Skip to content

Research at St Andrews

Linezolid for drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review


Bhagteshwar Singh, Derek Cocker, Hannah Ryan, Derek J Sloan

School/Research organisations


Linezolid was recently re‐classified as a Group A drug by the World Health Organization (WHO) for treatment of multi‐drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR‐TB) and extensively drug‐resistant tuberculosis (XDR‐TB), suggesting that it should be included in the regimen for all patients unless contraindicated. Linezolid use carries a considerable risk of toxicity, with the optimal dose and duration remaining unclear. Current guidelines are mainly based on evidence from observational non‐comparative studies.

To assess the efficacy of linezolid when used as part of a second‐line regimen for treating people with MDR and XDR pulmonary tuberculosis, and to assess the prevalence and severity of adverse events associated with linezolid use in this patient group.

Search methods
We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Specialized Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; and LILACS up to 13 July 2018. We also checked article reference lists and contacted researchers in the field.

Selection criteria
We included studies in which some participants received linezolid, and others did not. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of linezolid for MDR and XDR pulmonary tuberculosis to evaluate efficacy outcomes. We added non‐randomized cohort studies to evaluate adverse events.
Primary outcomes were all‐cause and tuberculosis‐associated death, treatment failure, and cure. Secondary outcomes were treatment interrupted, treatment completed, and time to sputum culture conversion. We recorded frequency of all and serious adverse events, adverse events leading to drug discontinuation or dose reduction, and adverse events attributed to linezolid, particularly neuropathy, anaemia, and thrombocytopenia.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors (BS and DC) independently assessed the search results for eligibility and extracted data from included studies. All review authors assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane ‘Risk of bias' tool for RCTs and the ROBINS‐I tool for non‐randomized studies. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional data when necessary.
We were unable to perform a meta‐analysis as one of the RCTs adopted a study design where participants in the study group received linezolid immediately and participants in the control group received linezolid after two months, and therefore there were no comparable data from this trial. We deemed meta‐analysis of non‐randomized study data inappropriate.

Main results

We identified three RCTs for inclusion. One of these studies had serious problems with allocation of the study drug and placebo, so we could not analyse data for intervention effect from it. The remaining two RCTs recruited 104 participants. One randomized 65 participants to receive linezolid or not, in addition to a background regimen; the other randomized 39 participants to addition of linezolid to a background regimen immediately, or after a delay of two months. We included 14 non‐randomized cohort studies (two prospective, 12 retrospective), with a total of 1678 participants.
Settings varied in terms of income and tuberculosis burden. One RCT and 7 out of 14 non‐randomized studies commenced recruitment in or after 2009. All RCT participants and 38.7% of non‐randomized participants were reported to have XDR‐TB.
Dosing and duration of linezolid in studies were variable and reported inconsistently. Daily doses ranged from 300 mg to 1200 mg; some studies had planned dose reduction for all participants after a set time, others had incompletely reported dose reductions for some participants, and most did not report numbers of participants receiving each dose. Mean or median duration of linezolid therapy was longer than 90 days in eight of the 14 non‐randomized cohorts that reported this information.
Duration of participant follow‐up varied between RCTs. Only five out of 14 non‐randomized studies reported follow‐up duration.
Both RCTs were at low risk of reporting bias and unclear risk of selection bias. One RCT was at high risk of performance and detection bias, and low risk for attrition bias, for all outcomes. The other RCT was at low risk of detection and attrition bias for the primary outcome, with unclear risk of detection and attrition bias for non‐primary outcomes, and unclear risk of performance bias for all outcomes. Overall risk of bias for the non‐randomized studies was critical for three studies, and serious for the remaining 11.
One RCT reported higher cure (risk ratio (RR) 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 4.90, very low‐certainty evidence), lower failure (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70, very low‐certainty evidence), and higher sputum culture conversion at 24 months (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.40, very low‐certainty evidence), amongst the linezolid‐treated group than controls, with no differences in other primary and secondary outcomes. This study also found more anaemia (17/33 versus 2/32), nausea and vomiting, and neuropathy (14/33 versus 1/32) events amongst linezolid‐receiving participants. Linezolid was discontinued early and permanently in two of 33 (6.1%) participants who received it.
The other RCT reported higher sputum culture conversion four months after randomization (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.28), amongst the group who received linezolid immediately compared to the group who had linezolid initiation delayed by two months. Linezolid was discontinued early and permanently in seven of 39 (17.9%) participants who received it.
Linezolid discontinuation occurred in 22.6% (141/624; 11 studies), of participants in the non‐randomized studies. Total, serious, and linezolid‐attributed adverse events could not be summarized quantitatively or comparatively, due to incompleteness of data on duration of follow‐up and numbers of participants experiencing events.

Authors' conclusions
We found some evidence of efficacy of linezolid for drug‐resistant pulmonary tuberculosis from RCTs in participants with XDR‐TB but adverse events and discontinuation of linezolid were common. Overall, there is a lack of comparative data on efficacy and safety. Serious risk of bias and heterogeneity in conducting and reporting non‐randomized studies makes the existing, mostly retrospective, data difficult to interpret. Further prospective cohort studies or RCTs in high tuberculosis burden low‐income and lower‐middle‐income countries would be useful to inform policymakers and clinicians of the efficacy and safety of linezolid as a component of drug‐resistant TB treatment regimens.


Original languageEnglish
Article numberCD012836
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 20 Mar 2019

Discover related content
Find related publications, people, projects and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations

Related by author

  1. Molecular detection of mycobacterium tuberculosis in oral mucosa from patients with presumptive tuberculosis

    Molina-Moya, B., Ciobanu, N., Hernandez, M., Prat-Aymerich, C., Crudu, V., Adams, E. R., Codreanu, A., Sloan, D. J., Cuevas, L. E. & Dominguez, J., 21 Dec 2020, In: Journal of Clinical Medicine. 9, 12, 7 p., 4124.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  2. All nonadherence is equal but is some more equal than others? Tuberculosis in the digital era

    Stagg, H. R., Flook, M., Martinecz, A., Kielmann, K., Abel Zur Wiesch, P., Karat, A. S., Lipman, M. C. I., Sloan, D. J., Walker, E. F. & Fielding, K. L., 2 Nov 2020, In: ERJ Open Research. 6, 4, 13 p., 00315-2020.

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

  3. STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies: development of the STROPS guideline

    Chaplin, M., Kirkham, J. J., Dwan, K., Sloan, D. J., Davies, G. & Jorgensen, A. L., 21 Sep 2020, In: PLoS Medicine. 17, 9, 11 p., e1003344.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  4. Utility of broad-spectrum antibiotics for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Divala, T. H., Fielding, K. L., Kandulu, C., Nliwasa, M., Sloan, D. J., Gupta-Wright, A. & Corbett, E. L., 1 Sep 2020, In: Lancet Infectious Diseases. 20, 9, p. 1089-1098 10 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Related by journal

  1. Antiviral treatment for Bell’s palsy (Idiopathic facial paralysis)

    Gagyor, I., Madhok, V. B., Daly, F. & Sullivan, F., 5 Sep 2019, In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2019, 9, p. 1-68 68 p., CD001869.

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

  2. Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening

    Lawrenson, J. G., Graham-Rowe, E., Lorencatto, F., Burr, J., Bunce, C., Francis, J. J., Aluko, P., Rice, S., Vale, L., Peto, T., Presseau, J., Ivers, N. & Grimshaw, J. M., 15 Jan 2018, In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1, 251 p., CD012054.

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

  3. Short-course versus long-course therapy of the same antibiotic for community-acquired pneumonia in adolescent and adult outpatients

    López-Alcalde, J., Rodriguez-Barrientos, R., Redondo-Sánchez, J., Muñoz-Gutiérrez, J., Molero García, J. M., Rodríguez-Fernández, C., Heras-Mosteiro, J., Marin-Cañada, J., Casanova-Colominas, J., Azcoaga-Lorenzo, A., Hernandez Santiago, V. & Gómez-García, M., 6 Sep 2018, In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 9, 37 p., CD009070.

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

  4. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials

    Treweek, S., Pitkethly, M., Cook, J., Fraser, C., Mitchell, E., Sullivan, F., Jackson, C., Taskila, T. & Gardner, H., 22 Feb 2018, In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 133 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

ID: 258657630