首页> 外文期刊>Antibiotics >Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
【24h】

Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

机译:泰西唑粒子与LINEzolid用于治疗急性细菌皮肤和皮肤结构感染:系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
       

摘要

This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of tedizolid, compared to linezolid, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI). PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO (Elton B. Stephens Co.), Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline and Embase databases were accessed until 18 July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tedizolid with linezolid for adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The outcomes included the clinical response, microbiological response, and risk of adverse events (AEs). A total of four RCTs involving 2056 adult patients with ABSSSI were enrolled. The early clinical response rate was 79.6% and 80.5% for patients receiving tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. The pooled analysis showed that tedizolid had a non-inferior early clinical response rate to linezolid (odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.77–1.19, I 2 = 0%). The early response rate was similar between tedizolid and linezolid among patients with cellulitis/erysipelas (75.1% vs. 77.1%; OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.64–1.27, I 2 = 25%), major cutaneous abscess (85.1% vs. 86.8%; OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.42–2.03, I 2 = 37%) and wound infection (85.9% vs. 82.6%; OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.66–2.51, I 2 = 45%). For methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus patients, tedizolid had a favorable microbiological response rate of 95.2% which was comparable to linezolid (94%) (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.49–2.90, I 2 = 0%). In addition to the similar risk of treatment-emergent AEs (a serious event, the discontinuation of the study drug due to AEs and mortality between tedizolid and linezolid), tedizolid was associated with a lower risk of nausea, vomiting and abnormal neutrophil count than linezolid. In conclusion, once-daily tedizolid (200 mg for six days) compared to linezolid (600 mg twice-daily for 10 days) was non-inferior in efficacy in the treatment of ABSSSI. Besides, tedizolid was generally as well tolerated as linezolid, and had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs and bone marrow suppression than linezolid.
机译:该META分析旨在评估泰迪佐尔的疗效和安全性,与LINEZOLID治疗急性细菌皮肤和皮肤结构感染(ABSSSI)。 PubMed,科学网站,EBSCO(Elton B. Stephens Co.),Cochrane图书馆,Ovid Medline和Embase数据库,直到2019年7月18日。只有随机对照试验(RCT)比较泰迪佐尔与LINEzolid对Absssis患者的疗效进行比较包括在内。结果包括临床反应,微生物反应和不良事件的风险(AES)。共有共有4例涉及2056名ABSSS患者的四个RCT。对于接受泰迪唑唑和线唑的患者,早期临床反应率分别为79.6%和80.5%。汇总分析表明,泰迪佐唑德对Linezolid(OTS)= 0.96,95%置信区间(CI)= 0.77-1.19,I 2 = 0%)的非较低的早期临床反应率。蜂窝织炎患者的泰迪佐德和林唑醛之间的早期反应率(75.1%与77.1%;或= 0.90,95%CI = 0.64-1.27,I 2 = 25%),主要皮肤脓肿(85.1%Vs 。86.8%;或= 0.93,95%CI = 0.42-2.03,I 2 = 37%)和伤口感染(85.9%与82.6%;或= 1.29,95%CI = 0.66-2.51,I 2 = 45% )。对于耐甲氧胞苷葡萄球菌的金黄色葡萄球菌患者,柚子具有良好的微生物反应率为95.2%,其与线唑(94%)(或= 1.19,95%CI = 0.49-2.90,I 2 = 0%)相当。除了治疗急促AES(严重事件发生严重事件的风险外,泰迪唑德患有恶心的风险低于LINEzolid,泰迪奥多利患有较低的恶心,呕吐和异常中性粒细胞计数较低的风险。总之,与Linezolid(每日两次600毫克为600毫克,六天)曾经每日肽(200毫克)是非劣质性在治疗ABSSSI的疗效。此外,柚子通常与Linezolid一样耐受,并且胃肠AES和骨髓抑制的发病率低于LINEzolid。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号