That the rate of oral absorption varied from dose to dose. Typical linezolid peak concentrations are 12-26 mg/L 2 h after oral doses and trough concentrations are typically 3-9 mg/L. 1-3 In this infant, despite q8h dosing, peak and trough concentrations were lower than typically seen. The volume of distribution divided by bioavailability (Vz/F), clearance divided by bioavailability (CL/F), elimination rate constant (k el , estimated with three concentrations), half-life (t 1/2) and AUC 0-8 were estimated at 3.48 L, 1.75 L/h, 0.50 h 21 , 1.38 h and 16.56 mg. h/L, respectively. The pharmacokinetic profile of oral linezolid in our infant differed from what has been published in the literature for full-term infants. Full-term infants who received single doses of iv linezolid had much higher peak plasma concentrations, a larger AUC and a slower clearance. 8 Our infant was born .3 months premature and was treated at a post-gestational age of 1 month (not equivalent to a full-term infant of the same age); therefore, direct correlation is challenging due to the differences in characteristics of the infants in the published studies. 5,6,8,9 The C max and AUC were lower in our infant and apparent elimination t 1/2 faster than what has been reported in full-term infants. Reasons for this may include incomplete absorption (F, 1), faster clearance or a smaller actual volume of distribution. We were only able to estimate Vz/F, leaving our assessment of this parameter less than optimal. Pharmacokinetic data reported in studies in infants and neonates have utilized the iv formulation of linezolid and studied the disposition of the drug after a single dose, whereas our infant received oral linezolid suspension and pharmacokinetic analysis was done at steady-state. This also may explain some of the differences in pharmacokinetic parameters. Kosaka et al. 10 reported plasma levels in four children (aged ,30 months) receiving linezolid for MRSA mediastinitis. A serum concentration of ,2 mg/L linezolid was needed to inhibit growth for 90% of organisms (MIC 90). Two patients were treated iv with a 90 min infusion at 10 mg/kg q8h initially and were switched to an oral regimen at the same dose. Two other patients were given linezolid orally at a dose of 10 or 15 mg/kg q8h. The linezolid trough concentrations were ≥3.5 mg/L in patients treated with iv linezolid. Lower trough concentrations were seen with oral administration of linezolid. In one 3-month-old child, who was the youngest, undetectable serum trough concentration (,0.1 mg/L) was documented when iv linezolid was changed to oral therapy at a dose of 10 mg/kg q8h; hence, the dose of linezolid was increased from 10 to 15 mg/kg. Preterm infants are at increased risk of nosocomial bacterial infection with multiresistant Gram-positive pathogens. Linezolid seems to be a safe and potent alternative treatment for these infants. The benefits of linezolid compared with vancomycin include its availability as an oral formulation. Owing to the variability of linezolid kinetics in infants, especially in premature infants as in our case, we would recommend therapeutic serum concentrations be monitored at steady-state and dosing adjusted accordingly. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the steady-state pharmacokinetic disposition of oral linezolid in children.