ライフサイエンスコーパス: linezolid

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

2 erococci against vancomycin, daptomycin, and linezolid.

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

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

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

6 antibody appeared additive to the antibiotic linezolid.

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

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

9 associated with more renal dysfunction than linezolid.

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

11 lfamethoxazole, vancomycin, teicoplanin, and linezolid.

12 for alternative antimicrobial agents such as linezolid.

13 lid or to expand the spectrum of activity of linezolid.

14 iotics whose site of action overlaps that of linezolid.

15 colonization in a patient who never received linezolid.

16 h activity comparable or superior to that of linezolid.

17 a patient treated with a prolonged course of linezolid.

18 e in the minimum inhibitory concentration of linezolid.

19 nd per year of life saved generated by using linezolid.

20 y comparable to the activity and efficacy of linezolid.

21 the new agents quinupristin/dalfopristin and linezolid.

22 day 16, the patient was begun on intravenous linezolid.

23 ntained resistance to high concentrations of linezolid.

24 ar MRSA in comparison to both vancomycin and linezolid.

25 All isolates were susceptible to linezolid.

26 uch less frequently with tedizolid than with linezolid.

27 values for tedizolid compared with that for linezolid.

28 Topical linezolid 0.2% can be an effective ophthalmic antibiotic

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

30 25%, 50%, and 100% for rabbits treated with linezolid 1.5, 4, and 9 hours after infection, respectiv

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

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

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

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

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

36 0 was used to compare therapeutic effects of linezolid (50 mg/kg 3 times/day) and vancomycin (30 mg/k

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

46 cid analogue 50 was 4 times more potent than linezolid against key Gram-positive and fastidious Gram-

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

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

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

50 Linezolid also covers Nocardia well and could be a secon

51 % susceptibility for 92 isolates tested) and linezolid, an oxazolidinone (100% susceptibility for 41

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

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

54 Linezolid and daptomycin are the primary treatment optio

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

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

57 ered 7 months after the patient discontinued linezolid and demonstrated reversion to a susceptible ph

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

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

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

61 The linezolid and moxifloxacin exposure targets were AUC0-24

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

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

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

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

66 ible to ciprofloxacin, sulfamethoxazole, and linezolid and susceptible or intermediate to cefoxitin,

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

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

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

70 Two members of the family, linezolid and XA043, were examined for their effects on

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

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

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

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

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

76 nupristin-dalfopristin (Synercid), rifampin, linezolid, and tetracycline.

77 of Staphylococcus aureus include vancomycin, linezolid, and, in communities with a high proportion of

78 Intravenous linezolid appears to be a safe and effective therapy for

79 Linezolid appears to be effective but is frequently disc

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

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

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

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

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

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

86 Linezolid AUC0-24 best explained the mitochondrial gene

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

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

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

90 atic against a number of pathogens in vitro, linezolid behaves in vivo like a bactericidal antibiotic

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

92 improved antibacterial activity compared to linezolid but suffer from potent monoamine oxidase A (MA

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

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

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

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

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

98 Biofilm linezolid concentration was 19-fold above the linezolid

99 of linezolid (e.g., higher direct costs for linezolid, costs per in-hospital care of survivors, and

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

101 Linezolid coverage was >98% against staphylococci.

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

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

104 Linezolid did not display an advantage over vancomycin i

105 usted life-years resulting from therapy with linezolid divided by the sum of the incremental costs ar

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

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

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

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

110 incremental costs arising because of use of linezolid (e.g., higher direct costs for linezolid, cost

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

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

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

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

115 transplant recipient previously treated with linezolid for bloodstream infections by vancomycin-resis

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

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

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

119 ates were derived from prospective trials of linezolid for ventilator-associated pneumonia and from o

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

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

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

123 % CI, 74.7% to 83.6%) of 335 patients in the linezolid group (a treatment difference of 0.1% [95% CI,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

131 Linezolid has approved indications for skin and soft tis

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

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

134 inst methicillin-resistant S. aureus such as linezolid have been recently approved for children and o

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

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

137 ed reduced in vivo myelotoxicity compared to linezolid in a 14-day safety study in rats, potent in vi

138 Because of the important niche of linezolid in cancer treatment, linezolid-resistant E. fa

139 schedules and exposures of moxifloxacin and linezolid in combination.

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

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

142 me was the incremental cost-effectiveness of linezolid in terms of cost per added quality-adjusted li

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

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

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

146 Linezolid-induced lactic acidosis is associated with dim

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

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

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

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

151 Linezolid is 100% bioavailable, so it can be given in eq

152 Linezolid is a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin

153 Linezolid is an important therapeutic option for infecti

154 Linezolid is an important therapeutic option for treatme

155 If linezolid is compared with vancomycin only, then clinica

156 Linezolid is considered as a therapeutic alternative to

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

158 Resistance to linezolid is rare in clinical isolates of Enterococcus f

159 Linezolid is recommended for PO or IV treatment of skin

160 Linezolid is recommended for treatment of pneumonia and

161 ed analogues in which the morpholine ring of linezolid is replaced with various substituted azabicycl

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

163 Linezolid is the first drug from this class to reach the

164 Linezolid is the first of a new class of antimicrobial a

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

166 mproved myelotoxicity compared to linezolid, linezolid-like efficacy, and PK remains challenging.

167 Systemic treatment with linezolid limits endotracheal tube biofilm development a

168 ossessing improved myelotoxicity compared to linezolid, linezolid-like efficacy, and PK remains chall

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

170 In contrast, clindamycin and linezolid markedly suppressed translation, but not trans

171 Many oxazolidinones, including linezolid (marketed as Zyvox), are inhibitors of monoami

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

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

174 thromycin (ERY), gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, linezolid, meropenem, penicillin (PEN), tetracycline (TE

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

176 All 12 isolates had a linezolid MIC of 32 microg/ml.

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

178 (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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

198 tes, illustrate that the recent emergence of linezolid-nonsusceptible staphylococci and enterococci i

199 the broth microdilution method for detecting linezolid-nonsusceptible staphylococci and enterococci,

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

201 a either to improve myelotoxicity profile of linezolid or to expand the spectrum of activity of linez

202 In the model, patients received either linezolid or vancomycin.

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

204 classes tested, no resistance to vancomycin, linezolid, or quinupristin-dalfopristin was seen.

205 ately sensitive to the estimated efficacy of linezolid over vancomycin.

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

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

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

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

210 own as the oxazolidinones and exemplified by linezolid (PNU-100766, marketed as Zyvox), have recently

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

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

213 .060 +/- 0.012 per day with the moxifloxacin-linezolid regimen in the additivity zone vs 0.083 +/- 0.

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

215 th all inputs simultaneously skewed against, linezolid remains a cost-effective option (cost per qual

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

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

218 We have discovered that linezolid resistance in a methicillin-resistant Staphylo

219 Linezolid resistance is caused by mutations within the d

220 ates, there has been only 1 reported case of linezolid resistance.

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

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

223 tant niche of linezolid in cancer treatment, linezolid-resistant E. faecalis is noteworthy.

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

225 A real-time PCR assay identified linezolid-resistant Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococc

226 We report a linezolid-resistant Enterococcus faecalis infection in a

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

228 inezolid-susceptible S. aureus isolates, the linezolid-resistant S. aureus isolate demonstrated no si

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

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

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

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

233 y against Gram-positive pathogens, including linezolid-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.

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

235 on encountered its first clinical isolate of linezolid-resistant, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus f

236 and 15 isolates that were nonsusceptible to linezolid, respectively, were tested with the Clinical a

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

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

239 The molecular model of the linezolid-ribosome complex reveals localization of A2503

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

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

242 Linezolid shows promise as an alternative to glycopeptid

243 Clinical resistance to linezolid, so far, has been developing only slowly and h

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

245 ion were compared for detection of decreased linezolid susceptibility due to 23S rRNA gene G2576T mut

246 Compared with 2 linezolid-susceptible S. aureus isolates, the linezolid-

247 of its growth characteristics with those of linezolid-susceptible S. aureus.

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

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

250 Linezolid, the first antimicrobial of the oxazolidinone

251 Linezolid, the first approved drug from this class, has

252 ently been approved for clinical use include linezolid, the first oxazolidinone in clinical use, dapt

253 calis endocarditis that failed to respond to linezolid therapy, outline the virulence traits of the i

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

266 This is the first report of the failure of linezolid treatment for Staphylococcus epidermidis bacte

267 Linezolid treatment was also associated with greater 30-

268 oid leukemia while the patient was receiving linezolid treatment.

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

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

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

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

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

274 The linezolid vs. glycopeptide analysis shows clinical cure

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

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

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

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

279 Only linezolid was able to dramatically reduce the production

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

281 Linezolid was also associated with higher 30-day mortali

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

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

284 Linezolid was associated with a significantly higher ris

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

286 The incremental cost-effectiveness of linezolid was calculated as the additional quality-adjus

287 Despite its higher cost, linezolid was cost-effective for treatment of ventilator

288 Tigecycline and linezolid were highly active against Enterococcus faeciu

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

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

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

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

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

294 Linezolid, which targets the ribosome, is a new syntheti

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

296 The patient received 4 wks of intravenous linezolid with complete eradication of the meningitis.

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

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

299 The first marketed member of that class, linezolid (Zyvox), shows good efficacy with an impressiv

300 in the United States in September 1999, and linezolid (Zyvox), which reached the U.S. market in May