Linezolid for the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens in China

Linezolid versus vancomycin in vitro activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms

Most microorganisms as well as bacteria live in a community under natural conditions. Bacteria adopted to biofilm mode of life more than 3 billion years ago to survive extreme, harsh environments. They become harmful when they acquire resistance to antibiotics and overcome the standard therapies, which is most commonly found in hospitals. Therefore, many studies have been published regarding antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Staphylococcus aureus is a dangerous pathogen, ubiquitously prevalent as a commensal and opportunistic microorganism in human populations. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is considered one of the major medical problems worldwide since they are frequent colonizers of implanted medical devices causing a variety of hospital-acquired infections. For many years, vancomycin has been the drug of choice for MRSA whereas linezolid is considered the last resort drug. This comparative, cross-sectional study investigated the effects of linezolid on biofilm formation in vitro compared to vancomycin across 85 MRSA isolates. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report high levels of linezolid resistance in MRSA in Iraq. In this brief report, 5 MRSA strains showed resistance to linezolid, with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of 256 μg/ml. The exact same isolates exhibited vancomycin resistance with MIC values of 1024 μg/ml. All linezolid-resistant MRSA (LR-MRSA) strains demonstrated biofilm formation ability. Additionally, linezolid inhibited the expression of adhesion-related genes cna and clfB. The authors concluded that linezolid exerts a comparable effect to vancomycin in biofilm treatment.

Prevalence of linezolid resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: This study aimed to understand the current level of linezolid (LNZ) resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates reported over the past 10 years. Material & methods: An electronic search was conducted for the following keywords: ((Streptococcus pneumoniae [title/abstract]) OR (Pneumococcus [title/abstract]) OR (Pneumococci [title/abstract]) AND (linezolid [title/abstract]) OR (Zyvox [title/abstract])) OR (Zyvoxid [title/abstract])). Result: Out of all the studies, 80 had a cross-sectional design, while 11 followed a cohort approach. The prevalence of LNZ resistance among S. pneumoniae isolates ranged from 0% to 4.86%. Discussion: Urgent, high-powered, randomized, controlled trials with participants from endemic regions are needed to gain a comprehensive understanding of the impact on and significance of LNZ treatment to patients.

Attributable nephrotoxicity of vancomycin in critically ill patients: a marginal structural model study

BACKGROUND

Although vancomycin nephrotoxicity is recognizable, critically ill patients have other potential reasons for acute kidney injury (AKI) and determining its attributable nephrotoxic risk in this population can be cumbersome.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the risk of AKI attributable to vancomycin, controlling for baseline and time-dependent confounders.

METHODS

Time-fixed and daily time-varying variables were extracted from a large public database. The exposures analysed were: (i) IV vancomycin; (ii) serum trough level greater than 15 and 20 mg/L; and (iii) concomitant exposure to vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam or other antipseudomonal β-lactams. Censoring and exposure inverse probability of treatment weighting were calculated. Marginal structural models were plotted to evaluate AKI, severe AKI (stage 2/3) and need of renal replacement therapy (RRT).

RESULTS

A total of 26 865 patients were included; 19.7% received vancomycin during ICU stay. After adjusting for fixed and time-variable confounders, vancomycin exposure was associated with AKI (HR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.09-1.38), but not with severe AKI or need of RRT (HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.91-1.23 and HR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.74-1.29, respectively). A serum trough level greater than 20 mg/L was associated with AKI (HR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.52-2.30) and severe AKI (HR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.31-2.19), but showed no statistically significant association with need of RRT (HR = 1.48, 95% CI = 0.92-2.56). The vancomycin + piperacillin/tazobactam combination was not associated with a greater risk than vancomycin alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The attributable nephrotoxicity of vancomycin in critically ill patients is significantly lower than previously suggested and severe AKI is related to vancomycin only when trough serum levels are greater than 20 mg/L.

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

Introduction

Skin and soft structure infections (SSTIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pose serious health risks and cause significant cost burdens, and a conclusive recommendation about antibiotics has not yet been generated. Therefore, we performed this updated network meta-analysis to determine the preferred drug for the treatment of MRSA-caused SSTIs.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify any potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the comparative efficacy and safety of any two of vancomycin, linezolid, tedizolid, and daptomycin in MRSA-caused SSTIs. All statistical analyses were conducted with RevMan, ADDIS, and STATA software.

Results

Twenty eligible RCTs involving 7804 patients were included for the final analysis. Direct meta-analysis suggested that linezolid was superior to vancomycin in improving clinical (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–1.99; P = 0.02) and microbiological (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.24–2.86; P = 0.003) success, which were all confirmed by network meta-analyses. No statistical differences were identified regarding other comparisons. Meanwhile, there were no significant differences between any two antibiotics related to safety. Moreover, ranking probabilities indicated that linezolid had the highest probability of being ranked best in terms of clinical and microbiological success.

Conclusion

Based on the limited evidence, linezolid may be a preferred antibiotic for the treatment of MRSA-caused SSTIs because it showed superiority in clinical and microbiological success without difference regarding safety.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00456-0.

Quantifying Human Health Risks from Virginiamycin Use in Food Animals in China

Virginiamycin (VM), a streptogramin antibiotic, has been used to promote healthy growth and treat illnesses in farm animals in the United States and other countries. The combination streptogramin Quinupristin-Dalfopristin (QD) was approved in the United States in 1999 for treating patients with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VREF) infections. Many chickens and swine test positive for QD-resistant E. faecium, raising concerns that using VM in food animals might select for streptogramin-resistant strains of E. faecium that could compromise QD effectiveness in treating human VREF infections. Such concerns have prompted bans and phase-outs of VM as growth promoters in the United States and Europe. This study quantitatively estimates potential human health risks from QD-resistant VREF infections due to VM use in food animals in China. Plausible conservative (risk-maximizing) quantitative risk estimates are derived for future uses, assuming 100% resistance to linezolid and daptomycin and 100% prescription rate of QD to high-level (VanA) VREF-infected patients. Up to one shortened life every few decades to every few thousand years might occur in China from VM use in animals, although the most likely risk is zero (e.g., if resistance is not transferred from bacteria in food animals to bacteria infecting human patients). Sensitivity and probabilistic uncertainty analyses suggest that this conclusion is robust to several data gaps and uncertainties. Potential future human health risks from VM use in animals in China appear to be small or zero, even if QD is eventually approved for use in human patients.

Efficacy and safety of linezolid compared with other treatments for skin and soft tissue infections: a meta-analysis

Linezolid with other treatments for skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) has been evaluated in several studies. However, the conclusions remain controversial. By searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate linezolid and other treatments for skin and soft tissue infections. The study was summarized, and the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Eleven related articles were included in the meta-analysis. Our results revealed that linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02–1.16, P_{heterogeneity} = 0.326, I² = 13.0%) and microbiological cure rates (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.01–1.16, P_{heterogeneity} = 0.089, I² = 41.7%) when comparing with vancomycin. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anemia, nausea, and mortality; however, the incidence of vomiting, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia in patients treated with linezolid is significantly higher than that with other treatments. Our study confirmed that linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs. It is recommended that linezolid be monitored for thrombocytopenia, vomiting, and diarrhea. Further studies with larger dataset and well-designed models are required to validate our findings.

Comparative efficacy and safety of antibiotics used to treat acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: Results of a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This NMA compared the efficacy and safety between IV antibiotics that are used in the current standard of care for managing adult patients (≥18 years of age) with ABSSSI.

METHODS

Comparators were chosen on the basis that both direct and indirect comparisons between the interventions of interest could be performed. Outcomes of the analysis were selected on the basis that they are frequently measured and reported in trials involving ABSSSI patients, and only published randomised control trials of any size and duration and with any blinding status were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. The NMA was performed using both a fixed-effect and random-effect model. Efficacy-related endpoints were (1) clinical treatment success and (2) microbiological success at TOC visit. Safety-related endpoints were (1) number of discontinuations due to AEs/SAEs, (2) patients experiencing AEs, (3) patients experiencing SAEs and (4) all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Study interventions included daptomycin, dalbavancin, linezolid and tigecycline. Vancomycin was the comparator in all studies, except in two where it was linezolid and teicoplanin. The NMA showed that irrespective of patient subgroup, the likelihood of clinical and microbiological success with dalbavancin was statistically similar to the comparators studied. No statistically significant differences were observed between dalbavancin and any of the comparators in the discontinuation rate due to AEs/SAEs. In contrast, dalbavancin was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing an AE than linezolid, a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing a SAE than vancomycin and daptomycin, and a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality than vancomycin, linezolid and tigecycline.

CONCLUSION

Dalbavancin affords a promising, new alternative IV antimicrobial agent which is as effective as traditional therapies, but with the added benefit of enabling clinicians to treat patients with ABSSSI in different organisational settings. Notwithstanding, any introduction of an effective treatment with a differential mode of administration into healthcare systems must be followed by a change in clinical practice and patient management in order to fully achieve desirable economic outcomes.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of tedizolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections caused by MRSA

BACKGROUND

Tedizolid, the active moiety of tedizolid phosphate, is approved in the United States, the European Union, Canada and a number of other countries for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) caused by certain susceptible bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluates the comparative effectiveness of tedizolid and other antibacterials indicated for the treatment of ABSSSI caused by MRSA.

METHODS

Systematic review of 10 databases was undertaken to inform an NMA to estimate the relative effectiveness of tedizolid and established monotherapy comparators (ceftaroline, daptomycin, linezolid, teicoplanin, tigecycline, vancomycin) for treating MRSA-associated ABSSSI. Randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with ABSSSI or complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by suspected/documented MRSA were eligible for inclusion. Networks were developed based on similarity of study design, patient characteristics, outcome measures and available data. Outcomes of interest included clinical response at end of therapy (EOT), post-therapy evaluation (PTE) or test-of-cure assessment and treatment discontinuations resulting from adverse events (AEs). Bayesian NMA was conducted for each outcome using fixed-effects and random effects models.

RESULTS

Literature searches identified 3,618 records; 15 trials met the inclusion criteria and were considered suitable for NMA comparison. In fixed-effects models, tedizolid had higher odds of clinical response at EOT (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; credible interval, 1.0, 3.0) and PTE than vancomycin (OR, 1.6; credible interval, 1.1, 2.5). No differences in odds of clinical response at EOT or PTE were observed between tedizolid and other comparators. There was no evidence of a difference among treatments for discontinuation due to AEs. Results from random effects and fixed-effects models were generally consistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Tedizolid was superior to vancomycin for clinical response at EOT and PTE. There was no evidence of a difference between tedizolid and other comparators and no evidence of a difference between tedizolid and all comparators when evaluating discontinuation due to AEs. These findings suggest that tedizolid provides an alternative option for the management of serious skin infections caused by suspected or documented MRSA. This study is subject to the limitations inherent in all NMAs, and the results should be interpreted accordingly.

Nanoparticles/thermosensitive hydrogel reinforced with chitin whiskers as a wound dressing for treating chronic wounds

Nanoparticles/thermosensitive hydrogel reinforced with chitin whiskers as a wound dressing for treating chronic wounds.

Vancomycin and the Risk of AKI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Vancomycin has been in use for more than half a century, but whether it is truly nephrotoxic and to what extent are still highly controversial. The objective of this study was to determine the risk of AKI attributable to intravenous vancomycin.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials and cohort studies that compared patients treated with intravenous vancomycin with a control group of patients given a comparator nonglycopeptide antibiotic and in which kidney function or kidney injury outcomes were reported. PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched from 1990 to September of 2015. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed study risk of bias, and one reviewer adjudicated the assessments. A meta-analysis was conducted on seven randomized, controlled trials (total of 4033 patients).

RESULTS

Moderate quality evidence suggested that vancomycin treatment is associated with a higher risk of AKI, with a relative risk of 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.69 to 3.55). The risk of kidney injury was similar in patients treated for skin and soft tissue infections compared with those treated for nosocomial pneumonia and other complicated infections. There was an uncertain risk of reporting bias, because kidney function was not a prespecified outcome in any of the trials. The preponderance of evidence was judged to be indirect, because the majority of studies compared vancomycin specifically with linezolid.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that there is a measurable risk of AKI associated with vancomycin, but the strength of the evidence is moderate. A randomized, controlled trial designed to study kidney function as an outcome would be needed to draw unequivocal conclusions.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for nosocomial pneumonia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the elderly: A retrospective cohort analysis: Effectiveness of linezolid in the elderly

OBJECTIVES

Several reports have compared the efficacy of linezolid (LZD) in Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections with that of vancomycin (VCM); however, these two antibiotics for the treatment of nosocomial MRSA pneumonia in elderly patients has not been well evaluated. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LZD compared with VCM for the treatment of elderly patients with nosocomial MRSA pneumonia in a retrospective chart review of a cohort.

METHODS

We included 28 consecutive patients aged ≥65years hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of MRSA pneumonia and treated with LZD (n=11) or VCM (n=17) between November 2010 and May 2015. We collected patient, disease, and laboratory data. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) total, respiratory, renal, coagulation, hepatic, cardiovascular, and central nervous system scores on days 1, 3, 7, and 14.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to baseline characteristics. The 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower in the LZD group than in the VCM group (0% vs. 41%, P=.02). The SOFA total score on days 3, 7, and 14 were significantly lower those at baseline in the LZD group (P<.05). The SOFA respiratory score on days 14 was also significantly lower than baseline in the LZD group (P<.05).

CONCLUSION

LZD may be more efficacious than VCM for treating elderly patients with nosocomial MRSA pneumonia.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: role of linezolid in the People's Republic of China

The burden of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia in the People’s Republic of China is high, with methicillin-resistance rates greater than 80% reported for patients with S. aureus pneumonia treated in intensive care units. Historically, vancomycin was the treatment of choice for patients with hospital-acquired MRSA infections. Recent evidence suggests that the minimum inhibitory concentration for vancomycin is increasing. Additionally, patients treated with vancomycin require monitoring of vancomycin trough concentrations and can develop nephrotoxicity. Linezolid is a treatment option for patients with hospital-acquired MRSA infections that can be administered either intravenously or orally. Analysis of data from a worldwide linezolid surveillance program initiated in the year 2004 shows no evidence of increasing linezolid minimum inhibitory concentrations. The clinical efficacy of linezolid for patients with gram-positive, including MRSA, nosocomial pneumonia, was evaluated in numerous studies. In general, results from these studies show higher or similar clinical success with no mortality difference for linezolid compared to vancomycin treated patients. Results from a Phase IV study enrolling patients with MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia suggest higher clinical cure rates for linezolid compared to vancomycin treated patients. Although acquisition costs are higher for linezolid compared to vancomycin therapy, evidence suggests similar overall medical costs. Cost-analysis results from a Chinese perspective show that linezolid dominated vancomycin therapy for MRSA nosocomial pneumonia in ∼35% of bootstrap simulations whereas vancomycin dominated linezolid in less than 2% of bootstrap simulations. In summary, results from both clinical and economic studies, including studies conducted from a Chinese perspective, support the use of linezolid for the treatment of patients with MRSA nosocomial pneumonia.

Epidemiology and Outcomes of Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections among Inpatients in Southern China from 2008 to 2013

Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) are some of the most commonly treated infections in hospitals, and place heavy economic burdens on patients and society. Here we report the findings from an analysis of cSSTI based on a retrospective study which was conducted within the Chinese inpatient population. We focused our research on the analysis of the patient population, antibiotic treatment, clinical outcome and economic burden. The study population comprised 527 selected patients hospitalized between 2008 and 2013. Among the hospitalizations with microbiological diagnoses, 61.41% (n = 113) were diagnosed as infected with Gram-positive bacteria, while 46.20% (n = 85) were infected with Gram-negative bacteria. The most commonly found Gram-positive bacteria was Staphylococcus aureus (40.76%, n = 75), and the most common Gram-negative bacteria was Escherichia coli (14.13%, n = 26). About 20% of the Staphylococcus aureus were methicillin-resistant. The resistance rate of isolated Staphylococcus aureus or Escherichia coli to penicillin was around 90%; in contrast, the resistance rate to vancomycin, linezolid or imipenem was low (<20%). A large percentage of patients were treated with cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones, while vancomycin and imipenem were also included to treat drug-resistant pathogens. Over half of the hospitalizations (58.43%, n = 336) experienced treatment modifications. The cost to patients with antibiotic modifications was relatively higher than to those without. In conclusion, our study offers an analysis of the disease characteristics, microbiological diagnoses, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of cSSTI in four hospitals in Guangdong Province, and sheds lights on the current clinical management of cSSTI in China.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update of this review we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 March 2015; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA.

MAIN RESULTS

No new trials were identified for this first update. We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

Comparative efficacy of antibiotics for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI): a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of existing treatments for ABSSSI focusing on the novel lipoglycopeptide oritavancin.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, CENTRAL (Cochrane), and select conferences were searched for randomized controlled trials investigating antimicrobial agents for the treatment of ABSSSI. NMA was used to estimate the odds ratios of the Test-Of-Cure (TOC) and Early Clinical Response (ECR) outcomes for treatments relative to vancomycin in the ITT populations. Sub-group analyses in MRSA and MSSA populations were conducted for TOC; sensitivity analyses investigated the use of the clinically evaluable (CE) populations and the restriction to trials following the recent FDA guidelines for clinical trials.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 52 trials. The most commonly investigated treatments were vancomycin and linezolid; most trials reported TOC, but not ECR. The posterior mean and 95% credible intervals for odds ratios of TOC for antimicrobial agents relative to vancomycin were: linezolid (1.55; 0.91-2.57), daptomycin (2.18; 0.90-5.42), and oritavancin 1200 mg (1.06; 0.80-1.43). The odds ratio of ECR for oritavancin 1200 mg was 1.02 (0.23-4.33). In the MRSA sub-group the odds ratios relative to vancomycin for TOC were: linezolid (1.55; 0.96-2.46), daptomycin (0.74; 0.13-3.66), and oritavancin 1200 mg (0.94; 0.44-2.02). In the MSSA sub-group they were linezolid (1.36; 0.15-13.34) and oritavancin 1200 mg (0.82; 0.08-7.83). These results were robust to the sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA provides a unified framework for the comparison of all available antimicrobial agents used in the treatment of ABSSSI and is the first to assess the ECR end-point. The results suggest equivalence of clinical efficacy between vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid, and novel antimicrobial agents including oritavancin for the treatment of ABSSSI at TOC. The wide uncertainty margins indicate the heterogeneity of the available evidence and the need for further research.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis To Estimate Antibacterial Treatment Effect in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted to estimate the antibacterial treatment effect for linezolid and ceftaroline to inform on the design of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) noninferiority trials. The primary endpoints included an early clinical treatment response (ECTR) defined as cessation of lesion spread at 48 to 72 h postrandomization and the test-of-cure (TOC) response defined as total resolution of the infection at 7 to 14 days posttreatment. The systematic review identified no placebo-controlled trials in ABSSSI, 4 placebo-controlled trials in uncomplicated skin and soft tissue infection as a proxy for placebo in ABSSSI, 12 linezolid trials in ABSSSI, 3 ceftaroline trials in ABSSSI, and 2 trials for nonantibacterial treatment. The ECTR rates at 48 to 72 h and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were 78.7% (95% CI, 61.1 to 96.3%) for linezolid, 74.0% (95% CI, 69.7 to 78.3%) for ceftaroline, and 59.0% (95% CI, 52.8 to 65.3%) for nonantibacterial treatment. The early clinical treatment effect could not be estimated, given no available placebo or proxy for placebo data for this endpoint. Clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity influenced the selection of trials for the meta-analysis of the TOC treatment effect estimation. The pooled estimates of the TOC treatment response were 31.0% (95% CI, 6.2 to 55.9%) for the proxy for placebo, 88.1% (95% CI, 81.0 to 95.1%) for linezolid, and 86.1% (95% CI, 83.7 to 88.6%) for ceftaroline. The TOC clinical treatment effect estimation was 25.1% for linezolid and 27.8% for ceftaroline. The antibacterial treatment effect estimation at TOC will inform on the design and analysis of future noninferiority ABSSSI clinical trials.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review employing meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The optimal therapy involving linezolid or vancomycin for suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia (NP) remains controversial. This study compared the efficacy and safety of linezolid and vancomycin therapies in patients with NP.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials with meta-analyses performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We screened for relevant randomized controlled studies in which patients with NP were enrolled and linezolid and vancomycin therapies were compared.

RESULTS

Nine trials involving 2618 pneumonia patients were reviewed. Linezolid was not found to be superior to vancomycin for clinical cure when categories of pathogen were not considered and in a subgroup of NP patients with MRSA infection [relative risk (RR)=1.16, 95 % confidence interval (CI)=0.95-1.43, P=0.15]. Compared with vancomycin, linezolid has no difference in the overall microbiological eradication rate (RR=1.12, 95 % CI=0.96-1.30, P=0.15) and specific MRSA eradication rate (RR=1.16, 95 % CI=0.93-1.45, P=0.19) in NP patients. In addition, nephrotoxicity was more frequent with vancomycin (RR=0.50, 95 % CI=0.31-0.81, P=0.005), but no differences between the treatments were found for all-cause mortality, thrombocytopenia, gastrointestinal effects, and drug discontinuation due to adverse events.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that linezolid is not superior to vancomycin with respect to both clinical and microbiological cure rates in patients with MRSA NP.

In vitro susceptibility to methicillin, vancomycin and linezolid of staphylococci isolated from bloodstream infections in eastern Turkey

Staphylococcus species are one of the major causes of bacterial bloodstream infections. Multi-resistant staphylococci infections are major therapeutic problems. This study was aimed to detect methicillin, linezolid and vancomycin susceptibilities of Staphylococcus isolates. A total of 870 Staphylococcus strains isolated from blood cultures of hospitalized patients with BSI. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of methicillin, linezolid and vancomycin were detected according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). A total of 771 (88.6%) isolates were coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS). 700 (80.5%) isolates were methicillin-resistant (MR) and 170 (19.5%) were methicillin-susceptible (MS). All the MS isolates were also susceptible to linezolid. However 15 (1.7%) of MR strains were resistant to linezolid. The minimum inhibitory concentration range for the linezolid-resistant isolates by Etest was 6–32 μg/mL. The difference between linezolid susceptibilities for MS and MR staphylococci was not quite statistically significant (p = 0.052). There was no statistically significant difference between S. aureus and CoNS isolates for linezolid susceptibility. All of the isolates were susceptible to vancomycin. In conclusion, linezolid is currently an efficient option for the treatment of methicillin-resistant staphylococci infections.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013 we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

Antibiotic therapy for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in non surgical wounds

BACKGROUND

Non surgical wounds include chronic ulcers (pressure or decubitus ulcers, venous ulcers, diabetic ulcers, ischaemic ulcers), burns and traumatic wounds. The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonisation (i.e. presence of MRSA in the absence of clinical features of infection such as redness or pus discharge) or infection in chronic ulcers varies between 7% and 30%. MRSA colonisation or infection of non surgical wounds can result in MRSA bacteraemia (infection of the blood) which is associated with a 30-day mortality of about 28% to 38% and a one-year mortality of about 55%. People with non surgical wounds colonised or infected with MRSA may be reservoirs of MRSA, so it is important to treat them, however, we do not know the optimal antibiotic regimen to use in these cases.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits (such as decreased mortality and improved quality of life) and harms (such as adverse events related to antibiotic use) of all antibiotic treatments in people with non surgical wounds with established colonisation or infection caused by MRSA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 13 March 2013); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (2013, Issue 2); NHS Economic Evaluation Database (2013, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to February Week 4 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, March 12, 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 2013 Week 10); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 8 March 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotic treatment with no antibiotic treatment or with another antibiotic regimen for the treatment of MRSA-infected non surgical wounds. We included all relevant RCTs in the analysis, irrespective of language, publication status, publication year, or sample size.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials, and extracted data from the trial reports. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for comparing the binary outcomes between the groups and planned to calculate the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for comparing the continuous outcomes. We planned to perform the meta-analysis using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We performed intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three trials that met the inclusion criteria for this review. In these, a total of 47 people with MRSA-positive diabetic foot infections were randomised to six different antibiotic regimens. While these trials included 925 people with multiple pathogens, they reported the information on outcomes for people with MRSA infections separately (MRSA prevalence: 5.1%). The only outcome reported for people with MRSA infection in these trials was the eradication of MRSA. The three trials did not report the review's primary outcomes (death and quality of life) and secondary outcomes (length of hospital stay, use of healthcare resources and time to complete wound healing). Two trials reported serious adverse events in people with infection due to any type of bacteria (i.e. not just MRSA infections), so the proportion of patients with serious adverse events was not available for MRSA-infected wounds. Overall, MRSA was eradicated in 31/47 (66%) of the people included in the three trials, but there were no significant differences in the proportion of people in whom MRSA was eradicated in any of the comparisons, as shown below.1. Daptomycin compared with vancomycin or semisynthetic penicillin: RR of MRSA eradication 1.13; 95% CI 0.56 to 2.25 (14 people).2. Ertapenem compared with piperacillin/tazobactam: RR of MRSA eradication 0.71; 95% CI 0.06 to 9.10 (10 people).3. Moxifloxacin compared with piperacillin/tazobactam followed by amoxycillin/clavulanate: RR of MRSA eradication 0.87; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36 (23 people).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no trials comparing the use of antibiotics with no antibiotic for treating MRSA-colonised non-surgical wounds and therefore can draw no conclusions for this population. In the trials that compared different antibiotics for treating MRSA-infected non surgical wounds, there was no evidence that any one antibiotic was better than the others. Further well-designed RCTs are necessary.

Treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia with linezolid or vancomycin: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Hospital-acquired pneumonia remains the most lethal and expensive nosocomial infection worldwide. Optimal therapy remains controversial. We aimed to compare mortality and clinical response outcomes in patients treated with either linezolid or vancomycin.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Evidence-based Medicine BMJ and abstracts from infectious diseases and critical care meetings were searched through April 2013.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

All randomised clinical trials comparing linezolid to vancomycin for hospital-acquired pneumonia.

DATA EXTRACTION

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines were followed. One author extracted the data and two authors rechecked and verified all data.

RESULTS

Nine randomised trials with a total of 4026 patients were included. The adjusted absolute mortality risk difference (RD) between linezolid and vancomycin was 0.01% (95% CI -2.1% to 2.1%; p=0.992; I(2)=13.5%. The adjusted absolute clinical response difference was 0.9% (95% CI -1.2% to 3.1%; p=0.409; I(2)=0%. The risk of both microbiological (RD=5.6%, 95% CI -2.2% to 13.3%; p=0.159; I(2)=0%) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (RD=6.4%, 95% CI -4.1% to 16.9%; p=0.230; I(2)=0%) eradication were not different between linezolid and vancomycin. Gastrointestinal side effects were more frequent with linezolid (RD=0.8% (95% CI 0% to 1.5%; p=0.05), but no differences were found with renal failure, thrombocytopenia and drug discontinuation due to adverse events. Our sample size provided 99.9% statistical power to detect differences between drugs regarding clinical response and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid and vancomycin have similar efficacy and safety profiles. The high statistical power and the near-zero efficacy difference between both antibiotics demonstrates that no drug is superior for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013 we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

Linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for nosocomial pneumonia: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an important cause of nosocomial pneumonia. Compared with glycopeptide antibiotics, linezolid achieves higher lung epithelial lining fluid concentrations, which may have an advantage in treating nosocomial pneumonia patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. Data were obtained from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. Randomised controlled studies involving the use of linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin in nosocomial pneumonia patients were included in the study. Twelve linezolid trials were included. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia regarding the clinical cure rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.08, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.00-1.17, p = 0.06]. Linezolid was associated with better microbiological eradication rate in nosocomial pneumonia patients compared with glycopeptide antibiotics (RR = 1.16, 95 % CI = 1.03-1.31, p = 0.01). There were no differences in the all-cause mortality (RR = 0.95, 95 % CI = 0.83-1.09, p = 0.46) between the two groups. However, the risks of rash (RR = 0.41, 95 % CI = 0.24-0.71, p = 0.001) and renal dysfunction (RR = 0.41, 95 % CI = 0.27-0.64, p < 0.0001) were higher with glycopeptide antibiotics. Although linezolid was more effective in eradicating microbiology than glycopeptide antibiotics for nosocomial pneumonia patients, it did not demonstrate superiority in clinical cure. The incidences of renal dysfunction and rash are higher in the glycopeptide antibiotics group.

The efficacy and safety of linezolid and glycopeptides in the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections

To assess the effectiveness and safety of linezolid in comparison with glycopeptides (vancomycin and teicoplanin) for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections, we conducted a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials. A thorough search of Pubmed and other databases was performed. Thirteen trials on 3863 clinically assessed patients were included. Linezolid was slightly more effective than glycopeptides in the intent-to-treat population (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01–1.10), was more effective in clinically assessed patients (OR 95% CI: 1.38, 1.17–1.64) and in all microbiologically assessed patients (OR 95% CI: 1.38, 1.15–1.65). Linezolid was associated with better treatment in skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) patients (OR 95% CI: 1.61, 1.22–2.12), but not in bacteraemia (OR 95% CI: 1.24, 0.78–1.97) or pneumonia (OR 95% CI: 1.25, 0.97–1.60) patients. No difference of mortality between linezolid and glycopeptides was seen in the pooled trials (OR 95% CI: 0.98, 0.83–1.15). While linezolid was associated with more haematological (OR 95% CI: 2.23, 1.07–4.65) and gastrointestinal events (OR 95% CI: 2.34, 1.53–3.59), a significantly fewer events of skin adverse effects (OR 95% CI: 0.27, 0.16–0.46) and nephrotoxicity (OR 95% CI: 0.45, 0.28–0.72) were recorded in linezolid. Based on the analysis of the pooled data of randomized control trials, linezolid should be a better choice for treatment of patients with S. aureus infections, especially in SSTIs patients than glycopeptides. However, when physicians choose to use linezolid, risk of haematological and gastrointestinal events should be taken into account according to the characteristics of the specific patient populations.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of vancomycin for the treatment of patients with gram-positive infections: focus on the study design

OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness and safety of vancomycin compared with that of other antibiotics for the treatment of gram-positive infections.

METHODS

Major electronic databases were searched. Data from published randomized controlled trials (January 1, 1950, to September 15, 2011) were pooled using a meta-analytic method.

RESULTS

Fifty-three trials comparing vancomycin with linezolid, daptomycin, quinupristin-dalfopristin, tigecycline, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, telavancin, teicoplanin, iclaprim, and dalbavancin were included in the meta-analysis. Individual antibiotics were as effective as vancomycin, except for linezolid, which was more effective than vancomycin for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.43). Comparators were as effective as vancomycin in the intent-to-treat population (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.98-1.18) but were more effective in the clinically evaluable population (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.27) when all infections were pooled. When available data from all trials were pooled, no differences were noted when patients with febrile neutropenia (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.82-1.39), pneumonia (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.87-1.37), bacteremia (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.76-1.45), and skin and soft tissue infections (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.39) were studied. Comparators were more effective in open-label (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.50) but not in double-blind trials (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.20). Total adverse events attributed to studied antibiotics (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.90-1.28) and patients withdrawn from trials (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.09) were similar in the compared groups. Mortality was not different between vancomycin and comparator antibiotics when all trials were included in the analysis (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.23). Comparators were associated with higher mortality in open-label (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05-1.54) but not double-blind trials (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.80-1.14).

CONCLUSION

On the basis mainly of data from open-label trials, vancomycin is a treatment choice that is as effective as other available antibiotics for patients with gram-positive infections. Study design seems to make a major contribution to the outcome.

Future challenges and treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia with emphasis on MRSA

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is an urgent medical problem due to its growing frequency and its poor associated outcome. As healthcare delivery increasingly involves invasive procedures and implantable devices, the number of patients at risk for SAB and its complications is likely to grow. Compounding this problem is the growing prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and the dwindling efficacy of vancomycin, long the treatment of choice for this pathogen. Despite the recent availability of several new antibiotics for S. aureus, new strategies for treatment and prevention are required for this serious, common cause of human infection.

Linezolid vs glycopeptide antibiotics for the treatment of suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an important cause of nosocomial pneumonia. Societal guidelines suggest linezolid may be the preferred treatment of MRSA nosocomial pneumonia. We investigated the efficacy of linezolid compared with glycopeptide antibiotics (vancomycin or teicoplanin) for nosocomial pneumonia.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of English language, randomized, controlled trials comparing linezolid to glycopeptide antibiotics for suspected MRSA pneumonia in subjects > 12 years of age. A highly sensitive search of PubMed MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases identified relevant studies.

RESULTS

Eight trials encompassing 1,641 subjects met entry criteria. Linezolid was not superior to glycopeptide antibiotics for end points of clinical success (relative risk [RR] linezolid vs glycopeptide, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.11; P = .28), microbiologic success (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.97-1.31; P = .12), or mortality (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.69-1.18; P = .47). In addition, clinical success in the subgroup of subjects with MRSA-positive respiratory tract culture (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.97-1.57; P = .09) was not significantly different from those without MRSA (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.09; P = .48), P for interaction, 0.07. The risk for adverse events was not different between the two antibiotic classes (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.07; P = .48).

CONCLUSION

Randomized controlled trials do not support superiority of linezolid over glycopeptide antibiotics for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. We recommend that decisions between linezolid or glycopeptide antibiotics for empirical or MRSA-directed therapy of nosocomial pneumonia depend on local availability, antibiotic resistance patterns, preferred routes of delivery, and cost, rather than presumed differences in efficacy.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

This review aimed to compare data regarding the effectiveness and safety of linezolid and vancomycin in the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections. PubMed and other databases were searched to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Nine RCTs studying 2489 clinically assessed patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was no difference between linezolid and vancomycin regarding treatment success in clinically assessed patients [odds ratio (OR)=1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.50]. Linezolid was more effective than vancomycin in patients with skin and soft-tissue infections (OR=1.40, 95% CI 1.01-1.95). However, there was no difference in treatment success for patients with bacteraemia (OR=0.88, 95% CI 0.49-1.58) or pneumonia (OR=1.16, 95% CI 0.85-1.57). Linezolid was associated with better eradication rates in all microbiologically assessed patients compared with vancomycin (OR=1.33, 95% CI 1.03-1.71). There was no difference in total adverse effects possibly or probably related to the study drugs (OR=1.14, 95% CI 0.82-1.59). However, nephrotoxicity was recorded more commonly in patients receiving vancomycin (OR=0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.74). In conclusion, linezolid is as effective as vancomycin in patients with gram-positive infections. There is superior clinical and microbiological outcome with linezolid in complicated skin and soft-tissue infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus.

Update on cutaneous manifestations of infectious diseases

Many emerging pathogens present in the skin and are of interest to dermatologists. Recent epidemics of measles, avian flu, and SARS demonstrated how an organism can rapidly spread worldwide because of airline travel. Travelers are often contagious before they are aware that they have the disease, contributing to the spread. This article reviews bacterial, mycobacterial, fungal, and viral pathogens important to dermatologists.