Population pharmacokinetic analysis of linezolid in low body weight patients with renal dysfunction

Population pharmacokinetics of antibacterial agents in the older population: a literature review

INTRODUCTION

Older individuals face an elevated risk of developing bacterial infections. The optimal use of antibacterial agents in this population is challenging because of age-related physiological alterations, changes in pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD), and the presence of multiple underlying diseases. Therefore, population pharmacokinetics (PPK) studies are of great importance for optimizing individual treatments and prompt identification of potential risk factors.

AREA COVERED

Our search involved keywords such as 'elderly,' 'old people,' and 'geriatric,' combined with 'population pharmacokinetics' and 'antibacterial agents.' This comprehensive search yielded 11 categories encompassing 28 antibacterial drugs, including vancomycin, ceftriaxone, meropenem, and linezolid. Out of 127 studies identified, 26 (20.5%) were associated with vancomycin, 14 (11%) with meropenem, and 14 (11%) with piperacillin. Other antibacterial agents were administered less frequently.

EXPERT OPINION

PPK studies are invaluable for elucidating the characteristics and relevant factors affecting the PK of antibacterial agents in the older population. Further research is warranted to develop and validate PPK models for antibacterial agents in this vulnerable population.

External evaluation of the predictive performance of published population pharmacokinetic models of linezolid in adult patients

OBJECTIVES

Several linezolid population pharmacokinetic (popPK) models have been established to facilitate optimal therapy; however, their extrapolated predictive performance to other clinical sites is unknown. This study aimed to externally evaluate the predictive performance of published pharmacokinetic models of linezolid in adult patients.

METHODS

For the evaluation dataset, 150 samples were collected from 70 adult patients (72.9% of which were critically ill) treated with linezolid at our center. Twenty-five published popPK models were identified from PubMed and Embase. Model predictability was evaluated using prediction-based, simulation-based, and Bayesian forecasting-based approaches to assess model predictability.

RESULTS

Prediction-based diagnostics found that the prediction error within ±30% (F30) was less than 40% in all models, indicating unsatisfactory predictability. The simulation-based prediction- and variability-corrected visual predictive check and normalized prediction distribution error test indicated large discrepancies between the observations and simulations in most of the models. Bayesian forecasting with one or two prior observations significantly improved the models' predictive performance.

CONCLUSION

The published linezolid popPK models showed insufficient predictive ability. Therefore, their sole use is not recommended, and incorporating therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid in clinical applications is necessary.

Linezolid dose adjustment according to therapeutic drug monitoring helps reach the goal concentration in severe patients, and the oldest seniors benefit more

BACKGROUND

The elderly with severe infection increased dramatically in intensive care unit (ICU). Proper antimicrobial therapy help improve the prognosis. Linezolid, as an antimicrobial drug, is commonly utilized to treat patients infected with methicillin-resistant S. aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Clinical evidence suggests elderly patients prone to linezolid overexposure. Here, we describe the results of three years' linezolid adjustment experiences according to therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), especially in the oldest old.

METHODS

Linezolid therapeutic drug monitoring data were collected between January 2020 and November 2022 from patients who were admitted to ICU and treated with linezolid. All the patients started with a dosage of 600 mg, twice daily. The first TMD was carried out ten minutes before the seventh administration. The dosage adjustment was determined by the doctor according to the first TMD and patients' condition, and the repeated TDM was conducted as required. The dosage adjustment in different age group was recorded. Laboratory data were compared between the old and the oldest old. The high mortality risk of the oldest old was also explored.

RESULTS

Data of 556 linezolid TDM from 330 patients were collected. Among which, 31.6%, 54.8%, and 75% of patients had supra-therapeutic linezolid trough concentrations at the first TDM assessment in different age group, leading to the dosage adjustment rate of 31.0%, 40.3%, 68.8% respectively. The linezolid dosage adjustments according to TDM help to reach therapeutic concentration. The oldest old was in high risk of linezolid overexposure with lowercreatinine clearance. The norepinephrine maximum dosage but not linezolid Cmin was associated with 28-day mortality in the oldest old.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients with linezolid conventional 600 mg twice-daily dose might be at a high risk of overexposure, especially in the oldest old. The linezolid dosage adjustments according to TDM help reach the therapeutic concentration. The high mortality of the oldest old was not related with initial linezolid overexposure.

Evaluating linezolid dose regimens against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus based on renal function in populations with different body weight

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Linezolid is an alternative first-line agent for MRSA pneumonia. This study assessed whether dose adjustments of linezolid against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections were needed based on renal function in populations with different body weight.

METHODS

Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to evaluate renal function in relation to the probability of target attainment (PTA) in three population groups with different body weight. Area under the concentration time curve (AUC)/ minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio and percentage of time above the MIC (%T > MIC) were regarded as pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets. The PTA and cumulative fractions of response (CFR) were calculated to assess the efficacy. Regarding safety, trough plasma concentration (C_min ) > 8 mg/L was used as target for toxicity.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Using AUC/MIC >100 as the target pharmacodynamic (PD) index, the CFR of linezolid at the standard dose (600 mg every 12 h [q12h]) were 57.01%, 93.22%, and 99.93% in patients with normal renal function, patients with renal dysfunction and low body weight patients with renal dysfunction, respectively. Using 100%T > MIC as the target PD index, all the CFR of three population groups were more than 90% at the standard dose. The percentages of C_min  > 8 mg/L at the standard dose of linezolid were 24.16%, 53.24%, and 90.10% in three population groups on day 7.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The risk of thrombocytopenia of linezolid was extremely higher in low body weight patients with renal impairment when receiving standard linezolid dose compared with patients with normal renal function. 450 mg q12h and 300 mg q12h might be effective and safe against MRSA infection in patients with renal dysfunction and low body weight patients with renal dysfunction, respectively.

A Review of Population Pharmacokinetic Analyses of Linezolid

In recent years, many studies on population pharmacokinetics of linezolid have been conducted. This comprehensive review aimed to summarize population pharmacokinetic models of linezolid, by focusing on dosage optimization to maximize the probability of attaining a certain pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic parameter in special populations. We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases for population pharmacokinetic analyses of linezolid using a parametric non-linear mixed-effect approach, including both observational and prospective trials. Of the 32 studies, 26 were performed in adults, four in children, and one in both adults and children. High between-subject variability was determined in the majority of the models, which was in line with the variability of linezolid concentrations previously detected in observational studies. Some studies found that patients with renal impairment, hepatic failure, advanced age, or low body weight had higher exposure and adverse reactions rates. In contrast, lower concentrations and therapeutic failure were associated with obese patients, young patients, and patients who had undergone renal replacement techniques. In critically ill patients, the inter-individual and intra-individual variability was even greater, suggesting that this population is at an even higher risk of underexposure and overexposure. Therapeutic drug monitoring may be warranted in a large proportion of patients given that the Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated that the one-size-fits-all labeled dosing of 600 mg every 12 h could lead to toxicity or therapeutic failure for high values of the minimum inhibitory concentration of the target pathogen. Further research on covariates, including renal function, hepatic function, and drug–drug interactions related to P-glycoprotein could help to explain variability and improve linezolid dosing regimens.

Parametric Population Pharmacokinetics of Linezolid: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Linezolid is often used for infections caused by drug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria. Recent studies suggest that large between-subject variability (BSV) and within-subject variability could alter drug pharmacokinetics (PK) during linezolid therapy due to pathophysiological changes.

OBJECTIVE

This review synthesized information on linezolid population PK studies and summarized the significant covariates that influence linezolid PK.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase from their inception to 30 September 2021. Published studies were included if they contained data analyzing linezolid PK parameters in humans using a population approach with a nonlinear mixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies conducted in adults and five in pediatrics were included. One- and two-compartment models were the commonly used structural models for linezolid. Body size (weight, lean body weight, and body surface area), creatinine clearance (CLcr), and age significantly influenced linezolid PK. The median clearance (CL) values (ranges) in infants [0.128 L/h/kg (0.121-0.135)] and children [0.107 L/h/kg (0.088-0.151)] were higher than in adults [0.098 L/h/kg (0.044-0.237)]. For patients with severe renal impairment (CLcr ≤ 30 mL/min), the CL was 37.2% (15.2-55.3%) lower than in patients with normal renal function.

CONCLUSION

The optimal linezolid dosage should be adjusted based on the patient's body size, renal function, and age. More studies are needed to explore the exact mechanism of linezolid elimination and evaluate the PK characteristics in pediatric patients.

Dosage Strategy of Linezolid According to the Trough Concentration Target and Renal Function in Chinese Critically Ill Patients

Background: Linezolid is associated with myelosuppression, which may cause failure in optimally treating bacterial infections. The study aimed to define the pharmacokinetic/toxicodynamic (PK/TD) threshold for critically ill patients and to identify a dosing strategy for critically ill patients with renal insufficiency.

Methods: The population pharmacokinetic (PK) model was developed using the NONMEM program. Logistic regression modeling was conducted to determine the toxicodynamic (TD) threshold of linezolid-induced myelosuppression. The dosing regimen was optimized based on the Monte Carlo simulation of the final model.

Results: PK analysis included 127 linezolid concentrations from 83 critically ill patients at a range of 0.25–21.61 mg/L. Creatinine clearance (CrCL) was identified as the only covariate of linezolid clearance that significantly explained interindividual variability. Thirty-four (40.97%) of the 83 patients developed linezolid-associated myelosuppression. Logistic regression analysis showed that the trough concentration (Cmin) was a significant predictor of myelosuppression in critically patients, and the threshold for Cmin in predicting myelosuppression with 50% probability was 7.8 mg/L. The Kaplan–Meier plot revealed that the overall median time from the initiation of therapy to the development of myelosuppression was 12 days. Monte Carlo simulation indicated an empirical dose reduction to 600 mg every 24 h was optimal to balance the safety and efficacy in critically ill patients with CrCL of 30–60 ml/min, 450 mg every 24 h was the alternative for patients with CrCL <30 ml/min, and 600 mg every 12 h was recommended for patients with CrCL ≥60 ml/min.

Conclusion: Renal function plays a significant role in linezolid PKs for critically ill patients. A dose of 600 mg every 24 h was recommended for patients with CrCL <60 ml/min to minimize linezolid-induced myelosuppression.

Model Based Identification of Linezolid Exposure-toxicity Thresholds in Hospitalized Patients

Evidence supports linezolid therapeutic drug monitoring as the exposure-response relationship has been identified for toxicity among patients receiving linezolid, but the data to establish the upper limit are limited and the published toxicity thresholds range widely. The purpose of this study was to determine the linezolid exposure-toxicity thresholds to improve the safety of linezolid. This is a multicenter retrospective study of adult patients treated with linezolid from 2018 to 2019. The population pharmacokinetic model of linezolid was established based on 270 plasma concentrations in 152 patients, which showed creatinine clearance and white cell count are covariates affecting the clearance of linezolid, and serum albumin is the covariate affecting the volume of distribution. Classification and regression tree analysis was used to determine the linezolid exposure thresholds associated with an increased probability of toxicity. Among 141 patients included for toxicity analysis, the rate of occurring toxicity was significantly higher among patients with an AUC_{0-24, d1} ≥163 mg h/L, AUC_{0-24, d2} ≥207 mg h/L, AUC_{0-24, ss} ≥210 mg h/L, and C_min,d2 ≥6.9 mg/L, C_min,ss ≥6.9 mg/L, while no threshold was discovered for C_{min, d1}. Those exposure thresholds and duration of linezolid treatment were independently associated with linezolid-related toxicity in the logistic regression analyses. In addition, the predictive performance of the AUC_0-24 and C_min thresholds at day 2 and steady state were close. Considering that the AUC estimation is cumbersome, C_min threshold at 48 h and steady state with a value of ≥6.9 mg/L is recommended to improve safety, especially for patients with renal insufficiency and patients with low serum albumin.

Hospital Pharmacometrics for Optimal Individual Administration of Antimicrobial Agents for Anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infected Patients

Therapeutic drug monitoring and target concentration intervention based on population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models has been strongly recommended for anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) agents in order to provide appropriate antimicrobial chemotherapy to each individual patient, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses in hospitalized patients have been actively conducted, as evidenced with vancomycin. Teicoplanin, daptomycin, and linezolid have been the most studied antibiotics, using population pharmacokinetics of patients with MRSA. Infections caused by MRSA have higher severity and fatality rates than other antimicrobial-susceptible infections. Therefore, many medical facilities have been implementing infection control programs based on antimicrobial stewardship to prevent nosocomial infections and drug-resistant strains. Studies detailing pharmacometrics for these antibiotics have been reported to elucidate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, to determine significant factors influencing variabilities between individuals, and to develop target concentration interventions and dosing regimens for adults, the elderly, patients with renal insufficiency including those on continuous renal replacement therapies, patients with low body weight, obese patients, and pediatric patients. This review presents the details of our recent research on the optimal dosing design of antimicrobial agents for the treatment of MRSA infection based on hospital pharmacometrics. In addition, the prospect of using modeling and simulation has shown major advantages in supporting dosing regimen selection.

Effect of renal function on the risk of thrombocytopenia in patients receiving linezolid therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

The association of renal function and linezolid‐induced thrombocytopaenia (LIT) remains controversial. We performed a meta‐analysis to determine whether impaired renal function is associated with an increased LIT risk.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2021 for eligible studies evaluating the relationship between renal function and LIT. Indicators of renal function included renal impairment (RI), severe RI, haemodialysis status, creatinine clearance rate (Ccr) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Unadjusted and adjusted estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated separately using a random‐effect model.

Results

A total of 24 studies with 3580 patients were included in the meta‐analysis. RI patients had an increased LIT risk compared to non‐RI patients in both the unadjusted (OR 3.54; 95% CI 2.27, 5.54; I² = 77.7%) and adjusted analyses (OR 2.51; 95% CI 1.82, 3.45; I² = 17.9%). This association persisted in the subset of studies involving only patients receiving a fixed conventional dose (600 mg every 12 h) and other subgroup analyses by ethnicity, sample size and study quality. Moreover, the LIT risk was significantly higher in patients with severe RI and haemodialysis than in patients without severe RI and haemodialysis. The eGFR and Ccr were significantly lower in LIT patients than in non‐LIT patients.

Conclusions

Impaired renal function is associated with an increased risk of LIT. A reduced linezolid dose may be considered in RI patients at a low risk of treatment failure, ideally guided by therapeutic drug monitoring.

In linezolid underexposure, pharmacogenetics matters: The role of CYP3A5

The exposure to linezolid is characterized by a large inter-individual variability; age, renal dysfunction and body weight explain this variability only to a limited extent and a considerable portion of it remains unexplained; therefore, we decided to investigate the role of individual genetic background focusing in particular on the risk of linezolid underexposure. 191 patients in therapy with linezolid at the standard dose of 600 mg twice daily were considered. Linezolid plasma concentration was determined at the steady state and classified as "below", "within" or "above" reference range. Genetic polymorphisms for ATP Binding Cassette Subfamily B Member 1 (ABCB1), Cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes CYP3A4 and CYP3A5, and Cytochrome P450 Oxidoreductase (POR) were investigated. Age significantly correlated with drug exposure, and patients CYP3A5 expressers (GA and AA) were found at high risk to be underexposed to the drug when treated at standard dose. This association was confirmed even after correction with age. No association was found with ABCB1 polymorphism. Our data suggest that CYP3A5 polymorphisms might significantly affect linezolid disposition, putting patients at higher risk to be underexposed, while P-glycoprotein polymorphism seem not to play any role.

Population Pharmacokinetics and Dosage Optimization of Linezolid in Critically Ill Pediatric Patients

Linezolid is an oxazolidinone antibiotic exhibiting efficacy against multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-positive-related infections. However, its population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) profile in Chinese critically ill children has not been characterized. Optimal dosing regimens should be established according to the PopPK/pharmacodynamic(PD) properties of linezolid in the specific population. This work aims to describe the pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of linezolid, assess the factors affecting interpatient variability, and establish an optimized regimen for children in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). A single-center, prospective, open-labeled PK study was performed. Ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) was applied to measure the plasma levels during linezolid treatment. PopPK analysis was conducted using Phoenix NLME software. Sixty-three critically ill pediatric patients were included. The data showed good fit for a two-compartment model with linear elimination. Body weight and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were the most significant covariates explaining variabilities in linezolid PK for the pediatric population. Therapeutic target was defined as the ratio of the area under drug plasma concentration-time curve over 24 h to minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC/MIC) of >80. Different dosing regimens were evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the optimal dosage strategy for linezolid. Although the probability of target attainment (PTA) was high (>96%) for 10 mg/kg every 8 h at MIC≤1 mg/L, it was lower than 70% at MIC>1 mg/L. Thus, the dosing regimen required adjustment. When the dosing regimen was adjusted to 15 mg/kg every 6 h, the PTA increased from 63.6% to 94.6% at MIC=2 mg/L, thereby indicating higher treatment success. Children with AST of >40 U/L had significant higher AUC than those with AST of ≤40 U/L (205.45 vs. 159.96). Therefore, dosage adjustment was required according to the AST levels. The PopPK characteristics of linezolid in critically ill children were evaluated, and an optimal dosage regimen was constructed based on developmental PopPK/PD model and simulation. (This study has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry under no. ChiCTR1900021386.).

External Evaluation of Population Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics in Linezolid-Induced Thrombocytopenia: The Transferability of Published Models to Different Hospitalized Patients

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to perform an external evaluation of published linezolid population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models, to evaluate the predictive performance using an independent data set. Another aim was to offer an elegant environment for display and simulation of both the concentration and platelet count after linezolid administration.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed for all studies evaluating the population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters of linezolid in patients and selected the models to be used for the external validation. The bias of predictions was visually evaluated by plotting prediction errors (PEs) and relative PEs. The precision of prediction was evaluated by calculating the mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean relative error (MRE).

RESULTS

Three articles (models A, B, and C) provided linezolid-induced platelet dynamic models using population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling approaches. The PE and relative PE of both linezolid concentrations and platelet counts for models A and C showed similar predictive distributions. With respect to the prediction accuracy of total linezolid concentration, the MAE, RMSE, and MRE of population prediction values for model C was the smallest. The comparison of the MAE, RMSE, and MRE of patient-individual prediction values for the 3 pharmacodynamic models revealed no large differences.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed the transferability of published population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models and showed that they were suitable for extrapolation to other hospitals and/or patients. This study also introduced application software based on model C for the therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid.

Proposal of initial and maintenance dosing regimens with linezolid for renal impairment patients

Background

Linezolid is administered as a fixed dose to all patients despite evidence of overexposure and thrombocytopenia in renal impairment. The aims of this study were to evaluate the risk of thrombocytopenia and the utility of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), and to propose alternate dosing regimens in patients with renal impairment.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients ≥13 years old for whom serum linezolid trough concentration (C_min) was measured during linezolid treatment. Patients with episodes of infection were divided into groups by presence of renal impairment (RI group) or absence of renal impairment (non-RI group), and by use of C_min-based TDM (TDM group) or not (non-TDM group) during linezolid treatment.

Results

In the 108 patients examined by multivariable analyses, renal impairment was independently associated with increased risk of thrombocytopenia (OR 3.17, 95%CI 1.10–9.12) and higher C_min. Analysis of the utility of TDM in the RI group showed that clinical failure rate was significantly lower in the TDM subgroup than in the non-TDM subgroup. Furthermore, in the RI group, dosage adjustments were needed in 90.5% of the TDM subgroup. All episodes administered a reduced dose of 300 mg every 12 h in the RI group showed C_min ≥ 2.0 mg/L. Additional analysis of 53 episodes in which C_min was measured within 48 h after starting administration showed that the initial standard dose for 2 days was sufficient to rapidly reach an effective therapeutic concentration in the RI group.

Conclusions

Empirical dose reduction to 300 mg every 12 h after administration of the initial fixed dose for 2 days and C_min-based TDM may improve safety outcomes while maintaining appropriate efficacy among patients with renal impairment.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40360-021-00479-w.

Supra-therapeutic Linezolid Trough Concentrations in Elderly Patients: A Call for Action?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

According to the drug label, linezolid dosage adjustments are not needed in geriatric patients. Nevertheless, clinical evidence suggests that elderly patients may benefit from the use of reduced linezolid doses to limit drug overexposure. Here, we aimed to describe the results of the last 5 years of therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid in our institution with a special focus on elderly patients.

METHODS

Linezolid therapeutic drug monitoring requests collected between January 2016 and June 2020 were considered. Linezolid trough concentrations were considered both as a continuous variable and as a categorical variable, clustering data according to the therapeutic range proposed by available literature (< 2, 2-8, and > 8 mg/L, respectively). Patients' age and sex were considered as categorical variables. Comparisons of linezolid trough concentrations between groups of patients stratified according to age were performed using an analysis of variance; comparisons in the frequency distributions were performed using the chi-squared test.

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2020, we collected 3250 linezolid TDM requests. A highly significant, progressive increment in the linezolid trough concentrations was observed moving from patients aged < 50 years (5.8 ± 5.6 mg/L) to those aged > 90 years (16.6 ± 10.0 mg/L), with an overall increment of 30% per decade of age. Nearly 30%, 50%, and 65% of patients aged < 65 years, 65-80 years, and > 80 years, respectively, had supra-therapeutic linezolid trough concentrations at the first therapeutic drug monitoring assessment. This trend did not change significantly moving from 2016 to 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients given linezolid at the conventional 600-mg twice-daily dose might be at a high risk of being overexposed to treatment, eventually increasing their risk to experience drug-related hematological toxicity. Reduced linezolid dosing schemes should be potentially considered in elderly patients at a low risk of treatment failure, ideally guided by therapeutic drug monitoring.

Pinacho D. Personalized Medicine for Antibiotics: The Role of Nanobiosensors in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

Due to the high bacterial resistance to antibiotics (AB), it has become necessary to adjust the dose aimed at personalized medicine by means of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). TDM is a fundamental tool for measuring the concentration of drugs that have a limited or highly toxic dose in different body fluids, such as blood, plasma, serum, and urine, among others. Using different techniques that allow for the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) analysis of the drug, TDM can reduce the risks inherent in treatment. Among these techniques, nanotechnology focused on biosensors, which are relevant due to their versatility, sensitivity, specificity, and low cost. They provide results in real time, using an element for biological recognition coupled to a signal transducer. This review describes recent advances in the quantification of AB using biosensors with a focus on TDM as a fundamental aspect of personalized medicine.

Population Pharmacokinetics and Dosage Optimization of Linezolid in Patients with Liver Dysfunction

Linezolid is the first synthetic oxazolidone agent to treat infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens. Infected patients with liver dysfunction (LD) are more likely to suffer from adverse reactions, such as thrombocytopenia, when standard-dose linezolid is used than patients with LD who did not use linezolid. Currently, pharmacokinetics data of linezolid in patients with LD are limited. This study aimed to characterize pharmacokinetics parameters of linezolid in patients with LD, identify the factors influencing the pharmacokinetics, and propose an optimal dosage regimen. We conducted a prospective study and established a population pharmacokinetics model with the Phoenix NLME software. The final model was evaluated by goodness-of-fit plots, bootstrap analysis, and prediction corrected-visual predictive check. A total of 163 concentration samples from 45 patients with LD were adequately described by a one-compartment model with first-order elimination along with prothrombin activity (PTA) and creatinine clearance as significant covariates. Linezolid clearance (CL) was 2.68 liters/h (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.34 to 3.03 liters/h); the volume of distribution (V) was 58.34 liters (95% CI, 48.00 to 68.68 liters). Model-based simulation indicated that the conventional dose was at risk for overexposure in patients with LD or severe renal dysfunction; reduced dosage (300 mg/12 h) would be appropriate to achieve safe (minimum steady-state concentration [C _min,ss] at 2 to 8 μg/ml) and effective targets (the ratio of area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h [AUC_0-24] at steady state to MIC, 80 to 100). In addition, for patients with severe LD (PTA, ≤20%), the dosage (400 mg/24 h) was sufficient at an MIC of ≤2 μg/ml. This study recommended therapeutic drug monitoring for patients with LD. (This study has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry under no. ChiCTR1900022118.).

Reappraisal of Linezolid Dosing in Renal Impairment To Improve Safety

Linezolid is administered as a fixed dose to all patients despite evidence of increased exposure and myelosuppression in renal impairment. The objectives of these studies were to assess the risk of thrombocytopenia with standard-dose linezolid in renal impairment and to identify an alternate dosing strategy. In study 1, data from adult patients receiving linezolid for ≥10 days were retrospectively reviewed to determine the frequency of thrombocytopenia in patients with and without renal impairment. Time-to-event analyses were performed using Cox proportional-hazards models. In study 2, population pharmacokinetic modeling was employed to build covariate-structured models using an independent data set of linezolid concentrations obtained during routine therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Monte Carlo simulations were performed to identify linezolid dosing regimens that maximized attainment of therapeutic trough concentrations (2 to 8 mg/liter) across various renal-function groups. Toxicity analysis (study 1) included 341 patients, 133 (39.0%) with renal impairment. Thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently among patients with renal impairment (42.9% versus 16.8%; P < 0.001), and renal impairment was independently associated with this toxicity in multivariable analysis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.52 to 3.68). Pharmacokinetic analyses (study 2) included 1,309 linezolid concentrations from 603 adult patients. Age, body surface area, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were identified as covariates of linezolid clearance. Linezolid dose reductions improved the probability of achieving optimal exposures in simulated patients with eGFR values of <60 ml/min. Thrombocytopenia occurs more frequently in patients with renal impairment receiving standard linezolid doses. Linezolid dose reduction and trough-based TDM are predicted to mitigate this treatment-limiting toxicity.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Linezolid in Premature Infants

BACKGROUND

The emergence of coagulase-negative staphylococci with reduced vancomycin susceptibility in some neonatal intensive care units has resulted in an increase of linezolid use. Linezolid pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety in premature infants still need to be better established.

METHODS

This was a retrospective PK study. All infants who received intravenous linezolid and had linezolid plasma concentrations per standard of care were included. Linezolid concentrations were measured by high performance liquid chromatography. A population PK model was developed using nonlinear mixed effects modeling. Optimal dosing was determined based on achievement of the surrogate pharmacodynamics target for efficacy: a ratio of the area under the concentration-time curve to minimum inhibitory concentration >80. We assessed the occurrence of thrombocytopenia and lactic acidosis in relation with drug exposure.

RESULTS

A total of 78 plasma concentrations were collected from 26 infants, with a median postnatal age (PNA) of 24 days (8-88) and weight of 1423 g (810-3256). A 1-compartment model described linezolid data well. The final model included PNA and weight on clearance and weight on volume of distribution. Considering an MIC90 of 1 mg/L, all infants reached an area under the concentration-time curve/minimum inhibitory concentration > 80. Although thrombocytopenia and hyperlactatemia occurred frequently, they were not sustained and were not considered related to linezolid.

CONCLUSION

and was well tolerated in critically ill premature infants. PNA was the main determinant of clearance.

Clinical Determinants of Target Non-Attainment of Linezolid in Plasma and Interstitial Space Fluid: A Pooled Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis with Focus on Critically Ill Patients

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess linezolid pharmacokinetics in the plasma and interstitial space fluid (ISF) of patients with sepsis, diabetic foot infections or cystic fibrosis and healthy volunteers. The impacts of joint characteristics and disease on plasma and target-site exposure were to be identified together with the benefit of dose intensification in critically ill patients.

METHODS

Rich plasma (n = 1598) and ISF concentrations in subcutaneous adipose (n = 1430) and muscle tissue (n = 1089) measured by microdialysis were pooled from three clinical trials with 51 individuals receiving 600 mg of intravenous and oral linezolid. All data were analysed simultaneously by a population approach also considering methodological aspects of microdialysis. The impact of covariates on the attainment of the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets, AUC/MIC = 100 (area under the concentration-time curve/minimum inhibitory concentration) and fT_>MIC = 99 % (time that unbound concentrations exceed the MIC), was assessed by deterministic and Monte Carlo simulations.

RESULTS

A two-compartment pharmacokinetic model with nonlinear elimination and tissue distribution factors accounting for differences between plasma and ISF concentrations adequately predicted all measurements. Clearance (CL) was highest in septic patients (11.2 L/h vs. CL_Healthy/CL_{Cystic fibrosis}/CL_Diabetic = 7.67/6.87/6.35 L/h). Penetration into subcutaneous adipose ISF was lowest in diabetic patients (-34.9 % compared with healthy volunteers). Creatinine clearance and total body weight further impacted linezolid exposure. To achieve timely efficacious therapy, front-loaded dosing and continuous infusion seemed beneficial in septic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that after standard linezolid doses, particularly patients with sepsis and conserved renal function are at risk of not attaining pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets and would benefit from initial dose intensification.

Systematic Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for Linezolid: Variability and Clinical Impact

Linezolid serum trough (C_min) and peak (C_max) levels were determined prospectively in 90 patients. Adequate exposure was defined as a C_min of 2 to 8 mg/liter. Therapy was empirical (73.3%) or targeted (26.7%). Wide interindividual variability in linezolid C_min levels was recorded (0.1 to 25.2 μg/ml). Overall, 65.5% of the patients had out-of-range, 41.1% had subtherapeutic, and 24.4% had supratherapeutic trough levels. We did not find a correlation between abnormal levels and adverse events, in-hospital mortality, or overall poor outcome.

Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia in hospitalized patients

AIMS

Thrombocytopenia is among the most important adverse effects of linezolid treatment. Linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia incidence varies considerably but has been associated with impaired renal function. We investigated the pharmacodynamic mechanism (myelosuppression or enhanced platelet destruction) and the role of impaired renal function (RF) in the development of thrombocytopenia.

METHODS

The pharmacokinetics of linezolid were described with a two-compartment distribution model with first-order absorption and elimination. RF was calculated using the expected creatinine clearance. The decrease platelets by linezolid exposure was assumed to occur by one of two mechanisms: inhibition of the formation of platelets (PDI) or stimulation of the elimination (PDS) of platelets.

RESULTS

About 50% of elimination was found to be explained by renal clearance (normal RF). The population mean estimated plasma protein binding of linezolid was 18% [95% confidence interval (CI) 16%, 20%] and was independent of the observed concentrations. The estimated mixture model fraction of patients with a platelet count decreased due to PDI was 0.97 (95% CI 0.87, 1.00), so the fraction due to PDS was 0.03. RF had no influence on linezolid pharmacodynamics.

CONCLUSION

We have described the influence of weight, renal function, age and plasma protein binding on the pharmacokinetics of linezolid. This combined pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and turnover model identified that the most common mechanism of thrombocytopenia associated with linezolid is PDI. Impaired RF increases thrombocytopenia by a pharmacokinetic mechanism. The linezolid dose should be reduced in RF.

Mechanism Underlying Linezolid-induced Thrombocytopenia in a Chronic Kidney Failure Mouse Model

Objective:

To investigate the relationship between renal function and linezolid (LZD)-induced thrombocytopenia and elucidate the underlying mechanism using a chronic renal disease (CRD) mouse model.

Materials and Methods:

CRD was induced in 5-week-old male Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) mice by 5/6 nephrectomy. After this procedure, LZD (25 and 100 mg/kg) was administered intraperitoneally once every day for 28 days. Platelet counts, white blood cell (WBC) counts, and hematocrit (HCT) levels were measured every 7 days. 2-¹⁴C-thymidine (0.185 MBq) was administrated intravenously to LZD-administered mice to evaluate the thymidine uptake ability of bone marrow.

Results:

Platelet counts were significantly lower in the LZD-administered CRD group than in the LZD-nonadministered groups at 14, 21, and 28 days (P < 0.05); however, these changes were not observed in LZD-administered mice with normal renal function, regardless of the duration of LZD administration. No significant changes were observed in WBC counts or HCT levels in any LZD-administered CRD mouse. Moreover, radioactive levels in bone marrow were not significantly different in each group.

Conclusions:

These results indicate that LZD-induced decreases in platelet counts were enhanced by renal impairment in vivo, suggesting that LZD-induced thrombocytopenia is not caused by nonimmune-mediated bone marrow suppression.

Sequential antimicrobial treatment with linezolid for neurosurgical infections: efficacy, safety and cost study

BACKGROUND

Evidence for the effectiveness of linezolid in neurosurgical infections (NSIs) is growing. The comfortable oral dosage and tolerance of linezolid opens the possibility for sequential antimicrobial treatment (SAT) in stable patients after a period of intravenous treatment.

METHODS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SAT with oral linezolid in patients with NSI and to analyse the cost implications, an observational, non-comparative, prospective cohort study was conducted on clinically stable consecutive adult patients at the Neurosurgical Service. Following intravenous treatment, patients were discharged with SAT with oral linezolid.

RESULTS

A total of 77 patients were included. The most common NSIs were: 41 surgical wound infections, 20 subdural empyemas, 18 epidural abscesses, and 16 brain abscesses. Forty-four percent of patients presented two or more concomitant NSIs. Aetiological agents commonly isolated were: Propionibacterium acnes (36 %), Staphylococcus aureus (23 %), Staphylococcus epidermidis (21 %) and Streptococcus spp. (13 %). The median duration of the SAT was 15 days (range, 3-42). The SAT was interrupted in five cases due to adverse events. The remainder of the patients were cured at the end of the SAT. A total of 1,163 days of hospitalisation were saved. An overall cost reduction of €516,188 was attributed to the SAT. Eight patients with device infections did not require removal of the device, with an additional cost reduction of €190,595. The mean cost saving per patient was €9,179.

CONCLUSIONS

SAT with linezolid was safe and effective for the treatment of NSI. SAT reduces hospitalisation times, which means significant savings of health and economic resources.

Linezolid in the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis: the challenge of its narrow therapeutic index

INTRODUCTION

Linezolid is an oxazolidinone with potent activity against M tuberculosis, and improves culture conversion and cure rates when added to treatment regimens for drug resistant tuberculosis. However, linezolid has a narrow therapeutic window, and the optimal dosing strategy that minimizes the substantial toxicity associated with linezolid's prolonged use in tuberculosis treatment has not been determined, limiting the potential impact of this anti-mycobacterial agent.

AREAS COVERED

This paper aims to review and summarize the current knowledge on linezolid for the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis. The focus is on the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic determinants of linezolid's efficacy and toxicity in tuberculosis, and how this relates to defining an optimal dose. Mechanisms of linezolid toxicity and resistance, and the potential role of therapeutic drug monitoring are also covered. Expert commentary: Prospective pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic studies are required to define optimal therapeutic targets and to inform improved linezolid dosing strategies for drug-resistant tuberculosis.

Predictors of Inadequate Linezolid Concentrations after Standard Dosing in Critically Ill Patients

Adequate linezolid blood concentrations have been shown to be associated with an improved clinical outcome. Our goal was to assess new predictors of inadequate linezolid concentrations often observed in critically ill patients. Fifty-two critically ill patients with severe infections receiving standard dosing of linezolid participated in this prospective observational study. Serum samples (median, 32 per patient) were taken on four consecutive days, and total linezolid concentrations were quantified. Covariates influencing linezolid pharmacokinetics were identified by multivariate analysis and a population pharmacokinetic model. Target attainment (area under the concentration-time curve over 12 h [AUC12]/MIC ratio of >50; MIC = 2 mg/liter) was calculated for both the study patients and a simulated independent patient group (n = 67,000). Target attainment was observed for only 36% of the population on both days 1 and 4. Independent covariates related to significant decreases of linezolid concentrations included higher weight, creatinine clearance rates, and fibrinogen and antithrombin concentrations, lower concentrations of lactate, and the presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Linezolid clearance was increased in ARDS patients (by 82%) and in patients with elevated fibrinogen or decreased lactate concentrations. In simulated patients, most covariates, including fibrinogen and lactate concentrations and weight, showed quantitatively minor effects on target attainment (difference of ≤9% between the first and fourth quartiles of the respective parameters). In contrast, the presence of ARDS had the strongest influence, with only ≤6% of simulated patients reaching this target. In conclusion, the presence of ARDS was identified as a new and strong predictor of insufficient linezolid concentrations, which might cause treatment failure. Insufficient concentrations might also be a major problem in patients with combined alterations of other covariate parameters. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT01793012.).

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic evaluation of linezolid for the treatment of staphylococcal infections in critically ill patients

Several studies have demonstrated that the ideal therapeutic effect of linezolid cannot be achieved in critically ill patients with the recommended standard dosing regimen of 600 mg every 12 h (q12h). Moreover, the optimal strategy for successful treatment is still lacking. This study analysed factors influencing the efficacy of linezolid treatment and determined the target for successful treatment by logistic regression in 27 critically ill patients with staphylococcal infection who received linezolid 600 mg q12h. The results showed that only the 24-h area under the concentration-time curve to minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC24/MIC) ratio was significantly associated with staphylococcal eradication. Reaching 80% bacterial eradication required an AUC24/MIC of 120.5, defining the therapeutic target. Different dosing regimens were evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the optimal dosage strategy for linezolid. Although the probability of target attainment (PTA) was high (>99.9%) for the standard dosing regimen at MIC ≤ 1 mg/L, the PTA was almost 0 at MIC = 2 mg/L, thus the dosing regimen required adjustment. In addition, if the dosing regimen was adjusted to 600 mg every 8 h or 600 mg every 6 h, the major staphylococci (except for MRSA and MSSA) exhibited a cumulative fraction of response of >80%, showing a higher treatment success. These findings indicate that a strategy of high linezolid dosage may be needed to increase the probability of successful treatment at MIC > 1 mg/L. The role of therapeutic drug monitoring should be encouraged for optimising linezolid exposure in critically ill patients.

Risk factors associated with high linezolid trough plasma concentrations

AIM

The major concern of linezolid is the adverse events. High linezolid trough serum concentration (Cmin) has been associated with toxicity. The aim of this study was to analyze factors associated with high Cmin.

METHODS

Main clinical characteristics of 104 patients treated with 600 mg/12 hours of linezolid were retrospectively reviewed. Samples were obtained just before the next dose after at least three doses and within the first 8 days of treatment. High Cmin was considered when it was >8 mg/L. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed.

RESULTS

34.6% patients had a Cmin >8 mg/L, and they were older and had more frequently an estimated glomerular filtration by MDRD <40 mL/min. There were more patients co-treated with rifampin in the group with low Cmin. The only factor independently associated with Cmin >8 was the renal function. Patients with an eGF < 40 mL/min had significantly higher Cmin than those with eGF > 80 mL/min (OR: 4.273) and there was a trend towards a high Cmin in patients with eGF between 40-80 mL/min (OR: 2.109).

CONCLUSIONS

High Cmin were frequent, especially in patients with MDRD <40 mL/min. Therapeutic drug monitoring could be useful to avoid toxicity in patients with renal dysfunction.

Successful treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis with combination therapy using linezolid and rifampicin under therapeutic drug monitoring

Linezolid is an effective antibiotic against most gram-positive bacteria including drug-resistant strains such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Although linezolid therapy is known to result in thrombocytopenia, dosage adjustment or therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid is not generally necessary. In this report, however, we describe the case of a 79-year-old woman with recurrent methicillin-resistant S. aureus osteomyelitis that was successfully treated via surgery and combination therapy using linezolid and rifampicin under therapeutic drug monitoring for maintaining an appropriate serum linezolid concentration. The patient underwent surgery for the removal of the artificial left knee joint and placement of vancomycin-impregnated bone cement beads against methicillin-resistant S. aureus after total left knee implant arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. We also initiated linezolid administration at a conventional dose of 600 mg/h at 12-h intervals, but reduced it to 300 mg/h at 12-h intervals on day 9 because of a decrease in platelet count and an increase in serum linezolid trough concentration. However, when the infection exacerbated, we again increased the linezolid dose to 600 mg/h at 12-h intervals and performed combination therapy with rifampicin, considering their synergistic effects and the control of serum linezolid trough concentration via drug interaction. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection improved without reducing the dose of or discontinuing linezolid. The findings in the present case suggest that therapeutic drug monitoring could be useful for ensuring the therapeutic efficacy and safety of combination therapy even in patients with osteomyelitis who require long-term antibiotic administration.

Treatment of mediastinitis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a renal dysfunction patient undergoing adjustments to the linezolid dose

This study is the first case report of the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) mediastinitis using therapeutic drug monitoring of the serum and wound exudate concentrations of linezolid in a renal dysfunction patient. In the present study, the serum trough concentration of linezolid was maintained between 2 and 7 μg/mL. Therapeutic drug monitoring dosage adjustments may be especially useful in patients with renal dysfunction and severe MRSA infection.

Linezolid dosage in pediatric patients based on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics

Linezolid pharmacokinetic profile in pediatric patients has not been fully characterized, and the dose needed to achieve a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) target has yet to be established because its efficacy is associated with the area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve (AUC24)/minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio. The present study aimed to define the pharmacokinetic parameters of intravenous linezolid in pediatric patients and assess the rationale for the approved dosage recommendations. Linezolid was safe, tolerated well, and clinically effective for treating Gram-positive bacteria in five pediatric patients (3-11 years). The mean values for the volume of distribution and total clearance (CL) in a one-compartment model were estimated to be 0.646 ± 0.239 l/kg and 0.171 ± 0.068 l/h/kg, respectively (mean ± S.D.). Based on this analysis, the AUC24 and trough drug concentration in plasma (C(min)) for linezolid doses were predicted to be 175.4 μg h/ml and 3.4 μg/ml for 30 mg/kg/day, 204.7 μg h/ml and 4.3 μg/ml for 35 mg/kg/day, and 263.2 μg h/ml and 6.2 μg/ml for 45 mg/kg/day, respectively. Taking into account that AUC24 should be ≥ 200 μg h/ml for MIC of 2.0 μg/ml (to achieve an AUC24/MIC ratio of ≥ 100) and C(min) should be approximately 7 μg/ml (to avoid thrombocytopenia), we consider the approved dosage of 30 mg/kg/day to be fundamentally rational, but can be underdosed against bacteria with MIC of 2.0 μg/ml; therefore, a dose of 35-45 mg/kg/day is more appropriate to ensure the efficacy and safety of linezolid in pediatric patients.