An assessment of linezolid utilization in selected canadian provinces

Safety Profile of Linezolid in Older Adults With Renal Impairment: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

The objective of this study was to characterize the safety profile of linezolid in patients with renal impairment compared with patients without renal impairment.

Methods

A population-based retrospective cohort study using linked administrative databases included patients aged 66 years or older in Ontario, Canadawho were prescribed linezolid from 2014 to 2021. Renal impairment was defined using baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m² or receipt of dialysis. The primary outcomes were change in platelet count and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <50 × 10⁹/L) within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, optic neuropathy, acidosis, serotonin syndrome, and mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting on propensity score was used to balance comparison groups on baseline health.

Results

Of 625 patients, 98 (15.7%) patients had renal impairment. The mean (SD) platelet change was -88.3 (108.4) 10⁹/L in the renal impairment group and -76.5 (109.8) 10⁹/L in the no renal impairment group, with an adjusted mean difference of -29.4 (95% CI, -53.4 to -5.3; P = .0165). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred in 9.2% for the renal impairment group and 5.9% for the no renal impairment group, with an adjusted risk difference of 2.7% (95% CI, -3.1% to 8.6%; P = .3655). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Patients with renal impairment on linezolid therapy had a larger decrease in platelet count, but their risks for severe thrombocytopenia and bleeding were not significantly different than patients without renal impairment. Linezolid is likely safe in renal impairment without dose adjustment or drug level monitoring.

Assessment of linezolid prescriptions in three French hospitals

The use of linezolid to treat gram-positive cocci infections is increasing in France. Linezolid is approved in pneumonia and complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Overuse and misuse of linezolid can favor the emergence and spreading of linezolid-resistant strains. We aimed to assess the appropriateness of linezolid use in French hospitals. This is a multicenter, retrospective study conducted in three tertiary care hospitals. Appropriateness of linezolid indications and adequacy (composite score concerning dosage, route of administration and blood monitoring) were assessed. Over a three-month period, all prescriptions of linezolid were extracted and analyzed by two independent infectious disease experts. Among the 81 initial prescriptions that were evaluated, indication was appropriate in 48% of cases. Among those, 51% complied with international guidelines. Fifty-seven percent of the prescriptions were adequate regarding dosage, route of administration and blood monitoring. Overall, 23% of prescriptions combined both appropriateness and adequacy. The most frequent reasons for inappropriateness were the possibility of choosing narrower-spectrum antibiotics and the empirical use of linezolid in severe sepsis or septic shock. Initial treatment was the most frequently appropriate in bone and joint infection cases (p = 0.001). Our study shows that even if modalities of use were mostly correct, appropriateness of linezolid indications is low. Educational programs are mandatory to improve practices, as well as clinical studies to better assess the efficacy and safety of linezolid in clinical situations other than pneumonia or complicated skin and soft tissue infections.

Tedizolid Phosphate: a Next-Generation Oxazolidinone

Treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram-positive infections continues to challenge clinicians as the emergence of new resistance mechanisms outpaces introduction of novel antimicrobial agents. Tedizolid phosphate is a next-generation oxazolidinone with activity against both methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. Tedizolid has consistently shown potency advantages over linezolid against Gram-positive microorganisms including those with reduced susceptibility to linezolid. Of particular significance, minimum inhibitory concentrations of tedizolid appear to be largely unaffected by the chloramphenicol-florfenicol resistance (cfr) gene, which has been implicated in a number of published linezolid-resistant organism outbreaks. Tedizolid phosphate also has been found to have a favorable pharmacokinetic profile allowing for once-daily dosing in both oral and intravenous forms. Potency and pharmacokinetic advantages have allowed for lower total daily doses of tedizolid, compared to linezolid, being needed for clinical efficacy in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). The decreased total drug exposure produced may in part be responsible for a decrease in the observed adverse effects including thrombocytopenia. Tedizolid phosphate is currently indicated for the treatment of ABSSSI and under investigation for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. Although much of the role of tedizolid remains to be defined by expanding clinical experience, tedizolid is likely a welcomed addition to the mere handful of agents available for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram-positive infections.

Effectiveness and use of linezolid in hospitalisation wards

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use and effectiveness of linezolid as an alternative treatment for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

METHOD

Demographic, clinical and safety data were collected from hospitalised patients. The information sources were the clinical records and the pharmacy programme.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were treated with linezolid (median age 69.3, 63% male). The median duration of treatment was 8 days. The most prevalent indication was soft tissues and skin infections (46.7%). The indications were off-label in 40% of cases. Linezolid was used as a targeted therapy in 53%, especially for coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Clinical healing occurred in 83.3%, and microbiological healing in 40%. Three patients (10%) experienced side effects from using linezolid.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness and safety of linezolid is similar to that described in the trials. Its off-label use and the high number of empirical treatments mean that new strategies must be developed.