Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) may be helpful in managing long-term treatment with linezolid safely: findings from a monocentric, prospective, open-label, interventional study

Model-informed precision dosing: State of the art and future perspectives

Model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) stands as a significant development in personalized medicine to tailor drug dosing to individual patient characteristics. MIPD moves beyond traditional therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) by integrating mathematical predictions of dosing, and considering patient-specific factors (patient characteristics, drug measurements) as well as different sources of variability. For this purpose, rigorous model qualification is required for the application of MIPD in patients. This review delves into new methods in model selection and validation, also highlighting the role of machine learning in improving MIPD, the utilization of biosensors for real-time monitoring, as well as the potential of models integrating biomarkers for efficacy or toxicity for precision dosing. The clinical evidence of TDM and MIPD is discussed for various medical fields including infection medicine, oncology, transplant medicine, and inflammatory bowel diseases, thereby underscoring the role of pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and specific biomarkers. Further research, particularly randomized clinical trials, is warranted to corroborate the value of MIPD in enhancing patient outcomes and advancing personalized medicine.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid and exploring optimal regimens and a toxicity-related nomogram in elderly patients: a multicentre, prospective, non-interventional study

BACKGROUND

The concentrations of linezolid, its optimal regimen and the associated side effects in elderly patients remain unclear.

METHODS

In this multicentre, prospective study, elderly patients receiving linezolid at four tertiary hospitals in Beijing between May 2021 and December 2022 were included. Linezolid concentrations and haematological toxicity were monitored dynamically. Risk factors for linezolid overexposure and moderate-to-severe linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia (M/S LIT) were analysed, and a predictive model of M/S LIT was developed.

RESULTS

A total of 860 linezolid concentrations were measured in 313 patients. The median trough concentrations of linezolid were 24.4 (15.3, 35.8) mg/L at 36-72 h and 26.1 (17.0, 38.1) mg/L at 5-10 days (P = 0.132). Severe linezolid exposure was independently associated with age, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and the worst SOFA score (SOFA1), and we further recommended dose regimens for elderly patients based on these findings. The incidences of linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia(LIT) and M/S LIT were 73.5% and 47.6%, respectively. M/S LIT was independently correlated with treatment duration, average trough concentration (TDMa), baseline platelet count, eGFR and baseline SOFA score (SOFA0). The developed nomogram predicted M/S LIT with an area under the curve of 0.767 (95% CI 0.715-0.820), a sensitivity of 71.1% and a specificity of 73.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid trough concentrations increased dramatically in the elderly, by about 10 mg/L in patients aged 65-80 years, followed by a further increase of 10 mg/L for every 10 years of age. Therapeutic drug monitoring is recommended in elderly patients receiving linezolid. The developed nomogram may predict M/S LIT and guide dosage adjustments of linezolid. Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2100045707.

Preclinical toxicity evaluation of novel antibacterial contezolid acefosamil in rats and dogs

Contezolid acefosamil (CZA) is an intravenous prodrug of oxazolidinone antibiotic contezolid (CZD). It is being developed to treat infections due to Gram-positive bacteria including multidrug-resistant pathogens, while addressing myelosuppression and neurotoxicity limitations associated with long-term use of this class of antibiotics. In vivo, CZA is rapidly deacylated into its first metabolite MRX-1352, which is then dephosphorylated to release active drug CZD. Four-week repeat-dose toxicity studies of intravenous CZA were conducted in Sprague-Dawley rats (40, 80, and 160/120 mg/kg/dose twice a day [BID]) and beagle dogs (25, 50, and 100/75 mg/kg/dose BID). The high doses administered to both rats and dogs were adjusted due to adverse effects including decreased body weight and food consumption. Additionally, a dose-dependent transient reduction in erythrocyte levels was recorded at the end of dosing phase. Importantly, no myelosuppressive reduction in platelet counts was observed, in contrast to the myelosuppression documented for standard-of-care oxazolidinone linezolid. The no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of CZA was 80 and 25 mg/kg/dose BID in rats and dogs, respectively. Separately, 3-month neuropathological evaluation in Long-Evans rats (25, 37.5, and 50 mg/kg/dose, oral CZA, BID) demonstrated no neurotoxicity in the central, peripheral, and optical neurological systems. Toxicokinetic data from these studies revealed that CZD exposures at NOAELs were higher than or comparable with that for the intended clinical dose. These results confirm the favorable safety profile for CZA and support its clinical evaluation for long-term therapy of persistent Gram-positive infections, beyond the application for earlier oxazolidinones.

Linezolid brain penetration in neurointensive care patients

BACKGROUND

Linezolid exposure in critically ill patients is associated with high inter-individual variability, potentially resulting in subtherapeutic antibiotic exposure. Linezolid exhibits good penetration into the CSF, but its penetration into cerebral interstitial fluid (ISF) is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine linezolid penetration into CSF and cerebral ISF of neurointensive care patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Five neurocritical care patients received 600 mg of linezolid IV twice daily for treatment of extracerebral infections. At steady state, blood and CSF samples were collected from arterial and ventricular catheters, and microdialysate was obtained from a cerebral intraparenchymal probe.

RESULTS

The median fAUC0-24 was 57.6 (24.9-365) mg·h/L in plasma, 64.1 (43.5-306.1) mg·h/L in CSF, and 27.0 (10.7-217.6) mg·h/L in cerebral ISF. The median penetration ratio (fAUCbrain_or_CSF/fAUCplasma) was 0.5 (0.25-0.81) for cerebral ISF and 0.92 (0.79-1) for CSF. Cerebral ISF concentrations correlated well with plasma (R = 0.93, P < 0.001) and CSF levels (R = 0.93, P < 0.001).The median fAUC0-24/MIC ratio was ≥100 in plasma and CSF for MICs of ≤0.5 mg/L, and in cerebral ISF for MICs of ≤0.25 mg/L. The median fT>MIC was ≥80% of the dosing interval in CSF for MICs of ≤0.5 mg/L, and in plasma and cerebral ISF for MICs of ≤0.25 mg/L.

CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid demonstrates a high degree of cerebral penetration, and brain concentrations correlate well with plasma and CSF levels. However, substantial variability in plasma levels, and thus cerebral concentrations, may result in subtherapeutic tissue concentrations in critically ill patients with standard dosing, necessitating therapeutic drug monitoring.

Towards a better detection of patients at-risk of linezolid toxicity in clinical practice: a prospective study in three Belgian hospital centers

Introduction: Linezolid is a last-resort antibiotic for infections caused by multidrug-resistant microorganisms. It is widely used for off-label indications and for longer than recommended treatment durations, exposing patients at higher risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), notably thrombocytopenia. This study aimed to investigate ADR incidence and risk factors, identify thrombocytopenia-related trough levels based on treatment duration, and evaluate the performance of predictive scores for ADR development. Methods: Adult in- and outpatients undergoing linezolid therapy were enrolled in three hospitals and ADRs and linezolid trough levels prospectively monitored over time. A population pharmacokinetic (pop-PK model) was used to estimate trough levels for blood samples collected at varying times. Results: A multivariate analysis based on 63 treatments identified treatment duration ≥10 days and trough levels >8 mg/L as independent risk factors of developing thrombocytopenia, with high trough values correlated with impaired renal function. Five patients treated for >28 days did not develop thrombocytopenia but maintained trough values in the target range (<8 mg/L). The Buzelé predictive score, which combines an age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index with treatment duration, demonstrated 77% specificity and 67% sensitivity to predict the risk of ADR. Conclusion: Our work supports the necessity of establishing guidelines for dose adjustment in patients with renal insufficiency and the systematic use of TDM in patients at-risk in order to keep trough values ≤8 mg/L. The Buzelé predictive score (if ≥7) may help to detect these at-risk patients, and pop-PK models can estimate trough levels based on plasma samples collected at varying times, reducing the logistical burden of TDM in clinical practice.

Derivation and Clinical Utility of Safety Targets for Linezolid-Related Adverse Events in Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis Treatment

Long-term usage of linezolid can result in adverse events such as peripheral neuropathy, anemia and thrombocytopenia. Therapeutic drug monitoring data from 75 drug-resistant tuberculosis patients treated with linezolid were analyzed using a time-to-event (TTE) approach for peripheral neuropathy and anemia and indirect response modelling for thrombocytopenia. Different time-varying linezolid pharmacokinetic exposure indices (AUC0-24h,ss, Cav, Cmax and Cmin) and patient characteristics were investigated as risk factors. A treatment duration shorter than 3 months was considered dropout and was modelled using a TTE approach. An exposure-response relationship between linezolid Cmin and both peripheral neuropathy and anemia was found. The exposure index which best described the development of thrombocytopenia was AUC0-24h. The final TTE dropout model indicated an association between linezolid Cmin and dropout. New safety targets for each adverse event were proposed which can be used for individualized linezolid dosing. According to the model predictions at 6 months of treatment, a Cmin of 0.11 mg/L and 1.4 mg/L should not be exceeded to keep the cumulative probability to develop anemia and peripheral neuropathy below 20%. The AUC0-24h should be below 111 h·mg/L or 270 h·mg/L to prevent thrombocytopenia and severe thrombocytopenia, respectively. A clinical utility assessment showed that the currently recommended dose of 600 mg once daily is safer compared to a 300 mg BID dosing strategy considering all four safety endpoints.

The expert clinical pharmacological advice program for tailoring on real-time antimicrobial therapies with emerging TDM candidates in special populations: how the ugly duckling turned into a swan

INTRODUCTION

The growing spread of infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens makes the need of tailoring antimicrobial therapies by means of a 'patient-centered' approach fundamental. In this scenario, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of emerging antimicrobial candidates may be a valuable approach, but expert interpretation of TDM results should be granted for making them more clinically useful. The MD Clinical Pharmacologist may take over this task since this specialist may couple PK/PD expertise on drugs with a medical background and may provide expert interpretation of TDM results of antimicrobials for tailoring therapy on real-time in each single patient based on specific both drug/pathogen issues and patient issues.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to highlight the main key-points and organizational aspects for implementing a successful TDM-based expert clinical pharmacological advice (ECPA) program for tailoring antimicrobial therapies on real-time in different hospitalized patient special populations.

EXPERT OPINION

TDM-based ECPA programs lead by the MD Clinical Pharmacologist may represent a way forward for maximizing clinical efficacy and for minimizing the risk of resistance developments and/or toxicity of antimicrobials. Stakeholders should be aware of the fact that this innovative approach may be cost-effective.

Therapeutics for Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcal Bloodstream Infections

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are common causes of bloodstream infections (BSIs) with high morbidity and mortality rates. They are pathogens of global concern with a limited treatment pipeline. Significant challenges exist in the management of VRE BSI, including drug dosing, the emergence of resistance, and the optimal treatment for persistent bacteremia and infective endocarditis. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for antimicrobial therapy is evolving for VRE-active agents; however, there are significant gaps in the literature for predicting antimicrobial efficacy for VRE BSIs. To date, TDM has the greatest evidence for predicting drug toxicity for the three main VRE-active antimicrobial agents daptomycin, linezolid, and teicoplanin. This article presents an overview of the treatment options for VRE BSIs, the role of antimicrobial dose optimization through TDM in supporting clinical infection management, and challenges and perspectives for the future.

Bayesian prediction-based individualized dosing of anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus treatment: Recent advancements and prospects in therapeutic drug monitoring

As one of the efficient techniques for TDM, the population pharmacokinetic (popPK) model approach for dose individualization has been developed due to the rapidly growing innovative progress in computer technology and has recently been considered as a part of model-informed precision dosing (MIPD). Initial dose individualization and measurement followed by maximum a posteriori (MAP)-Bayesian prediction using a popPK model are the most classical and widely used approach among a class of MIPD strategies. MAP-Bayesian prediction offers the possibility of dose optimization based on measurement even before reaching a pharmacokinetically steady state, such as in an emergency, especially for infectious diseases requiring urgent antimicrobial treatment. As the pharmacokinetic processes in critically ill patients are affected and highly variable due to pathophysiological disturbances, the advantages offered by the popPK model approach make it highly recommended and required for effective and appropriate antimicrobial treatment. In this review, we focus on novel insights and beneficial aspects of the popPK model approach, especially in the treatment of infectious diseases with anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus agents represented by vancomycin, and discuss the recent advancements and prospects in TDM practice.

Hematological toxicities associated with linezolid therapy in adults: key findings and clinical considerations

INTRODUCTION

Linezolid can cause serious adverse effects including thrombocytopenia and anemia. Here, we focus specifically on linezolid-related hematological toxicity in adult patients requiring prolonged drug treatment.

AREAS COVERED

We review the available evidence on the likelihood of hematological toxicity in adult patients treated with linezolid, with a focus on the main risk factors and strategies to prevent this adverse event. A MEDLINE PubMed search for articles published from January 2000 to May 2022 was completed matching the terms linezolid, hematology, hematological toxicity, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Moreover, additional studies were identified from the reference lists of retrieved articles.

EXPERT OPINION

Thrombocytopenia is the major concern with administration of linezolid for Gram-positive infections, whereas anemia is more common in patients with tuberculosis. The important clinical risk factors for the development of linezolid-related thrombocytopenia are aging, renal dysfunction, low baseline platelet count, duration of treatment, and linezolid plasma trough concentrations >8 mg/L. Patients receiving linezolid for extended periods of time or patient populations with increased risk of altered drug pharmacokinetics would benefit from therapeutic drug monitoring or from the availability of toxico-dynamic predictive models to optimize linezolid dosing.

A standard dose of linezolid puts patients with hepatic impairment at risk of overexposure

PURPOSE

The purpose of this retrospective observational study conducted in patients with hepatic impairment was to assess the variability of linezolid trough concentrations, to determine the risk factors for linezolid overexposure, and to investigate the effect of linezolid overexposure on linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia.

METHODS

All enrolled patients received a standard dose (600 mg every 12 h) of linezolid and underwent therapeutic drug monitoring. The Child-Pugh-Turcotte score was used to divide patients into three groups: mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairment. The risk factors for linezolid overexposure (C_min > 8 mg/L) and linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia were examined using logistic regression. And the Kaplan-Meier curve was used to describe the association between linezolid overexposure and linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were included, 37 (48.1%) of whom experienced linezolid overexposure. Patients with severe hepatic impairment had a substantially higher median C_min of linezolid than those with mild (20.7 mg/L vs 5.51 mg/L, P < 0.001) or moderate (20.7 mg/L vs 6.70 mg/L, P = 0.001) hepatic impairment. Severe hepatic impairment was significantly associated with linezolid overexposure (OR 7.037, 95%CI 1.426-34.727, P = 0.017). After linezolid treatment, linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia occurred in 32 (41.6%) patients, and C_min > 8 mg/L was a significant predictor of linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia (OR 3.024, 95%CI 1.083-8.541, P = 0.035).

CONCLUSION

Patients with hepatic impairment who received standard doses of linezolid are at greater risk of linezolid overexposure, which may lead to a higher incidence of linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic simulation for the quantitative risk assessment of linezolid-associated thrombocytopenia

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Linezolid (LZD) may cause thrombocytopenia, which can result in discontinuation of treatment. In this study, the blood LZD trough concentration was estimated based on population pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters derived from two previously published models in the Japanese population to determine the rate of achieving the target trough value when the risk of thrombocytopenia is low and to clarify its relationship with the onset of thrombocytopenia.

METHODS

This study included adult patients hospitalized at Shimane University Hospital, who received LZD treatment for at least 4 days from January 2010 to December 2017. Patients whose platelet count fell below 70% before LZD administration were categorized as the thrombocytopenic group. Patient PK parameters were calculated based on the population PK models described by Matsumoto et al. and Sasaki et al., and these parameters were designated A and B, respectively. Based on these parameters, the rate of achieving an LZD trough concentration of less than 8 μg/ml, which is the safety target achievement rate, was calculated using a random simulation for each patient. We further analysed the association between the incidence of thrombocytopenia and patient factors, including safety target achievement rate, through univariate, multivariate, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Patients (n = 77) aged 72 ± 11 years and weighing 56.7 ± 10.9 kg, with a creatinine clearance (CL_cr ) of 60.5 ± 47.2 ml/min and a cirrhosis prevalence of 9.1%, were analysed. All patients received LZD at a dose of 600 mg twice daily for a total of 10.9 ± 8.9 days. Univariate analyses revealed significant differences (p < 0.05) in the duration of LZD therapy, serum creatinine, creatinine clearance, LZD clearance, and the safety target achievement rate for parameters A and B between the thrombocytopenic and non-thrombocytopenic groups. A multivariate analysis of these factors stratified with the cutoff values obtained by ROC analysis revealed that the duration of LZD therapy and the safety target achievement rates for parameters A and B were significant factors (odds ratios for duration of LZD therapy: 7.436 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.918-28.831] and 4.712 [95% CI: 1.567-14.163]; odds ratio for safety target achievement rate: 0.060 [95% CI: 0.016-0.232] and 0.167 [95% CI: 0.056-0.498] for parameters A and B, respectively). When the safety target achievement rates for patients treated with LZD were compared between the thrombocytopenic and non-thrombocytopenic groups, the safety target achievement rate was higher in the non-thrombocytopenic group in both the patients treated with LZD for less than 10 days and those for 10 days or more. Therefore, the safety target achievement rate estimated by the PK/PD simulation may represent to be an important index for risk assessment of LZD-induced thrombocytopenia.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The risk of LZD-induced thrombocytopenia, which increased with the duration of LZD therapy, may be predicted using the safety target achievement rate obtained by the blood concentration simulation.

Safety of linezolid in patients with decreased renal function and trough monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Linezolid causes hematological toxicity, mostly thrombocytopenia, which leads to treatment discontinuation and failure. Recent studies revealed that during linezolid therapy, the incidence of treatment-related hematological toxicity is significantly higher in patients with decreased renal function (DRF) than in those with normal renal function. Linezolid monitoring is necessary due to the high frequency of hematological toxicity in patients with DRF and the relationship between blood concentration and safety. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety correlation between DRF and trough monitoring.

METHODS

Articles published before June 24, 2022, on MEDLINE, Web of Sciences, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method and the variable effects model.

RESULTS

The incidence of hematological toxicity was significantly higher in patients with DRF than in those without DRF (OR = 2.37; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis, performed according to hematotoxicity classification, including thrombocytopenia, anemia, and pancytopenia, revealed a significantly higher incidence of thrombocytopenia (OR = 2.45; p < 0.001) and anemia (OR = 2.31; p = 0.006) in patients with DRF than in those without; pancytopenia (OR = 1.41; p = 0.80) incidences were not significantly higher. Based on a systematic review, linezolid trough concentrations > 6-7 μg/mL may be associated with an increased incidence of thrombocytopenia. However, no confidential threshold values for the development of thrombocytopenia were found in the area under the concentration curve values for children or adults.

CONCLUSION

We observed a high frequency of hematological toxicity during linezolid therapy in patients with DRF. To ensure safety, linezolid trough concentrations should be ≤6-7 μg/mL.

Expert consensus statement on therapeutic drug monitoring and individualization of linezolid

Linezolid is an oxazolidinone antibacterial drug, and its therapeutic drug monitoring and individualized treatment have been challenged since its approval. With the in-depth clinical research of linezolid, we have changed our attitude toward its therapeutic drug monitoring and our view of individualized treatment. On the basis of summarizing the existing clinical studies, and based on the practical experience of each expert in their respective professional fields, we have formed this expert consensus. Our team of specialists is a multidisciplinary team that includes pharmacotherapists, clinical pharmacology specialists, critical care medicine specialists, respiratory specialists, infectious disease specialists, emergency medicine specialists and more. We are committed to the safe and effective use of linezolid in patients in need, and the promotion of its therapeutic drug monitoring.

Renal replacement therapy and concurrent fluconazole therapy increase linezolid-related thrombocytopenia among adult patients

Linezolid has been reported to be associated with thrombocytopenia. However, limited information is available on susceptibility to thrombocytopenia after linezolid usage. We aimed to investigate the risk factors for linezolid-associated thrombocytopenia (LAT). We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged ≥ 18 years who received linezolid for ≥ 5 d during hospitalization in 2019. Information was extracted from electronic medical records. Thrombocytopenia was defined as a platelet count of < 100 × 10⁹/L or a reduction from baseline ≥ 25%. Binary logistic regression and survival analyses were used to evaluate the risk factors for LAT. A total of 98 patients were enrolled. Thrombocytopenia occurred in 53.1% patients, with a median of 9 d after initiation of linezolid. There was no significant difference in the mortality or proportion of platelet transfusions between patients with and without thrombocytopenia. A higher risk of LAT was found in patients who received renal replacement therapy (RRT) (OR 4.8 [1.4–16.4]), or concurrent fluconazole (OR 3.5 [1.2–9.8]). Patients who received RRT (8 vs. 15 d) or concurrent fluconazole (11 vs. 15 d) had a shorter median time to develop thrombocytopenia. Those who simultaneously received RRT and fluconazole had the shortest median of time (6.5 d) and the highest risk of developing thrombocytopenia (87.5%).

Expert clinical pharmacological advice may make an antimicrobial TDM program for emerging candidates more clinically useful in tailoring therapy of critically ill patients

Background

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) may represent an invaluable tool for optimizing antimicrobial therapy in septic patients, but extensive use is burdened by barriers. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a newly established expert clinical pharmacological advice (ECPA) program in improving the clinical usefulness of an already existing TDM program for emerging candidates in tailoring antimicrobial therapy among critically ill patients.

Methods

This retrospective observational study included an organizational phase (OP) and an assessment phase (AP). During the OP (January–June 2021), specific actions were organized by MD clinical pharmacologists together with bioanalytical experts, clinical engineers, and ICU clinicians. During the AP (July–December 2021), the impact of these actions in optimizing antimicrobial treatment of the critically ill patients was assessed. Four indicators of performance of the TDM-guided real-time ECPA program were identified [total TDM-guided ECPAs July–December 2021/total TDM results July–December 2020; total ECPA dosing adjustments/total delivered ECPAs both at first assessment and overall; and turnaround time (TAT) of ECPAs, defined as optimal (< 12 h), quasi-optimal (12–24 h), acceptable (24–48 h), suboptimal (> 48 h)].

Results

The OP allowed to implement new organizational procedures, to create a dedicated pathway in the intranet system, to offer educational webinars on clinical pharmacology of antimicrobials, and to establish a multidisciplinary team at the morning bedside ICU meeting. In the AP, a total of 640 ECPAs were provided for optimizing 261 courses of antimicrobial therapy in 166 critically ill patients. ECPAs concerned mainly piperacillin–tazobactam (41.8%) and meropenem (24.9%), and also other antimicrobials had ≥ 10 ECPAs (ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, fluconazole, ganciclovir, levofloxacin, and linezolid). Overall, the pre–post-increase in TDM activity was of 13.3-fold. TDM-guided dosing adjustments were recommended at first assessment in 61.7% of ECPAs (10.7% increases and 51.0% decreases), and overall in 45.0% of ECPAs (10.0% increases and 35.0% decreases). The overall median TAT was optimal (7.7 h) and that of each single agent was always optimal or quasi-optimal.

Conclusions

Multidisciplinary approach and timely expert interpretation of TDM results by MD Clinical Pharmacologists could represent cornerstones in improving the cost-effectiveness of an antimicrobial TDM program for emerging TDM candidates.

Diagnosis and management of infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria: guideline endorsed by the Italian Society of Infection and Tropical Diseases (SIMIT), the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA), the Italian Group for Antimicrobial Stewardship (GISA), the Italian Association of Clinical Microbiologists (AMCLI) and the Italian Society of Microbiology (SIM)

Management of patients with infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach to achieve successful clinical outcomes. The aim of this paper is to provide recommendations for the diagnosis and optimal management of these infections, with a focus on targeted antibiotic therapy. The document was produced by a panel of experts nominated by the five endorsing Italian societies, namely the Italian Association of Clinical Microbiologists (AMCLI), the Italian Group for Antimicrobial Stewardship (GISA), the Italian Society of Microbiology (SIM), the Italian Society of Infectious and Tropical Diseases (SIMIT) and the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA). Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes (PICO) questions about microbiological diagnosis, pharmacological strategies and targeted antibiotic therapy were addressed for the following pathogens: carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales; carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa; carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii; and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. A systematic review of the literature published from January 2011 to November 2020 was guided by the PICO strategy. As data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were expected to be limited, observational studies were also reviewed. The certainty of evidence was classified using the GRADE approach. Recommendations were classified as strong or conditional. Detailed recommendations were formulated for each pathogen. The majority of available RCTs have serious risk of bias, and many observational studies have several limitations, including small sample size, retrospective design and presence of confounders. Thus, some recommendations are based on low or very-low certainty of evidence. Importantly, these recommendations should be continually updated to reflect emerging evidence from clinical studies and real-world experience.

Orthopaedic Implant-Associated Staphylococcal Infections: A Critical Reappraisal of Unmet Clinical Needs Associated with the Implementation of the Best Antibiotic Choice

Infections associated with orthopaedic implants represent a major health concern characterized by a remarkable incidence of morbidity and mortality. The wide variety of clinical scenarios encountered in the heterogeneous world of infections associated with orthopaedic implants makes the implementation of an optimal and standardized antimicrobial treatment challenging. Antibiotic bone penetration, anti-biofilm activity, long-term safety, and drug choice/dosage regimens favouring outpatient management (i.e., long-acting or oral agents) play a major role in regards to the chronic evolution of these infections. The aim of this multidisciplinary opinion article is to summarize evidence supporting the use of the different anti-staphylococcal agents in terms of microbiological and pharmacological optimization according to bone penetration, anti-biofilm activity, long-term safety, and feasibility for outpatient regimens, and to provide a useful guide for clinicians in the management of patients affected by staphylococcal infections associated with orthopaedic implants Novel long-acting lipoglycopeptides, and particularly dalbavancin, alone or in combination with rifampicin, could represent the best antibiotic choice according to real-world evidence and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties. The implementation of a multidisciplinary taskforce and close cooperation between microbiologists and clinicians is crucial for providing the best care in this scenario.

Initial trough concentration may be beneficial in preventing linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia

We assessed whether prospective therapeutic drug monitoring to optimise the therapeutic range could prevent linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia. This prospective interventional study was conducted from September 2017 to October 2020 among 37 adult patients receiving linezolid. Patients were administered one of the following two initial dosages: 600 mg twice or once daily for patients with a creatinine clearance rate of ≥50 or <50 mL/min, respectively. Linezolid dosage adjustment was performed on days 3-5 based on the trough concentration. The serum linezolid levels in 22 and 15 patients were within and above the therapeutic range (2-7 µg/mL), respectively. The incidence of thrombocytopenia was significantly lower among patients whose linezolid levels were within the therapeutic range (4.5%;1/22) than in those whose levels were above the therapeutic range (80%; 12/15). It is important to maintain the linezolid level within the therapeutic range at the first therapeutic drug monitoring to prevent thrombocytopenia.

Serious adverse events with tedizolid and linezolid: pharmacovigilance insights through the FDA adverse event reporting system

BackgroundTo investigate the adverse event (AE) profile of tedizolid and linezolid in post-marketing surveillance.Research design and methodsWe queried the worldwide FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and selected all records where tedizolid and linezolid were reported as suspect by removing potential duplicates. Disproportionality analysis was performed investigating designated medical events (DMEs) and specific AEs of clinical interest reported with tedizolid. The reporting odds ratios (RORs) were calculated, deemed significant by a lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (LL95%CI)>1, using linezolid as comparator. Case-by-case assessment of AEs reported in at least three cases with tedizolid was performed.ResultsOverall, 271 and 11,259 reports mentioning respectively tedizolid and linezolid were recorded, of which respectively 59 and 4,473 patients with DMEs or selected AEs were found. No difference emerged for the selected AEs except for increased reporting of hepatic failure (N = 3; LL95%CI = 1.06) with tedizolid considering reports collected after 2014. Extensive off-label use in terms of therapeutic indications (83.6%) and treatment duration was reported with tedizolid.ConclusionsSimilar AE reporting between the two oxazolidinones was found. Considering limitations of pharmacovigilance, this hypothesis of comparable safety profile should be tested prospectively through dedicated real-world studies.

Initially Reduced Linezolid Dosing Regimen to Prevent Thrombocytopenia in Hemodialysis Patients

This retrospective cohort study investigated the effects of an initially reduced linezolid dosing regimen in hemodialysis patients through therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Patients were divided into two groups depending on their initial dose of linezolid (standard dose of 600 mg every 12 h or initially reduced dose of 300 mg every 12 h/600 mg every 24 h). The cumulative incidence rates of thrombocytopenia and severe thrombocytopenia were compared between both groups using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Eleven episodes of 8 chronic hemodialysis patients were included; 5 were in the initially reduced-dose group. Thrombocytopenia developed in 81.8% of patients. The cumulative incidence rates of thrombocytopenia and severe thrombocytopenia in the initially reduced-dose group were significantly lower than in the standard-dose group (p < 0.05). At the standard dose, the median linezolid trough concentration (C_min) just before hemodialysis was 49.5 mg/L, and C_min at the reduced doses of 300 mg every 12 h and 600 mg every 24 h were 20.6 mg/L and 6.0 mg/L, respectively. All five episodes underwent TDM in the standard-dose group required dose reduction to 600 mg per day. Our findings indicate that initial dose reduction should be implemented to reduce the risk of linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia among hemodialysis patients.

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.

From Therapeutic Drug Monitoring to Model-Informed Precision Dosing for Antibiotics

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) have evolved as important tools to inform rational dosing of antibiotics in individual patients with infections. In particular, critically ill patients display altered, highly variable pharmacokinetics and often suffer from infections caused by less susceptible bacteria. Consequently, TDM has been used to individualize dosing in this patient group for many years. More recently, there has been increasing research on the use of MIPD software to streamline the TDM process, which can increase the flexibility and precision of dose individualization but also requires adequate model validation and re-evaluation of existing workflows. In parallel, new minimally invasive and noninvasive technologies such as microneedle-based sensors are being developed, which-together with MIPD software-have the potential to revolutionize how patients are dosed with antibiotics. Nonetheless, carefully designed clinical trials to evaluate the benefit of TDM and MIPD approaches are still sparse, but are critically needed to justify the implementation of TDM and MIPD in clinical practice. The present review summarizes the clinical pharmacology of antibiotics, conventional TDM and MIPD approaches, and evidence of the value of TDM/MIPD for aminoglycosides, beta-lactams, glycopeptides, and linezolid, for which precision dosing approaches have been recommended.

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.

Too Much of a Good Thing: Defining Antimicrobial Therapeutic Targets to Minimize Toxicity

Antimicrobials are a common cause of drug toxicity. Understanding the relationship between systemic antimicrobial exposure and toxicity is necessary to enable providers to take a proactive approach to prevent undesired drug effects. When an exposure threshold has been defined that predicts drug toxicity, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) can be performed to assure drug exposure does not exceed the defined threshold. Although some antimicrobials have well-defined dose-dependent toxicities, many other exposure-toxicity relationships have either not been well-defined or, in some cases, not been evaluated at all. In this review, we examine the relationship between exposures and toxicities for antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral agents. Furthermore, we classify these relationships into four categories: known association between drug exposure and toxicity such that clinical implementation of a specific exposure threshold associated with toxicity for TDM is supported (category 1), known association between drug exposure and toxicity but the specific exposure threshold associated with toxicity is undefined (category 2), association between drug exposure and toxicity has been suggested but relationship is poorly defined (category 3), and no known association between drug exposure and toxicity (category 4). Further work to define exposure-toxicity thresholds and integrate effective TDM strategies has the potential to minimize many of the observed antimicrobial toxicities.

Classification Tree Analysis Based On Machine Learning for Predicting Linezolid-Induced Thrombocytopenia

Linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia is related to linezolid exposure, baseline platelet count and patient background. Although the relationship usually reflects the time of onset of thrombocytopenia, if the platelet maturation process is taken into account, the platelet decrease can be considered to have started at the beginning of treatment. To predict linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia, classification and regression tree (CART) analysis based on machine learning has been applied to identify predictive factors and cutoff values. We examined 74 patient data with or without linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia. Linezolid concentration and platelet count change, baseline platelet count, age, body weight and creatinine clearance estimate were evaluated as predictive factors for linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia. CART analysis selected the final tree containing two cutoff values: a platelet count reduction to less than 2.3% from baseline at 96 h after the initial dose and a linezolid concentration greater than or equal to 13.5 mg/L at 96 h after the initial dose. The targets for therapeutic intervention were concluded to be the linezolid concentration and the platelet change from baseline at 96 h after the initial dose. These cutoff values occur prior to the onset of thrombocytopenia and should be monitored to avoid linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia.

Evaluation of Linezolid Pharmacokinetics in Critically Ill Obese Patients with Severe Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

Linezolid standard dosing is fixed at 600 mg every 12 h (q12h) for adults. Literature suggests critically ill, obese patients require higher doses. The study aim is 2-fold: (i) to describe linezolid pharmacokinetics (PK), and (ii) to evaluate if PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) target attainment is achieved with standard dosing in critically ill, obese patients with severe skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs). Adult patients with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥30 kg/m² and receiving intravenous (i.v.) linezolid from August 2018 to April 2019 were eligible for consent in this prospective study. Severe SSTIs were defined as necrotizing fasciitis, myonecrosis, or SSTI with sepsis syndrome. Four blood samples were collected at steady state at 1, 3, 5 h postinfusion and as a trough. Target attainment was defined as achieving area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h to MIC (AUC_0-24h/MIC) of ≥100 h*mg/liter. Monte Carlo simulations were used to determine the probability of target attainment (PTA). Eleven patients were included in the study. The median BMI was 45.7 kg/m², and median total body weight (TBW) was 136.0 kg. Seven patients received standard linezolid doses, and four received 600 mg q8h. A one-compartment model described linezolid PK. Based on AUC_0-24h/MIC targets, for noncirrhotic patients at 140 kg, the PTA with standard linezolid doses was 100%, 98.8%, 34.1%, and 0% for MICs of 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 mg/liter, respectively. In conclusion, target attainment of ≥90% is not achieved with standard linezolid doses for noncirrhotic patients ≥140 kg with MICs of ≥2 mg/liter. This study adds to accumulating evidence that standard linezolid doses may not be adequate for all patients.

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.

Safety and Tolerability of More than Six Days of Tedizolid Treatment

Tedizolid has demonstrated its efficacy and safety in clinical trials; however, data concerning its tolerability in long-term treatments are scarce. The aim of the study was to assess the indications and to describe the long-term safety profile of tedizolid. A multicentric retrospective study of patients who received tedizolid for more than 6 days was conducted. Adverse events (AEs) were identified from patients' medical records and laboratory data. The World Health Organization causality categories were used to discern AEs that were probably associated with tedizolid. Eighty-one patients, treated with tedizolid 200 mg once daily for a median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of 28 (14 to 59) days, were included; 36 (44.4%) had previously received linezolid. The most common reasons for selecting tedizolid were to avoid linezolid potential toxicities or interactions (53.1%) or due to previous linezolid-related toxicities (27.2%). The most common indications were off-label, including prosthetic joint infections, osteomyelitis, and respiratory infections (77.8%). Overall, 9/81 patients (11.1%) experienced a probably associated AE. Two patients (2.5%) developed gastrointestinal disorders, 1 (1.2%) developed anemia, and 6 developed thrombocytopenia (7.4%) after a median (IQR) duration of treatment of 26.5 (17 to 58.5) days. Four (5%) patients discontinued tedizolid due to AEs. Among 23 patients with chronic renal failure (CRF), the rate of myelotoxicity was 17.4%, and only 8.7% had to stop tedizolid; 20 out of 22 with previous linezolid-associated toxicity had no AE. Long-term tedizolid treatments had good tolerance with rates of gastrointestinal AE and hematological toxicity lower than those reported with linezolid, particularly in patients with CRF and in those with a history of linezolid-associated toxicity.