Risk factors for a low linezolid trough plasma concentration in acute infections

A Systematic Review on Antimicrobial Pharmacokinetic Differences between Asian and Non-Asian Adult Populations

While the relevance of inter-ethnic differences to the pharmacokinetic variabilities of antimicrobials has been reported in studies recruiting healthy subjects, differences in antimicrobial pharmacokinetics between Asian and non-Asian patients with severe pathologic conditions require further investigation. For the purpose of describing the potential differences in antimicrobial pharmacokinetics between Asian and non-Asian populations, a systematic review was performed using six journal databases and six theses/dissertation databases (PROSPERO record CRD42018090054). The pharmacokinetic data of healthy volunteers and non-critically ill and critically ill patients were reviewed. Thirty studies on meropenem, imipenem, doripenem, linezolid, and vancomycin were included in the final descriptive summaries. In studies recruiting hospitalised patients, inconsistent differences in the volume of distribution (V_d) and drug clearance (CL) of the studied antimicrobials between Asian and non-Asian patients were observed. Additionally, factors other than ethnicity, such as demographic (e.g., age) or clinical (e.g., sepsis) factors, were suggested to better characterise these pharmacokinetic differences. Inconsistent differences in pharmacokinetic parameters between Asian and non-Asian subjects/patients may suggest that ethnicity is not an important predictor to characterise interindividual pharmacokinetic differences between meropenem, imipenem, doripenem, linezolid, and vancomycin. Therefore, the dosing regimens of these antimicrobials should be adjusted according to patients' demographic or clinical characteristics that can better describe pharmacokinetic differences.

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.

Target Therapeutic Ranges of Anti-MRSA Drugs, Linezolid, Tedizolid and Daptomycin, and the Necessity of TDM

The target therapeutic ranges of vancomycin, teicoplanin, and arbekacin have been determined, and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is performed in clinical practice. However, TDM is not obligatory for daptomycin, linezolid, or tedizolid. In this study, we examined whether TDM will be necessary for these 3 drugs in the future. There was no significant difference in therapeutic effects on acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection between linezolid and tedizolid by meta-analysis. Concerning the therapeutic effects on pneumonia, the rate of effectiveness after treatment with tedizolid was significantly lower than with linezolid. With respect to safety, the incidences of gastrointestinal adverse events and blood/lymphatic system disorders related to tedizolid were significantly lower than those related to linezolid. Linezolid exhibits potent therapeutic effects on pneumonia, but the appearance of adverse reactions is indicated as a problem. There was a dose-dependent decrease in the platelet count, and the target trough concentration (C_trough) was estimated to be 4-6 or 2-7 µg/mL in accordance with the patient's condition. The efficacy of linezolid may be obtained while minimizing the appearance of adverse reactions by performing TDM. The target therapeutic range of tedizolid cannot be achieved in immunocompromised or severe patients. Therefore, we concluded that TDM was unnecessary, considering step-down therapy with oral drugs, use in non-severe patients, and high-level safety. Concerning daptomycin, high-dose administration is necessary to achieve an area under the curve (AUC) of ≥666 as an index of efficacy. To secure its safety, C_trough (<20 µg/mL) monitoring is important. Therefore, TDM is necessary.

Are Antibiotics Appropriately Dosed in Critically Ill Patients with Augmented Renal Clearance? A Narrative Review

AIMS

Augmented renal clearance (ARC), which is commonly defined as increased renal clearance above 130 ml/min/1.73 m², is a common phenomenon among critically ill patients. The increased elimination rate of drugs through the kidneys in patients with ARC can increase the risk of treatment failure due to the exposure to subtherapeutic serum concentrations of medications and affect the optimal management of infections, length of hospital stay, and outcomes. The main goal of this review article is to summarize the recommendations for appropriate dosing of antibiotics in patients with ARC.

METHODS

This article is a narrative review of the articles that evaluated different dosing regimens of antibiotics in patients with ARC. The keywords "Augmented Renal Clearance," "Critically ill patients," "Drug dosing," "Serum concentration," "Beta-lactams," "Meropenem," "Imipenem," "Glycopeptide," "Vancomycin," "Teicoplanin," "Linezolid," "Colistin," "Aminoglycosides," "Amikacin," "Gentamycin," "Fluoroquinolones," "Ciprofloxacin," and "Levofloxacin" were searched in Scopus, Medline, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases, and pediatric, nonhuman, and non-English studies were excluded.

RESULTS

PK properties of antibiotics including lipophilicity or hydrophilicity, protein binding, the volume of distribution, and elimination rate that affect drug concentration should be considered along with PD parameters for drug dosing in critically ill patients with ARC.

CONCLUSION

This review recommends a dosing protocol for some antibiotics to help the appropriate dosing of antibiotics in ARC and decrease the risk of subtherapeutic exposure that may be observed while receiving conventional dosing regimens in critically ill patients with ARC.

Dosage Individualization of Linezolid: Precision Dosing of Linezolid To Optimize Efficacy and Minimize Toxicity

The high interindividual variability in the pharmacokinetics (PK) of linezolid has been described, which results in an unacceptably high proportion of patients with either suboptimal or potentially toxic concentrations following the administration of a fixed regimen. The aim of this study was to develop a population pharmacokinetic model of linezolid and use this to build and validate alogorithms for individualized dosing. A retrospective pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using data from 338 hospitalized patients (65.4% male, 65.5 [±14.6] years) who underwent routine therapeutic drug monitoring for linezolid. Linezolid concentrations were analyzed by using high-performance liquid chromatography. Population pharmacokinetic modeling was performed using a nonparametric methodology with Pmetrics, and Monte Carlo simulations were employed to calculate the 100% time >MIC after the administration of a fixed regimen of 600 mg administered every 12 h (q12h) intravenously (i.v.). The dose of linezolid needed to achieve a PTA ≥ 90% for all susceptible isolates classified according to EUCAST was estimated to be as high as 2,400 mg q12h, which is 4 times higher than the maximum licensed linezolid dose. The final PK model was then used to construct software for dosage individualization, and the performance of the software was assessed using 10 new patients not used to construct the original population PK model. A three-compartment model with an absorptive compartment with zero-order i.v. input and first-order clearance from the central compartment best described the data. The dose optimization software tracked patients with a high degree of accuracy. The software may be a clinically useful tool to adjust linezolid dosages in real time to achieve prespecified drug exposure targets. A further prospective study is needed to examine the potential clinical utility of individualized therapy.

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.

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.

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.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Linezolid in Patients With Sepsis Receiving Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration and Extended Daily Hemofiltration

BACKGROUND

This prospective study compared pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of linezolid in patients with sepsis receiving continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) with patients receiving extended daily hemofiltration (EDH).

METHODS

Patients with sepsis treated with linezolid and CVVH or EDH were included. Serial blood samples were collected and linezolid concentrations measured. PKs were analyzed using Pmetrics. Monte Carlo simulations were used to evaluate PD target achievement.

RESULTS

From 20 patients, 320 blood samples were collected for PK and PD analysis. PK profiles of linezolid were best described by a 2-compartment model. PK parameters were not significantly different between EDH and CVVH groups and were associated with body weight, renal replacement therapy (RRT) duration, and sequential organ failure assessment score. Monte Carlo simulations showed poor fractional target attainment for a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 2 mg/L with standard 600 mg intravenous administration every 12 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with sepsis receiving RRT exhibited variability in PK/PD parameters for linezolid. PK parameters were not significantly different between CVVH- and EDH-treated patients. Higher probability of target attainment would be achievable at a MIC of 2 mg/L in EDH patients. Higher linezolid doses should be considered for patients on RRT to achieve adequate blood levels.

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

BACKGROUND

Thrombocytopenia may be a dose-dependent adverse effect of linezolid therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) could be helpful in preventing and/or in recovering from the occurrence of linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia during long-term treatment.

METHODS

This was a monocentric, prospective, open-label, interventional study conducted between June 2015 and December 2017 among adult patients receiving >10 days of linezolid therapy and undergoing proactive TDM (desired trough level 2-8 mg/L) and platelet count assessment at day 3-5 and then once weekly up to the end of treatment.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients were included. Twenty-eight (45.9%) always had desired trough level (group A) and 33 (54.1%) experienced linezolid overexposure (group B) [29/33 transiently (subgroup B1) and 4/33 persistently (subgroup B2)]. No patient experienced linezolid underexposure. Median duration of treatment for the different groups ranged between 19 and 54 days. Thrombocytopenia occurred overall in 14.8% of cases (9/61). The incidence rate of thrombocytopenia was significantly lower (P=0.012) in both group A (10.7%; 3/28) and subgroup B1 (10.3%; 3/29) than in subgroup B2 (75.0%; 3/4). Thrombocytopenic patients belonging to both group A and group B1 recovered from thrombocytopenia without the need for discontinuing therapy. Multivariate linear regression analysis revealed that thrombocytopenia was independently associated with baseline platelet count and with median linezolid trough concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

Proactive TDM of linezolid may be beneficial either in preventing or in recovering from dose-dependent thrombocytopenia, even when treatment lasts for more than 28 days. Larger prospective studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

Linezolid Dosing in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis: Standard Dosing Risk Toxicity

BACKGROUND

Limited data regarding altered linezolid pharmacokinetics in patients with liver cirrhosis are available. The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of linezolid in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

A case-control 1:1 study of patients undergoing linezolid therapeutic drug monitoring was conducted between January 2015 and June 2017. Cases with liver cirrhosis were matched with controls by age, body weight, comorbidities, renal function, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were included, 26 in each group. Patients with Child-Pugh Scores A, B, and C were 1 (3.8%), 13 (50.0%), and 12 (46.2%), respectively. Cases had higher median linezolid trough plasma concentrations than controls [20.6 (17.4) versus 2.7 (11.3); P < 0.001)] and more frequently achieved an optimal pharmacodynamic index [26 (100%) versus 16 (61.5%); P = 0.002]. In addition, potentially toxic concentrations and treatment discontinuation due to overexposure and hematological toxicity were also more frequently seen in cirrhotic patients. Overall clinical cure rate was high (67.4%), and in-hospital mortality was 28.8%. No differences in clinical outcomes were observed between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid showed a high clinical cure rate. Nevertheless, plasma concentrations and treatment discontinuation due to hematological toxicity were higher in cirrhotic patients. Liver cirrhosis may influence linezolid pharmacokinetics and question the use of standard doses. Therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid would be valuable in these patients.

Disseminated septic arthritis caused by Streptococcus equi infection

We describe a rare case of bloodstream infection and disseminated septic arthritis in a relatively fit and well 73-year-old retired farmer and gamekeeper, due to the zoonotic organism Streptococcus equi The presence of the organism in multiple joints led to slow clinical response to treatment and was complicated by relapse of infection and lengthy disability. Source control was achieved with multiple joint washouts and spinal cord decompression. Following this, a 6-week course of intravenous antibiotics was required for complete clearance of infection. After a long period of rehabilitation, the patient made a good recovery. This case demonstrates that S. equi can cause life threatening and difficult to treat sepsis in humans and requires a high index of suspicion in people who have regular contact with equine species, cattle and unpasteurised milk.

Dosage regimen and toxicity risk assessment of linezolid in sepsis patients

BACKGROUND

Significant alterations in the pharmacokinetic characteristics of linezolid are often seen in sepsis patients. The study aimed to identify a target pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) index of the efficacy of linezolid treatment, and to estimate the optimum dosage regimen of linezolid in sepsis patients.

METHODS

The PK data were modeled using the one-compartment model, which determined the target PK/PD index for successful treatment by logistic regression. The probability of thrombocytopenia was identified by establishing a logistic model. Different dosing regimens were evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Reaching 80% bacterial eradication required an AUC₂₄/MIC of 100, which defined the therapeutic target. The proposed regimen to attain a cumulative fraction of response ≥80% was 800 mg/12 h (safety probability 66.8%) for sepsis patients with normal renal function or mild kidney damage. By contrast, the target cumulative fraction of response was attained with a standard dosing regimen in sepsis patients on continuous renal replacement therapy [600 mg/12 h (safety probability 49.7%)].

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified different dosing strategies to achieve target linezolid PK/PD values according to whether sepsis patients were treated with continuous renal replacement therapy. Due to the high incidence of thrombocytopenia in sepsis patients on continuous renal replacement therapy, therapeutic drug monitoring should be encouraged for optimizing linezolid exposure in sepsis patients.

Does the conventional dosage of linezolid necessitate therapeutic drug monitoring?-Experience from a prospective observational study

Background

The objectives of the present prospective observational study conducted in patients receiving conventional dosage of linezolid was to define the pharmacodynamic range of linezolid exposure, to assess the inter-individual variability in linezolid concentrations, and to define if therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of linezolid may be necessary for Chinese population.

Methods

Patients included in this study underwent linezolid TDM trough concentration (C_min) during treatment with a standard regimen in the period between January 2019 and October 2019. Linezolid C_min was analyzed with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method. Logistic regression was used to define the desired range of linezolid C_min. Linear regression and univariate logistic regression analysis were carried out to investigate variables associated with inappropriate linezolid plasma exposure.

Results

A total of 84 patients who had 153 linezolid C_min assessed were included in the study. Median linezolid C_min was 3.43 mg/L (IQR 1.59–5.93). The estimated probability of thrombocytopenia was 50% in the presence of C_min of 7.85 mg/L. Approximately 57.52% (88/153) of the samples fell within the desired range of linezolid C_min (2–8 mg/L) while 31.37% (48/153) experienced underexposure, and overexposure occurred in 11.11% (17/153) of the patients. No significant linear relationships between either body weight or estimated creatinine clearance (CrCL) and C_min were detected. Estimated CrCL ≥100 mL/min was significantly associated with linezolid underexposure (OR 4.121; 95% CI, 1.945–8.731; P<0.001). Estimated CrCL ≤40 mL/min was significantly associated with linezolid overexposure (OR 3.761; 95% CI, 1.324–10.681; P=0.013).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the pharmacodynamic range of linezolid C_min can be defined as 2–8 mg/L for the Chinese population. Renal function partially accounts for the inter-interindividual variability of exposure. The application of TDM might be especially valuable in optimizing linezolid exposure in the majority of patients to avoid therapeutic failure and/or dose-dependent adverse reactions.

Determining therapeutic trough ranges for linezolid

Linezolid (LZD) is an oxazolidinone approved for the treatment of gram-positive infections. Therapeutic drug monitoring is increasingly used to optimize LZD dosing. The therapeutic target for LZD is to achieve an area under the concentration-time curve over 24 h divided by the MIC (AUC/MIC) > 100. In this study, we determined the trough ranges associated with this therapeutic AUC. Concentration-time profiles for 999 virtual patients were simulated using a previously published pharmacokinetic model for LZD. AUC was estimated for each virtual patient using the trapezoidal method. We determined the trough ranges that achieve the therapeutic target of AUC/MIC > 100 at different MIC values of 1, 2 and 4 μg/mL. Trough samples correlated well with LZD AUC (R² = 0.87). For trough concentration of 2–5 μg/mL, 99% had an AUC_0–24 > 100 µg⋅h⋅ml⁻¹, 23% had an AUC_0–24 > 200 µg⋅h⋅ml⁻¹ and none had an AUC_0–24 > 400 µg⋅h⋅ml⁻¹. For trough concentrations of 5–8 µg/ml, 87% of the patients had an AUC_0–24 > 200 µg⋅h⋅ml⁻¹ and none had an AUC_0–24 > 400 µg⋅h⋅ml⁻¹ To achieve the therapeutic target of an AUC/MIC > 100, it is suggested that trough ranges be set at 2–5 µg/ml if the MIC < 2 and 5–8 µg/ml if the MIC = 2; however, at an MIC of 4 µg/ml, it is difficult to achieve an AUC/MIC > 100 without increasing the risk of LZD toxicity.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Oxazolidinones

Oxazolidinones are a class of synthetic antimicrobial agents with potent activity against a wide range of multidrug-resistant Gram-positive pathogens including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Oxazolidinones exhibit their antibacterial effects by inhibiting protein synthesis acting on the ribosomal 50S subunit of the bacteria and thus preventing formation of a functional 70S initiation complex. Currently, two oxazolidinones have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: linezolid and more recently tedizolid. Other oxazolidinones are currently under investigation in clinical trials. These antimicrobial agents exhibit a favourable pharmacokinetic profile with an excellent bioavailability and a good tissue and organ penetration. In-vitro susceptibility studies have shown that oxazolidinones are bacteriostatic against enterococci and staphylococci, and bactericidal for the majority of strains of streptococci. In the context of emergence of resistance to glycopeptides, oxazolidinones have become an effective alternative to vancomycin treatment frequently associated with nephrotoxicity. However, oxazolidinones, and linezolid in particular, are associated with significant adverse events, myelosuppression representing the main unfavourable side effect. More recently, tedizolid has been shown to effectively treat acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. This newer oxazolidinone offers the advantages of once-daily dosing and a better safety profile in healthy volunteer studies (fewer gastrointestinal and haematological side effects). The potential use of tedizolid for other infections that could require longer therapy warrants further studies for positioning this new oxazolidinone in the available antimicrobial armamentarium. Moreover, other oxazolidinones are currently under active investigation.

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.

Antibiotic Distribution into Cerebrospinal Fluid: Can Dosing Safely Account for Drug and Disease Factors in the Treatment of Ventriculostomy-Associated Infections?

Ventriculostomy-associated infections, or ventriculitis, in critically ill patients are associated with considerable morbidity. Efficacious antibiotic dosing for the treatment of these infections may be complicated by altered antibiotic concentrations in the cerebrospinal fluid due to variable meningeal inflammation and antibiotic properties. Therefore, doses used to treat infections with a higher degree of meningeal inflammation (such as meningitis) may often fail to achieve equivalent exposures in patients with ventriculostomy-associated infections such as ventriculitis. This paper aims to review the disease burden, infection rates, and common pathogens associated with ventriculostomy-associated infections. This review also seeks to describe the disease- and drug-related factors that influence antibiotic distribution into cerebrospinal fluid and provide a critical appraisal of current dosing of antibiotics commonly used to treat these types of infections. A Medline search of relevant articles was conducted and used to support a review of cerebrospinal fluid penetration of vancomycin, including critical appraisal of the recent paper by Beach et al. recently published in this journal. We found that in the intensive care unit, ventriculostomy-associated infections are the most common and serious complication of external ventricular drain insertion and often result in prolonged patient stay and increased healthcare costs. Reported infection rates are extremely variable (between 0 and 45%), hindered by the inherent diagnostic difficulty. Both Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms are associated with such infections and the rise of multi-drug-resistant pathogens means that effective treatment is an ongoing challenge. Disease factors that may need to be considered are reduced meningeal inflammation and the presence of critical illness; drug factors include physiochemical properties, degree of plasma-protein binding, and affinity to active transporter proteins present in the blood-cerebrospinal fluid barrier. The relationship between cerebrospinal fluid antibiotic exposures in the setting of ventriculostomy-associated infection and clinical response has not been fully elucidated for many of the antibiotics commonly used in its treatment. More thorough and clinically relevant investigations are needed to better define blood pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics targets and optimal therapeutic exposures for treatment of ventriculostomy-associated infections. It is hoped that this future research will be able to provide clearer recommendations for clinicians frequently faced with dosing-related dilemmas when treating patients with these challenging infections.

Evaluation of treatment options for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the obese patient

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has emerged as a major cause of infection in both the hospital and community setting. Obesity is a risk factor for infection, and the prevalence of this disease has reached epidemic proportions worldwide. Treatment of infections in this special population is a challenge given the lack of data on the optimal antibiotic choice and dosing strategies, particularly for treatment of MRSA infections. Obesity is associated with various physiological changes that may lead to altered pharmacokinetic parameters. These changes include altered drug biodistribution, elimination, and absorption. This review provides clinicians with a summary of the literature pertaining to the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations when selecting antibiotic therapy for the treatment of MRSA infections in obese patients.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of Linezolid in burn patients

Burns induce complex physiological changes such as modification of distribution volume, increased clearance of elements and decrease of protein binding. The pharmacokinetics of many antibiotics may then be modified, which requires dose adjustment. We attempted to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of linezolid in burn patients at a standard dose of 600 mg intravenously thrice a day. A prospective study was conducted in a 20-bed adult burn ICU at a university-affiliated teaching hospital in Tunis. Thirteen adult burned patients with documented and/or suspected multi drug resistant (MDR) gram-positive bacterium-related infections were enrolled in the study. Our study suggests that linezolid dosing at 600mg thrice a day leads to adequate pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic exposure to linezolid with a Cmin > 2mg/l in 84.6% of cases, T > MIC in about 87.5% and AUC/MIC > 100 in 61.5% of cases. However, a high variability in linezolid serum concentrations with a substantial percentage of sub-therapeutic levels was observed in a few patients, 15% of cases. Therefore, therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid might be helpful for adequate dosing of linezolid in burned patients, to avoid the risk of treatment failure or of dose-dependent toxicity.

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.

Critical role of tedizolid in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

Tedizolid phosphate has high activity against the Gram-positive microorganisms mainly involved in acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, such as strains of Staphylococcus aureus (including methicillin-resistant S. aureus strains and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus strains), Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus agalactiae, the Streptococcus anginosus group, and Enterococcus faecalis, including those with some mechanism of resistance limiting the use of linezolid. The area under the curve for time 0-24 hours/minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) pharmacodynamic ratio has shown the best correlation with the efficacy of tedizolid, versus the time above MIC ratio and the maximum drug concentration/minimum inhibitory concentration ratio. Administration of this antibiotic for 6 days has shown its noninferiority versus administration of linezolid for 10 days in patients with skin and skin structure infections enrolled in two Phase III studies (ESTABLISH-1 and ESTABLISH-2). Tedizolid's more favorable safety profile and dosage regimen, which allow once-daily administration, versus linezolid, position it as a good therapeutic alternative. However, whether or not the greater economic cost associated with this antibiotic is offset by its shorter treatment duration and possibility of oral administration in routine clinical practice has yet to be clarified.

Optimization of linezolid treatment regimens for Gram-positive bacterial infections based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis

AIM

To optimize linezolid treatment regimens for Gram-positive bacterial infections based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis.

MATERIALS & METHODS

The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) distribution of 572 Gram-positive strains from patients with clinically confirmed infections was analyzed. Using the Monte Carlo simulation method, the cumulative fraction of response and probability of target attainment were determined for linezolid regimens of 600 mg q.12h and q.8h Results: Linezolid dosage of 600 mg q.12h yielded >90% cumulative fraction of response and probability of target attainment for staphylococcal infections with an MIC of ≤1 mg/l, enterococcal infections with higher MIC values required 600 mg q.8h.

CONCLUSION

Linezolid 600 mg q.12h is still the clinically recommended empirical dosage for Gram-positive bacterial infections. However, as bacterial MICs increase, 600 mg q.8h may be required to achieve better efficacy.

Effects of continuous renal replacement therapy on linezolid pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics: a systematic review

Background

Major alterations in linezolid pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) parameters might be expected in critically ill septic patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) who are undergoing continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). The present review is aimed at describing extracorporeal removal of linezolid and the main PK-PD parameter changes observed in critically ill septic patients with AKI, who are on CRRT.

Method

Citations published on PubMed up to January 2016 were systematically reviewed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. All authors assessed the methodological quality of the studies and consensus was used to ensure studies met inclusion criteria. In-vivo studies in adult patients with AKI treated with linezolid and on CRRT were considered eligible for the analysis only if operational settings of the CRRT machine, membrane type, linezolid blood concentrations and main PK-PD parameters were all clearly reported.

Results

Among 68 potentially relevant articles, only 9 were considered eligible for the analysis. Across these, 53 treatments were identified among the 49 patients included (46 treated with high-flux and 3 with high cut-off membranes). Continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) was the most frequent treatment performed amongst the studies. The extracorporeal clearance values of linezolid across the different modalities were 1.2–2.3 L/h for CVVH, 0.9–2.2 L/h for hemodiafiltration and 2.3 L/h for hemodialysis, and large variability in PK/PD parameters was reported. The optimal area under the curve/minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC/MIC) ratio was reached for pathogens with an MIC of 4 mg/L in one study only.

Conclusions

Wide variability in linezolid PK/PD parameters has been observed across critically ill septic patients with AKI treated with CRRT. Particular attention should be paid to linezolid therapy in order to avoid antibiotic failure in these patients. Strategies to improve the effectiveness of this antimicrobial therapy (such as routine use of target drug monitoring, increased posology or extended infusion) should be carefully evaluated, both in clinical and research settings.

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.

Population pharmacokinetics of linezolid in critically ill patients on renal replacement therapy: comparison of equal doses in continuous venovenous haemofiltration and continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration

OBJECTIVES

Few data are available to guide linezolid dosing during renal replacement therapy. The objective of this study was to compare the population pharmacokinetics of linezolid during continuous venovenous haemofiltration (CVVHF, 30 mL/kg/h) and continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF, 15 mL/kg/h + 15 mL/kg/h).

METHODS

Patients requiring linezolid 600 mg iv every 12 h and CVVHF or CVVHDF were eligible for this prospective study. Seven blood samples were collected over one dosing interval and analysed by a validated chromatographic method. Population pharmacokinetic analysis was undertaken using Pmetrics. Monte Carlo simulations evaluated achievement of a pharmacodynamics target of an AUC from 0-24 h to MIC (AUC0-24/MIC) of 80.

RESULTS

Nine CVVHDF and eight CVVHF treatments were performed in 13 patients. Regimens of CVVHDF and CVVHF were similar. A two-compartment linear model best described the data. CVVHDF was associated with a 20.5% higher mean linezolid clearance than CVVHF, without statistical significance (P = 0.39). Increasing patient weight and decreasing SOFA score were associated with increasing linezolid clearance. The mean (SD) parameter estimates were: clearance (CL), 3.8 (2.2) L/h; volume of the central compartment, 26.5 (10.3) L; intercompartmental clearance constants from central to peripheral, 8.1 (12.1) L/h; and peripheral to central compartments, 3.6 (4.0) L/h. Achievement of pharmacodynamic targets was poor for an MIC of 2 mg/L with the studied dose.

CONCLUSIONS

During CVVHF and CVVHDF, there is profound pharmacokinetic variability of linezolid. Suboptimal achievement of therapeutic targets occurs at the EUCAST breakpoint MIC of 2 mg/L using 600 mg iv every 12 h.

Antibiotic dose optimization in critically ill patients

The judicious use of existing antibiotics is essential for preserving their activity against infections. In the era of multi-drug resistance, this is of particular importance in clinical areas characterized by high antibiotic use, such as the ICU. Antibiotic dose optimization in critically ill patients requires sound knowledge not only of the altered physiology in serious infections - including severe sepsis, septic shock and ventilator-associated pneumonia - but also of the pathogen-drug exposure relationship (i.e. pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic index). An important consideration is the fact that extreme shifts in organ function, such as those seen in hyperdynamic patients or those with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, can have an impact upon drug exposure, and constant vigilance is required when reviewing antibiotic dosing regimens in the critically ill. The use of continuous renal replacement therapy and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation remain important interventions in these patients; however, both of these treatments can have a profound effect on antibiotic exposure. We suggest placing emphasis on the use of therapeutic drug monitoring and dose individualization when optimizing therapy in these settings.

Nonclinical and pharmacokinetic assessments to evaluate the potential of tedizolid and linezolid to affect mitochondrial function

Prolonged treatment with the oxazolidinone linezolid is associated with myelosuppression, lactic acidosis, and neuropathies, toxicities likely caused by impairment of mitochondrial protein synthesis (MPS). To evaluate the potential of the novel oxazolidinone tedizolid to cause similar side effects, nonclinical and pharmacokinetic assessments were conducted. In isolated rat heart mitochondria, tedizolid inhibited MPS more potently than did linezolid (average [± standard error of the mean] 50% inhibitory concentration [IC50] for MPS of 0.31 ± 0.02 μM versus 6.4 ± 1.2 μM). However, a rigorous 9-month rat study comparing placebo and high-dose tedizolid (resulting in steady-state area under the plasma concentration-time curve values about 8-fold greater than those with the standard therapeutic dose in humans) showed no evidence of neuropathy. Additional studies explored why prolonged, high-dose tedizolid did not cause these mitochondriopathic side effects despite potent MPS inhibition by tedizolid. Murine macrophage (J774) cell fractionation studies found no evidence of a stable association of tedizolid with eukaryotic mitochondria. Monte Carlo simulations based on population pharmacokinetic models showed that over the course of a dosing interval using standard therapeutic doses, free plasma concentrations fell below the respective MPS IC50 in 84% of tedizolid-treated patients (for a median duration of 7.94 h) and 38% of linezolid-treated patients (for a median duration of 0 h). Therapeutic doses of tedizolid, but not linezolid, may therefore allow for mitochondrial recovery during antibacterial therapy. The overall results suggest that tedizolid has less potential to cause myelosuppression and neuropathy than that of linezolid during prolonged treatment courses. This, however, remains a hypothesis that must be confirmed in clinical studies.

Variability of linezolid concentrations after standard dosing in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study

Introduction

Severe infections in intensive care patients show high morbidity and mortality rates. Linezolid is an antimicrobial drug frequently used in critically ill patients. Recent data indicates that there might be high variability of linezolid serum concentrations in intensive care patients receiving standard doses. This study was aimed to evaluate whether standard dosing of linezolid leads to therapeutic serum concentrations in critically ill patients.

Methods

In this prospective observational study, 30 critically ill adult patients with suspected infections received standard dosing of 600 mg linezolid intravenously twice a day. Over 4 days, multiple serum samples were obtained from each patient, in order to determine the linezolid concentrations by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.

Results

A high variability of serum linezolid concentrations was observed (range of area under the linezolid concentration time curve over 24 hours (AUC₂₄) 50.1 to 453.9 mg/L, median 143.3 mg*h/L; range of trough concentrations (C_min) < 0.13 to 14.49 mg/L, median 2.06 mg/L). Furthermore, potentially subtherapeutic linezolid concentrations over 24 hours and at single time points (defined according to the literature as AUC₂₄ < 200 mg*h/L and C_min < 2 mg/L) were observed for 63% and 50% of the patients, respectively. Finally, potentially toxic levels (defined as AUC₂₄ > 400 mg*h/L and C_min > 10 mg/L) were observed for 7 of the patients.

Conclusions

A high variability of linezolid serum concentrations with a substantial percentage of potentially subtherapeutic levels was observed in intensive care patients. The findings suggest that therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid might be helpful for adequate dosing of linezolid in critically ill patients.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01793012. Registered 24 January 2013.

Treatment options for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection: Where are we now?

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection continues to be a substantial global problem with significant associated morbidity and mortality. This review summarises the discussions that took place at the 4th MRSA Consensus Conference in relation to the current treatment options for serious MRSA infections and how to optimise whichever therapy is embarked upon. It highlights the many challenges faced by both the laboratory and clinicians in the diagnosis and treatment of MRSA infections.