Yasuhiro Tsuji1,2, Nicholas H G Holford2, Hidefumi Kasai1,3, Chika Ogami1, Young-A Heo2, Yoshitsugu Higashi4, Akiko Mizoguchi5, Hideto To1, Yoshihiro Yamamoto4. 1. Department of Medical Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama, Toyama, Japan. 2. Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 3. Certara G.K., Tokyo, Japan. 4. Department of Clinical Infectious Diseases, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences for Research, University of Toyama, Toyama, Japan. 5. Department of Pharmacy, Sasebo Chuo Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan.
Abstract
AIMS: Thrombocytopenia is among the most important adverse effects of linezolid treatment. Linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia incidence varies considerably but has been associated with impaired renal function. We investigated the pharmacodynamic mechanism (myelosuppression or enhanced platelet destruction) and the role of impaired renal function (RF) in the development of thrombocytopenia. METHODS: The pharmacokinetics of linezolid were described with a two-compartment distribution model with first-order absorption and elimination. RF was calculated using the expected creatinine clearance. The decrease platelets by linezolid exposure was assumed to occur by one of two mechanisms: inhibition of the formation of platelets (PDI) or stimulation of the elimination (PDS) of platelets. RESULTS: About 50% of elimination was found to be explained by renal clearance (normal RF). The population mean estimated plasma protein binding of linezolid was 18% [95% confidence interval (CI) 16%, 20%] and was independent of the observed concentrations. The estimated mixture model fraction of patients with a platelet count decreased due to PDI was 0.97 (95% CI 0.87, 1.00), so the fraction due to PDS was 0.03. RF had no influence on linezolid pharmacodynamics. CONCLUSION: We have described the influence of weight, renal function, age and plasma protein binding on the pharmacokinetics of linezolid. This combined pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and turnover model identified that the most common mechanism of thrombocytopenia associated with linezolid is PDI. Impaired RF increases thrombocytopenia by a pharmacokinetic mechanism. The linezolid dose should be reduced in RF.
AIMS: Thrombocytopenia is among the most important adverse effects of linezolid treatment. Linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia incidence varies considerably but has been associated with impaired renal function. We investigated the pharmacodynamic mechanism (myelosuppression or enhanced platelet destruction) and the role of impaired renal function (RF) in the development of thrombocytopenia. METHODS: The pharmacokinetics of linezolid were described with a two-compartment distribution model with first-order absorption and elimination. RF was calculated using the expected creatinine clearance. The decrease platelets by linezolid exposure was assumed to occur by one of two mechanisms: inhibition of the formation of platelets (PDI) or stimulation of the elimination (PDS) of platelets. RESULTS: About 50% of elimination was found to be explained by renal clearance (normal RF). The population mean estimated plasma protein binding of linezolid was 18% [95% confidence interval (CI) 16%, 20%] and was independent of the observed concentrations. The estimated mixture model fraction of patients with a platelet count decreased due to PDI was 0.97 (95% CI 0.87, 1.00), so the fraction due to PDS was 0.03. RF had no influence on linezolid pharmacodynamics. CONCLUSION: We have described the influence of weight, renal function, age and plasma protein binding on the pharmacokinetics of linezolid. This combined pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and turnover model identified that the most common mechanism of thrombocytopenia associated with linezolid is PDI. Impaired RF increases thrombocytopenia by a pharmacokinetic mechanism. The linezolid dose should be reduced in RF.
Authors: Stephan Schmidt; Katharina Röck; Martina Sahre; Olaf Burkhardt; Martin Brunner; Maximilian T Lobmeyer; Hartmut Derendorf Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2008-09-08 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Stanton L Gerson; Sheldon L Kaplan; Jon B Bruss; Vu Le; Felix M Arellano; Barry Hafkin; David J Kuter Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: M A Zeitlinger; R Sauermann; F Traunmüller; A Georgopoulos; M Müller; C Joukhadar Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Marin H Kollef; Jordi Rello; Sue K Cammarata; Rodney V Croos-Dabrera; Richard G Wunderink Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-01-09 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Wendy B Bernstein; Richard F Trotta; James T Rector; Jeffery A Tjaden; Anthony J Barile Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Alison L Blackman; Praneeth Jarugula; David P Nicolau; Sai Ho Chui; Manjari Joshi; Emily L Heil; Mathangi Gopalakrishnan Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Mahmoud Tareq Abdelwahab; Sean Wasserman; James C M Brust; Keertan Dheda; Lubbe Wiesner; Neel R Gandhi; Robin M Warren; Frederick A Sirgel; Graeme Meintjes; Gary Maartens; Paolo Denti Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Sean Wasserman; Paolo Denti; James C M Brust; Mahmoud Abdelwahab; Siphokazi Hlungulu; Lubbe Wiesner; Jennifer Norman; Frederick A Sirgel; Robin M Warren; Aliasgar Esmail; Keertan Dheda; Neel R Gandhi; Graeme Meintjes; Gary Maartens Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 5.191