4.7 Article

Pharmacokinetics of Tedizolid in Plasma and Sputum of Adults with Cystic Fibrosis

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00550-18

关键词

cystic fibrosis; pharmacokinetics; tedizolid

资金

  1. Merck
  2. NIH [P41-EB001978]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past decade, the prevalence of infections involving methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) has increased significantly. Tedizolid (TZD) demonstrates excellent activity against MRSA and a favorable safety profile. The pharmacokinetics of several antibiotics have been shown to be altered in CF patients. The purpose of this study was to characterize the pharmacokinetics of tedizolid in this population. Eleven patients with CF were randomized to receive tedizolid phosphate at 200 mg orally or intravenously once daily for 3 doses with a minimum 2-day washout, followed by crossover to the remaining dosage form. Plasma and expectorated sputum were collected following the third dose of each dosage form for analysis. Population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using the maximum likelihood expectation maximization method, and the disposition of TZD was described by a two-compartment model. The sputum concentrations exceeded the unbound plasma concentrations with an estimated mean sputum-to-unbound plasma penetration ratio of 2.88 (coefficient of variation, 50.3%). The estimated population mean +/- standard deviation of total clearance, central volume of distribution, and bioavailability were 9.72 +/- 1.62 liters/h, 61.6 +/- 6.94 liters, and 1.04 +/- 0.232, respectively. The total clearance was higher in CF patients than in healthy volunteers; however, it was similar to published data for patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs). This study demonstrates that the oral bioavailability of tedizolid is excellent in patients with CF and that the plasma pharmacokinetics are similar to those reported for patients with cSSSIs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据