ArticleDrugs in R&D2025
Safety Evaluation of Contezolid (MRX-I) Versus Linezolid in Sprague-Dawley Rats.
Article in Drugs in R&D, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From linezolid to contezolid: a strategy for safe continuation of therapy in complex tuberculosis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
objectivesContezolid (MRX-I) is a novel ortho-fluorophenyl dihydropyridone developed by MicuRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. It has been approved for the treatment of drug-resistant Gram-positive bacterial infections with relatively lower toxicity than other oxazolidinones such as linezolid. However, the toxicity profile has not yet been completely revealed. The aim of this study was to disclose the toxicity of contezolid in Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats and compare its toxicity profile with linezolid in a standard 4-week toxicity study.
methodsIn this study, SD rats were orally administered with contezolid at doses of 20, 100, or 200/300 mg/kg/day for 28 consecutive days followed by a 28-day recovery period. Linezolid at doses of 100 or 200 mg/kg/day served as a comparator. Clinical observations, body weight, food consumption, hematology, clinical chemistry, urinalysis, and histopathological examinations were conducted.
resultsAll females in the 200 mg/kg/day linezolid group were subjected to unscheduled death due to myelosuppression within the first 2 weeks. No abnormalities were noted in the 200 mg/kg/day contezolid group, and the dose level was escalated to 300 mg/kg/day from day 15. Myelosuppression or myelosuppression-associated effects were comparable between the 300-mg/kg/day contezolid group and the 100-mg/kg/day linezolid group. The 'no observed adverse effect level' (NOAEL) of contezolid was determined to be 100 mg/kg/day (with an average AUC
conclusionThese findings demonstrate that contezolid exhibits a favorable safety profile compared with linezolid in this 4-week repeated-dose toxicity study in rats.
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.