Suppr超能文献

利奈唑胺与糖肽类或β-内酰胺类药物治疗革兰氏阳性菌感染的随机对照试验的荟萃分析

Linezolid versus glycopeptide or beta-lactam for treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

作者信息

Falagas Matthew E, Siempos Ilias I, Vardakas Konstantinos Z

机构信息

Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Athens, Greece.

出版信息

Lancet Infect Dis. 2008 Jan;8(1):53-66. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(07)70312-2.

Abstract

Linezolid has been approved for the treatment of patients with infections caused by Gram-positive cocci that are resistant to traditionally used antibiotics, including glycopeptides. This oxazolidinone antibiotic has been reported to have excellent pharmacokinetics and effectiveness. We did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to clarify whether linezolid is superior to glycopeptides or beta-lactams for the treatment of Gram-positive infections. 12 RCTs, involving 6093 patients, were included. Overall, with respect to treatment success, linezolid was more effective than glycopeptides or beta-lactams (odds ratio [OR] 1.41 [95% CI 1.11-1.81]). Mortality was similar between the groups (OR 0.97 [0.79-1.19]). Linezolid was more effective than comparators in patients with skin and soft-tissue infections (OR 1.67 [1.31-2.12]) and bacteraemia (OR 2.07 [1.13-3.78]). However, there was no difference in treatment success for patients with pneumonia (OR 1.03 [0.75-1.42]). Treatment with linezolid was not associated with more adverse effects in general (OR 1.40 [0.95-2.06]); however, thrombocytopenia was recorded more commonly in patients receiving linezolid (OR 11.72 [3.66-37.57]). Although linezolid is more effective than its comparators for the empirical treatment of selected patients, several points, such as the use of less potent antistaphylococcal beta-lactams, the same all-cause mortality, and the higher probability of thrombocytopenia, should be taken into account and may limit the use of linezolid to specific patient populations or infections that are difficult to treat with other antibiotics.

摘要

利奈唑胺已被批准用于治疗由革兰氏阳性球菌引起的感染,这些球菌对传统使用的抗生素(包括糖肽类抗生素)耐药。据报道,这种恶唑烷酮类抗生素具有出色的药代动力学特性和疗效。我们进行了一项随机对照试验(RCT)的荟萃分析,以阐明利奈唑胺在治疗革兰氏阳性感染方面是否优于糖肽类抗生素或β-内酰胺类抗生素。纳入了12项RCT,涉及6093名患者。总体而言,在治疗成功率方面,利奈唑胺比糖肽类抗生素或β-内酰胺类抗生素更有效(优势比[OR]为1.41[95%置信区间1.11-1.81])。两组之间的死亡率相似(OR为0.97[0.79-1.19])。利奈唑胺在皮肤和软组织感染患者(OR为1.67[1.31-2.12])和菌血症患者(OR为2.07[1.13-3.78])中比对照药物更有效。然而,肺炎患者的治疗成功率没有差异(OR为1.03[0.75-1.42])。一般来说,使用利奈唑胺治疗与更多不良反应无关(OR为1.40[0.95-2.06]);然而,接受利奈唑胺治疗的患者血小板减少症的记录更为常见(OR为11.72[3.66-37.57])。尽管利奈唑胺在对选定患者进行经验性治疗时比对照药物更有效,但应考虑几个因素,如使用效力较低的抗葡萄球菌β-内酰胺类抗生素、全因死亡率相同以及血小板减少症的发生率较高,这些因素可能会限制利奈唑胺在特定患者群体或难以用其他抗生素治疗的感染中的使用。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验