Линезолид: Қолданылуы, тиімділігі және ескертулер

Antibiotic medication

As a protein synthesis inhibitor, linezolid works by suppressing bacterial protein production. As of 2014, bacterial resistance to linezolid has remained low. Linezolid is a member of the oxazolidinone class of medications. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines. The World Health Organization classifies linezolid as critically important for human medicine. Linezolid is available as a generic medication.

The main use of linezolid is the treatment of severe infections caused by aerobic Gram positive bacteria that are resistant to other antibiotics; it should not be used against bacteria that are sensitive to drugs with a narrower spectrum of activity, such as penicillins and cephalosporins. In both the popular press and the scientific literature, linezolid has been called a "reserve antibiotic"—one that should be used sparingly so that it will remain effective as a drug of last resort against potentially intractable infections. In the United States, the indications for linezolid use approved by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are the treatment of vancomycin resistant Enterococcus faecium infections, with or without bacterial invasion of the bloodstream; nosocomial pneumonia (hospital acquired) and community acquired pneumonia caused by S. aureus or S. pneumoniae; complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI) caused by susceptible bacteria, including diabetic foot infection, unless complicated by osteomyelitis (infection of the bone and bone marrow); and uncomplicated skin and soft tissue infections caused by S. pyogenes or S. aureus. Linezolid appears to be as safe and effective for use in children and newborns as it is in adults. and smaller studies appear to confirm its superiority over teicoplanin in the treatment of all serious Gram positive infections. In the treatment of diabetic foot infections, linezolid appears to be cheaper and more effective than vancomycin. In a 2004 open label study, it was as effective as ampicillin/sulbactam and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, and far superior in patients with foot ulcers and no osteomyelitis, but with significantly higher rates of adverse effects. A 2008 meta analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, however, found that linezolid treatment failed as often as other antibiotics, regardless of whether patients had osteomyelitis. Some authors have recommended that combinations of cheaper or more cost effective drugs (such as co trimoxazole with rifampicin or clindamycin) be tried before linezolid in the treatment of SSTIs when susceptibility of the causative organism allows it.

No significant difference appears in treatment success rates between linezolid, glycopeptides, or appropriate beta lactam antibiotics in the treatment of pneumonia. The guidelines of the British Thoracic Society do not recommend it as first line treatment, but rather as an alternative to vancomycin. Linezolid is also an acceptable second line treatment for community acquired pneumococcal pneumonia when penicillin resistance is present. Some studies have suggested that linezolid is better than vancomycin against nosocomial pneumonia, particularly ventilator associated pneumonia caused by MRSA, perhaps because the penetration of linezolid into bronchial fluids is much higher than that of vancomycin. Several issues in study design have been raised, however, calling into question results that suggest the superiority of linezolid.|alt=Side by side echocardiogram cross sections of a human heart. In the second image a white arrow points at a mass on the tricuspid valve.]] It is traditionally believed that so called "deep" infections—such as osteomyelitis or infective endocarditis—should be treated with bactericidal antibiotics, not bacteriostatic ones. Nevertheless, preclinical studies were conducted to assess the efficacy of linezolid for these infections, Results in the treatment of enterococcal endocarditis have varied, with some cases treated successfully and others not responding to therapy. Low to medium quality evidence is also mounting for its use in bone and joint infections, including chronic osteomyelitis, although adverse effects are a significant concern when long term use is necessary. In combination with other drugs, linezolid has been used to treat tuberculosis. The optimal dose for this purpose has not been established. In adults, daily and twice daily dosing have been used to good effect. Many months of treatment are often required, and the rate of adverse effects is high regardless of dosage. There is not enough reliable evidence of efficacy and safety to support this indication as a routine use. It is also one of few antibiotics that diffuse into the vitreous humor, and may therefore be effective in treating endophthalmitis (inflammation of the inner linings and cavities of the eye) caused by susceptible bacteria. Again, there is little evidence for its use in this setting, as infectious endophthalmitis is treated widely and effectively with vancomycin injected directly into the eye. There does not appear to be enough high quality evidence to support the routine use of linezolid to treat bacterial meningitis. Nonetheless, it has been used successfully in many cases of central nervous system infection—including meningitis—caused by susceptible bacteria, and has also been suggested as a reasonable choice for this indication when treatment options are limited or when other antibiotics have failed. The guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend linezolid as the first line drug of choice for VRE meningitis, and as an alternative to vancomycin for MRSA meningitis. Linezolid appears superior to vancomycin in treating community acquired MRSA infections of the central nervous system, although very few cases of such infections have been published (as of 2009).

In March 2007, the FDA reported the results of a randomized, open label, phase III clinical trial comparing linezolid to vancomycin in the treatment of catheter related bloodstream infections. Patients treated with vancomycin could be switched to oxacillin or dicloxacillin if the bacteria that caused their infection was found to be susceptible, and patients in both groups (linezolid and vancomycin) could receive specific treatment against Gram negative bacteria if necessary. The study itself was published in January 2009. Linezolid was associated with significantly greater mortality than the comparator antibiotics. When data from all participants were pooled, the study found that 21.5% of those given linezolid died, compared to 16% of those not receiving it. The difference was found to be due to the inferiority of linezolid in the treatment of Gram negative infections alone or mixed Gram negative/Gram positive infections. In participants whose infection was due to Gram positive bacteria alone, linezolid was as safe and effective as vancomycin. No dosage adjustments are required in the elderly, in people with mild to moderate liver failure, or in those with impaired kidney function. Linezolid is in U. S. pregnancy category C, meaning there have been no adequate studies of its safety when used by pregnant women, and although animal studies have shown mild toxicity to the fetus, the benefits of using the drug may outweigh its risks. Linezolid is also highly active in vitro against several mycobacteria. Linezolid is considered bacteriostatic against most organisms—that is, it stops their growth and reproduction without actually killing them—but has some bactericidal (killing) activity against streptococci.

Linezolid has no clinically significant effect on most Gram negative bacteria. Pseudomonas and the Enterobacteriaceae, for instance, are not susceptible. Fusobacterium, Moraxella catarrhalis, Legionella, Bordetella, and Elizabethkingia meningoseptica, and moderately active (having a minimum inhibitory concentration for 90% of strains of 8 mg/L) against Haemophilus influenzae.

Linezolid's spectrum of activity against Gram positive bacteria is similar to that of the glycopeptide antibiotic vancomycin, which has long been the standard for treatment of MRSA infections, and the two drugs are often compared. Unlike some antibiotics, such as erythromycin and the quinolones, linezolid has no effect on the QT interval, a measure of cardiac electrical conduction. Adverse effects in children are similar to those that occur in adults. C. difficile appears to be susceptible to linezolid in vitro, and linezolid was even considered as a possible treatment for CDAD.

Bone marrow suppression, characterized particularly by thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), may occur during linezolid treatment; it appears to be the only adverse effect that occurs significantly more frequently with linezolid than with glycopeptides or beta lactams. A 2004 case report suggested that pyridoxine (a form of vitamin B6) could reverse the anemia and thrombocytopenia caused by linezolid, but a later, larger study found no protective effect. Long term use of linezolid has also been associated with chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy, a progressive and enduring often irreversible tingling numbness, intense pain, and hypersensitivity to cold, beginning in the hands and feet and sometimes involving the arms and legs. Chemotherapy drugs associated with CIPN include thalidomide, the epothilones such as ixabepilone, the vinca alkaloids vincristine and vinblastine, the taxanes paclitaxel and docetaxel, the proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib, and the platinum based drugs cisplatin, oxaliplatin and carboplatin. and optic neuropathy, which is most common after several months of treatment and may also be irreversible. Although the mechanism of injury is still poorly understood, mitochondrial toxicity has been proposed as a cause; linezolid is toxic to mitochondria, probably because of the similarity between mitochondrial and bacterial ribosomes. Lactic acidosis, a potentially life threatening buildup of lactic acid in the body, may also occur due to mitochondrial toxicity. Because of these long term effects, the manufacturer recommends weekly complete blood counts during linezolid therapy to monitor for possible bone marrow suppression, and recommends that treatment last no more than 28 days. The adverse effects of long term linezolid therapy were first identified during postmarketing surveillance. Bone marrow suppression was not identified during Phase III trials, in which treatment did not exceed 21 days. Although some participants of early trials did experience thrombocytopenia, it was found to be reversible and did not occur significantly more frequently than in controls (participants not taking linezolid).

Linezolid is a weak, non selective, reversible monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI), and should not be used concomitantly with other MAOIs, large amounts of tyramine rich foods (such as pork, aged cheeses, alcoholic beverages, or smoked and pickled foods), or serotonergic drugs. There have been postmarketing reports of serotonin syndrome when linezolid was given with or soon after the discontinuation of serotonergic drugs, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as paroxetine and sertraline. It may also enhance the blood pressure increasing effects of sympathomimetic drugs such as pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine. It should also not be given in combination with pethidine (meperidine) under any circumstance due to the risk of serotonin syndrome. Linezolid does not inhibit or induce the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system, which is responsible for the metabolism of many commonly used drugs, and therefore does not have any CYP related interactions. As a protein synthesis inhibitor, linezolid stops the growth and reproduction of bacteria by disrupting translation of messenger RNA (mRNA) into proteins in bacterial ribosomes. close to the binding sites of chloramphenicol, lincomycin, and other antibiotics. Due to this unique mechanism of action, cross resistance between linezolid and other protein synthesis inhibitors is highly infrequent or nonexistent. Another team in 2008 determined the structure of linezolid bound to a 50S subunit of Deinococcus radiodurans. The authors proposed a refined model for the mechanism of action of oxazolidinones, finding that linezolid occupies the A site of the 50S ribosomal subunit, inducing a conformational change that prevents tRNA from entering the site and ultimately forcing tRNA to separate from the ribosome.

At physiological pH (7.4), linezolid exists in an uncharged state. It is moderately water soluble (approximately 3 mg/mL), with a logP of 0.55.

Linezolid is a completely synthetic drug: it does not occur in nature (unlike erythromycin and many other antibiotics) and was not developed by building upon a naturally occurring skeleton (unlike most beta lactams, which are semisynthetic). Many approaches are available for oxazolidinone synthesis, and several routes for the synthesis of linezolid have been reported in the chemistry literature. Despite good yields, the original method (developed by Upjohn for pilot plant scale production of linezolid and eperezolid) is lengthy, requires the use of expensive chemicals—such as palladium on carbon and the highly sensitive reagents methanesulfonyl chloride and n butyllithium—and needs low temperature conditions. Much of the high cost of linezolid has been attributed to the expense of its synthesis. Later syntheses have included an "atom economical" method starting from D mannitol, developed by Indian pharmaceutical company Dr. Reddy's and reported in 1999, and a route starting from (S) glyceraldehyde acetonide (prepared from ascorbic acid), developed by a team of researchers from Hunan Normal University in Changsha, Hunan, China.

Acquired resistance to linezolid was reported as early as 1999, in two patients with severe, multidrug resistant Enterococcus faecium infection who received the drug through a compassionate use program. Linezolid resistant Staphylococcus aureus was first isolated in 2001. In the United States, resistance to linezolid has been monitored and tracked since 2004 through a program named LEADER, which (as of 2007) was conducted in 60 medical institutions throughout the country. Resistance has remained stable and extremely low—less than one half of one percent of isolates overall, and less than one tenth of one percent of S. aureus samples. A similar, worldwide program—the "Zyvox Annual Appraisal of Potency and Spectrum Study", or ZAAPS—has been conducted since 2002. as of 2007, overall resistance to linezolid in 23 countries was less than 0.2%, and nonexistent among streptococci. Resistance was only found in Brazil, China, Ireland, and Italy, among coagulase negative staphylococci (0.28% of samples resistant), enterococci (0.11%), and S. aureus (0.03%). In the United Kingdom and Ireland, no resistance was found in staphylococci collected from bacteremia cases between 2001 and 2006, although resistance in enterococci has been reported. Some authors have predicted that resistance in E. faecium will increase if linezolid use continues at current levels or increases. Gram positive bacteria usually develop resistance to linezolid as the result of a point mutation known as G2576T, in which a guanine base is replaced with thymine in base pair 2576 of the genes coding for 23S ribosomal RNA. This is the most common mechanism of resistance in staphylococci, and the only one known to date in isolates of E. faecium. Other mechanisms have been identified in Streptococcus pneumoniae (including mutations in an RNA methyltransferase that methylates G2445 of the 23S rRNA and mutations causing increased expression of ABC transporter genes) and in Staphylococcus epidermidis.

The oxazolidinones have been known as monoamine oxidase inhibitors since the late 1950s. Their antimicrobial properties were discovered by researchers at E. I. duPont de Nemours in the 1970s. In 1978, DuPont patented a series of oxazolidinone derivatives as being effective in the treatment of bacterial and fungal plant diseases, and in 1984, another patent described their usefulness in treating bacterial infections in mammals. Early compounds were found to produce liver toxicity, however, and development was discontinued. Pharmacia & Upjohn (now part of Pfizer) started its own oxazolidinone research program in the 1990s. Studies of the compounds' structure–activity relationships led to the development of several subclasses of oxazolidinone derivatives, with varying safety profiles and antimicrobial activity. Two compounds were considered drug candidates: eperezolid (codenamed PNU 100592) and linezolid (PNU 100766). Linezolid was found to have a pharmacokinetic advantage—requiring only twice daily dosage, while eperezolid needed to be given three times a day to achieve similar exposure—and therefore proceeded to further trials. Approval followed in Brazil (June 2000), the United Kingdom (January 2001), Europe (throughout 2001), and other countries in Latin America and Asia. Other members of this class have entered development, such as posizolid (AZD2563), ranbezolid (RBx 7644), and radezolid (RX 1741). In 2014, the FDA approved tedizolid phosphate, a second generation oxazolidinone derivative, for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection.

Linezolid was quite expensive in 2009; a course of treatment may cost one or two thousand U. S. dollars for the drug alone, not to mention other costs (such as those associated with hospital stay). With the medication becoming generic the price has decreased. In India as of 2015 a month of linezolid, as would be used to treat tuberculosis cost about US$60. In 2009, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion and entered a corporate integrity agreement to settle charges that it had misbranded and illegally promoted four drugs, and caused false claims to be submitted to government healthcare programs for uses that had not been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. $1.3 billion was paid to settle criminal charges of illegally marketing the anti inflammatory valdecoxib, while $1 billion was paid in civil fines regarding illegal marketing of three other drugs, including Zyvox.