Population Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Linezolid in Premature Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emergence of coagulase-negative staphylococci with reduced vancomycin susceptibility in some neonatal intensive care units has resulted in an increase of linezolid use. Linezolid pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety in premature infants still need to be better established. METHODS: This was a retrospective PK study. All infants who received intravenous linezolid and had linezolid plasma concentrations per standard of care were included. Linezolid concentrations were measured by high performance liquid chromatography. A population PK model was developed using nonlinear mixed effects modeling. Optimal dosing was determined based on achievement of the surrogate pharmacodynamics target for efficacy: a ratio of the area under the concentration-time curve to minimum inhibitory concentration >80. We assessed the occurrence of thrombocytopenia and lactic acidosis in relation with drug exposure. RESULTS: A total of 78 plasma concentrations were collected from 26 infants, with a median postnatal age (PNA) of 24 days (8-88) and weight of 1423 g (810-3256). A 1-compartment model described linezolid data well. The final model included PNA and weight on clearance and weight on volume of distribution. Considering an MIC90 of 1 mg/L, all infants reached an area under the concentration-time curve/minimum inhibitory concentration > 80. Although thrombocytopenia and hyperlactatemia occurred frequently, they were not sustained and were not considered related to linezolid. CONCLUSION: and was well tolerated in critically ill premature infants. PNA was the main determinant of clearance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".