu P, Huang W, Li C, Huang A, Zhou X, Zhang W, Wu G, Zhang G (2010) A multicenter, randomized controlled clinical study on biapenem and imipenem/cilastatin injection in the treatment of respiratory and urinary tract infections. Chemotherapy 56:285–290
Perry CM, Ibbotson T (2002) Biapenem. Drugs 62:2221–2234, discussion 2235
Koga T, Abe T, Inoue H, Takenouchi T, Kitayama A, Yoshida T, Masuda N, Sugihara C, Kakuta M, Nakagawa M, Shibayama T, Matsushita Y, Hirota T, Ohya S, Utsui Y, Fukuoka T, Kuwahara S (2005) In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of CS-023 (RO4908463), a novel parenteral carbapenem. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:3239–3250
Sugihara K, Sugihara C, Matsushita Y, Yamamura N, Uemori M, Tokumitsu A, Inoue H, Kakuta M, Namba E, Nasu H, Koga T (2010) In vivo pharmacodynamic activity of tomopenem (formerly CS-023) against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a murine thigh infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:5298–5302
Breilh D, Texier-Maugein J, Allaouchiche B, Saux MC, Boselli E (2013) Carbapenems. J Chemother 25:1–17
Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Warner M (2009) Activity of the anti-MRSA carbapenem razupenem (PTZ601) against Enterobacteriaceae with defined resistance mechanisms. J Antimicrob Chemother 64:330–335
MacGowan AP, Noel A, Tomaselli S, Elliott H, Bowker K (2011) Pharmacodynamics of razupenem (PZ601) studied in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model of infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:1436–1442
Tran CM, Tanaka K, Yamagishi Y, Goto T, Mikamo H, Watanabe K (2011) In vitro antimicrobial activity of razupenem (SMP-601, PTZ601) against anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:2398–2402
Ehmann DE, Jahic H, Ross PL, Gu RF, Hu J, Kern G, Walkup GK, Fisher SL (2012) Avibactam is a covalent, reversible, non-beta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:11663–11668
Crandon JL, Nicolau DP (2013) Human simulated studies of aztreonam and aztreonam-avibactam to evaluate activity against challenging gram-negative organisms, including metallo-beta-lactamase producers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:3299–3306
LevasseurP, Girard AM, Miossec C, Pace J, Coleman K (2015) In vitro antibacterial activity of the ceftazidime-avibactam combination against Enterobacteriaceae, including strains with well characterized beta-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chem
Livermore DM, Mushtaq S, Warner M, Zhang J, Maharjan S, Doumith M, Woodford N (2011) Activities of NXL104 combinations with ceftazidime and aztreonam against carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:390–394
Vazquez JA, Gonzalez Patzan LD, Stricklin D, Duttaroy DD, Kreidly Z, Lipka J, Sable C (2012) Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam versus imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, including acute pyelonephritis, in hospitalized adults: results of a prospective, investigator-blinded, randomized study. Curr Med Res Opin 28:1921–1931
Lucasti C, Popescu, I, Ramesh, M, Lipka, J, Sable, S (2011) Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/NXL104 plus metronidazole vs. meropenemin the treatment of complicated intraabdominalinfections in hospitalized adults. Presented at: EuropeanCongress of Clinical Microbiology andInfectious Diseases and International Congressof Chemotherapy. Milan, Italy, 7–10 May 2011 (P1532)
Hirsch EB, Ledesma KR, Chang KT, Schwartz MS, Motyl MR, Tam VH (2012) In vitro activity of MK-7655, a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor, in combination with imipenem against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:3753–3757
Reynolds PE (1989) Structure, biochemistry and mechanism of action of glycopeptide antibiotics. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 8:943–950
Shaw JP, Seroogy J, Kaniga K, Higgins DL, Kitt M, Barriere S (2005) Pharmacokinetics, serum inhibitory and bactericidal activity, and safety of telavancin in healthy subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:195–201
Hope R, Chaudhry A, Adkin R, Livermore DM (2013) In vitro activity of telavancin and comparators against selected groups of Gram-positive cocci. Int J Antimicrob Agents 41:213–217
Mendes RE, Sader HS, Jones RN (2010) Activity of telavancin and comparator antimicrobial agents tested against Staphylococcus spp. isolated from hospitalised patients in Europe (2007-2008). Int J Antimicrob Agents 36:374–379
Pfaller MA, Mendes RE, Sader HS, Jones RN (2010) Telavancin activity against Gram-positive bacteria isolated from respiratory tract specimens of patients with nosocomial pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother 65:2396–2404
Putnam SD, Sader HS, Moet GJ, Mendes RE, Jones RN (2010) Worldwide summary of telavancin spectrum and potency against Gram-positive pathogens: 2007 to 2008 surveillance results. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 67:359–368
Bassetti M, Mikulska M, Righi E, Nicolini L, Viscoli C (2009) The role of telavancin in the treatment of MRSA infections in hospital. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 18:521–529
Mendes RE, Sader HS, Flamm RK, Farrell DJ, Jones RN (2015) Telavancin in vitro activity against a USA collection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, including resistant subsets. Antimicrob Agents Chem
Clinicaltrials.gov.Comparison of Telavancin and Vancomycin for Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections With a Focus on Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (ATLAS1). Identifier NCT00091819
Clinicaltrials.gov.Comparison of Telavancin and Vancomycin for Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections With a Focus on Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (ATLAS1). Identifier NCT00107978
Clinicaltrials.gov. Phase 2 Trial of TD-6424 (Telavancin) Versus Standard Therapy for Complicated Gram Positive Skin and Skin Structure Infections (Gram Positive cSSSI) (FAST2). Identifier NCT00077675
Clinicaltrials.gov. Phase 2 Trial of TD-6424 (Telavancin) Versus Standard Therapy for Complicated Gram Positive Skin and Skin Structure Infections (Gram Positive cSSSI) (FAST). Identifier NCT00061633
Stryjewski ME, Barriere SL, O'Riordan W, Dunbar LM, Hopkins A, Genter FC, Corey GR (2012) Efficacy of telavancin in patients with specific types of complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 67:1496–1502
Hooper CY, Smith WJ (2012) Telavancin for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Ther Clin Risk Manag 8:131–137
Rubinstein E, Lalani T, Corey GR, Kanafani ZA, Nannini EC, Rocha MG, Rahav G, Niederman MS, Kollef MH, Shorr AF, Lee PC, Lentnek AL, Luna CM, Fagon JY, Torres A, Kitt MM, Genter FC, Barriere SL, Friedland HD, Stryjewski ME, Group AS (2011) Telavancin versus vancomycin for hospital-acquired pneumonia due to gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 52:31–40
Polyzos KA, Mavros MN, Vardakas KZ, Makris MC, Rafailidis PI, Falagas ME (2012) Efficacy and safety of telavancin in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 7:e41870
Clinicaltrials.gov. A Phase 3 Telavancin Staph Aureus Bacteremia Trial. Identifier NCT02208063
MorrisseyI, Seifert H, Canton R, Nordmann P, Stefani S, Macgowan A, Janes R, Knight D, Oritavancin Study G (2013) Activity of oritavancin against methicillin-resistant staphylococci, vancomycin-resistant enterococci and beta-haemolytic streptococci collected from western European countries in 2011. J Antimicrob Chemother 68:164–167
Corey GR, Good S, Jiang H, Moeck G, Wikler M, Green S, Manos P, Keech R, Singh R, Heller B, Bubnova N, O'Riordan W, Investigators SI (2015) Single-dose oritavancin versus 7-10 days of vancomycin in the treatment of gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the SOLO II noninferiority study. Clin Infect Dis 60:254–262
Goldstein EJ, Citron DM, Merriam CV, Warren Y, Tyrrell K, Fernandez HT (2003) In vitro activities of dalbavancin and nine comparator agents against anaerobic gram-positive species and corynebacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 47:1968–1971
Jones RN, Sader HS, Flamm RK (2013) Update of dalbavancin spectrum and potency in the USA: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (2011). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 75:304–307
Karlowsky JA, Adam HJ, Poutanen SM, Hoban DJ, Zhanel GG, Canadian Antimicrobial Resistance A (2011) In vitro activity of dalbavancin and telavancin against staphylococci and streptococci isolated from patients in Canadian hospitals: results of the CANWARD 2007-2009 study. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 69:342–347
Zhanel GG, Trapp S, Gin AS, DeCorby M, Lagace-Wiens PR, Rubinstein E, Hoban DJ, Karlowsky JA (2008) Dalbavancin and telavancin: novel lipoglycopeptides for the treatment of Gram-positive infections. Expert Rev Anti-Infect Ther 6:67–81
Boucher HW, Wilcox M, Talbot GH, Puttagunta S, Das AF, Dunne MW (2014) Once-weekly dalbavancin versus daily conventional therapy for skin infection. N Engl J Med 370:2169–2179
Jauregui LE, Babazadeh S, Seltzer E, Goldberg L, Krievins D, Frederick M, Krause D, Satilovs I, Endzinas Z, Breaux J, O'Riordan W (2005) Randomized, double-blind comparison of once-weekly dalbavancin versus twice-daily linezolid therapy for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 41:1407–1415
Keel RA, Tessier PR, Crandon JL, Nicolau DP (2012) Comparative efficacies of human simulated exposures of tedizolid and linezolid against Staphylococcus aureus in the murine thigh infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:4403–4407
Urbina O, Ferrandez O, Espona M, Salas E, Ferrandez I, Grau S (2013) Potential role of tedizolid phosphate in the treatment of acute bacterial skin infections. Drug Des Dev Ther 7:243–265
Moran GJ, Fang E, Corey GR, Das AF, De Anda C, Prokocimer P (2014) Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis 14:696–705
Lawrence L, Danese P, DeVito J, Franceschi F, Sutcliffe J (2008) In vitro activities of the Rx-01 oxazolidinones against hospital and community pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 52:1653–1662
Prokocimer P, De Anda C, Fang E, Mehra P, Das A (2013) Tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the ESTABLISH-1 randomized trial. Jama 309:559–569
ClinicalTrial.com. Safety and Efficacy Study of Oxazolidinone to Treat Pneumonia. Identifier NCT00640926
ClinicalTrial.com. Safety and Efficacy Study of Oxazolidinones to Treat Uncomplicated Skin Infections. Identifier NCT00646958
Shaw KJ, Barbachyn MR (2011) The oxazolidinones: past, present, and future. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1241:48–70
Hooper DC (1999) Mechanisms of fluoroquinolone resistance. Drug Resist Updat 2:38–55
Hooper DC (2000) New uses for new and old quinolones and the challenge of resistance. Clin Infect Dis 30:243–254
Dryden MS (2010) Complicated skin and soft tissue infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 65(Suppl 3):iii35–iii44
Falagas ME, Matthaiou DK, Bliziotis IA (2007) Systematic review: fluoroquinolones for the treatment of intra-abdominal surgical infections. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 25:123–131
Dalhoff A (1994) Quinolone resistance in pseudomonas aeruginosa and staphylococcus aureus. Development during therapy and clinical significance. Infection 22(Suppl 2):S111–S121
Lemaire S, Tulkens PM, Van Bambeke F (2011) Contrasting effects of acidic pH on the extracellular and intracellular activities of the anti-gram-positive fluoroquinolones moxifloxacin and delafloxacin against Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:649–658
Remy JM, Tow-Keogh CA, McConnell TS, Dalton JM, Devito JA (2012) Activity of delafloxacin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: resistance selection and characterization. J Antimicrob Chemother 67:2814–2820
Almer LS, Hoffrage JB, Keller EL, Flamm RK, Shortridge VD (2004) In vitro and bactericidal activities of ABT-492, a novel fluoroquinolone, against Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 48:2771–2777
Nilius AM, Shen LL, Hensey-Rudloff D, Almer LS, Beyer JM, Balli DJ, Cai Y, Flamm RK (2003) In vitro antibacterial potency and spectrum of ABT-492, a new fluoroquinolone. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 47:3260–3269
Longcor J, Lawrence L, Duffy E, Hopkins S (2012) Objective measures of clinical efficacy in a phase 2b exploratory study of delafloxacin compared to vancomycin and linezolid in adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Presented at 52nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy ICAAC San Francisco, CA September 9-12, 2012
Clinicaltrials.gov. A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Active-controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Delafloxacin Compared With Vancomycin + Aztreonam in Patients With Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections. Identifier NCT01811732
Clinicaltrials.gov. A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Active Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy + Safety of IV + Oral Delafloxacin Compared With Vancomycin + Aztreonam in Patients With Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections. Identifier NCT01984684
King CHR, Lin L, Leunk R (2008) In vitro resistance development to nemonoxacin for Streptococcus pneumoniae. In: Program and abstracts of 48th Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; October 25–28, 2008; Washington, DC. Abstract C1-1971
Lauderdale TL, Shiau YR, Lai JF, Chen HC, King CH (2010) Comparative in vitro activities of nemonoxacin (TG-873870), a novel nonfluorinated quinolone, and other quinolones against clinical isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:1338–1342
Lai CC, Lee KY, Lin SW, Chen YH, Kuo HY, Hung CC, Hsueh PR (2014) Nemonoxacin (TG-873870) for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Expert Rev Anti-Infect Ther 12:401–417
Qin X, Huang H (2014) Review of nemonoxacin with special focus on clinical development. Drug Des Dev Ther 8:765–774
ClinicalTrial.gov. A Phase III Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Infusion of Nemonoxacin in Treating CAP. Identifier NCT02205112
Park HS, Kim HJ, Seol MJ, Choi DR, Choi EC, Kwak JH (2006) In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of DW-224a, a new fluoronaphthyridone. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50:2261–2264
Kim EJ, Shin WH, Kim KS, Han SS (2004) Safety pharmacology of DW-224a, a novel fluoroquinolone antibiotic agent. Drug Chem Toxicol 27:295–307
Choi D, Kim YS, Kim MJ, Back KR, Lim CH. A Phase 2, Multi-dose, Double-Blind, Randomized, Multicenter, Comparative Study of Zabofloxacin vs Moxifloxacin in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Community-Acquired Pneumonia. Presented at 52nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy ICAAC San Francisco, CA September 9-12, 2012
ClinicalTrials.gov. Safety and Efficacy Study of Oral Zabofloxacin in Community Acquired Pneumonia. Identifier NCT01081964
Stubbings W, Leow P, Yong GC, Goh F, Korber-Irrgang B, Kresken M, Endermann R, Labischinski H (2011) In vitro spectrum of activity of finafloxacin, a novel, pH-activated fluoroquinolone, under standard and acidic conditions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:4394–4397
Higgins PG, Stubbings W, Wisplinghoff H, Seifert H (2010) Activity of the investigational fluoroquinolone finafloxacin against ciprofloxacin-sensitive and -resistant Acinetobacter baumannii isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:1613–1615
ClinicaTrial.org. Finafloxacin 300 mg Twice a Day (b.i.d.) Versus Ciprofloxacin 250 mg Twice a Day (b.i.d) in Patients With Lower Uncomplicated UTI (uUTI) (FLUT). Identifier NCT00722735
ClinicalTrials.gov. A Multi-Dose, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Active- Control, Randomized Clinical (Phase II) Study of Two Dosing Regimens of Finafloxacin for the Treatment of cUTI and/or Acute Pyelonephritis Requiring Hospitalisation. Identifier NCT01928433
Biedenbach DJ, Farrell DJ, Flamm RK, Liverman LC, McIntyre G, Jones RN (2012) Activity of JNJ-Q2, a new fluoroquinolone, tested against contemporary pathogens isolated from patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Int J Antimicrob Agents 39:321–325
ClinicalTrials.org. Efficacy and Safety Study of JNJ-32729463 Compared With Moxifloxacin for the Treatment of Subjects Requiring Hospitalization for Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia. Identifier NCT01198626
ClinicalTrials.org. Efficacy and Safety Study of JNJ-32729463 for Treating Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections Compared to Linezolid (Zyvox). Identifier NCT01128530
Appelbaum PC, Pankuch GA, Bozdogan B, Lin G, Jacobs MR, Patel MV, Gupte SV, Jafri MA, De Souza NJ, Khorakiwala HF (2005) Activity of the new quinolone WCK 771 against pneumococci. Clin Microbiol Infect 11:9–14
Yamakawa T, Mitsuyama J, Hayashi K (2002) In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activity of T-3912, a novel non-fluorinated topical quinolone. J Antimicrob Chemother 49:455–465
Chang MH, Fung HB (2010) Besifloxacin: a topical fluoroquinolone for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. Clin Ther 32:454–471
Galani I, Souli M, Daikos GL, Chrysouli Z, Poulakou G, Psichogiou M, Panagea T, Argyropoulou A, Stefanou I, Plakias G, Giamarellou H, Petrikkos G (2012) Activity of plazomicin (ACHN-490) against MDR clinical isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, and Enterobacter spp. from Athens, Greece. J Chemother 24:191–194
Zhanel GG, Lawson CD, Zelenitsky S, Findlay B, Schweizer F, Adam H, Walkty A, Rubinstein E, Gin AS, Hoban DJ, Lynch JP, Karlowsky JA (2012) Comparison of the next-generation aminoglycoside plazomicin to gentamicin, tobramycin and amikacin. Expert Rev Anti-Infect Ther 10:459–473
Poulikakos P, Falagas ME (2013) Aminoglycoside therapy in infectious diseases. Expert Opin Pharmacother 14:1585–1597
ClinicalTrial.org. A Study of Plazomicin Compared With Colistin in Patients With Infection Due to Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE). Identifier NCT01970371
Clark RB, Hunt DK, He M, Achorn C, Chen CL, Deng Y, Fyfe C, Grossman TH, Hogan PC, O'Brien WJ, Plamondon L, Ronn M, Sutcliffe JA, Zhu Z, Xiao XY (2012) Fluorocyclines. 2. Optimization of the C-9 side-chain for antibacterial activity and oral efficacy. J Med Chem 55:606–622
Grossman TH, Starosta AL, Fyfe C, O'Brien W, Rothstein DM, Mikolajka A, Wilson DN, Sutcliffe JA (2012) Target- and resistance-based mechanistic studies with TP-434, a novel fluorocycline antibiotic. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:2559–2564
Sutcliffe JA, O'Brien W, Fyfe C, Grossman TH (2013) Antibacterial activity of eravacycline (TP-434), a novel fluorocycline, against hospital and community pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:5548–5558
Solomkin JS, Ramesh MK, Cesnauskas G, Novikovs N, Stefanova P, Sutcliffe JA, Walpole SM, Horn PT (2014) Phase 2, randomized, double-blind study of the efficacy and safety of two dose regimens of eravacycline versus ertapenem for adult community-acquired complicated intra-abdominal infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:1847–1854
Macone AB, Caruso BK, Leahy RG, Donatelli J, Weir S, Draper MP, Tanaka SK, Levy SB (2014) In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:1127–1135
Robert D, Arbeit DR, Roberts JA, Forsythe AR, Johnston SM, Seyedi F, Pukshansky M, Tanaka SK (2008) Safety and efficacy of PTK 0796: results of the phase 2 study incomplicated skin and skin structure infections followingIV and oral step down therapy. 48th Annual ICAAC. In Program andAbstract of 48th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents andChemotherapy. Washington, DC USA: Abstr. L-1515b
Conflicts of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bassetti, M., Righi, E. Development of novel antibacterial drugs to combat multiple resistant organisms. Langenbecks Arch Surg 400, 153–165 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-015-1280-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-015-1280-4