Incidence and risk factors of linezolid-induced lactic acidosis

Background: The use of linezolid has increased with the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Serum lactic acidosis has been reported as a serious side effect of linezolid use, therefore we evaluated the incidence and characteristics of linezolid-related lactic acidosis. Methods: Patients admi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jae Hyoung Im, Ji Hyeon Baek, Hea Yoon Kwon, Jin-Soo Lee
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2015-02-01
Series:International Journal of Infectious Diseases
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971214017263
id doaj-8d67ebcbfc7843b0a608f40ebcaaedbb
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8d67ebcbfc7843b0a608f40ebcaaedbb2020-11-25T00:48:56ZengElsevierInternational Journal of Infectious Diseases1201-97121878-35112015-02-0131C475210.1016/j.ijid.2014.12.009Incidence and risk factors of linezolid-induced lactic acidosisJae Hyoung ImJi Hyeon BaekHea Yoon KwonJin-Soo Lee Background: The use of linezolid has increased with the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Serum lactic acidosis has been reported as a serious side effect of linezolid use, therefore we evaluated the incidence and characteristics of linezolid-related lactic acidosis. Methods: Patients admitted to an 860-bed university hospital were enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups, those who used linezolid and those who used teicoplanin (control group). The study was conducted by review of the medical charts. Results: Seventy-two patients were included in the linezolid group. The control group comprised 72 patients matched to those in the linezolid group for age and indication for antibiotic use. Lactic acidosis occurred in five cases (6.8%) in the linezolid group. None of the patients who used teicoplanin developed lactic acidosis, which was a comparable result. The median change in anion gap in the linezolid group was −0.8 mmol/l (interquartile range (IQR) −3.55 to 1.28 mmol/l), which was significantly higher than in the teicoplanin group, 0.05 mmol/l (IQR −1.75 to 2.3 mmol/l) (p = 0.026). The number of increased anion gap events in patients who used linezolid for more than 6 weeks was higher than in the group who used linezolid for less than 6 weeks (p = 0.0014). However, no statistically significant difference was observed according to age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or diabetes. Conclusions: Linezolid showed an association with treatment-related lactic acidosis. A longer duration of linezolid use (>6 weeks) was one of the risk factors for metabolic acidosis. We suggest checking serum lactate concentrations regularly, especially in those on long-term use. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971214017263LinezolidLactic acidosisRiskIncidence
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jae Hyoung Im
Ji Hyeon Baek
Hea Yoon Kwon
Jin-Soo Lee
spellingShingle Jae Hyoung Im
Ji Hyeon Baek
Hea Yoon Kwon
Jin-Soo Lee
Incidence and risk factors of linezolid-induced lactic acidosis
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
Linezolid
Lactic acidosis
Risk
Incidence
author_facet Jae Hyoung Im
Ji Hyeon Baek
Hea Yoon Kwon
Jin-Soo Lee
author_sort Jae Hyoung Im
title Incidence and risk factors of linezolid-induced lactic acidosis
title_short Incidence and risk factors of linezolid-induced lactic acidosis
title_full Incidence and risk factors of linezolid-induced lactic acidosis
title_fullStr Incidence and risk factors of linezolid-induced lactic acidosis
title_full_unstemmed Incidence and risk factors of linezolid-induced lactic acidosis
title_sort incidence and risk factors of linezolid-induced lactic acidosis
publisher Elsevier
series International Journal of Infectious Diseases
issn 1201-9712
1878-3511
publishDate 2015-02-01
description Background: The use of linezolid has increased with the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Serum lactic acidosis has been reported as a serious side effect of linezolid use, therefore we evaluated the incidence and characteristics of linezolid-related lactic acidosis. Methods: Patients admitted to an 860-bed university hospital were enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups, those who used linezolid and those who used teicoplanin (control group). The study was conducted by review of the medical charts. Results: Seventy-two patients were included in the linezolid group. The control group comprised 72 patients matched to those in the linezolid group for age and indication for antibiotic use. Lactic acidosis occurred in five cases (6.8%) in the linezolid group. None of the patients who used teicoplanin developed lactic acidosis, which was a comparable result. The median change in anion gap in the linezolid group was −0.8 mmol/l (interquartile range (IQR) −3.55 to 1.28 mmol/l), which was significantly higher than in the teicoplanin group, 0.05 mmol/l (IQR −1.75 to 2.3 mmol/l) (p = 0.026). The number of increased anion gap events in patients who used linezolid for more than 6 weeks was higher than in the group who used linezolid for less than 6 weeks (p = 0.0014). However, no statistically significant difference was observed according to age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or diabetes. Conclusions: Linezolid showed an association with treatment-related lactic acidosis. A longer duration of linezolid use (>6 weeks) was one of the risk factors for metabolic acidosis. We suggest checking serum lactate concentrations regularly, especially in those on long-term use.
topic Linezolid
Lactic acidosis
Risk
Incidence
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971214017263
work_keys_str_mv AT jaehyoungim incidenceandriskfactorsoflinezolidinducedlacticacidosis
AT jihyeonbaek incidenceandriskfactorsoflinezolidinducedlacticacidosis
AT heayoonkwon incidenceandriskfactorsoflinezolidinducedlacticacidosis
AT jinsoolee incidenceandriskfactorsoflinezolidinducedlacticacidosis
_version_ 1725253947581530112