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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |