INTRODUCTION: Tedizolid is a promising alternative to linezolid for bone and joint infections (BJIs), but real-world comparative data remain scarce. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and hematological safety of tedizolid versus linezolid in this setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-center observational study at Nimes University Hospital, a French BJIs reference center, including adults treated with linezolid or tedizolid for BJI between December 2018 and September 2023. The primary endpoint was a composite of clinical failure at end of treatment, relapse within 60 days, all-cause 1-year mortality, or antibiotic discontinuation due to adverse events. Secondary endpoints included each component separately and hematological trajectories. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were analyzed (147 linezolid; 55 tedizolid, including 38 switched from linezolid). Staphylococcus spp. accounted for 71% of cases, and 50.5% of infections were polymicrobial. The composite endpoint occurred in 38% of patients on linezolid and 22% on tedizolid (p = 0.04). In propensity-weighted analysis, tedizolid was non-inferior to linezolid (risk difference - 5.6%, 95% CI - 24.2-13.0%). Hematological tolerance favored tedizolid: adjusted hemoglobin and platelet count variations were significantly higher at day 28 (Δ hemoglobin + 1.09 g/dL, 0.54-1.65; p < 0.001; Δ platelets + 134.1 G/L, 92.0-176.3; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Tedizolid was non-inferior to linezolid for the treatment of BJIs and was associated with improved hematological safety. These findings support the use of tedizolid as a valuable alternative in complex BJIs, particularly in patients at risk of cytopenia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aïn et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: