Cargando…

Linezolid versus daptomycin treatment for periprosthetic joint infections: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Linezolid (LZD) and daptomycin (DAP) are predominantly used to target gram-positive pathogens; however, treatment effectiveness and adverse reactions for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) remain unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and adverse reactions of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sawada, Masahiro, Oe, Kenichi, Hirata, Masayuki, Kawamura, Hiroshi, Ueda, Narumi, Nakamura, Tomohisa, Iida, Hirokazu, Saito, Takanori
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6814137/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31651331
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1375-7
_version_ 1783462967246848000
author Sawada, Masahiro
Oe, Kenichi
Hirata, Masayuki
Kawamura, Hiroshi
Ueda, Narumi
Nakamura, Tomohisa
Iida, Hirokazu
Saito, Takanori
author_facet Sawada, Masahiro
Oe, Kenichi
Hirata, Masayuki
Kawamura, Hiroshi
Ueda, Narumi
Nakamura, Tomohisa
Iida, Hirokazu
Saito, Takanori
author_sort Sawada, Masahiro
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Linezolid (LZD) and daptomycin (DAP) are predominantly used to target gram-positive pathogens; however, treatment effectiveness and adverse reactions for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) remain unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and adverse reactions of LZD and DAP for PJIs. METHODS: This study retrospectively evaluated 82 patients between June 2009 and December 2017, to compare the effectiveness of LZD (group L, n = 39) and DAP (group D, n = 43) for treatment of PJIs harboring gram-positive microorganisms. Surgical options used with LZD or DAP therapy included implant retention, implant removal, and a shift to another appropriate antibiotic. Infection control was defined as not requiring implant removal after the final treatment. RESULTS: Gram-positive pathogens were isolated from 72% of group L and 70% of group D patients, respectively. Whole infection control rates against gram-positive pathogens in groups L and D were 79% and 77%, respectively. Furthermore, infection control rates were 94% and 58% in group L and 75% and 80% in group D, without and with implant removal, respectively. Significantly higher clinical success rates and lower adverse event rates were observed in group D, including higher red blood cell and platelet counts and lower C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. CONCLUSIONS: Although the effectiveness of LZD and DAP was equivalent in terms of infection control rates for refractory PJIs with gram-positive pathogens, DAP therapy significantly decreased CRP levels and caused fewer adverse events than LZD treatment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6814137
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68141372019-10-31 Linezolid versus daptomycin treatment for periprosthetic joint infections: a retrospective cohort study Sawada, Masahiro Oe, Kenichi Hirata, Masayuki Kawamura, Hiroshi Ueda, Narumi Nakamura, Tomohisa Iida, Hirokazu Saito, Takanori J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Linezolid (LZD) and daptomycin (DAP) are predominantly used to target gram-positive pathogens; however, treatment effectiveness and adverse reactions for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) remain unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and adverse reactions of LZD and DAP for PJIs. METHODS: This study retrospectively evaluated 82 patients between June 2009 and December 2017, to compare the effectiveness of LZD (group L, n = 39) and DAP (group D, n = 43) for treatment of PJIs harboring gram-positive microorganisms. Surgical options used with LZD or DAP therapy included implant retention, implant removal, and a shift to another appropriate antibiotic. Infection control was defined as not requiring implant removal after the final treatment. RESULTS: Gram-positive pathogens were isolated from 72% of group L and 70% of group D patients, respectively. Whole infection control rates against gram-positive pathogens in groups L and D were 79% and 77%, respectively. Furthermore, infection control rates were 94% and 58% in group L and 75% and 80% in group D, without and with implant removal, respectively. Significantly higher clinical success rates and lower adverse event rates were observed in group D, including higher red blood cell and platelet counts and lower C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. CONCLUSIONS: Although the effectiveness of LZD and DAP was equivalent in terms of infection control rates for refractory PJIs with gram-positive pathogens, DAP therapy significantly decreased CRP levels and caused fewer adverse events than LZD treatment. BioMed Central 2019-10-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6814137/ /pubmed/31651331 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1375-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sawada, Masahiro
Oe, Kenichi
Hirata, Masayuki
Kawamura, Hiroshi
Ueda, Narumi
Nakamura, Tomohisa
Iida, Hirokazu
Saito, Takanori
Linezolid versus daptomycin treatment for periprosthetic joint infections: a retrospective cohort study
title Linezolid versus daptomycin treatment for periprosthetic joint infections: a retrospective cohort study
title_full Linezolid versus daptomycin treatment for periprosthetic joint infections: a retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr Linezolid versus daptomycin treatment for periprosthetic joint infections: a retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Linezolid versus daptomycin treatment for periprosthetic joint infections: a retrospective cohort study
title_short Linezolid versus daptomycin treatment for periprosthetic joint infections: a retrospective cohort study
title_sort linezolid versus daptomycin treatment for periprosthetic joint infections: a retrospective cohort study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6814137/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31651331
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1375-7
work_keys_str_mv AT sawadamasahiro linezolidversusdaptomycintreatmentforperiprostheticjointinfectionsaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT oekenichi linezolidversusdaptomycintreatmentforperiprostheticjointinfectionsaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT hiratamasayuki linezolidversusdaptomycintreatmentforperiprostheticjointinfectionsaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT kawamurahiroshi linezolidversusdaptomycintreatmentforperiprostheticjointinfectionsaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT uedanarumi linezolidversusdaptomycintreatmentforperiprostheticjointinfectionsaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT nakamuratomohisa linezolidversusdaptomycintreatmentforperiprostheticjointinfectionsaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT iidahirokazu linezolidversusdaptomycintreatmentforperiprostheticjointinfectionsaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT saitotakanori linezolidversusdaptomycintreatmentforperiprostheticjointinfectionsaretrospectivecohortstudy