ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2025
Efficacy and safety of contezolid in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections in patients with hematological malignancies: a retrospective study.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 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.
- Current Status and Perspectives of Antibacterial Agents Belonging to 2-Oxazolidinones.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeContezolid, an oxazolidinone antibiotic, is recognized for its comparable antimicrobial activity to linezolid, with a distinct advantage of reduced hematological toxicity. This retrospective analysis aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy profile of contezolid in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections (GPI) in hematological patients.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on adult hematological patients with confirmed or suspected GPI who received contezolid for at least three days following chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) at Henan Cancer Hospital between April 2022 and June 2024. Comprehensive data collection included demographic variables, treatment protocols, infection profiles, microbiological data, and clinical outcomes.
resultsThe study included 132 patients (47.5 ± 18.0 years), 61.4% male. Treatment strategies for hematological malignancies included combination chemotherapy with targeted therapy (41.7%), chemotherapy alone (37.9%), and HSCT (20.5%). 60.6% had febrile neutropenia. More than half of the infections occurred within one month after treatment, predominantly affecting the lungs and skin/soft tissue. Two patients had concurrent bloodstream infections (BSI) prior to receiving contezolid treatment. The median contezolid treatment was 12 days, 72.7% had it as initial treatment. The rationale for contezolid utilization includes complicated skin and soft-tissue infections (cSSTI), prior treatment failure, adverse reactions, and contraindications. Clinical effective rate was 70.6% (95% CI: 62.7% - 78.5%), with 64.4% (95% CI: 52.2% - 76.6%) in pneumonia, 74.6% (95% CI: 63.0% - 86.1%) in skin or soft tissue infections, and 69.3% (95% CI: 58.9% - 79.8%) in febrile neutropenia. Seventeen patients (12.9%) had adverse events. Twelve had new-onset/aggravated nausea or epigastric discomfort, and seven had vomiting; these may relate to contezolid. No contezolid-related hematological adverse events, optic or peripheral neuropathy were observed.
conclusionsContezolid seems promising for these patients, but large-scale prospective studies are needed for confirmation.
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.