Literature DB >> 14729745

Linezolid compared with teicoplanin for the treatment of suspected or proven Gram-positive infections.

Mark Wilcox1, Dilip Nathwani, Matthew Dryden.   

Abstract

The efficacy, safety and tolerability of linezolid was compared with teicoplanin in a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicentre study of 430 patients with suspected or proven Gram-positive infection. Patients received intravenous (iv) +/- oral linezolid 600 mg every 12 h (n = 215) or iv or intramuscular teicoplanin (n = 215) for up to 28 days. Clinical outcomes in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and clinically-evaluable populations and microbiological success rates in microbiologically evaluable patients were assessed at follow-up (test of cure). Investigator assessed clinical cure rates at end of treatment (EOT) in ITT patients treated with linezolid (95.5%) were superior to those of teicoplanin (87.6%) for all infections combined, indicating a 7.9% statistically significant treatment advantage for linezolid (P = 0.005, 95% CI: 2.5, 13.2). Clinical cure rates by baseline diagnosis were consistently higher at EOT for the linezolid versus teicoplanin groups with skin and soft tissue infection (96.6% versus 92.8%), pneumonia (96.2% versus 92.9%) and bacteraemia (88.5% versus 56.7%). The 31.8% treatment advantage in bacteraemic patients (but not for those seen in the other infection categories) for linezolid-treated patients was statistically significant (P = 0.009, 95% CI: 10.2, 53.4). Bacterial eradication rates for linezolid exceeded those of teicoplanin for all infection sites combined but this did not reach statistical significance (81.9% versus 69.8%, respectively; P = 0.056). Adverse event rates were similar between the treatment groups, were mild to moderate in severity, and resolved quickly following treatment. The linezolid group experienced a higher incidence of drug related adverse events (30% versus 17%; P = 0.002), and notably of gastrointestinal effects (13.0% versus 1.9%, P = 0.001). However, antibiotic discontinuation rates as a result of drug related adverse events were similar (4.7% in the linezolid group versus 3.7%). Linezolid was clinically superior to teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14729745     DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkh088

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother        ISSN: 0305-7453            Impact factor:   5.790


  21 in total

Review 1.  Linezolid: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in serious Gram-positive infections.

Authors:  Greg L Plosker; David P Figgitt
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Antibiotic management of ventilator-associated pneumonia due to antibiotic-resistant gram-positive bacterial infection.

Authors:  M H Kollef
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.267

3.  Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of linezolid versus teicoplanin in bacteremia by Gram-positive microorganisms.

Authors:  Santiago Grau; Javier Mateu-de Antonio; Javier Soto; Mónica Marín-Casino; Esther Salas
Journal:  Pharm World Sci       Date:  2005-12

Review 4.  Linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for nosocomial pneumonia: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  H Jiang; R-N Tang; J Wang
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 3.267

5.  Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society.

Authors:  Andre C Kalil; Mark L Metersky; Michael Klompas; John Muscedere; Daniel A Sweeney; Lucy B Palmer; Lena M Napolitano; Naomi P O'Grady; John G Bartlett; Jordi Carratalà; Ali A El Solh; Santiago Ewig; Paul D Fey; Thomas M File; Marcos I Restrepo; Jason A Roberts; Grant W Waterer; Peggy Cruse; Shandra L Knight; Jan L Brozek
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 9.079

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

Authors:  Allan J Walkey; Max R O'Donnell; Renda Soylemez Wiener
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 7.  Future challenges and treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia with emphasis on MRSA.

Authors:  Rasmus V Rasmussen; Vance G Fowler; Robert Skov; Niels E Bruun
Journal:  Future Microbiol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.165

8.  Cost-effectiveness of linezolid vs vancomycin in suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia in Germany.

Authors:  E De Cock; W A Krueger; S Sorensen; T Baker; J Hardewig; S Duttagupta; E Müller; A Piecyk; E Reisinger; A Resch
Journal:  Infection       Date:  2009-03-09       Impact factor: 3.553

Review 9.  Benefit-risk assessment of linezolid for serious gram-positive bacterial infections.

Authors:  Matthew E Falagas; Konstantinos Z Vardakas
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 5.606

10.  Evaluation of a Paradigm Shift From Intravenous Antibiotics to Oral Step-Down Therapy for the Treatment of Infective Endocarditis: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Brad Spellberg; Henry F Chambers; Daniel M Musher; Thomas L Walsh; Arnold S Bayer
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 21.873

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.