Skip to main content
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
letter
. 2005 Nov;49(11):4816–4817. doi: 10.1128/AAC.49.11.4816-4817.2005

Improved Outcomes with Linezolid for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections: Better Drug or Reduced Vancomycin Susceptibility?

Benjamin P Howden 1,2,*, Patrick G P Charles 1,2, Paul D R Johnson 1,2, Peter B Ward 1,2, M Lindsay Grayson 1,2
PMCID: PMC1280171  PMID: 16251343

In a recent issue of this journal, Weigelt et al. (7) reported the results of a randomized trial of linezolid versus vancomycin for complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Overall, the outcomes for patients treated with linezolid and vancomycin were equivalent; however, patients with proven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections had significantly improved outcomes if they were treated with linezolid (7). Notably, there was no difference in outcome for patients with proven methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) infection. These results are intriguing and are similar to the results of a post hoc subgroup analysis of two prospective trials of linezolid versus vancomycin treatment for nosocomial pneumonia, which suggested improved outcome for linezolid-treated patients with proven MRSA infection but equivalent outcomes for all S. aureus infections (8). Why does linezolid appear superior to vancomycin for MRSA infection but equivalent for infections caused by MSSA?

Weigelt et al. suggest the difference may be because the severity of illness was greater in the MRSA group than the MSSA group (7), while Wunderink et al. did not really address this issue, although the APACHE II scores were no different between the MSSA and MRSA groups in the post hoc analysis (8). Both of these reports are notable because they neglect an important consideration, namely, the potential role of reduced vancomycin susceptibility in a subset of MRSA isolates leading to differences in outcome for linezolid and vancomycin.

Low-level vancomycin resistance in S. aureus is increasingly recognized as an important clinical entity (1, 4, 5). In particular, heterogenous vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus has been reported from many countries (6) but is difficult to detect using routine susceptibility testing methods, with population analysis profile testing considered necessary for accurate identification (2, 3). Although these strains have a vancomycin MIC within the susceptible range (often 2 or 4 mg/liter), they have been associated with vancomycin treatment failure (1), and therapy with agents such as linezolid has been effective in these patients (4). Reduced vancomycin susceptibility appears to be far more common in MRSA than in MSSA strains (3, 6).

The recent study by Weigelt et al. (7) does not report vancomycin susceptibility data for any S. aureus isolates; they do not appear to have considered this important issue. Thus, the apparent clinical superiority of linezolid against MRSA may only be relevant to those strains that exhibit reduced vancomycin susceptibility. Without knowing what proportion of the MRSA strains in the study (7) exhibited heterogenous resistance to vancomycin, doubt remains about the relative efficacies of linezolid and vancomycin for fully vancomycin-susceptible MRSA isolates, which in our institution still constitute over 90% of our MRSA bacteremia isolates (1).

REFERENCES

  • 1.Charles, P. G. P., P. B. Ward, P. D. R. Johnson, B. P. Howden, and M. L. Grayson. 2004. Clinical features associated with bacteremia due to heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Clin. Infect. Dis. 38:448-451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hiramatsu, K. 2001. Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a new model of antibiotic resistance. Lancet Infect. Dis. 1:147-155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Howden, B. P., P. B. Ward, P. D. R. Johnson, P. G. P. Charles, and M. L. Grayson. 2005. Low-level vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus—an Australian perspective. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 24:100-108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Howden, B. P., P. B. Ward, P. G. Charles, T. M. Korman, A. Fuller, P. du Cros, E. A. Grabsch, S. A. Roberts, J. Robson, K. Read, N. Bak, J. Hurley, P. D. Johnson, A. J. Morris, B. C. Mayall, and M. L. Grayson. 2004. Treatment outcomes for serious infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with reduced vancomycin susceptibility. Clin. Infect. Dis. 38:521-528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tenover, F. C., and L. C. McDonald. 2005. Vancomycin-resistant staphylococci and enterococci: epidemiology and control. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 18:300-305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Walsh, T. R., and R. A. Howe. 2002. The prevalence and mechanisms of vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 56:657-675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Weigelt, J., K. Itani, D. Stevens, W. Lau, M. Dryden, C. Knirsch, and the Linezolid CSSTI Study Group. 2005. Linezolid versus vancomycin in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49:2260-2266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wunderink, R. G., J. Rello, S. K. Cammarata, R. V. Croos-Dabrera, and M. H. Kollef. 2003. Linezolid vs vancomycin: analysis of two double-blind studies of patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia. Chest 124:1789-1797. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005 Nov;49(11):4816–4817.

Authors' Reply

John A Weigelt 1,2,3,4,5,6, Kamal Itani 1,2,3,4,5,6, Dennis Stevens 1,2,3,4,5,6, William Lau 1,2,3,4,5,6, Matthew Dryden 1,2,3,4,5,6, Charles Knirsch 1,2,3,4,5,6

We appreciate the thoughtful and cogent comments by Howden and colleagues in suggesting mechanisms for the observed superior results of linezolid compared to vancomycin in MRSA patients in our trial. We agree that the results could in part be related to heterogenous resistance to vancomycin. In this study, susceptibility tests were performed in local laboratories, most of which do not routinely perform the population analyses or vancomycin E-test necessary to detect heteroresistant S. aureus. The authors are to be congratulated for their outstanding work in this area and for demonstrating that in Australia, vancomycin failure in patients is clearly related to heteroresistance. This has also been noted elsewhere and has been reviewed recently (2).

However, we believe heteroresistance cannot be the only explanation for the observed difference. First, in a review of 14 studies published from 1997 to 2001, only 132/7,920 (1.67%) S. aureus strains demonstrated heteroresistance to vancomycin from geographic locations similar to the clinical trial sites in our trial and over a similar time period (1). Second, vancomycin penetrates tissue less well than linezolid, it is highly protein bound, and there are clearly questions regarding adequate dosing of vancomycin, particularly in endocarditis and ventilator-associated pneumonia. These other factors may not be important for MRSA strains that have MICs of 0.5 or even 1 μg/ml, but these become important factors when MICs are in the 2 to 4 μg/ml range or even higher.

MICs of vancomycin tend to be lower for MSSA strains than for MRSA strains. In our study, the outcomes with methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, although not statistically significant, were numerically better (84.9% linezolid versus 75.3% vancomycin, P = 0.088), providing a hint that factors other than susceptibility play roles in determining outcome. If MICs of vancomycin for MRSA strains continue to rise, then it may be important to reconsider the vancomycin breakpoints for MRSA strains and to revisit the current nomograms for vancomycin dosing. We agree with our colleagues in Australia that heteroresistance is a very important factor in the failure of vancomycin in a variety of infections caused by MRSA strains and that more information is needed on the prevalence of heteroresistant strains.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Liu, C., and H. F. Chambers. 2003. Staphylococcus aureus with heterogeneous resistance to vancomycin: epidemiology, clinical significance, and critical assessment of diagnostic methods. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 47:3040-3045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tenover, F. C., and L. C. McDonald. 2005. Vancomycin-resistant staphylococci and enterococci: epidemiology and control. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 18:300-305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES