-
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2023Vancomycin (VCM) and daptomycin (DAP) are standard therapies for methicillin-resistant (MRSA) bacteremia, despite concerns regarding clinical utility and growing... (Review)
Review
Vancomycin (VCM) and daptomycin (DAP) are standard therapies for methicillin-resistant (MRSA) bacteremia, despite concerns regarding clinical utility and growing resistance. Linezolid (LZD) affords superior tissue penetration to VCM or DAP and has been successfully used as salvage therapy for persistent MRSA bacteremia, indicating its utility as a first-choice drug against MRSA bacteremia. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the effectiveness and safety of LZD with VCM, teicoplanin (TEIC), or DAP in patients with MRSA bacteremia. We evaluated all-cause mortality as the primary effectiveness outcome, clinical and microbiological cure, hospital length of stay, recurrence, and 90-day readmission rates as secondary effectiveness outcomes, and drug-related adverse effects as primary safety outcomes. We identified 5328 patients across 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 pooled analysis of 5 RCTs, 1 subgroup analysis (1 RCT), and 5 case-control and cohort studies (CSs). Primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes were comparable between patients treated with LZD versus VCM, TEIC, or DAP in RCT-based studies and CSs. There was no difference in adverse event incidence between LZD and comparators. These findings suggest that LZD could be a potential first-line drug against MRSA bacteremia as well as VCM or DAP.
PubMed: 37107059
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12040697 -
Revista Do Instituto de Medicina... 2021The aim of this study was to establish an evidence-based guideline for the antibiotic treatment of Corynebacterium striatum infections. Several electronic databases were...
The aim of this study was to establish an evidence-based guideline for the antibiotic treatment of Corynebacterium striatum infections. Several electronic databases were systematically searched for clinical trials, observational studies or individual cases on patients of any age and gender with systemic inflammatory response syndrome, harboring C. striatum isolated from body fluids or tissues in which it is not normally present. C. striatum had to be identified as the only causative agent of the invasive infection, and its isolation from blood, body fluids or tissues had to be confirmed by one of the more advanced diagnostic methods (biochemical methods, mass spectrometry and/or gene sequencing). This systematic review included 42 studies that analyzed 85 individual cases with various invasive infections caused by C. striatum. More than one isolate of C. striatum exhibited 100% susceptibility to vancomycin, linezolid, teicoplanin, piperacillin-tazobactam, amoxicillin-clavulanate and cefuroxime. On the other hand, some strains of this bacterium showed a high degree of resistance to fluoroquinolones, to the majority majority of β-lactams, aminoglycosides, macrolides, lincosamides and cotrimoxazole. Despite the antibiotic treatment, fatal outcomes were reported in almost 20% of the patients included in this study. Gene sequencing methods should be the gold standard for the identification of C. striatum, while MALDI-TOF and the Vitek system can be used as alternative methods. Vancomycin should be used as the antibiotic of choice for the treatment of C. striatum infections, in monotherapy or in combination with piperacillin-tazobactam. Alternatively, linezolid, teicoplanin or daptomycin may be used in severe infections, while amoxicillin-clavulanate may be used to treat mild infections caused by C. striatum.
Topics: Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Corynebacterium; Corynebacterium Infections; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 34161555
DOI: 10.1590/S1678-9946202163049 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Feb 2020Pharmacokinetics (PK) are severely altered in critically ill patients due to changes in volume of distribution (Vd) and/or drug clearance (Cl). This affects the target...
BACKGROUND
Pharmacokinetics (PK) are severely altered in critically ill patients due to changes in volume of distribution (Vd) and/or drug clearance (Cl). This affects the target attainment of antibiotics in critically ill children. We aimed to identify gaps in current knowledge and to compare published PK parameters and target attainment of antibiotics in critically ill children to healthy children and critically ill adults.
METHODS
Systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Articles were labelled as relevant when they included information on PK of antibiotics in critically ill, non-neonatal, pediatric patients. Extracted PK-parameters included Vd, Cl, (trough) concentrations, AUC, probability of target attainment, and elimination half-life.
RESULTS
50 relevant articles were identified. Studies focusing on vancomycin were most prevalent (17/50). Other studies included data on penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems and aminoglycosides, but data on ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, penicillin and metronidazole could not be found. Critically ill children generally show a higher Cl and larger Vd than healthy children and critically ill adults. Reduced target-attainment was described in critically ill children for multiple antibiotics, including amoxicillin, piperacillin, cefotaxime, vancomycin, gentamicin, teicoplanin, amikacin and daptomycin. 38/50 articles included information on both Vd and Cl, but a dosing advice was given in only 22 articles.
CONCLUSION
The majority of studies focus on agents where TDM is applied, while other antibiotics lack data altogether. The larger Vd and higher Cl in critically ill children might warrant a higher dose or extended infusions of antibiotics in this patient population to increase target-attainment. Studies frequently fail to provide a dosing advice for this patient population, even if the necessary information is available. Our study shows gaps in current knowledge and encourages future researchers to provide dosing advice for special populations whenever possible.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Adolescent; Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Area Under Curve; Carbapenems; Cephalosporins; Child; Child, Preschool; Critical Illness; Drug Monitoring; Female; Half-Life; Humans; Infant; Infusions, Intravenous; Male; Penicillins; Vancomycin; Young Adult
PubMed: 31432468
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-019-00813-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively.
MAIN RESULTS
Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Female; Fosfomycin; Humans; Imipenem; Levofloxacin; Male; Penicillins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 32407558
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3 -
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Oct 2009Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Female; Humans; Male; Teicoplanin; Vancomycin; beta-Lactams
PubMed: 19596875
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00341-09 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2010Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has a gene that makes it resistant to methicillin as well as to other beta-lactam antibiotics including... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has a gene that makes it resistant to methicillin as well as to other beta-lactam antibiotics including flucloxacillin, beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations, cephalosporins, and carbapenems. MRSA can be part of the normal body flora (colonisation), especially in the nose, but it can cause infection, especially in people with prolonged hospital admissions, with underlying disease, or after antibiotic use. About 20% of S aureus in blood cultures in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland is resistant to methicillin.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatment for MRSA infections at any body site? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to November 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 11 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: clindamycin, daptomycin, fusidic acid, glycopeptides (teicoplanin, vancomycin), linezolid, macrolides (azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin), quinolones (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin), quinupristin-dalfopristin, pristinamycin, rifampicin, tetracyclines (doxycycline, minocycline, oxytetracycline), tigecycline, trimethoprim, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole).
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cross Infection; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Staphylococcus aureus; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination; Vancomycin; beta-Lactamase Inhibitors
PubMed: 21418679
DOI: No ID Found -
Arab Journal of Urology Mar 2021: To systematically review the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) in urology. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
: To systematically review the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) in urology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, Scopus, Web of science and Cochrane Library online databases were searched in February 2019. Experimental and clinical studies, which included the placement of a DES or dilatation with DCB for investigating their potential use in the urinary tract for the management of ureteric or urethral pathologies, were included. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the current use of DES and DCB in urology.
RESULTS
A total of 29 articles were included in the systematic review. A total of 10 studies tested DES or DCB containing anti-proliferative agents (paclitaxel, zotarolimus, sirolimus, halofugione). Antibiotic agent-containing DES were tested in nine studies (triclosan, quinolones, teicoplanin, nitrofurantoin, silver sulfadiazine). A total of eight studies investigated the release of anti-inflammatory agents by DES (ketorolac, indomethacin, EW-7197). Another group studied heparin-eluting stents.
CONCLUSION
Despite the inconclusive outcomes of the three randomised controlled trials, drug-coated/eluting devices constitute a promising field in urology for the prevention of complications associated with conventional stents including pain and encrustation. Pre-clinical and studies have shown their ability to mitigate inflammation, inhibit re-stenosis and improve pain as indicated by declined use of anti-inflammatory drugs.: DES: drug-eluting stents; DCB: drug-coated balloons; DCS: drug-coated stents; HF: halofungione; MCP-1: monocyte chemoattractant protein 1; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PTCA: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; RANTES: regulated on activation, normal T-cell expressed and secreted; RCT: randomised controlled trial; USSQ, Ureteric Stent Symptoms Questionaire.
PubMed: 34104496
DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2021.1885948 -
Cureus May 2021Background and objective The efficacy of vancomycin vs. teicoplanin for the successful treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN) has been a subject of debate in the medical...
Background and objective The efficacy of vancomycin vs. teicoplanin for the successful treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN) has been a subject of debate in the medical community. In light of this, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare these two medications in the treatment of patients with FN in terms of treatment success and adverse events. Data source and study design We conducted a search of major electronic databases [MEDLINE (PubMed, Ovid), Google Scholar, clinicaltrial.org], which returned 10 studies with 1,630 patients (vancomycin: 788; teicoplanin: 842) for analysis. An unadjusted odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for all studies, as well as separate sub-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies. Results The average age of patients ranged from 37 to 57 years in the vancomycin group and 31 to 57 years in the teicoplanin group (n=9 studies). Over half of the patients in both groups were male (vancomycin: 55.6%; teicoplanin: 57.7%; n=9 studies). Both overall evaluation and sub-analyses revealed that both treatments were comparable in terms of treatment success, nephrotoxicity, and red man syndrome. The vancomycin group was more likely to develop skin rashes (OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.28-4.83). The heterogeneity for all analyses ranged from 0-47.4%. Conclusion Our analysis showed that vancomycin and teicoplanin showed comparable results in terms of successful treatment of FN. Adverse effects such as nephrotoxicity and red man syndrome were also comparable between the two treatment groups.
PubMed: 34194873
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.15269 -
Journal of Korean Medical Science Feb 2023Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide antimicrobial that treats serious invasive infections caused by gram-positive bacteria, such as the methicillin-resistant . Despite some... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide antimicrobial that treats serious invasive infections caused by gram-positive bacteria, such as the methicillin-resistant . Despite some comparable advantages, there is no guideline or clinical recommendation for teicoplanin in the pediatric population, unlike vancomycin where abundant studies and the recently revised guideline on therapeutic drug level monitoring (TDM) exist.
METHODS
The systematic review was performed in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews. Two authors (JSC and SHY) searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases using relevant terms independently.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were finally included with a total of 1,380 patients. TDM was available in 2,739 samples collected in the nine studies. Dosing regimens varied widely, and eight studies used recommended dosing regimens. Timing for measuring TDM was mostly 72-96 hours or longer after the initiation of the first dose, which was expected to be a steady-state. The majority of studies had target trough levels of 10 µg/mL or above. Three studies reported that the clinical efficacy and treatment success rate of teicoplanin was 71.4%, 87.5%, and 88%. Adverse events associated with teicoplanin use were described in six studies with a focus on renal and/or hepatic impairment. Except for one study, no significant relation was noted between the incidence of adverse events and trough concentration.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence on teicoplanin trough levels in pediatric populations is insufficient due to heterogeneity. However, target trough levels with favorable clinical efficacy are achievable by recommended dosing regimen in the majority of patients.
Topics: Humans; Child; Teicoplanin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Drug Monitoring; Staphylococcal Infections
PubMed: 36808548
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e62 -
The Brazilian Journal of Infectious... 2019Daptomycin has been used in bone and joint infections (BJI) and prosthesis joint infections (PJI) considering spectrum of activity and biofilm penetration. However, the...
BACKGROUD
Daptomycin has been used in bone and joint infections (BJI) and prosthesis joint infections (PJI) considering spectrum of activity and biofilm penetration. However, the current experience is based on case reports, case series, cohorts, and international surveys. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate studies about daptomycin treatment efficacy in BJI/PJI compared to other antibiotic regimens.
METHODS
PubMed, LILACS, Scielo and Web of Science databases were searched for articles about daptomycin and treatment of BJI and PJI from inception to March 2018. Inclusion criteria were any published researches that included patients with BJI treated with daptomycin. Diagnosis of BJI was based on clinical, laboratory and radiological findings according to IDSA guidelines.
RESULTS
From 5107 articles, 12 articles were included. Only three studies described the outcomes of patients with BJI treated with daptomycin with comparator regimen (vancomycin, teicoplanin and oxacillin). Studies presented large heterogeneity regarding device related infections, surgical procedures, and daptomycin regimens (varied from 4 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg). A total of 299 patients have been included in all studies (184 infections associated with orthopedic disposal and 115 osteomyelitis/septic arthritis). Two hundred and thirty-three patients were treated with daptomycin. The clinical cure rates on device related and non-device related infections (i.e. osteomyelitis) were 70% and 78%, respectively. Compared to all regimens evaluated, daptomycin group outcomes were non-inferior.
CONCLUSION
Although a randomized clinical trial is needed, this systematic review tends to support daptomycin usage for bone and joint infections.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Arthritis, Infectious; Bone Diseases; Daptomycin; Humans; Joint Diseases; Joint Prosthesis; Osteomyelitis; Prosthesis-Related Infections
PubMed: 31207214
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjid.2019.05.006