Update on the safety of linezolid

Clinical standards for the dosing and management of TB drugs

BACKGROUND: Optimal drug dosing is important to ensure adequate response to treatment, prevent development of drug resistance and reduce drug toxicity. The aim of these clinical standards is to provide guidance on 'best practice´ for dosing and management of TB drugs.METHODS: A panel of 57 global experts in the fields of microbiology, pharmacology and TB care were identified; 51 participated in a Delphi process. A 5-point Likert scale was used to score draft standards. The final document represents the broad consensus and was approved by all participants.RESULTS: Six clinical standards were defined: Standard 1, defining the most appropriate initial dose for TB treatment; Standard 2, identifying patients who may be at risk of sub-optimal drug exposure; Standard 3, identifying patients at risk of developing drug-related toxicity and how best to manage this risk; Standard 4, identifying patients who can benefit from therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM); Standard 5, highlighting education and counselling that should be provided to people initiating TB treatment; and Standard 6, providing essential education for healthcare professionals. In addition, consensus research priorities were identified.CONCLUSION: This is the first consensus-based Clinical Standards for the dosing and management of TB drugs to guide clinicians and programme managers in planning and implementation of locally appropriate measures for optimal person-centred treatment to improve patient care.

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

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

Safety considerations with new antibacterial approaches for chronic bacterial prostatitis

Introduction: Chronic bacterial prostatitis (CBP) is a difficult-to-eradicate infection. Antibacterial therapy with currently licensed agents is hindered due to the increasing emergence of pathogen resistance worldwide and to frequent infection relapse. With limited treatment options, physicians are investigating new agents, which, however, may raise safety concerns.Areas covered: Antibacterial agents currently licensed for CBP were not considered. Available reports about the safety and efficacy of antibacterial agents that have been clinically tested or tentatively used to treat CBP in single cases were evaluated. This review also focused on agents targeting Gram-positive pathogens, whose prevalence as causative agents of CBP is increasing.Expert opinion: (i) Most antibacterial agents considered in this review have been administered off-label in the interest of patients, and their use requires particular caution. (ii) Reports describing the usage of many of the drugs reviewed here are still scant, and readers should be warned of the limited published evidence supporting therapy for CBP with these agents. (iii) As treatment must extend over several weeks, medium-term adverse events may occur and therapy should be individualized, taking into account the dosage and the potential toxicity of each specific antibiotic. Regarding dangerous drug-drug interactions, particular attention should be paid to the risk of ECG-QT-interval elongation.

Evaluation of the ability of linezolid and tedizolid to eradicate intraosteoblastic and biofilm-embedded Staphylococcus aureus in the bone and joint infection setting

OBJECTIVES

Prolonged use of linezolid for bone and joint infection (BJI) is limited by its long-term toxicity. The better safety profile of tedizolid, a recently developed oxazolidinone, could offer an alternative. However, its efficacy against biofilm-embedded and intracellular Staphylococcus aureus, the two main bacterial reservoirs associated with BJI chronicity, is unknown.

METHODS

Using three S. aureus strains (6850 and two clinical BJI isolates), linezolid and tedizolid were compared regarding their ability: (i) to target the S. aureus intracellular reservoir in an in vitro model of osteoblast infection, using three concentrations increasing from the bone concentration reached with standard therapeutic doses (Cbone = 2.5 × MIC; Cplasm = 10 × MIC; Cmax = 40 × MIC); (ii) to eradicate mature biofilm [minimal biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC)]; and (iii) to prevent biofilm formation [biofilm MIC (bMIC) and confocal microscopy].

RESULTS

Linezolid and tedizolid weakly reduced the intracellular inoculum of S. aureus in a strain-dependent manner despite the similar MICs for the tested strains, but improved cell viability even in the absence of an intracellular bactericidal effect. Conversely, linezolid and tedizolid were ineffective in eradicating mature biofilm formed in vitro, with MBEC >2000 and >675 mg/L, respectively. bMICs of tedizolid were 4-fold lower than those of linezolid for all strains.

CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid and tedizolid alone are not optimal candidates to target bacterial phenotypes associated with chronic forms of BJI. Despite weak intracellular activity, they both reduce infection-related cytotoxicity, suggesting a role in modulating intracellular expression of staphylococcal virulence factors. Although inactive against biofilm-embedded S. aureus, both-but particularly tedizolid-are able to prevent biofilm formation.

Calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections: Safety and tolerabilty

This is the fourth chapter of the guideline "Calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections in adults - update 2018" in the 2nd updated version. The German guideline by the Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie e.V. (PEG) has been translated to address an international audience. Safety and tolerability of antimicrobial agents will be discussed in this chapter. Toxic, allergic and biological effects can be differentiated on the basis of their pathogenesis. The question of differences in the tolerability of specific antibiotics is of particular importance. However, due to limitations of the available data, it cannot be answered for most agents with the desired accuracy. For an assessment of rare side effects, results from the postmarketing surveillance have to be used.

Mitochondrial Alterations (Inhibition of Mitochondrial Protein Expression, Oxidative Metabolism, and Ultrastructure) Induced by Linezolid and Tedizolid at Clinically Relevant Concentrations in Cultured Human HL-60 Promyelocytes and THP-1 Monocytes

Linezolid, the first clinically available oxazolidinone antibiotic, causes potentially severe toxicities (myelosuppression, lactic acidosis, and neuropathies) ascribed to impairment of mitochondrial protein synthesis and consecutive mitochondrial dysfunction. Tedizolid, a newly approved oxazolidinone, shows an enhanced activity compared to linezolid but is also a more potent inhibitor of mitochondrial protein synthesis. We compared linezolid and tedizolid for (i) inhibition of the expression of subunit I of cytochrome c-oxidase (CYTox I; Western blot analysis), (ii) cytochrome c-oxidase activity (biochemical assay), (iii) mitochondrial oxidative metabolism (Seahorse technology), and (iv) alteration of mitochondrial ultrastructure (electron microscopy) using HL-60 promyelocytes and THP-1 monocytes exposed to microbiologically (multiples of modal MIC against Staphylococcus aureus) and therapeutically (C_min - C_max) pertinent concentrations. Both drugs caused a rapid and complete (48 to 72 h) inhibition of CYTox I expression, cytochrome c-oxidase activity, and spare respiratory capacity, with conspicuous swelling of the mitochondrial matrix and loss of their cristae. Globally, tedizolid was a more potent inhibitor than linezolid. For both drugs, all effects were quickly (48 to 72 h) and fully reversible upon drug withdrawal. Using an alternation of exposure to and withdrawal from drug mimicking their approved schedule of administration (twice daily and once daily [qD] for linezolid and tedizolid, respectively), only partial inhibition of CYTox I expression was noted for up to 96 h. Thus, rapid reversal of toxic effects upon discontinuous administration may mitigate oxazolidinone toxicity. Since tedizolid is given qD, this may help to explain its reported lower preclinical and clinical toxicity.

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.

Lack of neuropathological changes in rats administered tedizolid phosphate for nine months

Tedizolid, a novel oxazolidinone antibacterial, was administered to Long Evans rats by oral gavage once daily for up to 9 months at doses near the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) to evaluate for potential neurotoxicity. Mean plasma exposures of tedizolid at the low-, medium-, and high-dose levels (7.5, 15, and 30 mg/kg of body weight/day for males; 2.5, 5, and 10 mg/kg/day for females) were similar between males and females and were 1.8-, 3.9-, and 8.0-fold greater than exposures in patients at the therapeutic dose (200 mg once daily). Evaluated endpoints included survival, clinical observations, body weight, and food consumption. At 1, 3, 6, and 9 months, ophthalmic examinations, functional observational batteries, and locomotor activity measures were conducted, brain weights/sizes were recorded, and perfusion-fixed tissues were collected from 12 rats/sex/group/time point. A detailed morphological assessment was conducted on brain, eyes, optic nerve/tract, spinal cord, peripheral nerves (includes sciatic, sural, tibial, peroneal, trigeminal), and skeletal muscle. At the end of 9 months, less body weight gain was seen in high-dose males (-6.7%) and females (-5.8%) compared with that seen in controls. There were no tedizolid-related adverse neurobehavioral effects or tedizolid-related histopathologic changes in the central/peripheral nervous systems, including the optic nerve. Results of this study indicate that tedizolid was not neurotoxic when administered long term to pigmented rats at doses near the MTD, which were up to 8-fold higher than the human therapeutic exposure.

Use of linezolid in infants and children: a retrospective multicentre study of the Italian Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases

OBJECTIVES

Because of the spread of drug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria, the use of linezolid for treating severe infections is increasing. However, clinical experience in the paediatric population is still limited. We undertook a multicentre study to analyse the use of linezolid in children.

METHODS

Hospitalized children treated with linezolid for a suspected or proven Gram-positive or mycobacterial infection were analysed retrospectively. Side effects were investigated, focusing on younger children and long-term treatments.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients (mean age 6.8 years, range 7 days to 17 years) were studied. Mean ± SD linezolid treatment duration was 26.13 ± 17 days. Clinical cure was achieved in 74.7% of patients. The most frequent adverse events were diarrhoea and vomiting. Two patients had severe anaemia, two neutropenia and one thrombocytopenia. Two cases of grade 3 liver function test elevation and one case of pancreatitis were reported. The overall frequency of adverse events was similar between patients treated for >28 days and those receiving shorter treatments (30.8% versus 28.6%, P = 0.84). Children aged <2 years received linezolid for a shorter duration than older children (21.2 days versus 28.4 days, P = 0.05), whereas the frequency of adverse events was similar in the two age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In our paediatric population, linezolid appeared safe and effective for the treatment of selected Gram-positive and mycobacterial infections. The adverse reactions encountered were reversible and appeared comparable to those reported in paediatric clinical trials. Nevertheless, the potential for haematological toxicity of linezolid in children means that careful monitoring is required during treatment.

Clinical efficacy and tolerability of linezolid in pediatric patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Linezolid is marketed for the treatment of severe, vancomycin-resistant infections with gram-positive bacteria in adults. Most information regarding the pharmacokinetic profile, efficacy, and tolerability of linezolid is derived from adult studies.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to summarize evidence regarding the use of linezolid in infants and children, focusing on the drug's clinical efficacy data and tolerability profile.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted of the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases, from their inception through July 20, 2009, using the following terms: linezolid, newborn, infant, child, pediatrics, adolescent, human, clinical trial, and case report. Articles were excluded if they were redundant or not pertinent. (Articles that did not focus on the use of linezolid in children were considered not pertinent.) Bibliographies of all relevant articles were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Forty-seven publications regarding the use of linezolid in children were included in the review: 5 pharmacokinetic studies, 32 case reports, 6 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 2 uncontrolled trials, 1 subanalysis of 2 published RCTs, and 1 subanalysis of published data about linezolid's tolerability. Pharmacokinetic data on linezolid use in children were derived from studies that enrolled 447 children. Plasma pharmacokinetics of linezolid in pediatric patients were found to be age dependent. Results from 6 vancomycinor cefadroxil-controlled RCTs (including 1480 children) evaluating linezolid treatment in children reported variable clinical cure rates, ranging from 75.0% to 93.2% in children with skin and skin-structure infections and from 77.5% to 90.0% in children with bacteremia or pneumonia. No significant difference in clinical cure rates between the linezolid group and the comparator group was observed in any study. The most frequently reported adverse events were diarrhea (from 3.1% to 16.8%), nausea and/or vomiting (from 2.9% to 11.9%), and thrombocytopenia (from 1.9% to 4.7%). To date, 3 cases of neuropathy have been described in children.

CONCLUSIONS

The reviewed pediatric studies in skin and skin-structure infections, bacteremia, or pneumonia found that linezolid was associated with high clinical cure rates (75.0%-93.2%) that did not differ significantly from those of vancomycin or cefadroxil. RCTs enrolling children with other types of infection (eg, osteomyelitis, endocarditis), as well as long-term studies, are needed to draw definitive conclusions about linezolid's efficacy and tolerability in pediatric patients. Careful monitoring for adverse events and possible linezolid resistance continues to be essential.

Recent Publications on Medications and Pharmacy

Hospital Pharmacy presents this feature to keep pharmacists abreast of new publications in the medical/pharmacy literature. Articles of interest regarding a broad scope of topics are abstracted monthly.