なお、当院はVCM 100% です
Lancet Infect Dis 2005 Sep; 5(9):581-9.
Continuous versus intermittent intravenous administration of antibiotics: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Nine randomised controlled trials studying beta-lactams, aminoglycosides, and vancomycin were included. Clinical failure was lower, although without statistical significance, in patients receiving continuous infusion of antibiotics (pooled OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53-1.01); the difference was statistically significant in a subset of randomised controlled trials that used the same total daily antibiotic dose for both intervention arms (0.70, 0.50-0.98, fixed and random effects models). Regarding mortality and nephrotoxicity, no differences were found (mortality 0.89, 0.48-1.64; nephrotoxicity 0.91, 0.56-1.47).
J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2005;56(5):923-9.
Linezolid versus vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: pooled analysis of randomized studies.
Of 99 clinically evaluable patients, primary infection was cured in 28 (55%) of 51 linezolid recipients and 25 (52%) of 48 vancomycin recipients [odds ratio (OR) for cure with linezolid versus vancomycin, 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.51-2.47]. There were no between-group differences in the meta-analysis (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.5-2.65). Of 53 evaluable patients with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia, clinical cure occurred in 14 (56%) of 25 linezolid recipients and 13 (46%) of 28 vancomycin recipients (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.50-4.34). Microbiological success occurred in 41 (69%) of 59 linezolid recipients and 41 (73%) of 56 vancomycin recipients (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.37-1.87). Fifty-five (74%) of 74 linezolid recipients survived versus 52 (74%) of 70 vancomycin recipients (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47-2.12). In the multivariate analysis, treatment group was not a significant predictor of clinical cure or survival.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009 Oct; 53(10):4069-79.
Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin: systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jun 16;(6):CD007022.
Teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection.
We included 24 studies (2,610 patients) in this review. Teicoplanin reduced the risk of nephrotoxicity compared to vancomycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90).The effects of teicoplanin or vancomycin were similar for clinical cure (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.08), microbiological cure (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03) and mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to1.30). Six studies reported no cases of acute kidney injury (AKI) needing dialysis. Adverse events were less frequent with teicoplanin including cutaneous rash (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.92), red man syndrome (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.59) and total adverse events (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00). A lower risk of nephrotoxicity with teicoplanin was observed in patients either with (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.88) or without aminoglycosides (RR 0.31, 95% 0.07 to 1.50), and also when vancomycin dosing was guided by serum levels (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.52).
Crit. Care Med. 2010 Sep; 38(9):1802-8.
Linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Nine linezolid trials (vancomycin ; teicoplanin ) were included (n = 2329). The linezolid vs. glycopeptide analysis shows clinical cure relative risk of 1.01 (95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.10; p = .83; I(2) = 0%) and microbiological eradication relative risk of 1.10 (95% confidence interval, 0.98 -1.22; p = .10; I(2) = 0%). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus subgroup analysis yielded a microbiological eradication relative risk of 1.10 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.38; p = .44; I(2) = 16%). If linezolid is compared with vancomycin only, then clinical cure relative risk is 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.12), microbiological eradication and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus relative risks are 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.26; p = .45) and 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.33; p = .71). The risks of thrombocytopenia (relative risk, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.87; p = .001) and gastrointestinal events (relative risk, 2.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.70; p = .02) are higher with linezolid, but no differences are seen for renal dysfunction (relative risk, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.43; p = .64) or all-cause mortality (relative risk, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.18; p = .63).
Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2010 Jan; 35(1):3-12.
Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Nine RCTs studying 2489 clinically assessed patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was no difference between linezolid and vancomycin regarding treatment success in clinically assessed patients [odds ratio (OR)=1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.50]. Linezolid was more effective than vancomycin in patients with skin and soft-tissue infections (OR=1.40, 95% CI 1.01-1.95). However, there was no difference in treatment success for patients with bacteraemia (OR=0.88, 95% CI 0.49-1.58) or pneumonia (OR=1.16, 95% CI 0.85-1.57). Linezolid was associated with better eradication rates in all microbiologically assessed patients compared with vancomycin (OR=1.33, 95% CI 1.03-1.71). There was no difference in total adverse effects possibly or probably related to the study drugs (OR=1.14, 95% CI 0.82-1.59). However, nephrotoxicity was recorded more commonly in patients receiving vancomycin (OR=0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.74).
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011 Sep;66(9):1963-71. Epub 2011 Jun 18.
Efficacy and safety of tigecycline: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Fifteen trials (7654 patients) were included. Overall mortality was higher with tigecycline compared with other regimens [RR 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.64, without heterogeneity]. The type of infection assessed and the trials' reported risks of bias did notaffect this result. Clinical failure was significantly higher with tigecycline (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.27) and non-statistically significant higher rates of microbiological failure were demonstrated (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.30). Development of septic shock was significantly more frequent with tigecycline (RR 7.01, 95% CI 1.27-38.66). Superinfections were significantly more common with tigecycline and so were AEs, including all AEs and AEs requiring discontinuation.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2011 Nov;11(11):834-44. Epub 2011 Jul 23.
Efficacy and safety of tigecycline for the treatment of infectious diseases: a meta-analysis.
14 randomised trials, comprising about 7400 patients, were included. Treatment success was lower with tigecycline than with control antibiotic agents, but the difference was not significant (odds ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·74-1·02). Adverse events were more frequent in the tigecycline group than in the control groups (1·45, 1·11-1·88), with significantly more vomiting and nausea. All-cause mortality was higher in the tigecycline group than in the comparator groups, but the difference was not significant (1·28, 0·97-1·69). Eradication efficiency did not differ between tigecycline and control regimens, but the sample size for these comparisons was small.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011 Mar;55(3):1162-72. Epub 2010 Dec 20.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of tigecycline for treatment of infectious disease.
Eight RCTs involving 4,651 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with therapy with empirical antibiotic regimens, tigecycline monotherapy was associated with similar clinical treatment success rates (for the clinically evaluable [CE]population, odds ratio [OR]= 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]= 0.76 to 1.12, P = 0.42; for the clinical modified intent-to-treat [c-mITT]population, OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.01, P = 0.06) and similar microbiological treatment success rates (for the microbiologically evaluable [ME]population, OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.07, P = 0.19). The incidence of adverse events in the tigecycline group was significantly higher than that in the other therapygroups with a statistical margin (for the modified intent-to-treat [mITT]population, OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.52, P<0.0001), especially in the digestive system (mITT population, OR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1.67 to 3.46, P<0.00001).
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Mar;54(6):755-71. Epub 2012 Feb 15.
The clinical significance of vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration in Staphylococcus aureus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Of the 270 studies identified, 48 studies were reviewed, with 22 studies included in the final meta-analysis. Vancomycin MIC was significantly associated with mortality for MRSA infection irrespective of the source of infection or MIC methodology (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.37; P<.01). This mortality association was predominantly driven by bloodstream infections (BSIs;OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.06-2.37; P = .03) and isolates with a vancomycin MIC of 2μg/mL by Etest (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.34-2.21; P<.01). Vancomycin MIC was significantly associated with treatment failure irrespective of source of infection or MIC methodology (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.60-4.51; P<.01).
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013.:CD008056
Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections.
We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.
PLoS ONE 2013; 8(10):e77169
Benefits of therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and five cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with non-TDM groups, TDM groups had significantly higher rates of clinical efficacy (OR = 2.62, 95%CI 1.34-5.11 P = 0.005) and decreased rates of nephrotoxicity (OR = 0.25, 95%CI 0.13-0.48 P<0.0001). Subgroup analyses showed that TDM group had significantly higher rates of clinical efficacy in both cohort studies subgroup (OR = 3.04, 95%CI 1.34-6.90) and in Asian population subgroup (OR = 3.04, 95%CI 1.34-6.90). TDM group had significantly decreased rates of nephrotoxicity in all subgroup. There was no significant difference in duration of vancomycin therapy (WMD = -0.40, 95%CI -2.83-2.02 P = 0.74) or length of stay (WMD = -1.01, 95%CI -7.51-5.49 P = 0.76) between TDM and non-TDM groups. Subgroup analyses showed there were no differences in duration of vancomycin therapy. Only one study reported mortality rates.
Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2013 Sep; 32(9):1121-8.
Linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for nosocomial pneumonia: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Twelve linezolid trials were included. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia regarding the clinical cure rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.08, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.00-1.17, p = 0.06]. Linezolid was associated with better microbiological eradication rate in nosocomial pneumonia patients compared with glycopeptide antibiotics (RR = 1.16, 95 % CI = 1.03-1.31, p = 0.01). There were no differences in the all-cause mortality (RR = 0.95, 95 % CI = 0.83-1.09, p = 0.46) between the two groups. However, the risks of rash (RR = 0.41, 95 % CI = 0.24-0.71, p = 0.001) and renal dysfunction (RR = 0.41, 95 % CI = 0.27-0.64, p < 0.0001) were higher with glycopeptide antibiotics.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2013 Feb; 57(2):734-44.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of vancomycin-induced nephrotoxicity associated with dosing schedules that maintain troughs between 15 and 20 milligrams per liter.
Of the initial 240 studies identified, 38 were reviewed, and 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, higher troughs (≥ 15 mg/liter) were associated with increased odds of nephrotoxicity (odds ratio [OR], 2.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.95 to 3.65) relative to lower troughs of <15 mg/liter. The relationship between a trough of ≥ 15 mg/liter and nephrotoxicity persisted when the analysis was restricted to studies that examined only initial trough concentrations (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.81 to 5.37).
JAMA. 2014 Oct;312(15):1552-64.
Association between vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration and mortality among patients with Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Among 38 included studies that involved 8291 episodes of SAB, overall mortality was 26.1%. The estimated mortality was 26.8% among SAB episodes (n = 2740) in patients with high-vancomycin MIC (≥1.5 mg/L) compared with 25.8% mortality among SAB episodes (n = 5551) in patients with low-vancomycin MIC (<1.5 mg/L) (adjusted risk difference [RD], 1.6% [95% CI, -2.3% to 5.6%]; P = .43). For the highest-quality studies, the estimated mortality was 26.2% among SAB episodes (n = 2318) in patients with high-vancomycin MIC compared with 27.8% mortality among SAB episodes (n = 4168) in patients with low-vancomycin MIC (RD, 0.9% [95% CI, -2.9% to 4.6%]; P = .65). In studies that included only methicillin-resistant S aureus infections (n = 7232), the mortality among SAB episodes (n = 2384) in patients with high-vancomycin MIC was 27.6% compared with mortality of 27.4% among SAB episodes (n = 4848) in patients with low-vancomycin MIC (adjusted RD, 1.6% [95% CI, -2.3% to 5.5%]; P = .41). No significant differences in risk of death were observed in subgroups with high-vancomycin MIC vs low-vancomycin MIC values across different study designs, microbiological susceptibility assays, MIC cutoffs, clinical outcomes, duration of bacteremia, previous vancomycin exposure, and treatment with vancomycin.
BMC Infect. Dis. 2014.:687
Daptomycin versus linezolid for treatment of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Thirteen studies (532 patients receiving daptomycin, 656 patients receiving linezolid) met the selection criteria. All studies had retrospective cohort designs and relatively small sample sizes. Eight studies compared the aORs of mortality in daptomycin- and linezolid-treated patients. Four studies were published as conference papers and there was significant heterogeneity among these studies (I2 = 63%, p = 0.04). Daptomycin use was not associated with better microbiological cure (daptomycin vs. linezolid, OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.42-1.06, p = 0.09). However, mortality was higher in patients receiving daptomycin (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.09-1.86, p = 0.009). Subgroup analysis of studies that reported aORs indicated that daptomycin was associated with higher mortality (OR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.02-2.50, p = 0.04). There was no evidence of publication bias, but all enrolled studies were retrospective, had small sample sizes, and had substantial limitations.
Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2015 :71(1):107-15.
Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review employing meta-analysis.
Nine trials involving 2618 pneumonia patients were reviewed. Linezolid was not found to be superior to vancomycin for clinical cure when categories of pathogen were not considered and in a subgroup of nosocomial pneumonia (NP) patients with MRSA infection [relative risk (RR)=1.16, 95 % confidence interval (CI)=0.95-1.43, P=0.15]. Compared with vancomycin, linezolid has no difference in the overall microbiological eradication rate (RR=1.12, 95 % CI=0.96-1.30, P=0.15) and specific MRSA eradication rate (RR=1.16, 95 % CI=0.93-1.45, P=0.19) in NP patients. In addition, nephrotoxicity was more frequent with vancomycin (RR=0.50, 95 % CI=0.31-0.81, P=0.005), but no differences between the treatments were found for all-cause mortality, thrombocytopenia, gastrointestinal effects, and drug discontinuation due to adverse events.