ライフサイエンスコーパス: linezolid

1 3-drug regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid).

2 eductions or interruptions in treatment with linezolid.

3 ar MRSA in comparison to both vancomycin and linezolid.

4 All isolates were susceptible to linezolid.

5 uch less frequently with tedizolid than with linezolid.

6 erococci against vancomycin, daptomycin, and linezolid.

7 y with the sole approved drug of this class, linezolid.

8 n and 93.8% of those treated with vancomycin-linezolid.

9 antibody appeared additive to the antibiotic linezolid.

10 tinuous infusion of vancomycin; and group 4, linezolid.

11 , para-aminosalicylic acid, cycloserine, and linezolid.

12 associated with more renal dysfunction than linezolid.

13 subjects received 4 daily doses of 300 mg of linezolid.

14 lfamethoxazole, vancomycin, teicoplanin, and linezolid.

15 for alternative antimicrobial agents such as linezolid.

16 served for tetracyclines, ciprofloxacin, and linezolid.

17 ere assessed for severity and attribution to linezolid.

18 m 368 received omadacycline and 367 received linezolid.

19 eived omadacycline and 689 patients received linezolid.

20 ystem with regard to reporting resistance to linezolid.

21 ng omadacycline and 41.2% of those receiving linezolid.

22 as an oral-only study of omadacycline versus linezolid.

23 ous mycobacteria (NTM) compared with that of linezolid.

24 values for tedizolid compared with that for linezolid.

25 were 2 mug/ml for tedizolid and 4 mug/ml for linezolid.

26 Topical linezolid 0.2% can be an effective ophthalmic antibiotic

27 to 2 mug/ml), capreomycin (0.5 to 4 mug/ml), linezolid (0.25 to 2 mug/ml), and clofazimine (0.03 to 0

28 the effects of pre-, co- and post-incubating linezolid (0.4-40 mg/L) with healthy neutrophils relativ

29 25%, 50%, and 100% for rabbits treated with linezolid 1.5, 4, and 9 hours after infection, respectiv

30 was found in endotracheal tubes treated with linezolid (1.98+/-1.68) in comparison with untreated end

31 All-cause 60-day mortality was similar (linezolid, 15.7%; vancomycin, 17.0%), as was incidence o

32 ained the same for vancomycin (2 mug/mL) and linezolid (2 mug/mL).

33 f 368 and 62 [17%] of 368, respectively) and linezolid (28 [8%] of 367 and 11 [3%] of 367, respective

34 cline (315 [88%] of 360) was non-inferior to linezolid (297 [83%] of 360) for early clinical response

35 Linezolid, 300 microg/0.1 mL, 200 microg/0.1 mL, or 100

36 adacycline (316 patients) was noninferior to linezolid (311 patients) with respect to early clinical

37 Infants clear linezolid 5 times faster than adults and achieve lower 0

38 0 was used to compare therapeutic effects of linezolid (50 mg/kg 3 times/day) and vancomycin (30 mg/k

39 g for 6 days was non-inferior to twice-daily linezolid 600 mg for 10 days for treatment of patients w

40 imating those in adults receiving once-daily linezolid 600 mg.

41 ients were randomized to receive intravenous linezolid (600 mg every 12 hours) or vancomycin (15 mg/k

42 omadacycline (300 mg every 24 hours) or oral linezolid (600 mg every 12 hours) was allowed after 3 da

43 tedizolid (200 mg for 6 days) or twice-daily linezolid (600 mg for 10 days), with optional oral step-

44 00 mg given intravenously every 24 hours) or linezolid (600 mg given intravenously every 12 hours).

45 first 48 h then 300 mg orally every 24 h) or linezolid (600 mg orally every 12 h) for 7-14 days.

46 been proven to be noninferior to 10 days of linezolid (600 mg twice daily).

47 rred more frequently with vancomycin (18.2%; linezolid, 8.4%).

48 ed to a control group of patients exposed to linezolid, a drug with similar indications.

49 Here, we show that Linezolid, a ribosomal-targeting antibiotic (RAbo), effe

50 Intraocular injection of linezolid, a synthetic oxazolidinone antibiotic, was per

51 Compared with glycopeptides, linezolid achieves higher lung epithelial lining fluid c

52 dose-response studies demonstrated that oral linezolid administration sufficiently decreased bronchoa

53 The oxazolidinone PNU-100480 is superior to linezolid against experimental murine tuberculosis.

54 a greater in vitro potency of tedizolid than linezolid against NTM and suggest that an evaluation of

55 -positive pathogens and greater potency than linezolid against wild-type and drug-resistant pathogens

56 Three patients received topical linezolid, all for cases of culture-positive or presumed

57 Linezolid also covers Nocardia well and could be a secon

58 nt by using this approach to prepare racemic linezolid, an antibacterial agent.

59 ith observed half-lives of 4.08 +/- 0.66 for linezolid and 3.80 +/- 1.34 hours for moxifloxacin.

60 (delamanid and bedaquiline) and repurposed (linezolid and clofazimine) MDR-TB drugs and the new shor

61 Linezolid and daptomycin are the primary treatment optio

62 ational retrospective cohort study comparing linezolid and daptomycin for the treatment of VRE-BSI am

63 mutations conferring increased tolerance of linezolid and daptomycin in patients who were treated wi

64 While resistance to linezolid and daptomycin remains low overall, point muta

65 m, which demonstrated a relationship between linezolid and hypoglycemia.

66 We identified doses and dose schedules of a linezolid and moxifloxacin backbone regimen that could b

67 that characterize disseminated tuberculosis, linezolid and moxifloxacin could be combined to form a r

68 The linezolid and moxifloxacin exposure targets were AUC0-24

69 ium tuberculosis (Mtb) by the combination of linezolid and moxifloxacin multiple exposures in a 7-by-

70 Regimens of standard linezolid and moxifloxacin plus faropenem TMIC > 60%, as

71 The regimen of linezolid and moxifloxacin was found to be efficacious i

72 Linezolid and other RAbos were strong inhibitors of T he

73 ment of VRE (E. faecium) infections, namely, linezolid and quinupristin/dalfopristin (Q/D).

74 and its complexes with the known antibiotics linezolid and telithromycin, as well as with a new, high

75 efficacy and immunomodulative properties of linezolid and vancomycin administered subcutaneously eve

76 was achieved after 48 hours of treatment for linezolid and vancomycin.

77 Cfr methyltransferase confers resistance to linezolid (and a variety of other 50S ribosomal subunit-

78 e 0.6 to 15.3); 31 received a single dose of linezolid, and 17 received multiple doses.

79 uding the newer agents moxifloxacin, PA-824, linezolid, and bedaquiline.

80 acin, ethionamide, para-aminosalicylic acid, linezolid, and cycloserine and compared with Bactec MGIT

81 eading to resistance have been described for linezolid, and horizontal transmission of cfr-mediated r

82 Access to delamanid, bedaquiline, linezolid, and rifabutin, when appropriate, must be acce

83 Although outbreaks of linezolid- and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium

84 Linezolid appears to be effective but is frequently disc

85 e, suggesting that the modulatory effects of linezolid are mediated partially by its ability to blunt

86 ons of various antibiotics (levofloxacin and linezolid) are pumped through the channels, approximatel

87 Children receiving long-term linezolid as a component of their routine treatment had

88 have identified the oxazolidinone antibiotic linezolid as a Nlrp3 agonist that activates the Nlrp3 in

89 ypoglycemia was not previously known to be a linezolid-associated adverse reaction.

90 mycobacterial activity superior to 300 mg of linezolid at steady state.

91 er either a single dose or multiple doses of linezolid (at steady state).

92 y, achieved CFR >/= 90%, with <10% achieving linezolid AUC0-24 associated with toxicity.

93 Linezolid AUC0-24 best explained the mitochondrial gene

94 A linezolid AUC0-24 of 93.4 mg x hour/L was target for tox

95 We identified the linezolid AUC0-24/MIC target for optimal efficacy agains

96 more than 90% were likely to be sensitive to linezolid, bedaquiline, and delamanid.

97 SPT and those where SPT was switched to oral linezolid between days 3 and 9 of treatment until comple

98 ted low-risk patients with an oral switch to linezolid between days 3 and 9 of treatment until comple

99 Linezolid binds the 50S A-site, near the catalytic cente

100 nterval, 1.10-3.70; p = .02) are higher with linezolid, but no differences are seen for renal dysfunc

101 valuated by comparing the relative uptake of linezolid by Escherichia coli wild-type versus an efflux

102 covered that many drugs (e.g., sirolimus and linezolid) cause different AEs given patients' age or th

103 tive agents, such as telavancin, daptomycin, linezolid, ceftaroline, dalbavancin, oritavancin, and te

104 The most common companion drugs included linezolid, clofazimine, cycloserine and a fluoroquinolon

105 The most common companion drugs included linezolid, clofazimine, cycloserine, and a fluoroquinolo

106 novel (eg, bedaquiline) and repurposed (eg, linezolid, clofazimine, or meropenem) drugs and guided b

107 um and lung tissue showed better results for linezolid compared with both vancomycin treatments.

108 rospectively assessed efficacy and safety of linezolid, compared with a dose-optimized vancomycin reg

109 Biofilm linezolid concentration was 19-fold above the linezolid

110 lso provide support for the possibility that linezolid could be a more effective treatment than vanco

111 Our results indicate that linezolid could be superior to vancomycin for the manage

112 All remaining strains were susceptible to linezolid, daptomycin, vancomycin, and teicoplanin.

113 ta suggest that the oxazolidinone antibiotic linezolid decreases IFN-gamma and TNF-alpha production i

114 Linezolid did not display an advantage over vancomycin i

115 The linezolid dose of 15 mg/kg in full-term neonates and inf

116 Adverse events resulted in linezolid dose reductions in 4, temporary interruptions

117 herapeutic window to be targeted for optimal linezolid doses in children with tuberculosis.

118 ents in which we varied the moxifloxacin and linezolid doses in the triple regimen.

119 d a 414-gene transcript on exposure to toxic linezolid doses.

120 Linezolid efficacy was linked to the AUC0-24 to minimum

121 zolid phosphate for 6 days or 600 mg of oral linezolid every 12 hours for 10 days.

122 Linezolid exposures in this population were higher compa

123 The linezolid extracellular half-life was 2.64 +/- 0.38 hour

124 s of several antimicrobial agents, including linezolid for 79 days.

125 aily intravenous vancomycin followed by oral linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and

126 Omadacycline was noninferior to linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and

127 madacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline, and linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and

128 nsidering this molecule as an alternative to linezolid for the treatment of serious infections caused

129 phosphate may be a reasonable alternative to linezolid for treating ABSSSI.

130 lcycline antibiotic, versus twice-daily oral linezolid for treatment of ABSSSI.

131 Treatment with linezolid for VRE-BSI resulted in significantly higher t

132 up and 86.0% (95% CI, 81.8% to 89.5%) in the linezolid group (a treatment difference of -0.5% [95% CI

133 up and 71.9% (95% CI, 66.8% to 76.7%) in the linezolid group (a treatment difference of -2.6% [95% CI

134 % CI, 74.7% to 83.6%) of 335 patients in the linezolid group (a treatment difference of 0.1% [95% CI,

135 in the tedizolid group and 276 (83%) in the linezolid group achieved early clinical response (differ

136 hospital stay after onset was 8 days in the linezolid group and 19 days in the SPT group (P < .01).

137 e matching, we included 45 patients from the linezolid group and 90 patients from the SPT group.

138 ed in 30-day all-cause mortality between the linezolid group and the SPT group (2.2% vs 13.3%; P = .0

139 no difference in 90-day relapse between the linezolid group and the SPT group (2.2% vs 4.4% respecti

140 oup and 521 of 653 (79.8%) in the vancomycin-linezolid group had an early clinical response indicatin

141 Of interest, in the linezolid group, decreased endothelial permeability was

142 the dalbavancin group than in the vancomycin-linezolid group.

143 edizolid group and four (1%) patients in the linezolid group.

144 leading to discontinuation were noted in the linezolid group.

145 dacycline group and in 45.7% of those in the linezolid group; the most frequent adverse events in bot

146 ere highly susceptible to vancomycin (100%), linezolid (>99%), and levofloxacin and tigecycline (both

147 duling studies in which we recapitulated the linezolid half-life of 3 hours encountered in infants.

148 the protein synthesis-suppressing antibiotic linezolid has an advantageous therapeutic effect on alph

149 l transmission of cfr-mediated resistance to linezolid has been reported in clinical isolates.

150 The antibiotic linezolid has been useful in controlling MRSA-related VA

151 This study suggests that linezolid has immunomodulatory properties that protect h

152 al structure of the canonical oxazolidinone, linezolid, has been determined bound to the Haloarcula m

153 ll isolates were sensitive to vancomycin and linezolid, higher minimal inhibitory concentration requi

154 Conversely linezolid impaired killing responses in healthy neutroph

155 Failure of treatment with linezolid in 2 cases led to a review of standard clinica

156 ian of 4 (range, 2-5) other drugs, including linezolid in 33 (94%) cases.

157 cycline was non-inferior to twice-daily oral linezolid in adults with ABSSSI, and was safe and well t

158 harmacokinetics, safety, and optimal dose of linezolid in children treated for MDR-TB.

159 schedules and exposures of moxifloxacin and linezolid in combination.

160 The potential clinical usefulness of linezolid in decreasing the risk of biofilm-related resp

161 was a statistically noninferior treatment to linezolid in early clinical response at 48 to 72 hours a

162 lower myeloperoxidase activity compared with linezolid in the first 24 hrs after inoculation (p = .03

163 Tedizolid appears to differ from linezolid in the incidence of gastrointestinal and hemat

164 evaluation, omadacycline was non-inferior to linezolid in the mITT (303 [84%] of 360 vs 291 [81%] of

165 fore be considered for the administration of linezolid in the treatment of endophthalmitis.

166 Linezolid-induced lactic acidosis is associated with dim

167 A 64-year-old man who died with linezolid-induced lactic acidosis.

168 newest clinically important antibacterials, linezolid, inhibit protein synthesis by targeting the pe

169 emise underlying this recommendation is that linezolid inhibits in vivo production of potent staphylo

170 the electroretinograms obtained between the linezolid-injected eyes and the control eyes.

171 idime, gentamicin, meropenem, vancomycin and linezolid), interaction effects across antibiotics combi

172 Oral switch to linezolid is a promising alternative to standard parente

173 If linezolid is compared with vancomycin only, then clinica

174 Linezolid is considered as a therapeutic alternative to

175 Linezolid is increasingly important for multidrug-resist

176 Preservative-free linezolid is nontoxic to the retinas of rabbits when inj

177 Linezolid is recommended for PO or IV treatment of skin

178 Linezolid is recommended for treatment of pneumonia and

179 Recent investigations suggest that linezolid is superior to vancomycin in achieving clinica

180 Herein, the blockbuster antibacterial drug linezolid is synthesized from simple starting blocks by

181 Linezolid is the only drug currently approved by the US

182 Linezolid (L), a potent antibiotic for Methicillin Resis

183 combination of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid led to a favorable outcome at 6 months after t

184 Systemic treatment with linezolid limits endotracheal tube biofilm development a

185 he in vivo effect of different mechanisms of linezolid (LNZ) resistance in Staphylococcus aureus.

186 apreomycin (<=4.0), clofazimine (<=0.25) and linezolid (<=2.0).

187 include bedaquiline (BDQ) and two months of linezolid (LZD) for all patients initiating the shorter

188 r TB drugs (rifampin [RIF], isoniazid [INH], linezolid [LZD], moxifloxacin [MFX], clofazimine [CFZ],

189 alyses of clinical trial data suggested that linezolid may be more effective than vancomycin for trea

190 We hypothesized that linezolid may exhibit anti-inflammatory properties in vi

191 illin, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, doxycycline, linezolid, meropenem, penicillin, rifampin, tetracycline

192 ll isolates were inhibited by 4 microg/ml of linezolid (MIC(50) and MIC(90), 2 and 4 microg/ml, respe

193 (MIC(50), 0.25 mug/mL; MIC(90), 0.5 mug/mL), linezolid (MIC(50), 1 mug/mL; MIC(90), 1 mug/mL), and va

194 solates had tedizolid MIC50s of 8 mug/ml and linezolid MIC50s 32 and 64 mug/ml, respectively.

195 ml and 4 mug/ml, respectively, compared with linezolid MIC90 values of 32 mug/ml for both.

196 wo isolates of M. chelonae had tedizolid and linezolid MIC90s of 2 mug/ml and 16 mug/ml, respectively

197 ecies, had tedizolid MICs of </=1 mug/ml and linezolid MICs of </=4 mug/ml.

198 inezolid concentration was 19-fold above the linezolid minimum inhibitory concentration, whereas biof

199 also found for amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, linezolid, minocycline, and tobramycin.

200 were susceptible to ceftaroline, daptomycin, linezolid, minocyline, tigecycline, rifampin, and trimet

201 The regimen and doses of linezolid, moxifloxacin, and faropenem identified are pr

202 lo experiments to identify the oral doses of linezolid, moxifloxacin, and faropenem that would achiev

203 vitro to amikacin, ciprofloxacin, imipenem, linezolid, moxifloxacin, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazo

204 We have developed an oral faropenem-linezolid-moxifloxacin (FLAME) regimen that is free of f

205 he full exposure-response surface identified linezolid-moxifloxacin zones of synergy, antagonism, and

206 reated with tedizolid phosphate (n = 332) or linezolid (n = 335).

207 n=20), or treated with vancomycin (n=32) or linezolid (n=18).

208 mly assigned to receive tedizolid (n=332) or linezolid (n=334).

209 n = 224) were included in the mITT and 348 (linezolid, n = 172; vancomycin, n = 176) in the PP popul

210 Of 1184 patients treated, 448 (linezolid, n = 224; vancomycin, n = 224) were included i

211 A total of 644 patients were included (linezolid, n = 319; daptomycin, n = 325).

212 were susceptible to ceftaroline, daptomycin, linezolid, nitrofurantoin, quinupristin-dalfopristin, ri

213 y was to investigate an apparent increase in linezolid-nonsusceptible staphylococci and enterococci f

214 Here the effects of linezolid on healthy and dysfunctional neutrophils (mode

215 ation of VR Enterococcus faecalis and use of linezolid or clindamycin.

216 Staphylococcus aureus was suspected, either linezolid or placebo was added to moxifloxacin or lefamu

217 inoculation after treatment with vancomycin, linezolid, or no antibiotic.

218 rning with this information was added to the linezolid package insert.

219 ere highly susceptible (>97%) to ampicillin, linezolid, penicillin, tigecycline, and vancomycin globa

220 er, among children with MDR-TB, there are no linezolid pharmacokinetic data, and its adverse effects

221 Linezolid pharmacokinetic parameters, and their relation

222 drugs (including bedaquiline, delamanid, and linezolid), pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic consider

223 Repetitive sampling for linezolid pharmacokinetics, Mtb intracellular burden, vi

224 pneumoniae 7 d postinfection with influenza, linezolid pretreatment led to decreased IFN-gamma and TN

225 Pre- or post-incubation of linezolid prior or following C5a induced injury had no e

226 ort describing symptomatic hypoglycemia in a linezolid recipient prompted a review of the US Food and

227 .060 +/- 0.012 per day with the moxifloxacin-linezolid regimen in the additivity zone vs 0.083 +/- 0.

228 ory concentration (TMIC) on the moxifloxacin-linezolid regimen.

229 Linezolid-related adverse effects were frequent and occa

230 7 children who were followed long term had a linezolid-related adverse event, including 5 with a grad

231 valence and abundance of FRGs, including the linezolid resistance genes cfr and optrA, in adjacent so

232 ntified mutations previously associated with linezolid resistance in 16 (59.3%) isolates, and the cfr

233 Linezolid resistance in all cases was confirmed by E-tes

234 ) were also identified and may contribute to linezolid resistance.

235 only 70 to 75% of isolates were confirmed as linezolid resistant with alternative phenotypic testing

236 gentamicin-resistant Enterococcus (n = 15), linezolid-resistant Enterococcus (n = 5), and daptomycin

237 clinical isolates, including vancomycin- and linezolid-resistant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus

238 actericidal activity against vancomycin- and linezolid-resistant MRSA and other Gram-positive bacteri

239 gainst MRSA, vancomycin-resistant S. aureus, linezolid-resistant S. aureus, and methicillin-resistant

240 . aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant and linezolid-resistant S. aureus.

241 type and drug-resistant pathogens, including linezolid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains posses

242 lid has a significant potency advantage over linezolid-resistant strains carrying the horizontally tr

243 Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) and a rare linezolid-resistant Streptococcus sanguinis strain (MIC,

244 of 4 mug/ml and 16 mug/ml for tedizolid and linezolid, respectively.

245 he study interval, only early treatment with linezolid resulted in significant suppression of exotoxi

246 Careful linezolid safety monitoring is required.

247 In this animal model of MRSA pneumonia, linezolid showed a better efficacy than vancomycin showe

248 Linezolid shows a significant two-fold increase in the r

249 Co-incubation of linezolid significantly improved killing of MRSA by dysf

250 experiments showed that chloramphenicol and linezolid stall ribosomes at specific mRNA locations.

251 vents were less frequent with tedizolid than linezolid, taking place in 52 (16%) of 331 patients and

252 PP population was significantly higher with linezolid than with vancomycin, although 60-day mortalit

253 ee oral drugs - bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid - that have bactericidal activity against tube

254 SA isolate from patient sputum, we show that linezolid therapy significantly improves animal survival

255 All hVISA isolates were susceptible to linezolid, tigecycline, and ceftaroline.

256 Telavancin, linezolid, tigecycline, and minocycline were active agai

257 eus isolates (n = 3,614) were susceptible to linezolid, tigecycline, and vancomycin; minocycline, imi

258 ast 3 days with the option to switch to oral linezolid to complete 10 to 14 days of therapy.

259 The expected linezolid toxic effects of peripheral neuropathy (occurr

260 One novel aspect of linezolid toxicity that needs to be confirmed is bluntin

261 ns, a signature hitherto not associated with linezolid toxicity.

262 ffects were due to suppression of IFN-gamma, linezolid-treated animals were given intranasal instilla

263 il infiltration in infected lung tissues for linezolid-treated animals.

264 tosis was comparable in both vancomycin- and linezolid-treated groups at all three time points.

265 n-5 or interleukin-6 between vancomycin- and linezolid-treated groups.

266 ersed the protective effects observed in the linezolid-treated mice, suggesting that the modulatory e

267 y cytokine response and acute lung damage in linezolid-treated mice.

268 In the PP population, 95 (57.6%) of 165 linezolid-treated patients and 81 (46.6%) of 174 vancomy

269 Linezolid treatment was also associated with greater 30-

270 resolved with daptomycin, gentamicin, and/or linezolid treatment.

271 Nine linezolid trials (vancomycin [7]; teicoplanin [2]) were

272 Poisson regression, the relationship between linezolid use and treatment failure persisted (adjusted

273 Linezolid, used to treat tuberculosis in adults, has not

274 Omadacycline was noninferior to linezolid using the Food and Drug Administration primary

275 ive, double-blind randomized trial comparing linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of nosocom

276 The linezolid vs. glycopeptide analysis shows clinical cure

277 does not demonstrate clinical superiority of linezolid vs. glycopeptides for the treatment of nosocom

278 Prospective randomized trials that tested linezolid vs. vancomycin or teicoplanin for treatment of

279 Phagocytosis of apoptotic neutrophils by linezolid- vs. vancomycin treated-alveolar macrophages w

280 ved geometric mean maximal concentration for linezolid was 6425 ng/mL.

281 Only linezolid was able to dramatically reduce the production

282 ) had Streptococcus pneumoniae Vancomycin or linezolid was administered to 674 (29.8%) patients withi

283 Linezolid was also associated with higher 30-day mortali

284 Use of vancomycin, penicillin, rifampin, and linezolid was associated with a higher hazard of having

285 bbits treated 1.5 hours after infection with linezolid was associated with a significant decrease in

286 Linezolid was associated with a significantly higher ris

287 Linezolid was bacteriostatic in TB-infected Nos2 (-/-) m

288 Linezolid was obtained in 73 % isolated yield in a total

289 moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, bedaquiline, or linezolid were associated with significantly decreased o

290 Tigecycline and linezolid were highly active against Enterococcus faeciu

291 Tigecycline and linezolid were highly active against Gram-positive patho

292 Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary with topical linezolid were identified from the Cornea and External D

293 Levofloxacin and linezolid were tested as comparator agents for MIC and D

294 ferior to 10 days of 600-mg twice-daily oral linezolid when evaluated at both the early (48- to 72-ho

295 of clinical resistance to the synthetic drug linezolid which involves a natural resistance gene with

296 osis developed during continuous infusion of linezolid while oxygen consumption and oxygen extraction

297 Omadacycline also was noninferior to linezolid with respect to investigator-assessed clinical

298 ) during a phase IV clinical trial comparing linezolid with vancomycin for the treatment of complicat

299 ated patients on intravenous omadacycline or linezolid, with the option to transition to an oral form

300 We therefore sought to determine whether linezolid would reverse immune hyporesponsiveness after