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 (CLcr ) 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.

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.

Risk factor analysis for linezolid-associated thrombocytopenia in critically ill patients.

Linezolid is an antibiotic used against gram-positive bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Its primary adverse effect is haematotoxicity. The objective of this study was to analyse the risk factors for onset of thrombocytopenia in critically ill patients treated with linezolid. This was a retrospective, single-centre study of 72 patients. Platelets were measured from D0 to D20 after the start of treatment. The risk factors for thrombocytopenia were identified using a multivariate logistic regression analysis following a Monte Carlo simulation. Following ROC curve analysis, a baseline platelet count lower than 108 × 109/L and a Cmin higher than 4 mg/L, with respective odds ratios of 117 (95% CI [97-206]) and 3 (95% CI [1.5-6.2]) in the simulated population, were identified as risk factors. Among the source population patients combining these 2 factors, a significantly higher number developed thrombocytopenia (66.7% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.0042). A baseline platelet count lower than 108 × 109/L and a Cmin higher than 4 mg/L are risk factors for the onset of thrombocytopenia in critically ill patients treated with linezolid.

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.

Comparing the cost-effectiveness of linezolid to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: a healthcare system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Few industry-independent studies have been conducted to compare the relative costs and benefits of drugs to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. We performed a stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two treatment strategies-linezolid versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin-for the treatment of MRSA infection. METHODS: We used cost and effectiveness data from a previously conducted clinical trial, complementing with other data from published literature, to compare the two regimens from a healthcare system perspective. Effectiveness was expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Several sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation, to measure the effect of potential parameter changes on the base-case model results, including potential differences related to type of infection and drug toxicity. RESULTS: Treatment of MRSA infection with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin and linezolid were found to cost on average €146 and €2536, and lead to a gain of 0.916 and 0.881 QALYs, respectively. Treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin was found to be more cost-effective than linezolid in the base case and remained dominant over linezolid in most alternative scenarios, including different types of MRSA infection and potential disadvantages in terms of toxicity. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0, €50 000 and €200 000 per QALY gained, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin was dominant in 100%, 96% and 85% of model iterations. A 95% discount on the current purchasing price of linezolid would be needed when it goes off-patent for it to represent better value for money compared with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin. CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin is more cost-effective than linezolid in the treatment of MRSA infection.

Sequential antimicrobial treatment with linezolid for neurosurgical infections: efficacy, safety and cost study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effectiveness of linezolid in neurosurgical infections (NSIs) is growing. The comfortable oral dosage and tolerance of linezolid opens the possibility for sequential antimicrobial treatment (SAT) in stable patients after a period of intravenous treatment. METHODS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SAT with oral linezolid in patients with NSI and to analyse the cost implications, an observational, non-comparative, prospective cohort study was conducted on clinically stable consecutive adult patients at the Neurosurgical Service. Following intravenous treatment, patients were discharged with SAT with oral linezolid. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients were included. The most common NSIs were: 41 surgical wound infections, 20 subdural empyemas, 18 epidural abscesses, and 16 brain abscesses. Forty-four percent of patients presented two or more concomitant NSIs. Aetiological agents commonly isolated were: Propionibacterium acnes (36 %), Staphylococcus aureus (23 %), Staphylococcus epidermidis (21 %) and Streptococcus spp. (13 %). The median duration of the SAT was 15 days (range, 3-42). The SAT was interrupted in five cases due to adverse events. The remainder of the patients were cured at the end of the SAT. A total of 1,163 days of hospitalisation were saved. An overall cost reduction of €516,188 was attributed to the SAT. Eight patients with device infections did not require removal of the device, with an additional cost reduction of €190,595. The mean cost saving per patient was €9,179. CONCLUSIONS: SAT with linezolid was safe and effective for the treatment of NSI. SAT reduces hospitalisation times, which means significant savings of health and economic resources.

Economic evaluation among Chinese patients with nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and treated with linezolid or vancomycin: a secondary, post-hoc analysis based on a Phase 4 clinical trial study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess cost-effectiveness of linezolid vs vancomycin in treating nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA-NP) in China and the impact of renal failure on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on data from the ZEPHyR trial, with efficacy measured by treatment success and costs calculated from HCRU. Confidence intervals (CI) for cost, efficacy and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated by non-parametric bootstrap. Chi-square test was used for renal failure rate and t-test for HCRU/cost comparisons. Impact of renal failure was assessed using regression model. RESULTS: Data from 448 patients (1:1 linezolid:vancomycin) were analyzed. More patients treated with linezolid achieved success (55% [95% CI = 48-62%]) than with vancomycin (45% [38-52%]). Treatment cost were ¥79,551 (95% CI = ¥72,421-¥86,680) for linezolid vs ¥77,587 (¥70,656-¥84,519) for vancomycin in Beijing, ¥90,995 (¥82,598-¥99,393) vs ¥89,448 (¥81,295-¥97,601) in Guangzhou, ¥82,383 (¥74,956-¥89,810) vs ¥80,799 (¥73,545-¥88,054) in Nanjing and ¥59,413 (¥54,366-¥64,460) vs ¥57,804 (¥52,613-¥62,996) in Xi'an. Per successful treatment, the ICER of linezolid over vancomycin were ¥19,719 (-¥143,553 to ¥320,980) (Beijing), ¥15,532 (-¥185,411 to ¥349,693) (Guangzhou), ¥15,904 (-¥161,935 to ¥314,987) (Nanjing) and ¥16,145 (-¥100,738 to ¥234,412) (Xi'an). From simulations, the majority of linezolid cases had greater efficacy and higher costs and more than one third had greater efficacy and lower costs. More vancomycin patients developed renal failure (15% vs 4%, p < 0.001). Patients with renal failure had higher cost (Nanjng: ¥100,449 (SD = ¥65,080) vs ¥74,944 (SD = ¥49,632), p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Linezolid was more cost-effective than vancomycin in treating MRSA-NP from a Chinese payer's perspective, and associated with less renal failure, HCRU and cost.

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.