Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Vancomycin versus Teicoplanin: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

被引:212
|
作者
Svetitsky, Shuli [1 ]
Leibovici, Leonard [1 ,2 ]
Paul, Mical [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Tel Aviv Univ, Sackler Fac Med, IL-69978 Tel Aviv, Israel
[2] Beilinson Med Ctr, Rabin Med Ctr, Dept Med E, Tel Aviv, Israel
[3] Beilinson Med Ctr, Rabin Med Ctr, Infect Dis Unit, Tel Aviv, Israel
关键词
RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS-AUREUS; STUDY COMPARING VANCOMYCIN; 2ND-LINE EMPIRIC THERAPY; ONCE-WEEKLY DALBAVANCIN; COMPLICATED SKIN; INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; BACTERICIDAL ACTIVITY; NEUTROPENIC PATIENTS; FEBRILE NEUTROPENIA; STANDARD THERAPY;
D O I
10.1128/AAC.00341-09
中图分类号
Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model ( RRs of > 1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin ( RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin ( RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure ( RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure ( RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs ( in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events ( RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity ( RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.
引用
收藏
页码:4069 / 4079
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for nosocomial pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Kalil, Andre C.
    Murthy, Madhu H.
    Hermsen, Elizabeth D.
    Neto, Felipe K.
    Sun, Junfeng
    Rupp, Mark E.
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2010, 38 (09) : 1802 - 1808
  • [2] The Use of Vancomycin Versus Teicoplanin in Treating Febrile Neutropenia: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
    Kaur, Jasmeet
    Mir, Tanveer
    Dixit, Priyadarshini
    Uddin, Mohammad
    Kadari, Saritha
    Lee, Yi
    Lohia, Prateek
    Khan, Rafiullah
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2021, 13 (05)
  • [3] The comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin
    Wood, MJ
    JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 1996, 37 (02) : 209 - 222
  • [4] The comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin
    Cobo, J
    Fortun, J
    JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 1996, 38 (06) : 1113 - 1114
  • [5] The clinical efficacy and safety of vancomycin loading dose A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Mei, Hekun
    Wang, Jin
    Che, Haoyue
    Wang, Rui
    Cai, Yun
    MEDICINE, 2019, 98 (43)
  • [6] Comparative efficacy and safety of eribulin versus paclitaxel in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhang, Jialin
    Su, Jingyang
    Ni, Cui
    Lu, Jinhua
    FUTURE ONCOLOGY, 2024, 20 (40) : 3507 - 3517
  • [7] Efficacy and safety of vancomycin for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhang, Guanxuanzi
    Zhang, Na
    Xu, Juan
    Yang, Tianli
    Yin, Hong
    Cai, Yun
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS, 2023, 62 (04)
  • [8] Effectiveness and Safety of Linezolid Versus Vancomycin, Teicoplanin, or Daptomycin against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Kawasuji, Hitoshi
    Nagaoka, Kentaro
    Tsuji, Yasuhiro
    Kimoto, Kou
    Takegoshi, Yusuke
    Kaneda, Makito
    Murai, Yushi
    Karaushi, Haruka
    Mitsutake, Kotaro
    Yamamoto, Yoshihiro
    ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL, 2023, 12 (04):
  • [9] Comparative efficacy and safety of bicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and update meta-analysis
    Zhang, Rongwei
    Shen, Xianyue
    Yan, Kangyong
    Zhang, Xianzuo
    Zhu, Chen
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2025, 20 (01):
  • [10] Efficacy and safety of linezolid versus teicoplanin for the treatment of MRSA infections: a meta-analysis
    Chen, Hao
    Li, Lan
    Liu, Yanyan
    Wu, Maomao
    Xu, Shuangli
    Wang, Mingli
    Li, Jiabin
    Huang, Xiaohui
    JOURNAL OF INFECTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, 2017, 11 (12): : 926 - 934