Cargando…

Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of tedizolid, compared to linezolid, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI). PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO (Elton B. Stephens Co.), Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline and Embase databases were accessed unti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lan, Shao-Huan, Lin, Wei-Ting, Chang, Shen-Peng, Lu, Li-Chin, Chao, Chien-Ming, Lai, Chih-Cheng, Wang, Jui-Hsiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31487837
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8030137
_version_ 1783457722195247104
author Lan, Shao-Huan
Lin, Wei-Ting
Chang, Shen-Peng
Lu, Li-Chin
Chao, Chien-Ming
Lai, Chih-Cheng
Wang, Jui-Hsiang
author_facet Lan, Shao-Huan
Lin, Wei-Ting
Chang, Shen-Peng
Lu, Li-Chin
Chao, Chien-Ming
Lai, Chih-Cheng
Wang, Jui-Hsiang
author_sort Lan, Shao-Huan
collection PubMed
description This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of tedizolid, compared to linezolid, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI). PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO (Elton B. Stephens Co.), Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline and Embase databases were accessed until 18 July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tedizolid with linezolid for adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The outcomes included the clinical response, microbiological response, and risk of adverse events (AEs). A total of four RCTs involving 2056 adult patients with ABSSSI were enrolled. The early clinical response rate was 79.6% and 80.5% for patients receiving tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. The pooled analysis showed that tedizolid had a non-inferior early clinical response rate to linezolid (odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.77–1.19, I(2) = 0%). The early response rate was similar between tedizolid and linezolid among patients with cellulitis/erysipelas (75.1% vs. 77.1%; OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.64–1.27, I(2) = 25%), major cutaneous abscess (85.1% vs. 86.8%; OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.42–2.03, I(2) = 37%) and wound infection (85.9% vs. 82.6%; OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.66–2.51, I(2) = 45%). For methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus patients, tedizolid had a favorable microbiological response rate of 95.2% which was comparable to linezolid (94%) (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.49–2.90, I(2) = 0%). In addition to the similar risk of treatment-emergent AEs (a serious event, the discontinuation of the study drug due to AEs and mortality between tedizolid and linezolid), tedizolid was associated with a lower risk of nausea, vomiting and abnormal neutrophil count than linezolid. In conclusion, once-daily tedizolid (200 mg for six days) compared to linezolid (600 mg twice-daily for 10 days) was non-inferior in efficacy in the treatment of ABSSSI. Besides, tedizolid was generally as well tolerated as linezolid, and had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs and bone marrow suppression than linezolid.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6784229
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67842292019-10-16 Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Lan, Shao-Huan Lin, Wei-Ting Chang, Shen-Peng Lu, Li-Chin Chao, Chien-Ming Lai, Chih-Cheng Wang, Jui-Hsiang Antibiotics (Basel) Article This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of tedizolid, compared to linezolid, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI). PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO (Elton B. Stephens Co.), Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline and Embase databases were accessed until 18 July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tedizolid with linezolid for adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The outcomes included the clinical response, microbiological response, and risk of adverse events (AEs). A total of four RCTs involving 2056 adult patients with ABSSSI were enrolled. The early clinical response rate was 79.6% and 80.5% for patients receiving tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. The pooled analysis showed that tedizolid had a non-inferior early clinical response rate to linezolid (odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.77–1.19, I(2) = 0%). The early response rate was similar between tedizolid and linezolid among patients with cellulitis/erysipelas (75.1% vs. 77.1%; OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.64–1.27, I(2) = 25%), major cutaneous abscess (85.1% vs. 86.8%; OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.42–2.03, I(2) = 37%) and wound infection (85.9% vs. 82.6%; OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.66–2.51, I(2) = 45%). For methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus patients, tedizolid had a favorable microbiological response rate of 95.2% which was comparable to linezolid (94%) (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.49–2.90, I(2) = 0%). In addition to the similar risk of treatment-emergent AEs (a serious event, the discontinuation of the study drug due to AEs and mortality between tedizolid and linezolid), tedizolid was associated with a lower risk of nausea, vomiting and abnormal neutrophil count than linezolid. In conclusion, once-daily tedizolid (200 mg for six days) compared to linezolid (600 mg twice-daily for 10 days) was non-inferior in efficacy in the treatment of ABSSSI. Besides, tedizolid was generally as well tolerated as linezolid, and had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs and bone marrow suppression than linezolid. MDPI 2019-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6784229/ /pubmed/31487837 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8030137 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Lan, Shao-Huan
Lin, Wei-Ting
Chang, Shen-Peng
Lu, Li-Chin
Chao, Chien-Ming
Lai, Chih-Cheng
Wang, Jui-Hsiang
Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort tedizolid versus linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31487837
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8030137
work_keys_str_mv AT lanshaohuan tedizolidversuslinezolidforthetreatmentofacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT linweiting tedizolidversuslinezolidforthetreatmentofacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT changshenpeng tedizolidversuslinezolidforthetreatmentofacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lulichin tedizolidversuslinezolidforthetreatmentofacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chaochienming tedizolidversuslinezolidforthetreatmentofacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT laichihcheng tedizolidversuslinezolidforthetreatmentofacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wangjuihsiang tedizolidversuslinezolidforthetreatmentofacutebacterialskinandskinstructureinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis