lincomycin
Sources réglementaires consultées
Indications approuvées
- Infections graves dues à des germes à Gram positif sensibles lorsque les pénicillines ne conviennent pas.
Contre-indications
Absolues
- Hypersensibilité à la lincomycine ou à la clindamycine ; méningite ; antécédent de colite associée aux antibiotiques. Pour la présentation orale CIMA, l’allaitement est également contre-indiqué.
Mises en garde cliniques
- Il peut provoquer une colite à C. difficile sévère ou mortelle pendant ou après le traitement ; arrêter en cas de diarrhée importante. — CIMA/AEMPS, ficha técnica 41290
- Mise en garde majeure · Il peut potentialiser le bloc neuromusculaire et provoquer une dépression respiratoire ; surveiller avec les anesthésiques ou les curares. — DailyMed, set_id 20c0e8af-a78f-47f8-ace4-06b80def7003
Interactions médicamenteuses
- ModéréeÉrythromycine
Mécanisme: Un antagonisme au site ribosomique peut survenir.
Recommandation: Éviter l’association.
CIMA/AEMPS, ficha técnica 41290
- SévèreBloquants neuromusculaires
Mécanisme: Elle potentialise le bloc neuromusculaire.
Recommandation: Surveiller la respiration et adapter la dose.
DailyMed, set_id 20c0e8af-a78f-47f8-ace4-06b80def7003
Effets indésirables
Communs (≥1%)
Douleur au site d’injection, nausées, diarrhée et éruption cutanée
Rares mais graves
Colite fulminante à C. difficile, anaphylaxie, réactions cutanées sévères et atteinte hépatique
Grossesse et allaitement
Utiliser pendant la grossesse uniquement en cas de nécessité claire. L’allaitement est contre-indiqué avec les gélules CIMA ; pour la formulation injectable, décider selon son étiquette et le bénéfice maternel.
Bibliographie récente (PubMed)
Lincosamides are naturally occurring antibiotics isolated from Streptomyces sp. Currently, lincomycin A and its semisynthetic analogue clindamycin are used as clinical drugs. Due to their unique structures and remarkable biological activities, derivatizations of lincosamides via semi-synthesis and biosynthetic studies have been reported. This review summarizes the structures and biological activities of lincosamides, and the recent studies of lincosamide biosynthetic enzymes.
Clostridium is a genus comprising Gram-positive, rod-shaped, spore-forming, anaerobic bacteria that cause a variety of diseases. However, there is a shortage of information regarding antibiotic resistance in the genus in Saudi Arabia. This comprehensive analysis of research results published up until December 2021 intends to highlight the incidence of antibiotic resistance in Clostridium species in Saudi Arabia. PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, SDL, and ScienceDirect databases were searched using specific keywords, and ten publications on antibiotic resistance in Clostridium species in Saudi Arabia were identified. We found that the rates of resistance of Clostridium difficile to antibiotics were as follows: 42% for ciprofloxacin, 83% for gentamicin, 28% for clindamycin, 25% for penicillin, 100% for levofloxacin, 24% for tetracycline, 77% for nalidixic acid, 50% for erythromycin, 72% for ampicillin, and 28% for moxifloxacin; whereas those of C. perfringens were: 21% for metronidazole, 83% for ceftiofur, 39% for clindamycin, 59% for penicillin, 62% for erythromycin, 47% for oxytetracycline, and 47% for lincomycin. The current findings suggest that ceftiofur, erythromycin, lincomycin, and oxytetracycline should not be used in C. perfringens infection treatments in humans or animals in Saudi Arabia.
Lincomycin A and celesticetin are representative members of the lincosamide class of clinically used antibiotics produced by Streptomyces species. Their distinctive chemical architectures arise from atypical biosynthetic gene clusters that lack well observed signature genes, and since the complete determination of the lincomycin A biosynthetic pathway, current research has focused on the genetic manipulation of regulatory elements and the protein engineering of biosynthetic enzymes. This review summarizes recent advances in elucidating the transcriptional regulation of lincosamide biosynthetic gene clusters and the structure-function relationships and engineering of their biosynthetic enzymes.
The present network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effects of antibiotics used in treating footrot in some ruminants and to rank these antibiotics based on their efficacy. Data of 14 eligible studies consisting of 5622 affected animals was included in the analysis. A Bayesian method and Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations were utilized to analyze data. The estimated results were reported in the form of odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) was used to rank antibiotics. Network meta-regressions (NMRs) were conducted to examine the influence of sample sizes, treatment duration, route of administration, and species of animals (sheep and cattle) on the overall outcome. The results indicated that gamithromycin impact on curing footrot was superior to other antibiotics and Lincomycin and oxytetracycline were ranked second and third. The difference between the impact of gamithromycin and amoxicillin (OR = 14.76, CrI: 1.07-193.49) and enrofloxacin (OR = 20.21, CrI: 1.57-229.25) on footrot was significant. There was a significant difference between the effect of oxytetracycline and enrofloxacin (OR = 5.24, CrI: 1.14-23.74) on footrot. The NMR performed based on species of animals fitted data better than network meta-analysis, suggesting erythromycin as the best third antibiotic instead of oxytetracycline. Egger's regression test and the shape of the funnel plot showed no publication bias among included studies. In conclusion, gamithromycin was associated with the highest curing rate benefit when used to treat footrot, followed by lincomycin and oxytetracycline/erythromycin. Among all evaluated antibiotics, enrofloxacin showed the lowest effects on footrot.
The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required. To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021. RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy. We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admissi