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 Total adverse events attributed to studied antibiotics (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.90-1.28) and patients withdrawn from trials (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.09) were similar in the compared groups.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.
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.
Authors: Richard G Wunderink; Michael S Niederman; Marin H Kollef; Andrew F Shorr; Mark J Kunkel; Alice Baruch; William T McGee; Arlene Reisman; Jean Chastre Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Martin E Stryjewski; William D O'Riordan; William K Lau; Francis D Pien; Lala M Dunbar; Marc Vallee; Vance G Fowler; Vivian H Chu; Elizabeth Spencer; Steven L Barriere; Michael M Kitt; Christopher H Cabell; G Ralph Corey Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2005-04-28 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: L Vázquez; M P Encinas; L S Morín; P Vilches; N Gutiérrez; R García-Sanz; D Caballero; A D Hurlé Journal: Haematologica Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: A Figuera; J F Tomás; L Hernández; M L Jiménez; M J Peñarrubia; M C del Rey; R Arranz; R Cámara; J L López-Lorenzo; J M Fernández-Rañada Journal: Rev Clin Esp Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 1.556
Authors: John Weigelt; Kamal Itani; Dennis Stevens; William Lau; Matthew Dryden; Charles Knirsch Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Martin E Stryjewski; Donald R Graham; Samuel E Wilson; William O'Riordan; David Young; Arnold Lentnek; Douglas P Ross; Vance G Fowler; Alan Hopkins; H David Friedland; Steven L Barriere; Michael M Kitt; G Ralph Corey Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: J Fagon; H Patrick; D W Haas; A Torres; C Gibert; W G Cheadle; R E Falcone; J D Anholm; F Paganin; T C Fabian; F Lilienthal Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 21.405
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
Authors: Julian F Guest; Jaime Esteban; Anton G Manganelli; Andrea Novelli; Giuliano Rizzardini; Miquel Serra Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jean-François Sarrazin; Jamal Laaouaj; François Philippon; Marina Sanchez; Philippe Gervais; Jean Champagne; Christian Steinberg; Isabelle Nault; Karine Roy; Benoît Plourde; Louis Blier; Gilles O'Hara Journal: CJC Open Date: 2022-04-28
Authors: Konstantinos A Polyzos; Michael N Mavros; Konstantinos Z Vardakas; Marinos C Makris; Petros I Rafailidis; Matthew E Falagas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ahmed E Abou Warda; Rania M Sarhan; Hussein Saeed Al-Fishawy; Ayman N Moharram; Heba F Salem Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) Date: 2022-02-28