English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Treatment options for nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) infections are limited by the pathogen’s intrinsic resistance profile and toxicities. Tedizolid and linezolid display in vitro activity against NTM species. However, safety data and treatment outcomes are limited in the solid organ transplant (SOT) population. Methods This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of adult SOT recipients receiving linezolid or tedizolid for an NTM infection from January 1, 2010, to August 31, 2019. The primary outcome compared the hematologic safety profiles of tedizolid vs linezolid. We also described nonhematological adverse drug events (ADEs) and therapy discontinuation rates. In an exploratory analysis, we assessed symptomatic microbiologic and clinical outcomes in those receiving tedizolid or linezolid for at least 4 weeks. Results Twenty-four patients were included (15 tedizolid, 9 linezolid). No differences were identified comparing the effects of tedizolid vs linezolid on platelet counts, absolute neutrophil counts (ANCs), and hemoglobin over 7 weeks using mixed-effects analysis of variance models. ANC was significantly decreased in both groups after 7 weeks of therapy (P = .04). Approximately 20% of patients in each arm discontinued therapy due to an ADE. Seven of 12 (58%) and 2 of 3 (67%) patients were cured or clinically cured with tedizolid- and linezolid-containing regimens, respectively. Conclusions This study suggests no significant safety benefit of tedizolid over linezolid for the treatment of NTM infections in SOT recipients. Tedizolid or linezolid-containing regimens demonstrated a potential benefit in symptomatic and microbiologic improvement. Larger cohorts are needed to further delineate the comparative role of linezolid and tedizolid for the treatment of NTM infections in SOT recipients.

Tedizolid vs Linezolid for the Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Infections in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients