Tedizolid has demonstrated its efficacy and safety in clinical trials; however, data concerning its tolerability in long-term treatments are scarce. The aim of the study was to assess the indications and to describe the long-term safety profile of tedizolid. A multicentric retrospective study of patients who received tedizolid for more than 6 days was conducted. Adverse events (AEs) were identified from patients’ medical records and laboratory data. The World Health Organization causality categories were used to discern AEs that were probably associated with tedizolid. Eighty-one patients, treated with tedizolid 200 mg once daily for a median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of 28 (14 to 59) days, were included; 36 (44.4%) had previously received linezolid. The most common reasons for selecting tedizolid were to avoid linezolid potential toxicities or interactions (53.1%) or due to previous linezolid-related toxicities (27.2%). The most common indications were off-label, including prosthetic joint infections, osteomyelitis, and respiratory infections (77.8%). Overall, 9/81 patients (11.1%) experienced a probably associated AE. Two patients (2.5%) developed gastrointestinal disorders, 1 (1.2%) developed anemia, and 6 developed thrombocytopenia (7.4%) after a median (IQR) duration of treatment of 26.5 (17 to 58.5) days. Four (5%) patients discontinued tedizolid due to AEs. Among 23 patients with chronic renal failure (CRF), the rate of myelotoxicity was 17.4%, and only 8.7% had to stop tedizolid; 20 out of 22 with previous linezolid-associated toxicity had no AE. Long-term tedizolid treatments had good tolerance with rates of gastrointestinal AE and hematological toxicity lower than those reported with linezolid, particularly in patients with CRF and in those with a history of linezolid-associated toxicity.

No abstract

drugs involved according to the anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) classification, type of PI and acceptance rate. PIs were classified into seven groups: dosage adjustment, pharmacokinetic monitoring, stopping treatment, switching to equivalent therapeutic drug or pharmaceutical form, information about drug administration, duplicity and other (eg, date and time of administration). Results A total of 430 patients were admitted to the ICU during the study period. We performed 115 PIs in 66 patients (1 intervention/3 patients admitted): 13.9% were related to dosage adjustment, 24.4% to pharmacokinetic monitoring, 12.2% to stopping treatment, 2.6% to switching to an equivalent therapeutic drug or pharmaceutical form, 16.5% to drug administration information, 18.3% to drug duplicity and 12.2% other. Regarding ATC classification, 42.6% of PIs were related to group J, 13.9% to group B, 12.2% to group H, 6.1% to groups N and C, 4.4% to groups A and R, and 10.5% to group V. The acceptance rate was 94.5%. Conclusion and relevance The clinical pharmacist integration into the ICU enhanced pharmacotherapy optimisation of critical patients, especially through pharmacokinetic monitoring and interventions related to anti-infective drugs. The acceptance rate was >90%, which indicated a considerable concern by the ICU team.