Explore the vast range of titles available.

In patients with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis, all-oral treatment regimens that are more effective, shorter, and have a more acceptable side-effect profile than current regimens are needed. We conducted an open-label, phase 2-3, multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of three 24-week, all-oral regimens for the treatment of rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. Patients in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan who were 15 years of age or older and had rifampin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis were enrolled. In stage 2 of the trial, a 24-week regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin (BPaLM) was compared with a 9-to-20-month standard-care regimen. The primary outcome was an unfavorable status (a composite of death, treatment failure, treatment discontinuation, loss to follow-up, or recurrence of tuberculosis) at 72 weeks after randomization. The noninferiority margin was 12 percentage points. Recruitment was terminated early. Of 301 patients in stage 2 of the trial, 145, 128, and 90 patients were evaluable in the intention-to-treat, modified intention-to-treat, and per-protocol populations, respectively. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 11% of the patients in the BPaLM group and 48% of those in the standard-care group had a primary-outcome event (risk difference, -37 percentage points; 96.6% confidence interval [CI], -53 to -22). In the per-protocol analysis, 4% of the patients in the BPaLM group and 12% of those in the standard-care group had a primary-outcome event (risk difference, -9 percentage points; 96.6% CI, -22 to 4). In the as-treated population, the incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher or serious adverse events was lower in the BPaLM group than in the standard-care group (19% vs. 59%). In patients with rifampin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis, a 24-week, all-oral regimen was noninferior to the accepted standard-care treatment, and it had a better safety profile. (Funded by Médecins sans Frontières; TB-PRACTECAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02589782.).

A randomized trial of bedaquiline–pretomanid–linezolid for highly drug-resistant tuberculosis assessed the use of linezolid at 600 or 1200 mg for 9 or 26 weeks; the 600-mg dose for 26 weeks had a favorable profile.

Treatment for tuberculosis, a leading cause of death worldwide, typically involves 6 months of continuous therapy. In this trial, a strategy involving shorter initial treatment was noninferior to standard treatment.

Linezolid is increasingly important for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment. However, among children with MDR-TB, there are no linezolid pharmacokinetic data, and its adverse effects have not yet been prospectively described. We characterised the pharmacokinetics, safety, and optimal dose of linezolid in children treated for MDR-TB. Children routinely treated for MDR-TB in 2 observational studies (2011-2015, 2016-2018) conducted at a single site in Cape Town, South Africa, underwent intensive pharmacokinetic sampling after either a single dose or multiple doses of linezolid (at steady state). Linezolid pharmacokinetic parameters, and their relationships with covariates of interest, were described using nonlinear mixed-effects modelling. Children receiving long-term linezolid as a component of their routine treatment had regular clinical and laboratory monitoring. Adverse events were assessed for severity and attribution to linezolid. The final population pharmacokinetic model was used to derive optimal weight-banded doses resulting in exposures in children approximating those in adults receiving once-daily linezolid 600 mg. Forty-eight children were included (mean age 5.9 years; range 0.6 to 15.3); 31 received a single dose of linezolid, and 17 received multiple doses. The final pharmacokinetic model consisted of a one-compartment model characterised by clearance (CL) and volume (V) parameters that included allometric scaling to account for weight; no other evaluated covariates contributed to the model. Linezolid exposures in this population were higher compared to exposures in adults who had received a 600 mg once-daily dose. Consequently simulated, weight-banded once-daily optimal doses for children were lower than those currently used for most weight bands. Ten of 17 children who were followed long term had a linezolid-related adverse event, including 5 with a grade 3 or 4 event, all anaemia. Adverse events resulted in linezolid dose reductions in 4, temporary interruptions in 5, and permanent discontinuation in 4 children. Limitations of the study include the lack of very young children (none below 6 months of age), the limited number who were HIV infected, and the modest number of children contributing to long-term safety data. Linezolid-related adverse effects were frequent and occasionally severe. Careful linezolid safety monitoring is required. Compared to doses currently used in children in many settings for MDR-TB treatment, lower doses may approximate current adult target exposures, might result in fewer adverse events, and should therefore be evaluated.

Treatment for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections is becoming more challenging as organisms with antimicrobial resistance become more prevalent. In this randomized trial involving 655 adults with bacterial skin and skin-structure infections, omadacycline was noninferior to linezolid regardless of the causative pathogen, including MRSA.

Monotherapy with lefamulin, a novel, pleuromutilin antibiotic with intravenous and oral formulation options, was noninferior to moxifloxacin for efficacy and generally safe and well tolerated for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). Lefamulin’s spectrum of activity targets bacteria that cause CABP. Abstract Background Lefamulin, a pleuromutilin antibiotic, is active against pathogens commonly causing community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). The Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) study was a global noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lefamulin for the treatment of CABP. Methods In this double-blind study, adults with CABP of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team risk class ≥III were randomized 1:1 to receive lefamulin at 150 mg intravenously (IV) every 12 hours or moxifloxacin at 400 mg IV every 24 hours. After 6 doses, patients could be switched to an oral study drug if prespecified improvement criteria were met. If methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was suspected, either linezolid or placebo was added to moxifloxacin or lefamulin, respectively. The US Food and Drug Administration primary endpoint was an early clinical response (ECR) 96 ± 24 hours after the first dose of the study drug in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (noninferiority margin, 12.5%). The European Medicines Agency co-primary endpoints were an investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) 5–10 days after the last dose of the study drug in the modified ITT (mITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations (noninferiority margin, 10%). Results There were 551 patients randomized (n = 276 lefamulin; n = 275 moxifloxacin). Lefamulin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for ECR (87.3% vs 90.2%, respectively; difference −2.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] g −8.5 to 2.8) and IACR (mITT, 81.7% vs 84.2%, respectively; difference −2.6%, 95% CI −8.9 to 3.9; CE, 86.9% vs 89.4%, respectively; difference −2.5%, 95% CI −8.4 to 3.4). Rates of study drug discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events were 2.9% for lefamulin and 4.4% for moxifloxacin. Conclusions Lefamulin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for the primary efficacy endpoints and was generally safe and well tolerated. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02559310.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0337648.].

Treatment options for highly drug-resistant tuberculosis are limited. In this study in South Africa, a new agent, pretomanid, was combined with bedaquiline and linezolid for a 26-week course to treat extensively drug-resistant and complicated multidrug-resistant pulmonary TB. Although there were toxic effects, 90% of patients had favorable outcomes.

IntroductionLinezolid is a broadly used antibiotic to treat complicated infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. Therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid concentrations is recommended to maximise its efficacy and safety, mainly haematological toxicity. Different pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets have been proposed to improve linezolid exposure: the ratio of the area under the concentration–time curve during a 24-hour period to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) between 80 and 120; percentage of time that the drug concentration remains above the MIC during a dosing interval greater than 85% and the trough concentration between 2 and 7 mg/L. This clinical trial aims to evaluate the safety, efficacy and the clinical and economic utility of personalised dosing of linezolid using Bayesian forecasting methods to attain pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets, known as model-informed precision dosing.Methods and analysisThis is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, parallel, controlled, phase IV and low intervention trial. Participants will be randomly assigned 1:1 to each group (n=346 per group). Control group will receive the standard dose of linezolid. Intervention group will receive personalised dosage of linezolid based on pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic adjustments. The primary outcome will be the incidence of thrombocytopenia in both groups.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Investigation with Medicines of Galicia (code 2022/140) and authorised by the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices. The trial is implemented in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the international ethical and scientific quality standard, the Good Clinical Practice. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberEudraCT registration code: 2022-000144-30.

Pathogen resistance and safety concerns limit oral antibiotic options for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily oral omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline antibiotic, versus twice-daily oral linezolid for treatment of ABSSSI. In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority study, eligible adults with ABSSSI at 33 sites in the USA were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive omadacycline (450 mg orally every 24 h over the first 48 h then 300 mg orally every 24 h) or linezolid (600 mg orally every 12 h) for 7–14 days. Randomisation was done via an interactive response system using a computer-generated schedule, and stratified by type of infection (wound infection, cellulitis or erysipelas, or major abscess) and receipt (yes or no) of allowed previous antibacterial treatment. Investigators, funders, and patients were masked to treatment assignments. Primary endpoints were early clinical response, 48–72 h after first dose, in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (randomised patients without solely Gram-negative ABSSSI pathogens at baseline), and investigator-assessed clinical response at post-treatment evaluation, 7–14 days after the last dose, in the mITT population and clinically evaluable population (ie, mITT patients who had a qualifying infection as per study-entry criteria, received study drug, did not receive a confounding antibiotic, and had an assessment of outcome during the protocol-defined window). The safety population included randomised patients who received any amount of study drug. We set a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02877927, and is complete. Between Aug 11, 2016, and June 6, 2017, 861 participants were assessed for eligibility. 735 participants were randomly assigned, of whom 368 received omadacycline and 367 received linezolid. Omadacycline (315 [88%] of 360) was non-inferior to linezolid (297 [83%] of 360) for early clinical response (percentage-point difference 5·0, 95% CI −0·2 to 10·3) in the mITT population. For investigator-assessed clinical response at post-treatment evaluation, omadacycline was non-inferior to linezolid in the mITT (303 [84%] of 360 vs 291 [81%] of 360; percentage-point difference 3·3, 95% CI −2·2 to 9·0) and clinically evaluable (278 [98%] of 284 vs 279 [96%] of 292; 2·3, −0·5 to 5·8) populations. Mild to moderate nausea and vomiting were the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events in omadacycline (111 [30%] of 368 and 62 [17%] of 368, respectively) and linezolid (28 [8%] of 367 and 11 [3%] of 367, respectively) groups. Once-daily oral omadacycline was non-inferior to twice-daily oral linezolid in adults with ABSSSI, and was safe and well tolerated. Oral-only omadacycline represents a new treatment option for ABSSSI, with potential for reduction in hospital admissions and cost savings. Paratek Pharmaceuticals.