Search

According to the drug label, linezolid dosage adjustments are not needed in geriatric patients. Nevertheless, clinical evidence suggests that elderly patients may benefit from the use of reduced linezolid doses to limit drug overexposure. Here, we aimed to describe the results of the last 5 years of therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid in our institution with a special focus on elderly patients.Linezolid therapeutic drug monitoring requests collected between January 2016 and June 2020 were considered. Linezolid trough concentrations were considered both as a continuous variable and as a categorical variable, clustering data according to the therapeutic range proposed by available literature (2, 2-8, and8 mg/L, respectively). Patients' age and sex were considered as categorical variables. Comparisons of linezolid trough concentrations between groups of patients stratified according to age were performed using an analysis of variance; comparisons in the frequency distributions were performed using the chi-squared test.From 2016 to 2020, we collected 3250 linezolid TDM requests. A highly significant, progressive increment in the linezolid trough concentrations was observed moving from patients aged50 years (5.8 ± 5.6 mg/L) to those aged90 years (16.6 ± 10.0 mg/L), with an overall increment of 30% per decade of age. Nearly 30%, 50%, and 65% of patients aged65 years, 65-80 years, and80 years, respectively, had supra-therapeutic linezolid trough concentrations at the first therapeutic drug monitoring assessment. This trend did not change significantly moving from 2016 to 2020.Elderly patients given linezolid at the conventional 600-mg twice-daily dose might be at a high risk of being overexposed to treatment, eventually increasing their risk to experience drug-related hematological toxicity. Reduced linezolid dosing schemes should be potentially considered in elderly patients at a low risk of treatment failure, ideally guided by therapeutic drug monitoring.

The exposure to linezolid is characterized by a large inter-individual variability; age, renal dysfunction and body weight explain this variability only to a limited extent and a considerable portion of it remains unexplained; therefore, we decided to investigate the role of individual genetic background focusing in particular on the risk of linezolid underexposure. 191 patients in therapy with linezolid at the standard dose of 600 mg twice daily were considered. Linezolid plasma concentration was determined at the steady state and classified as “below”, “within” or “above” reference range. Genetic polymorphisms for ATP Binding Cassette Subfamily B Member 1 (ABCB1), Cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes CYP3A4 and CYP3A5, and Cytochrome P450 Oxidoreductase (POR) were investigated. Age significantly correlated with drug exposure, and patients CYP3A5 expressers (GA and AA) were found at high risk to be underexposed to the drug when treated at standard dose. This association was confirmed even after correction with age. No association was found with ABCB1 polymorphism. Our data suggest that CYP3A5 polymorphisms might significantly affect linezolid disposition, putting patients at higher risk to be underexposed, while P-glycoprotein polymorphism seem not to play any role.

The effects of various doses of tianeptine on extracellular concentrations of dopamine were studied in the frontal cortex and nucleus accumbens of the rat. At 5 and 10 mg/kg intraperitoneally, tianeptine raised extracellular dopamine in the nucleus accumbens but only the higher dose caused a significant increase in the frontal cortex. At 10 mg/kg tianeptine significantly raised the concentrations of dihydroxyphenylacetic acid and homovanillic acid in both brain regions. In another experiment, 10 and 20 mg/kg tianeptine did not modify the extracellular concentrations of noradrenaline in the frontal cortex but dose dependently blocked the increase in extracellular noradrenaline caused by restraint stress.