Cargando…

Continuous Versus Intermittent Linezolid Infusion for Critically Ill Patients with Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Efficacy and Safety Challenges

High variability of linezolid blood concentrations with partial subtherapeutic levels was observed in critically ill patients who received a standard intravenous dose of linezolid, contributing to drug resistance and toxicity. Continuous infusions of linezolid have been suggested as an alternative a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Warda, Ahmed E. Abou, Sarhan, Rania M., Al-Fishawy, Hussein Saeed, Moharram, Ayman N., Salem, Heba F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8949268/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35337094
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ph15030296
_version_ 1784674854579994624
author Warda, Ahmed E. Abou
Sarhan, Rania M.
Al-Fishawy, Hussein Saeed
Moharram, Ayman N.
Salem, Heba F.
author_facet Warda, Ahmed E. Abou
Sarhan, Rania M.
Al-Fishawy, Hussein Saeed
Moharram, Ayman N.
Salem, Heba F.
author_sort Warda, Ahmed E. Abou
collection PubMed
description High variability of linezolid blood concentrations with partial subtherapeutic levels was observed in critically ill patients who received a standard intravenous dose of linezolid, contributing to drug resistance and toxicity. Continuous infusions of linezolid have been suggested as an alternative and provide good serum and alveolar levels without fluctuations in trough concentration. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of continuous linezolid infusion versus the standard regimen in critically ill patients. A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted on 179 patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Patients were randomized into two groups. The first group received IV linezolid 600 mg twice daily, while the second group received 600 mg IV as a loading dose, followed by a continuous infusion of 1200 mg/day (50 mg/h) for at least 8–10 days. The continuous infusion group showed a higher clinical cure rate than the intermittent infusion group (p = 0.046). Furthermore, efficacy was proven by greater improvement of P/F ratio (p = 0.030) on day 7 of treatment, a lower incidence of developing sepsis after beginning treatment (p = 0.009), and a shorter time to reach clinical cure (p < 0.001). Hematological parameters were also assessed during the treatment to evaluate the safety between the two groups. The incidence of thrombocytopenia was significantly lower in the continuous infusion group than in the intermittent infusion group. In addition, a stepwise logistic regression model revealed that the intermittent infusion of linezolid was significantly associated with thrombocytopenia (OR =4.128; 95% CI = 1.681–10.139; p =0.001). The current study is the first to assess the clinical aspects of continuous infusion of linezolid beyond pharmacokinetic studies. Continuous infusion of linezolid outperforms intermittent delivery in safety and improves clinical effectiveness in critically ill patients with Gram-positive nosocomial pneumonia.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8949268
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89492682022-03-26 Continuous Versus Intermittent Linezolid Infusion for Critically Ill Patients with Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Efficacy and Safety Challenges Warda, Ahmed E. Abou Sarhan, Rania M. Al-Fishawy, Hussein Saeed Moharram, Ayman N. Salem, Heba F. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) Article High variability of linezolid blood concentrations with partial subtherapeutic levels was observed in critically ill patients who received a standard intravenous dose of linezolid, contributing to drug resistance and toxicity. Continuous infusions of linezolid have been suggested as an alternative and provide good serum and alveolar levels without fluctuations in trough concentration. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of continuous linezolid infusion versus the standard regimen in critically ill patients. A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted on 179 patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Patients were randomized into two groups. The first group received IV linezolid 600 mg twice daily, while the second group received 600 mg IV as a loading dose, followed by a continuous infusion of 1200 mg/day (50 mg/h) for at least 8–10 days. The continuous infusion group showed a higher clinical cure rate than the intermittent infusion group (p = 0.046). Furthermore, efficacy was proven by greater improvement of P/F ratio (p = 0.030) on day 7 of treatment, a lower incidence of developing sepsis after beginning treatment (p = 0.009), and a shorter time to reach clinical cure (p < 0.001). Hematological parameters were also assessed during the treatment to evaluate the safety between the two groups. The incidence of thrombocytopenia was significantly lower in the continuous infusion group than in the intermittent infusion group. In addition, a stepwise logistic regression model revealed that the intermittent infusion of linezolid was significantly associated with thrombocytopenia (OR =4.128; 95% CI = 1.681–10.139; p =0.001). The current study is the first to assess the clinical aspects of continuous infusion of linezolid beyond pharmacokinetic studies. Continuous infusion of linezolid outperforms intermittent delivery in safety and improves clinical effectiveness in critically ill patients with Gram-positive nosocomial pneumonia. MDPI 2022-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8949268/ /pubmed/35337094 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ph15030296 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Warda, Ahmed E. Abou
Sarhan, Rania M.
Al-Fishawy, Hussein Saeed
Moharram, Ayman N.
Salem, Heba F.
Continuous Versus Intermittent Linezolid Infusion for Critically Ill Patients with Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Efficacy and Safety Challenges
title Continuous Versus Intermittent Linezolid Infusion for Critically Ill Patients with Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Efficacy and Safety Challenges
title_full Continuous Versus Intermittent Linezolid Infusion for Critically Ill Patients with Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Efficacy and Safety Challenges
title_fullStr Continuous Versus Intermittent Linezolid Infusion for Critically Ill Patients with Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Efficacy and Safety Challenges
title_full_unstemmed Continuous Versus Intermittent Linezolid Infusion for Critically Ill Patients with Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Efficacy and Safety Challenges
title_short Continuous Versus Intermittent Linezolid Infusion for Critically Ill Patients with Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Efficacy and Safety Challenges
title_sort continuous versus intermittent linezolid infusion for critically ill patients with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia: efficacy and safety challenges
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8949268/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35337094
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ph15030296
work_keys_str_mv AT wardaahmedeabou continuousversusintermittentlinezolidinfusionforcriticallyillpatientswithhospitalacquiredandventilatorassociatedpneumoniaefficacyandsafetychallenges
AT sarhanraniam continuousversusintermittentlinezolidinfusionforcriticallyillpatientswithhospitalacquiredandventilatorassociatedpneumoniaefficacyandsafetychallenges
AT alfishawyhusseinsaeed continuousversusintermittentlinezolidinfusionforcriticallyillpatientswithhospitalacquiredandventilatorassociatedpneumoniaefficacyandsafetychallenges
AT moharramaymann continuousversusintermittentlinezolidinfusionforcriticallyillpatientswithhospitalacquiredandventilatorassociatedpneumoniaefficacyandsafetychallenges
AT salemhebaf continuousversusintermittentlinezolidinfusionforcriticallyillpatientswithhospitalacquiredandventilatorassociatedpneumoniaefficacyandsafetychallenges