ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2026
Contezolid in tuberculous meningitis: comparable efficacy and favorable safety.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is the most severe and fatal form of tuberculosis (TB). Linezolid (Lzd), a key oxazolidinone with excellent central nervous system penetration, is widely used for TBM but is limited by significant adverse events (AEs). Contezolid (Czd), a next-generation oxazolidinone structurally optimized from Lzd, has shown promising potential. However, clinical evidence for its use in TBM remains limited to isolated case reports. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of TBM patients treated with Czd- or Lzd-containing regimens. Patients were categorized into two groups: the Czd group (n=16, including 9 patients who switched from Lzd to Czd due to Lzd intolerance) and the Lzd group (n=32). We analyzed treatment outcomes, including Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) parameters, imaging findings, and CSF culture conversion, as well as safety outcomes in both groups. Results: No AEs were observed in the Czd group, and hematological parameters remained stable. All Lzd-related AEs completely resolved after switching to Czd in the Lzd-to-Czd group. In the Lzd group, 68.75% experienced AEs, with 34.38% requiring dose reduction and 21.88% discontinuing treatment. Treatment outcomes were favorable in both groups: all 48 patients achieved clinical symptom improvement, with CSF Mtb culture conversion rates of 100% (Czd) vs. 93.33% (Lzd), and radiological improvement in 81.25% of patients in both groups. No significant differences were found in CSF parameter trends between the two groups (all P > 0.05). Conclusion: Czd represents an effective salvage strategy for Lzd intolerance and may prevent severe AEs while maintaining efficacy comparable to Lzd. These findings support Czd as a valuable alternative for TBM treatment.
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.