Proper use of antibiotics: situation of linezolid at the intensive care unit of the Tunisian Military Hospital

Proper use of antibiotics: situation of linezolid at the intensive care unit of the Tunisian Military Hospital

Louhichi Safa^1,2,&, Neffati Afif^1,2, Hajjej Zied³, Dridi Mehdi^1,2, Yousfi Mohamed Ali^1,2

 

¹Pharmaceutical Sciences Department, Faculty of Pharmacy of Monastir, Montasir, Tunisia, ²Pharmacy Department, Tunisian Military Hospital, Tunis, Tunisia, ³Department of Critical Care Medicine and Anesthesiology, Tunisian Military Hospital, Tunis, Tunisie

 

 

^&Corresponding author
Louhichi Safa, Pharmaceutical Sciences Department, Faculty of Pharmacy of Monastir, Montasir, Tunisia

 

 

 

 

Linezolid is a synthetic oxazolidinone. It is an antimicrobial agent that has good activity against most medically important Gram-positive microorganisms resistant to methicillin and vancomycin. The Marketing Authorization (MA) allows linezolid for skin and soft tissue infections in addition to nosocomial and community-acquired pneumonia caused by sensitive Gram-positive bacteria. Given the need to evaluate antibiotics use and clinical practices, the prescription of linezolid at the Tunisian military hospital, one of the largest Tunisian hospitals, was investigated. The aims of our study were to judge the degree of conformity of linezolid prescriptions with the MA criteria, to evaluate the circumstances when this antibiotic was used and to specify its place in therapeutic strategy.

 

 

It is a thirty-month retrospective study (from January 1^st, 2013 to June 30th 2015). It was carried out in the intensive care unit (ICU) of the Tunisian military hospital. This is a 622-bed hospital. Although the intensive care unit contains only 20 beds (3%), it has been found that it is the biggest consumer of linezolid. During the study’s period, this unit consumed 81% of linezolid pockets (1409 among 1742 pockets). Treatment with linezolid in this period was the only inclusion criterion. There were no exclusion criteria. Data were collected using the patients’ medical files in addition to registered prescriptions collected by the pharmacy’s software. These data were about: demographic profile, indications for linezolid prescription, antibiotic therapeutic strategy, duration of treatment, advice from an infectious-disease physician and microbiological documentation of prescriptions. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2007 software.

 

 

The total number of patients included in this work was 80. The majority of them were men (sex-ratio (M/F) = 2.5). Mean age was 60 (range 19-87). The indications for linezolid are summarized in Table 1. Forty-one per cent of prescriptions were outside the MA criteria, and were mainly sepsis and postoperative mediastinitis (32% and 4% of total prescriptions, respectively). Linezolid therapy was prescribed as a first-line treatment in 46 cases (58%). It was used as second-line (42%) after the prescription of glycopeptides in 15% of cases only. This antibiotic was prescribed as a monotherapy (45%) or in association with another antibiotic (55%), including 20 bitherapies (45%) and 24 multitherapies (55%). Antibiotics that were most co-administrated with linezolid included imipenem/cilastatin and colistin (80% and 39% of cases, respectively). The main reasons for prescribing linezolid include: inefficacy of other antibiotics (31%) and the alteration of renal function (9%). For the rest of patients (60%), the reason why linezolid was used wasn’t mentioned.

 

The advice from an infectious-disease physician was requested for 33% of prescriptions. In 80% of cases, there were no microbiological documentation when linezolid was prescribed. The microorganisms isolated are mentioned in Table 2. In all patients, the usual dose (600mg twice daily) was respected. The average duration of treatment was 7 days (from 1 to 20 days). In 26% of cases, linezolid was given for less than 72 hours and it was replaced by another antibiotic based on culture and sensitivity results. All patients received linezolid parenterally. Oral switch was mentioned in 3 cases only (4%). Forty and one patients (51%) had a favorable evolution of their infection under linezolid.

 

 

The results of this study show the significant contribution of linezolid in the treatment of some complex infections associated with the presence of multi-resistant bacteria. This antimicrobial agent has an average alveolar diffusion of 97%. Its serum and alveolar concentration exceeds twice the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of staphylococcus aureus (4mg / L) [1]. This finding proves that linezolid is an interesting alternative for the treatment of pneumonia. However, a meta-analysis and a systematic literature review showed that the efficacy and safety profiles of linezolid and vancomycin in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia are similar [2].

 

Another study has shown that linezolid has superiority over vancomycin for this indication [3]. So, we conclude that the optimal treatment of nosocomial pneumonia caused by Gram-positive bacteria remains controversial. Linezolid turned out to be more effective than glycopeptides for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections due to Gram-positive bacteria [4]. In addition, the prescription of linezolid instead of vancomycin to treat these infections in patients with peripheral vascular disease and / or diabetic shortened the duration of treatment (12.9 +/- 7.9 days for linezolid Vs 16.4 +/- 8.3 days for vancomycin, p <0.001) and the hospitalization’s period (17.9 +/- 13.6 days 22.6 for linezolid vs. 22.6 +/- 13.6 days vancomycin, p <0.001) [5]. But, it should be noted that tedizolid, a new oxazolidinone, showed a spectacular efficacy and safety for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections suspected or documented to be caused by Gram-positive bacteria in adults. Phase III clinical trials have shown that this antibiotic, administrated at a dose of 200 mg / day for 6 days had an equal effect to that of linezolid (600 *2 mg /day for 10 days). This molecule can be administered per os. It has almost the same side effects as linezolid and a less potential for drug interactions [6].

 

In our study, 41% of prescriptions were outside the MA criteria, but 97% of these were justified with regard to current data from literature [7-15]. Sepsis microbiologically documented to be caused by Gram-positive bacteria (5/26) are mainly due to two germs: Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (3 and 2 cases respectively). According to a multicenter epidemiological study conducted in the United States, it has been shown that these germs are the most implicated in nosocomial septicemia (20% and 31% of isolates, respectively) [16]. It should be noted that linezolid was used as a second-line therapy for the treatment of sepsis. In fact, this antimicrobial agent and vancomycin have almost the same effectiveness against Staphylococcus genus [7, 8]. Moreover, the resistance of this genus to vancomycin is currently less described compared to Enterococcus genus which has an increasingly diminished sensitivity to vancomycin, daptomycin and even linezolid [9-12]. Mediastinitis is a common complication of cardiovascular surgeries. This infection can be caused by MRSA and is associated with high morbidity and mortality [17]. Tsuji et al showed that linezolid’s concentration in the mediastinum and pleural space varies as in the serum and that the concentration in the mediastinum is the same as or greater than that in the serum [13]. Thus, linezolid is an interesting therapeutic alternative in mediastinitis due to MRSA.

 

In meningitis and endocarditis, this antibiotic was used as a bacteriostatic agent [14, 15]. The duration of treatment didn’t exceed 20 days unlike other publications where treatment duration was longer [18]. For the treatment of endocarditis, a retrospective study was performed on 33 patients with endocarditis caused by MRSA or GISA (glycopeptide-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus). The rate of successful treatment with linezolid hasn’t exceeded 65% (63.6%). For infections of the central nervous system, a review of published cases identified 42 patients treated with linezolid with a cure rate of 90.5% [19, 20]. Given the lack of robust clinical studies that advocate the prescription of linezolid in these two indications, it should be used with caution in cases where another therapeutic alternative is not available.

 

One patient was treated with linezolid for an indication which is not described in the literature: an inflammatory syndrome. In this context, a recent study showed that linezolid attenuates the excessive inflammatory response in pneumonia caused by Gram-positive bacteria by several mechanisms [21]. But this observation doesn’t justify the use of this antibiotic without specifying the indication and in the absence of microbiological documentation. In the study of Guillard and al, 45% of prescriptions were outside the MA criteria which is almost of product to the results of our study [22]. However, other studies have shown different results such as the study of Aubin and al at the University Hospital of Nantes (61.1%) and of Angers (71.5%) [23]. These studies have also shown a larger variety of indications. The association of linezolid with other antibiotics has concerned no documented infections where many microorganisms were suspected and vital prognosis was threatened.

 

The main reasons for using linezolid were almost similar to those of the study of Aubin and al but we noticed that this French study had tried to show the advantages of linezolid’s oral form. In fact, 18% of the reasons for prescription (hospital discharge with need to continue the treatment and the impossibility of inserting a venous line) are in relation with the benefits of this form. In addition, a shift to oral administration was mentioned in 22% of patients in this study versus 4% in ours. It is explained by the fact that our study was carried out at the ICU where the majority of patients were intubated and ventilated so the use of oral route was impossible. Despite its advantages, the oral form of linezolid is poorly exploited by clinical services at the Tunisian military hospital [24]. Our study showed that 80% of prescriptions were not documented. This percentage is almost equal to twice that of the Aubin and al study (47%). The most isolated germ in our study is Methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (35%) versus 12% in the aforementioned study. This result proves that bacterial ecology differs from one hospital to another and from one country to another.

 

The advice from an infectious-disease physician was requested for 33% of prescriptions versus 65% in the study of Aubin and al [18]. It should be noted that these cases (26) correspond to linezolid prescriptions received during the first six months of 2015. This is the period from which the Tunisian military hospital started using the validated prescriptions. These prescriptions require approval by an infectious-disease physician selected from a predetermined list in order to provide the antibiotic. Applied in Europe for more than five years, the program ´Antimicrobial stewardship´ has just started to be applied at the Tunisian military hospital [25]. This hospital is the first to apply this strategy in Tunisia. According to the results of a recent international study, only 13% of African countries are implementing this program versus 65% in Europe [26]. This is due mainly to a lack of funding and qualified staff (29% of cases).

 

Finally, we should mention that this study has limitations. The most important is its retrospective nature. Some data were not found in the patients’ medical files such as the reasons for linezolid’s prescription. Similarly, some factors were underestimated as the opinion of an infectious-disease physician in case of non-documented infection and the evolution of the patient´s situation.

 

 

No case of resistance to linezolid has been reported since the beginning of its prescription at the Tunisian military hospital. But it should be noted that an increase of Gram-positive bacteria’ resistance to this antibiotic has been noted in several countries. This requires rationalizing its use. The important number of prescriptions outside the MA criteria should encourage researchers to carry out more clinical trials to prove the authenticity of its use for these indications. The oral form of this antibiotic need to be better exploited when the patient's situation permits. In fact, it is an effective solution when the use of an intravenous line is impossible or to shorten the duration of hospitalization. As part of the implementation of the 'Antimicrobial Stewardship' strategy, an effective collaboration between clinicians, microbiologists and pharmacists will guarantee the proper use of this antimicrobial agent. Subsequent studies will show the impact of this strategy on antibiotic use and on the management of bacterial resistance at the Tunisian military hospital.

 

 

The authors declare no competing interests.

 

 

All authors have read and agreed to the final version of this manuscript and have equally contributed to its content.

 

 

Table 1: indications for linezolid

Table 2: microorganisms isolated from patients treated with linezolid

 

 

1. Boselli E, Breilh D, Caillault-Sergent A, Djabarouti S, Guillaume C, Xuereb F et al. Alveolar diffusion and pharmacokinetics of linezolid administered in continuous infusion to critically ill patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(5):1207-1210. PubMed | Google Scholar


2. Kalil AC, Klompas M, Haynatzki G, Rupp ME. Treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia with linezolid or vancomycin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3(10):e003912. PubMed | Google Scholar


3. Wunderink RG, Niederman MS, Kollef MH, Shorr AF, Kunkel MJ, Baruch A et al. Linezolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized, controlled study. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54(5):621-629. PubMed | Google Scholar


4. Itani KM, Dryden MS, Bhattacharyya H, Kunkel MJ, Baruch AM, Weigelt JA. Efficacy and safety of linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections proven to be caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Surg. 2010;199(6):804-816. PubMed | Google Scholar


5. Eckmann C, Nathwani D, Lawson W, Corman S, Solem C, Stephens J et al. Comparison of vancomycin and linezolid in patients with peripheral vascular disease and/or diabetes in an observational European study of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015;21:S33-S39. PubMed | Google Scholar


6. Chahine EB, Sucher AJ, Knutsen SD. Tedizolid: A New Oxazolidinone Antibiotic for Skin and Soft Tissue Infections. The Consultant Pharmacist®. 2015;30(7):386-394. PubMed | Google Scholar


7. Khan MMA, Faiz A and Ashshi AM. Clinically significant coagulase negative staphylococci and their antibiotic resistance pattern in a tertiary care hospital. JPMA. 2014 ;64(10):1171-1174. PubMed | Google Scholar


8. Shorr AF, Kunkel MJ, Kollef M. Linezolid versus vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: pooled analysis of randomized studies. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;56(5):923-929. PubMed | Google Scholar


9. Linden PK. Optimizing therapy for vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;28(6): 632-645. PubMed | Google Scholar


10. Tamma PD, Hsu AJ. Optimizing therapy for vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia in children. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2014;27(6):517-527. PubMed | Google Scholar


11. Iftimie S, Camps J. Emergence of daptomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in a critically ill patient with postoperative intra-abdominal sepsis. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2015;28(2):109-110. PubMed | Google Scholar


12. Mutschler M, Trojan S, Defosse JM, Helmers A, Probst C, Bouillon B et al. Severe sepsis caused by a linezolid-resistant Enterococcus faecium in a 10-year-old girl after multiple trauma. Intern J Infect Dis.2013;17(6): e466-e467. PubMed | Google Scholar


13. Tsuji Y, Hashimoto W, Taniguchi S, Hiraki Y, Mizoguchi A, Yukawa E et al. Pharmacokinetics of linezolid in the mediastinum and pleural space. Int J Infect Dis.2013;17(11):e1060-e1061. PubMed | Google Scholar


14. Calik S, Turhan T, Yurtseven T, Sipahi OR and Buke C. Vancomycin versus linezolid in the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus meningitis in an experimental rabbit model. Med Sci Monit.2012;18(11):SC5-SC8. PubMed | Google Scholar


15. Khan FY, Elshafi SS. Enterococcus gallinarum meningitis: a case report and literature review. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2011;5(3):231-234. PubMed | Google Scholar


16. Wisplinghoff H, Bischoff T, Tallent SM, Seifert H, Wenzel RP, Edmond MB. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in US hospitals: analysis of 24,179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(3):309-317. PubMed | Google Scholar


17. Mekontso-Dessap A, Kirsch M, Brun-Buisson C, Loisance D. Poststernotomy mediastinitis due to Staphylococcus aureus: comparison of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible cases. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32(6):877-883. PubMed | Google Scholar


18. Aubin G, Lebland C, Corvec S, Thomaré P, Potel G, Caillon J et al. Good practice in antibiotic use: what about linezolid in a French university hospital?. Inter J Clin Pharm. 2011;33(6):925-928. PubMed | Google Scholar


19. Falagas ME, Manta KG, Ntziora F, Vardakas KZ. Linezolid for the treatment of patients with endocarditis: a systematic review of the published evidence. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;58(2):273-280. PubMed | Google Scholar


20. Ntziora F, Falagas ME. Linezolid for the treatment of patients with central nervous system infection. Ann Pharmacother. 2007 Feb;41(2):296-308. Epub 2007 Feb 6. PubMed | Google Scholar


21. Jacqueline C, Broquet A, Roquilly A, Davieau M, Caillon J, Altare F et al. Linezolid Dampens Neutrophil-Mediated Inflammation in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus-Induced Pneumonia and Protects the Lung of Associated Damages. J Infect Dis. 2014;210(5):814-823. PubMed | Google Scholar


22. Guillard P, de La Blanchardière A, Cattoir V, Fischer MO, Verdon R, Saint-Lorant G. Antimicrobial stewardship and linezolid. Inter J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(5):1059-1068. PubMed | Google Scholar


23. Aubin G, Boutoille D, Corvec S, Caillon J, Caillaud A, Moal F et al. Large discrepancies in linezolid use between French teaching hospitals: A comment on “Antimicrobial stewardship and linezolid”. Inter J Clin Pharm. 2015;3(37):436-438. PubMed | Google Scholar


24. El Houfi A, Javed N, Solem CT, Macahilig C, Stephens JM, Raghubir N et al. Early-switch/early-discharge opportunities for hospitalized patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus complicated skin and soft tissue infections: proof of concept in the United Arab Emirates. Infect Drug Resist. 2015 Jun 18;8:173-9. PubMed | Google Scholar


25. Colligan C, Sneddon J, Bayne G, Malcolm W, Walker G, Nathwani D et al. Six years of a national antimicrobial stewardship programme in Scotland: where are we now?. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015;4(1):1-5. PubMed | Google Scholar


26. Howard P, Pulcini C, Hara GL, West RM, Gould IM, Harbarth S et al. ESCMID Study Group for Antimicrobial Policies (ESGAP); ISC Group on Antimicrobial Stewardship - An international cross-sectional survey of antimicrobial stewardship programmes in hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70(4):1245-1255. PubMed | Google Scholar