Safety Profile of Linezolid in Older Adults With Renal Impairment: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The objective of this study was to characterize the safety profile of linezolid in patients with renal impairment compared with patients without renal impairment. Methods A population-based retrospective cohort study using linked administrative databases included patients aged 66 years or older in Ontario, Canada who were prescribed linezolid from 2014 to 2021. Renal impairment was defined using baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis. The primary outcomes were change in platelet count and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <50 × 109/L) within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, optic neuropathy, acidosis, serotonin syndrome, and mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting on propensity score was used to balance comparison groups on baseline health. Results Of 625 patients, 98 (15.7%) patients had renal impairment. The mean (SD) platelet change was −88.3 (108.4) 109/L in the renal impairment group and −76.5 (109.8) 109/L in the no renal impairment group, with an adjusted mean difference of −29.4 (95% CI, −53.4 to −5.3; P = .0165). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred in 9.2% for the renal impairment group and 5.9% for the no renal impairment group, with an adjusted risk difference of 2.7% (95% CI, −3.1% to 8.6%; P = .3655). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes between the 2 groups. Conclusions Patients with renal impairment on linezolid therapy had a larger decrease in platelet count, but their risks for severe thrombocytopenia and bleeding were not significantly different than patients without renal impairment. Linezolid is likely safe in renal impairment without dose adjustment or drug level monitoring.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".