Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Vancomycin, Linezolid, Tedizolid, and Daptomycin in Treating Patients with Suspected or Proven Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis

Fever and infections in surgical intensive care: an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Critical Care Committee clinical consensus document

The evaluation and workup of fever and the use of antibiotics to treat infections is part of daily practice in the surgical intensive care unit (ICU). Fever can be infectious or non-infectious; it is important to distinguish between the two entities wherever possible. The evidence is growing for shortening the duration of antibiotic treatment of common infections. The purpose of this clinical consensus document, created by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Critical Care Committee, is to synthesize the available evidence, and to provide practical recommendations. We discuss the evaluation of fever, the indications to obtain cultures including urine, blood, and respiratory specimens for diagnosis of infections, the use of procalcitonin, and the decision to initiate empiric antibiotics. We then describe the treatment of common infections, specifically ventilator-associated pneumonia, catheter-associated urinary infection, catheter-related bloodstream infection, bacteremia, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal infection, ventriculitis, and necrotizing soft tissue infection.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of six antibiotics in treating MRSA infections: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study conducted a network meta-analysis comparing linezolid, teicoplanin, daptomycin, tigecycline, and ceftaroline fosamil with vancomycin for treating MRSA-related diseases, addressing the lack of comprehensive evaluations in existing research on antibiotic therapy for MRSA infections.

METHODS

We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Librar up to August 22, 2023. All eligible randomized controlled trials of the six antibiotics were included in the NMA, and their effectiveness and safety were compared across various MRSA-related diseases. Categorical data were used for the odds ratio (OR), and continuous data were used for mean difference (SMD). The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was employed to evaluate the incidence rate.

RESULTS

According to SUCRA results, daptomycin was the most effective treatment (73.0%) in bloodstream infections. In pulmonary infections and skin and soft tissue infections, linezolid out-performed other antibiotics in effectiveness rate (90.6% and 86.3%), microbial killing rate (93.3% and 93.1%). Vancomycin showed lower adverse reactions than teicoplanin, with less hepatotoxicity compared to linezolid and tigecycline. Linezolid had higher thrombocytopenia risk but lower nephrotoxicity risk than others. Vancomycin was less effective in microbial killing rates than linezolid across various infections.

CONCLUSION

The present research suggests that in pulmonary infections and skin and soft tissue infections, linezolid may be a better option for treating MRSA-related diseases. However, caution is warranted due to the association of linezolid with thrombocytopenia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Our study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of SystematicReviews (PROSPERO); Registration number: CRD42024535142.

A cost minimisation analysis comparing oral linezolid and intravenous daptomycin administered via an outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy programme in patients requiring prolonged antibiotic courses

This study is an economic analysis seeking to examine cost savings that may be accrued from usage of oral linezolid in place of OPAT IV daptomycin in patients requiring prolonged courses of IV or highly bioavailable oral antibiotic therapy. In order to do so we conducted a literature review to establish the scenarios in which the agents could be considered equivalent. We then, using a decision-tree model, conducted a cost analysis to establish differences in cost between the approaches. Under the model base-case, the total cost of treatment with OPAT daptomycin was €3,496.84 and the total cost of treatment with oral linezolid was €772.01. Therefore the oral linezolid strategy would be projected to save the Irish health service €2,724.83 per patient. These results were robust to one-way deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Our study suggests that significant savings could be safely accrued in the management of these patients.

Effectiveness and Safety of Linezolid Versus Vancomycin, Teicoplanin, or Daptomycin against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Vancomycin (VCM) and daptomycin (DAP) are standard therapies for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia, despite concerns regarding clinical utility and growing resistance. Linezolid (LZD) affords superior tissue penetration to VCM or DAP and has been successfully used as salvage therapy for persistent MRSA bacteremia, indicating its utility as a first-choice drug against MRSA bacteremia. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the effectiveness and safety of LZD with VCM, teicoplanin (TEIC), or DAP in patients with MRSA bacteremia. We evaluated all-cause mortality as the primary effectiveness outcome, clinical and microbiological cure, hospital length of stay, recurrence, and 90-day readmission rates as secondary effectiveness outcomes, and drug-related adverse effects as primary safety outcomes. We identified 5328 patients across 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 pooled analysis of 5 RCTs, 1 subgroup analysis (1 RCT), and 5 case-control and cohort studies (CSs). Primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes were comparable between patients treated with LZD versus VCM, TEIC, or DAP in RCT-based studies and CSs. There was no difference in adverse event incidence between LZD and comparators. These findings suggest that LZD could be a potential first-line drug against MRSA bacteremia as well as VCM or DAP.

New drugs for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft tissue infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Staphylococcus aureus is a pathogen incriminated in skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs), with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) becoming the predominant cause and representing a significant burden to the healthcare system. The last updated Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines concerning MRSA infections and SSTIs management were published in 2011 and 2014, respectively. The UK updated guidelines for MRSA infection treatment were published in 2021. Older treatment options may be associated with toxicity and require frequent dosing. There is a paucity of recent reviews on the armamentarium of new agents for MRSA SSTIs treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since 2005, several new antibiotics received a fast-track approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for SSTI treatment. These drugs include delafloxacin, omadacycline, tedizolid, ceftaroline, dalbavancin, oritavancin and telavancin. In this manuscript, we will review the data that led to these new drugs approval and discuss their advantages and disadvantages in MRSA SSTIs management.

SUMMARY

MRSA is a major cause of SSTIs. Several novel therapies covering MRSA were FDA-approved for SSTIs. However, the current IDSA guidelines for MRSA infection and SSTIs as well as the recently published UK guidelines on MRSA treatment only consider these drugs as alternative choices or do not mention them at all.