Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58240. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058240. Epub 2013 Mar 6.
To assess the effectiveness and safety of linezolid in comparison with glycopeptides (vancomycin and teicoplanin) for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections, we conducted a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials. A thorough search of Pubmed and other databases was performed. Thirteen trials on 3863 clinically assessed patients were included. Linezolid was slightly more effective than glycopeptides in the intent-to-treat population (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.10), was more effective in clinically assessed patients (OR 95% CI: 1.38, 1.17-1.64) and in all microbiologically assessed patients (OR 95% CI: 1.38, 1.15-1.65). Linezolid was associated with better treatment in skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) patients (OR 95% CI: 1.61, 1.22-2.12), but not in bacteraemia (OR 95% CI: 1.24, 0.78-1.97) or pneumonia (OR 95% CI: 1.25, 0.97-1.60) patients. No difference of mortality between linezolid and glycopeptides was seen in the pooled trials (OR 95% CI: 0.98, 0.83-1.15). While linezolid was associated with more haematological (OR 95% CI: 2.23, 1.07-4.65) and gastrointestinal events (OR 95% CI: 2.34, 1.53-3.59), a significantly fewer events of skin adverse effects (OR 95% CI: 0.27, 0.16-0.46) and nephrotoxicity (OR 95% CI: 0.45, 0.28-0.72) were recorded in linezolid. Based on the analysis of the pooled data of randomized control trials, linezolid should be a better choice for treatment of patients with S. aureus infections, especially in SSTIs patients than glycopeptides. However, when physicians choose to use linezolid, risk of haematological and gastrointestinal events should be taken into account according to the characteristics of the specific patient populations.
为了评估利奈唑胺与糖肽类药物(万古霉素和替考拉宁)治疗金黄色葡萄球菌感染的疗效和安全性,我们对相关的随机对照试验进行了荟萃分析。我们对 Pubmed 和其他数据库进行了全面检索。共纳入了 13 项涉及 3863 例临床评估患者的试验。意向治疗人群中,利奈唑胺的疗效略优于糖肽类药物(比值比 [OR],1.05;95%置信区间 [CI],1.01-1.10),在临床评估患者(OR 95%CI:1.38,1.17-1.64)和所有微生物评估患者(OR 95%CI:1.38,1.15-1.65)中,利奈唑胺的疗效均更佳。利奈唑胺治疗皮肤软组织感染(SSTIs)患者的疗效更好(OR 95%CI:1.61,1.22-2.12),但对菌血症(OR 95%CI:1.24,0.78-1.97)或肺炎(OR 95%CI:1.25,0.97-1.60)患者的疗效无差异。汇总试验中,利奈唑胺与糖肽类药物的死亡率无差异(OR 95%CI:0.98,0.83-1.15)。虽然利奈唑胺与更多的血液学(OR 95%CI:2.23,1.07-4.65)和胃肠道事件(OR 95%CI:2.34,1.53-3.59)相关,但记录到的皮肤不良反应(OR 95%CI:0.27,0.16-0.46)和肾毒性(OR 95%CI:0.45,0.28-0.72)事件明显更少。基于对随机对照试验汇总数据的分析,利奈唑胺应成为金黄色葡萄球菌感染患者治疗的更好选择,特别是在 SSTIs 患者中优于糖肽类药物。然而,当医生选择使用利奈唑胺时,应根据特定患者人群的特点,考虑血液学和胃肠道事件的风险。