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
  • [11] Comparative efficacy and safety of cabozantinib for malignant tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Su, Jingyang
    Ni, Cui
    Wu, Yuqian
    Zhang, Jialin
    Cai, Zelin
    Lu, Jinhua
    Lin, Shengyou
    Wang, Jue
    EXPERT REVIEW OF ANTICANCER THERAPY, 2024, 24 (05) : 293 - 302
  • [12] Cochrane meta-analysis: teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection
    Gomes Bugano, Diogo Diniz
    Cavalcanti, Alexandre Biasi
    Goncalves, Anderson Roman
    de Almeida, Claudia Salvini
    Silva, Eliezer
    EINSTEIN-SAO PAULO, 2011, 9 (03): : 265 - 282
  • [13] Comparative efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Wang, Hai
    Man, Libo
    Li, Guizhong
    Huang, Guanglin
    Wang, Jianwei
    ONCOTARGETS AND THERAPY, 2016, 9 : 3423 - 3432
  • [14] Comparative safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin
    Wilson, APR
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS, 1998, 10 (02) : 143 - 152
  • [15] Efficacy and safety of tigecycline: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yahav, Dafna
    Lador, Adi
    Paul, Mical
    Leibovici, Leonard
    JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 2011, 66 (09) : 1963 - 1971
  • [16] Efficacy and safety of seprafilm: Systematic review and meta-analysis
    Mohri, Yasuhiko
    Kusunoki, Masato
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2008, 32 (08) : 1886 - 1887
  • [17] Efficacy and safety of bromelain: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Leelakanok, Nattawut
    Petchsomrit, Arpa
    Janurai, Thitapa
    Saechan, Charinrat
    Sunsandee, Niti
    NUTRITION AND HEALTH, 2023, 29 (03) : 479 - 503
  • [18] Efficacy and safety of cefepime: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yahav, Dafna
    Paul, Mical
    Fraser, Abigail
    Sarid, Nadav
    Leibovici, Leonard
    LANCET INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2007, 7 (05): : 338 - 348
  • [19] Efficacy and Safety of Seprafilm: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Yasuhiko Mohri
    Masato Kusunoki
    World Journal of Surgery, 2008, 32 : 1886 - 1887
  • [20] Efficacy and safety of daptomycin: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Teresa Rosanova, Maria
    Bes, David
    Serrano-Aguilar, Pedro
    Sberna, Norma
    Herrera-Ramos, Estefania
    Luis Lede, Roberto
    THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN INFECTIOUS DISEASE, 2019, 6