Kisspeptin and RF9 prevent paroxetine-induced changes in some parameters of seminal vesicle fluid in the male rats.

The aim of the study was to examine possible impacts of paroxetine and agomelatine on the levels of some components that constitute the seminal vesicle fluid. As a second purpose, it was also aimed to examine how possible negative effects induced by paroxetine on seminal vesicle fluid components were affected by kisspeptin and RF9 (an RFamide-related peptide antagonist, RFRP). Forty-two male rats, aged 21 days, divided into six groups; control, sham, paroxetine, agomelatine, paroxetine + kisspeptin and paroxetine + RF9. Paroxetine (3.6 mg/kg) and agomelatine (10 mg/kg) were administrated by oral gavage. Kisspeptin (1 nmol) and RF9 (20 nmol) were administered intracerebroventricular (i.c.v). The experiments were ended on post-natal 120 days; fructose, vitamin E, sodium, potassium and magnesium levels were measured in seminal vesicle fluid. Fructose, vitamin E, magnesium and potassium levels were significantly decreased in seminal vesicle fluid from the rats treated with paroxetine but did not show significant differences following agomelatine administration. The co-administration of kisspeptin or RF9 with paroxetine prevented the paroxetine-induced negative effects on seminal vesicle fluid components. These results suggest that reduction in sperm fertilising ability caused by changes in seminal vesicle fluid can be seen in long-term antidepressant use. RF-9 and kisspeptin might have positive effects on long-term antidepressant use-induced infertility.

Agomelatine for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Agomelatine is a melatonergic antidepressant, approved for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in Europe and Australia, but not in the United States. This compound seems to be promising in the short-term and maintenance treatment of Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). Areas covered: This paper presents an evaluation of the available data about the clinical efficacy and tolerability of agomelatine in the treatment of GAD. Expert opinion: First-line GAD treatments are limited by high rates of lack of clinical response. Preliminary data would indicate agomelatine as a safe compound, and with a higher rate of clinical response in the short-term and an earlier improvement of symptoms with respect to Selective Serotonine Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and Selective Serotonin Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors (SNRIs). In addition, agomelatine has not been associated with potential risk of abuse as in case of pregabalin and with long-term metabolic side effects similar to quetiapine. The major limitation of the results presented is that little data has come from long-term or comparative trials. Furthermore, some caution should be reserved in case of liver impairment (e.g. in subjects with alcohol abuse).

The Pharmacodynamics, Pharmacokinetics, and Safety of Arhalofenate in Combination with Febuxostat When Treating Hyperuricemia Associated with Gout.

OBJECTIVE: Arhalofenate (ARH), in development for gout, has uricosuric and anti-flare activities. ARH plus febuxostat (FBX) were evaluated in subjects with gout for serum uric acid (SUA) lowering, drug interaction, and safety. METHODS: Open phase II trial in gout volunteers (NCT02252835). Cohort 1 received ARH 600 mg for 2 weeks, followed by sequential 1-week co-administration of FBX 80 mg followed by 40 mg. FBX 40 mg was continued alone for 2 weeks. Cohort 2 received ARH 800 mg for 2 weeks, followed by sequential 1-week co-administration of FBX 40 mg followed by 80 mg. FBX 80 mg was continued alone for 2 weeks. SUA, its fractional excretion (FEUA), and plasma oxypurines were assessed. Pharmacokinetics of FBX and ARH were determined alone and in combination for cohort 2. RESULTS: Baseline mean SUA was 9.4 mg/dl for cohort 1 (n = 16) and 9.2 mg/dl for cohort 2 (n = 16). The largest SUA decrease (63%) was observed with ARH 800 mg + FBX 80 mg, with all subjects reaching SUA < 6 mg/dl and 93% < 5 mg/dl. The area under the curve (AUC)(0-t) of ARH acid + FBX/ARH acid was 108%. The AUC(0-t) of FBX + ARH acid/FBX was 87%. As expected, FBX increased oxypurines and increases were unaffected by ARH co-administration. Baseline FEUA were low (3.5%-4.6%) and ARH increased them toward normal without overexcretion of UA. ARH was well tolerated and appeared safe. CONCLUSION: ARH and FBX lowered SUA by complementary mechanisms. The combination provided greater decreases than each drug alone. The combination was well tolerated and appeared safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02252835.

Evaluation of the effects of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of agomelatine on the QT/QTc interval: a phase I, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and positive-controlled, crossover thorough QT/QTc study conducted in healthy volunteers.

: The effects of the antidepressant agomelatine up to a supratherapeutic dose (400 mg, single dose) on the QT corrected (QTc) interval were assessed in a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and positive-controlled, crossover thorough QT/QTc study in young healthy volunteers (29 males and 31 females). The primary criterion was the study of male or female population-derived QT-corrected interval (QTcP). The main analysis on the QTcP demonstrated that among the 10 postdose measurement times planned, the largest 1-sided 95% confidence interval upper bound of the difference between agomelatine 50 mg and placebo-adjusted means, and 1 of the differences between agomelatine 400 mg and placebo-adjusted means were both strictly inferior to the 10 millisecond upper-bound threshold of regulatory concern. The assay sensitivity was established with the positive control moxifloxacin (400 mg) and detected an effect on the mean QTcP interval that is around the threshold of regulatory concern (5 milliseconds). No relationship between QTcP and plasma concentrations of agomelatine was observed. In conclusion, agomelatine up to 400 mg has no effect on the QTc interval as demonstrated in the present regulatory thorough QT/QTc study.

Agomelatine versus other antidepressive agents for major depression.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD), or depression, is a syndrome characterised by a number of behavioural, cognitive and emotional features. It is most commonly associated with a sad or depressed mood, a reduced capacity to feel pleasure, feelings of hopelessness, loss of energy, altered sleep patterns, weight fluctuations, difficulty in concentrating and suicidal ideation. There is a need for more effective and better tolerated antidepressants to combat this condition. Agomelatine was recently added to the list of available antidepressant drugs; it is a novel antidepressant that works on melatonergic (MT1 and MT2), 5-HT 2B and 5-HT2C receptors. Because the mechanism of action is claimed to be novel, it may provide a useful, alternative pharmacological strategy to existing antidepressant drugs. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was 1) to determine the efficacy of agomelatine in alleviating acute symptoms of major depressive disorder in comparison with other antidepressants, 2) to review the acceptability of agomelatine in comparison with other antidepressant drugs, and, 3) to investigate the adverse effects of agomelatine, including the general prevalence of side effects in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Collaboration's Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to 31 July 2013. The CCDANCTR includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) (all years), EMBASE (1974 onwards), MEDLINE (1950 onwards) and PsycINFO (1967 onwards). We checked reference lists of relevant studies together with reviews and regulatory agency reports. No restrictions on date, language or publication status were applied to the search. Servier Laboratories (developers of agomelatine) and other experts in the field were contacted for supplemental data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials allocating adult participants with major depression to agomelatine versus any other antidepressive agent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and a double-entry procedure was employed. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 13 studies (4495 participants) were included in this review. Agomelatine was compared to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), namely paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline, escitalopram, and to the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), venlafaxine. Participants were followed up for six to 12 weeks. Agomelatine did not show any advantage or disadvantage over the other antidepressants for our primary outcome, response to treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.08, P value 0.75 compared to SSRIs, and RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.16, P value 0.16 compared to venlafaxine). Also, agomelatine showed no advantage or disadvantage over other antidepressants for remission (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.01, P value 0.07 compared to SSRIs, and RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24, P value 0.73 compared to venlafaxine). Overall, agomelatine appeared to be better tolerated than venlafaxine in terms of lower rates of drop outs (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67, P value 0.0005), and showed the same level of tolerability as SSRIs (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09, P value 0.44). Agomelatine induced a lower rate of dizziness than venlafaxine (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.64, P value 0.007).With regard to the quality of the body of evidence, there was a moderate risk of bias for all outcomes, due to the number of included unpublished studies. There was some heterogeneity, particularly between published and unpublished studies. The included studies were conducted in inpatient and outpatient settings, thus limiting the generalisability of the results to primary care settings. With regard to precision, the efficacy outcomes were precise, but the tolerability outcomes were mostly imprecise. Publication bias was variable and depended on the outcome of the trial. Our review included unpublished studies, and we think that this reduced the impact of publication bias. The overall methodological quality of the studies was not very good. Almost all of the studies were sponsored by the pharmaceutical company that manufactures agomelatine (Servier), and some of these were unpublished. Attempts to contact the pharmaceutical company Servier for additional information on all unpublished studies were unsuccessful. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Agomelatine did not seem to provide a significant advantage in efficacy over other antidepressive agents for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. Agomelatine was better tolerated than paroxetine and venlafaxine in terms of overall side effects, and fewer participants treated with agomelatine dropped out of the trials due to side effects compared to sertraline and venlafaxine, but data were limited because the number of included studies was small. We found evidence that compared agomelatine with only a small number of other active antidepressive agents, and there were only a few trials for each comparison, which limits the generalisability of the results. Moreover, the overall methodological quality of the studies was low, and, therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn concerning the efficacy and tolerability of agomelatine.

Vancomycin versus linezolid in the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus meningitis.

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin is the mainstay of treatment for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) meningitis. However, successful outcomes with linezolid have not been reported in a large series of patients. We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study to compare vancomycin with linezolid in the treatment of MRSA meningitis. METHODS: We extracted data and outcomes for all adult patients (age >18 years) with culture-proved MRSA meningitis who received vancomycin or linezolid between January 2006 and June 2011. A definite diagnosis of meningitis was based on the isolation of MRSA in at least one cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture and findings in CSF that are typical of the infection. Linezolid was given intravenously (IV) at a dosage of 600 mg q12h and vancomycin IV at 500 mg q6h. RESULTS: A total of 8 patients with MRSA meningitis (5 male, 3 female; age [mean±SD] 61.6±13.2 years) received vancomycin and 9 patients (7 male, 2 female; age 59.1±15.6 years) received linezolid. All isolated strains of MRSA were susceptible to both vancomycin and linezolid. The rates of microbiologic success with linezolid or vancomycin, in terms of clearance of MRSA from CSF on day 5, were 7/9 and 2/8 (p=0.044, Fisher exact test). No severe adverse events occurred in either treatment arm of the study. One-month survival of the patients in whom treatment was successful microbiologically was 2/2 in the vancomycin-treated group and 4/7 in the linezolid-treated group. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) data for vancomycin were available for 5/6 treatment failures with vancomycin, and vancomycin MIC values of these five strains were 2 mg/L. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the findings in the limited cohorts in our study suggests that linezolid is superior to vancomycin for treating MRSA meningitis, especially in cases in which there is a high MIC (2 mg/L) for vancomycin. A clinical study involving larger cohorts may increase the evidence available in relation to this question.

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

Linezolid is an antibiotic with time-dependent activity, and both the percentage of time that plasma concentrations exceed the MIC and the area under the concentration-time curve over 24 h in the steady state divided by the MIC (AUC24/MIC ratio) are associated with clinical response. The aim of this study was to analyze the linezolid trough plasma concentration (C(min)) and to determine factors associated with a C(min) < 2 mg/liter and other clinically relevant thresholds. Characteristics of 78 patients receiving 600 mg/12 h of linezolid with a C(min) determination at the steady state and within the first 10 days of treatment were retrospectively reviewed. Concentrations were measured using high-pressure liquid chromatography. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify risk factors of low C(min). A total of 29.5% of patients had a C(min) < 2 mg/liter. The percentage was significantly higher in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration (eGF) > 80 ml/min, in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, and in patients with an infection due to Staphylococcus aureus. The independent predictors of C(min) < 2 mg/liter were an eGF > 80 ml/min (odds ratio [OR], 10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.732 to 37.037; P = 0.001) and infection due to S. aureus (OR, 5.906; 95% CI, 1.651 to 21.126; P = 0.006). A linezolid C(min) of <2 mg/liter was found in 29.5% of cases, and the risk was significantly higher among those with an eGF > 80 ml/min and in infections due to S. aureus. In patients with severe sepsis, a loading dose or continuous infusion and drug monitoring could improve the pharmacodynamic parameters associated with linezolid efficacy.

Linezolid in the treatment of MDR-TB: a retrospective clinical study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information on Chinese patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treated with a linezolid-containing regimen. OBJECTIVE: To examine treatment outcomes among MDR-TB patients who were treated with linezolid at the Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, China. DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed 151 patients who were treated for MDR-TB from 2007 to 2010. RESULTS: Eighteen MDR-TB patients, including 15 with extensively drug-resistant TB, received linezolid as part of their individualised treatment regimens. Patients had isolates resistant to a median of 7 drugs (range 5-11). Of the 18 cases, 17 had cavitary changes and positive sputum smear microscopy results at the time of MDR-TB diagnosis. Culture conversion occurred in all cases at a median of 7 weeks. At data censure, 9 of the 18 patients had achieved treatment success. Three continued to receive treatment. There were no deaths. Six patients had a poor outcome, including 1 default, 2 treatment failures and 3 relapses. Side effects occurred in 17 patients, including myelosuppression, neurotoxicity and gastrointestinal adverse events. Adverse events were managed by combinations of temporary suspension of linezolid in 1 patient, dose adjustment in 17 patients and symptom management in 13 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid may have efficacy in the treatment of MDR-TB, although treatment was complicated by adverse events.

Safety and efficacy of linezolid in 16 infants and children in Japan.

Linezolid, an oxazolidinone antibiotic, exhibits a broad spectrum of activity against Gram-positive bacteria. It has been licensed for adult use in Japan since 2006 for MRSA infections, and has also been used off-label for pediatric patients. At our university hospital, a total of 16 infants and children (including one non-Japanese Asian) were administered linezolid owing to infection with multidrug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria, after consent had been provided. All patients had severe underlying diseases or indications for surgery. Eighty-eight percent of the causal microorganisms were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and all were sensitive to linezolid. Linezolid was administered because the antecedent anti-MRSA medications were ineffective or contraindicated, or intravenous-to-oral switch therapy was requested owing to cardiac or orthopedic surgical-site infections. The median duration of administration was 13 days (range 3-31 days). The overall efficacy was 91 % (10/11) in those for whom efficacy could be evaluated. Only two patients (both teen-aged) encountered linezolid-related adverse effects (13 %, 2/16). One patient showed elevation of liver enzymes (aspartate aminotransferase [AST] and alanine aminotransferase [ALT]), requiring that administration be withdrawn, but enzyme levels returned to normal after the patient had been switched to vancomycin. The other patient showed transiently decreased platelet counts. Linezolid is considered generally safe and effective for children in Japan, especially for those who cannot use other anti-MRSA medications or those who require oral antibiotics for infections with multidrug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria.

Successful alternative treatment of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in Argentina with a combination of linezolid, moxifloxacin and thioridazine.

OBJECTIVES: Current drug choices to treat extensively drug-resistant (XDR) tuberculosis (TB) are scarce; therefore, information on the safety, tolerability and efficacy of alternative regimens is of utmost importance. The aim of this study was to describe the management, drug adverse effects and outcome of alternative combined treatment in a series of XDR-TB patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on 17 non-AIDS, pulmonary adult patients with XDR-TB admitted to a referral treatment centre for infectious diseases in Buenos Aires from 2002 through 2008. Drug susceptibility testing was performed under regular proficiency testing and confirmed at the national TB reference laboratory. RESULTS: Linezolid was included in the drug regimens of all patients; moxifloxacin and/or thioridazine were included in the regimens of 14 patients. Clinically tractable drug adverse effects were observed in nine patients, the most frequent being haematological disorders and neurotoxicity. In two patients, thioridazine was discontinued. Negative culture conversion was achieved in 15 patients, 11 completed treatment meeting cure criteria, 4 are still on follow-up with good evolution, 1 defaulted treatment and 1 was lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of linezolid, moxifloxacin and thioridazine is recommended for compassionate use in specialized centres with expertise in the management of XDR-TB.

Efficacy and safety of linezolid in the treatment of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis.

Linezolid is a new antibiotic with activity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis in vitro and in vivo. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linezolid in the treatment of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB). We used a linezolid-containing regimen in the treatment of 14 XDR-TB patients. Two years of individualized chemotherapy regimens were adopted on the basis of the patients'medication history and the results of drug susceptibility testing. The patients received 600 mg of linezolid twice a day for the first 1-2 months, followed by once a day thereafter. Eleven patients (78.6%) showed significant improvement in clinical symptoms. Chest computed tomography revealed that 10 patients (71.4%) showed cavity closure. Smear conversion and culture conversion were achieved in all 14 patients (100%) with an average of 64 and 63 days, respectively. The exact proportions of serious and minor adverse events determined by linezolid were 21.4% (3/14) and 64.3% (9/14), respectively. These data show that linezolid-containing chemotherapy for the treatment of XDR-TB may significantly improve clinical symptoms, promote lesion absorption and cavity closure, and accelerate sputum conversion. Further, adverse reactions can be tolerated and resolved with suitable intervention.

Efficacy and safety of linezolid in liver transplant patients.

Bacterial infections are the main cause of death within the first year after liver transplantation, and the increased incidence of multidrug-resistant gram-positive pathogens has created a major challenge in the treatment of these patients. Linezolid, the first US Food & Drug Administration-approved oxazolidinone, offers a valuable novel treatment option for serious gram-positive infections. Linezolid is relatively non-toxic but prolonged treatment with linezolid was associated with thrombocytopenia. Here we report on the experience of linezolid treatment in adult liver transplant patients, who are at an increased risk for thrombocytopenia because of hypersplenism. From November 2003 until December 2009, we evaluated the clinical course of 46 liver transplant patients (27 male/19 female) in our surgical intensive care unit. For proven or probable gram-positive infection, all patients received linezolid 600 mg intravenously every 12 h. On clinical improvement, treatment was changed to oral linezolid 600 mg twice daily. Treatment duration was 11 ± 7 days. Treatment indications were pneumonia (n = 8), blood stream infection (n = 30), and surgical site/abdominal infection (n = 3). Clinical cure was achieved in 43 out of 46 patients. During the course of treatment, no cases of severe thrombocytopenia occurred and a statistically significant platelet count increase was seen from day 1 (110 ± 73/nL) to day 7 (165 ± 116/nL) and day 14 (180 ± 140/nL). We did not observe any further adverse events, especially no severe neurological complications (e.g., serotonin syndrome) or signs of lactate acidosis. Two patients died from uncontrolled vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium sepsis with septic shock and one due to uncontrolled methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. These deaths were considered to be unrelated to linezolid treatment, and linezolid was regarded as the optimal treatment choice in these patients. A subgroup analysis of patients treated for >14 days revealed no statistically significant differences when compared with patients on shorter treatment. In particular, no cases of thrombocytopenia occurred during longer treatment. In conclusion, linezolid is a safe and effective treatment for adult liver transplant patients with gram-positive infections.

Analysis of linezolid-associated hematologic toxicities in a large veterans affairs medical center.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To characterize linezolid-associated hematologic toxicities in a large clinical practice setting and to examine the variables associated with development of hematologic toxicities; a secondary objective was to characterize other linezolid-associated toxicities in this population. DESIGN: Retrospective medical record review. SETTING: Academic Veterans Affairs medical center. PATIENTS: Four hundred forty-four patients (mean age 63.7 yrs) who received 544 courses of linezolid from 2004-2007. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pertinent laboratory data were collected at baseline, periodically throughout each linezolid course, and up to 31 days after discontinuation. The frequencies of grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia were 7.6% and 5.2%, respectively. Grade 3-4 anemia developed in 18.8% of courses; each of the patients had baseline grade 1-2 anemia. Linezolid was discontinued because of toxicity in 35 (6.4%) of the 544 courses. Independent variables associated with grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia included a baseline hemoglobin level of less than 10.5 g/dl, presence of immunosuppression, and a baseline platelet count of 50-99.9 x 10(3)/mm(3). Independent variables associated with development of grade 3-4 anemia included presence of a cardiovascular condition, urologic condition, immunosuppression, and a baseline platelet count of 50-99.9 x 10(3)/mm(3). Other toxicities reported with linezolid included diarrhea (6.6% of courses), followed by nausea (4.4%) and vomiting (4.0%). CONCLUSION: The overall rates of thrombocytopenia and anemia for patients receiving linezolid were found to be higher than those in phase III clinical trials. This may be attributable in part to the inclusion of patients with comorbidities that were exclusion criteria in the phase III clinical trials. Clinicians should be aware of variables associated with the development of severe thrombocytopenia and anemia in patients receiving linezolid so that they may predict which patients are likely to develop these toxicities and consider potential alternative therapies in those patients.

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.

Almorexant, a dual orexin receptor antagonist for the treatment of insomnia.

Almorexant (ACT-078573) is an orally active dual orexin receptor antagonist that is being developed by Actelion Ltd, in collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline plc, for the treatment of primary insomnia. Almorexant is a first-in-class compound that targets the orexin system, which plays a key role in wake promotion and stabilization, in addition to having other regulatory functions. Decreasing orexin activity was hypothesized to have a sleep-promoting effect. Preclinical studies and phase I clinical trials have demonstrated that almorexant decreases alertness and increases sleep in healthy rats, dogs and humans when administered during the active phase of the circadian cycle, at peak endogenous orexin tone. No significant toxicological or safety concerns have been identified in studies in animals and humans, including no evidence of cataplexy, a sudden postural muscle tone weakening that is triggered by emotional stimuli and is considered unique to narcolepsy. The reported efficacy and safety data for almorexant support the continued development of the compound. At the time of publication, phase III clinical trials were underway, but no results had been reported; Actelion and GlaxoSmithKline were also investigating almorexant for other orexin-related neurological disorders. The use of an orexin receptor antagonist for the treatment of sleep disorders appears to be an approach that may provide unique benefits.