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

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.

Oral Antibiotics for Bacteremia and Infective Endocarditis: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

Bacteremia and endocarditis are two clinical syndromes that, for decades, were managed exclusively with parenteral antimicrobials, irrespective of a given patient's clinical condition, causative pathogen, or its antibiotic susceptibility profile. This clinical approach, however, was based on low-quality data and outdated expert opinions. When a patient's condition has improved, gastrointestinal absorption is not compromised, and an oral antibiotic regimen reaching adequate serum concentrations is available, a switch to oral antibacterials can be applied. Although available evidence has reduced the timing of the oral switch in bacteremia to three days/until clinical improvement, there are only scarce data regarding less than 10-day intravenous antibiotic therapy in endocarditis. Many standard or studied oral antimicrobial dosages are smaller than the approved doses for parenteral administration, which is a risk factor for treatment failure; in addition, the gastrointestinal barrier may affect drug bioavailability, especially when the causative pathogen has a minimum inhibitory concentration that is close to the susceptibility breakpoint. A considerable number of patients infected by such near-breakpoint strains may not be potential candidates for oral step-down therapy to non-highly bioavailable antibiotics like beta-lactams; different breakpoints should be determined for this setting. This review will focus on summarizing findings about pathogen-specific tailoring of oral step-down therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis, but will also present laboratory and clinical data about antibiotics such as beta-lactams, linezolid, and fosfomycin that should be studied more in order to elucidate their role and optimal dosage in this context.

Implementation of Bedaquiline, Pretomanid, and Linezolid in the United States: Experience Using a Novel All-Oral Treatment Regimen for Treatment of Rifampin-Resistant or Rifampin-Intolerant Tuberculosis Disease

BACKGROUND

Rifampin-resistant tuberculosis is a leading cause of morbidity worldwide; only one-third of persons start treatment, and outcomes are often inadequate. Several trials demonstrate 90% efficacy using an all-oral, 6-month regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid (BPaL), but significant toxicity occurred using 1200-mg linezolid. After US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2019, some US clinicians rapidly implemented BPaL using an initial 600-mg linezolid dose adjusted by serum drug concentrations and clinical monitoring.

METHODS

Data from US patients treated with BPaL between 14 October 2019 and 30 April 2022 were compiled and analyzed by the BPaL Implementation Group (BIG), including baseline examination and laboratory, electrocardiographic, and clinical monitoring throughout treatment and follow-up. Linezolid dosing and clinical management was provider driven, and most patients had linezolid adjusted by therapeutic drug monitoring.

RESULTS

Of 70 patients starting BPaL, 2 changed to rifampin-based therapy, 68 (97.1%) completed BPaL, and 2 of the 68 (2.9%) experienced relapse after completion. Using an initial 600-mg linezolid dose daily adjusted by therapeutic drug monitoring and careful clinical and laboratory monitoring for adverse effects, supportive care, and expert consultation throughout BPaL treatment, 3 patients (4.4%) with hematologic toxicity and 4 (5.9%) with neurotoxicity required a change in linezolid dose or frequency. The median BPaL duration was 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

BPaL has transformed treatment for rifampin-resistant or intolerant tuberculosis. In this cohort, effective treatment required less than half the duration recommended in 2019 US guidelines for drug-resistant tuberculosis. Use of individualized linezolid dosing and monitoring likely enhanced safety and treatment completion. The BIG cohort demonstrates that early implementation of new tuberculosis treatments in the United States is feasible.

Risk factors for thrombocytopenia in patients receiving linezolid therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The incidence of linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia (LIT) has been reported to vary widely across studies. We performed a meta-analysis to identify the risk factors for thrombocytopenia among patients who received linezolid treatment.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to November 2022 to identify eligible studies. Data on the potential predictors of incidence in LIT were pooled using a random effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of the results when significant heterogeneity was observed.

RESULTS

Forty observational studies involving 6454 patients treated with linezolid were included in the analysis. LIT was estimated to occur in 37% of patients. The following important factors were associated with the incidence of LIT: advanced age, body mass index, concurrent renal impairment or liver disease, abnormal laboratory parameters (including white blood cell count, serum creatinine, baseline platelet count, albumin, creatinine clearance rate, and estimated glomerular filtration rate), treatment duration and renal replacement therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of risk factors related to the occurrence of LIT were revealed in our analysis. Early identification of these factors could help patients improve clinical outcomes.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Use of Anti-Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Agents for Aspiration Pneumonia in Older Patients Using a Nationwide Japanese Administrative Database

Studies indicated potential harm from empirical broad-spectrum therapy. A recent study of hospitalizations for community-acquired pneumonia suggested that empirical anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) therapy was associated with an increased risk of death and other complications. However, limited evidence supports empirical anti-MRSA therapy for older patients with aspiration pneumonia. In a nationwide Japanese database, patients aged ≥65 years on admission with aspiration pneumonia were analyzed. Patients were divided based on presence of respiratory failure and further sub-categorized based on their condition within 3 days of hospital admission, either receiving a combination of anti-MRSA agents and other antibiotics, or not using MRSA agents. An inverse probability weighting method with estimated propensity scores was used. Out of 81,306 eligible patients, 55,098 had respiratory failure, and 26,208 did not. In the group with and without respiratory failure, 0.93% and 0.42% of the patients, respectively, received anti-MRSA agents. In patients with respiratory failure, in-hospital mortality (31.38% vs. 19.03%, p < 0.001), 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality were significantly higher, and oxygen administration length was significantly longer in the anti-MRSA agent combination group. Anti-MRSA agent combination use did not improve the outcomes in older patients with aspiration pneumonia and respiratory failure, and should be carefully and comprehensively considered.