ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Linezolid Pharmacokinetics in Critically Ill Patients: Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimization of linezolid infusion duration in critically ill patients: a population pharmacokinetic analysis of the trade-off between efficacy and toxicity.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Next-generation hybrid bioanalytical platforms and clinical integration of TDM technologies for precision monitoring to optimize last-resort antibiotic therapy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Linezolid MIC creep among clinically significantFrontiers in antibiotics · 2026Article
- Linezolid Serum Concentration Variability Among Critically Ill Patients Based on Renal Function and Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy Administration.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLinezolid has been found to have considerable interindividual variability, especially in critically ill patients, which can lead to suboptimal plasma concentration. To overcome this shortcoming, several solutions have been proposed. These include using loading dose, higher maintenance doses, and dose stratification according to the patient's particularities, therapeutic drug monitoring, and drug administration via continuous infusion (CI) instead of intermittent infusion (II). In the present study, we aim to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of linezolid after administration as II versus CI to critically ill patients.
methodsIn a prospective study conducted in an intensive care unit, we compared the same two daily doses of linezolid administered via II versus CI. The serum concentration was measured, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) indices for efficacy chosen were area under the concentration-time curve at steady state divided by the minimum inhibitory concentration over 80 (AUC24-48/MIC > 80).
resultsGreater serum concentration variability was observed in the II group than in the CI group. The %T > MIC > 80% was achieved for MICs of 1 and 2 µg/mL 100% of the time, whereas for the II group, this was 93% and 73%, respectively. AUC24-48/MIC > 80 was reached in 100% of cases in the CI group compared with 87% in the II group for a MIC of 1 µg/mL.
conclusionsThe two infusion methods may be used comparably, but utilizing CI as an alternative to II may have potential benefits, including avoiding periods of suboptimal concentrations, which may enhance safety profiles and clinical outcomes. Considering the relatively few studies performed on linezolid to date, which are increasing in number, the results of the present study may be of interest.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.