Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35337094›Full record

ArticlePharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2022

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

Ahmed E Abou Warda, Rania M Sarhan, Hussein Saeed Al-Fishawy, Ayman N Moharram, Heba F Salem

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Efficacy and Safety of Continuous vs Intermittent Linezolid Infusion in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ahmed E Abou WardaClinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, October 6 University, Giza P.O. Box 12585, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0003-4434-6217
Rania M SarhanClinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef P.O. Box 62514, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-0781-6454
Hussein Saeed Al-FishawyInternal Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Giza P.O. Box 12613, Egypt.
Ayman N MoharramCritical Care Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Giza P.O. Box 12613, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0003-1479-5476
Heba F SalemPharmaceutics and Industrial Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef P.O. Box 62514, Egypt.
Beni-Suef University · EGCairo University · EGOctober 6 University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

clinical responsecontinuous infusionintensive care unitintermittent infusionlinezolidpneumoniathrombocytopenia

Identifiers

PMID35337094
PMCPMC8949268
OpenAlexW4214707852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.