Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Svetitsky S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2764163 | biostudies-other | 2009 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Svetitsky Shuli S Leibovici Leonard L Paul Mical M

Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy 20090713 10

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 w ...[more]

PMID: 19596875

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClostridium difficile infection (CDI) has become a global epidemiological problem for both hospitalized patients and outpatients. The most commonly used drugs to treat CDI are metronidazole and vancomycin. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of metronidazole monotherapy with vancomycin monotherapy and combination therapy in CDI patients.MethodsA comprehensive search without publication status or other restrictions was conducted. Studies comparing metronidazole monotherapy with vancomycin monotherapy or combination therapy in patients with CDI were considered eligible. Meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated and reported.ResultsOf the 1910 records identified, seventeen studies from thirteen articles (n = 2501 patients) were included. No statistically significant difference in the rate of clinical cure was found between metronidazole and vancomycin for mild CDI (OR = 0.67, 95% CI (0.45, 1.00), p = 0.05) or between either monotherapy and combination therapy for CDI (OR = 1.07, 95% CI (0.58, 1.96), p = 0.83); however, the rate of clinical cure was lower for metronidazole than for vancomycin for severe CDI (OR = 0.46, 95% CI (0.26, 0.80), p = 0.006). No statistically significant difference in the rate of CDI recurrence was found between metronidazole and vancomycin for mild CDI (OR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.40, 2.45), p = 0.98) or severe CDI (OR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.63, 1.53), p = 0.94) or between either monotherapy and combination therapy for CDI (OR = 0.91, 95% CI (0.66, 1.26), p = 0.56). In addition, there was no significant difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) between metronidazole and vancomycin (OR = 1.18, 95% CI (0.80, 1.74), p = 0.41). In contrast, the rate of AEs was significantly lower for either monotherapy than for combination therapy (OR = 0.30, 95% CI (0.17, 0.51), p < 0.0001).ConclusionsMetronidazole and vancomycin are equally effective for the treatment of mild CDI, but vancomycin is superior for the treatment of severe CDI. Combination therapy is not superior to monotherapy because it appears to be associated with an increase in the rate of AEs.

Project description:IntroductionPeficitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, is approved for clinical use in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, but head-to-head comparisons versus other JAK inhibitors are lacking. We indirectly compared peficitinib, tofacitinib, and baricitinib for rheumatoid arthritis treatment.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and congress archives up until February 12, 2019, for randomized controlled trials of peficitinib, tofacitinib, and baricitinib. Efficacy (American College of Rheumatology responses, disease activity scores, modified total Sharp score, Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI]) and safety outcomes were compared using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) consensus was followed for reporting results. A network meta-regression assessed the impact on outcomes of proportions of patients receiving concomitant methotrexate or of Asian ethnicity.ResultsThe network meta-analysis included 21 randomized controlled trials. At 12 weeks, all evaluable efficacy outcomes were comparable or improved with peficitinib 150 mg and 100 mg once daily, versus baricitinib 2 and 4 mg once daily and tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily. At 24 weeks, efficacy outcomes were comparable or improved for each peficitinib dose versus baricitinib and tofacitinib. Risk of adverse events and serious adverse events at 12 weeks were similar with peficitinib 100 and 150 mg versus baricitinib and tofacitinib. The proportion of patients receiving concomitant methotrexate had no effect on any outcome analyzed, but Asian ethnicity had a positive effect on multiple efficacy outcomes.ConclusionsPeficitinib had comparable efficacy versus tofacitinib and baricitinib for reduction in disease activity as measured by SDAI, and for reduction in progression of joint damage as measured radiographically. No notable differences in safety outcomes were observed. Further studies are required to better characterize the impact of ethnicity on the efficacy of JAK inhibitors.

Project description:Background and aimsThere have been few head-to-head clinical trials of pharmacotherapies for alcohol withdrawal (AW). We, therefore, aimed to evaluate the comparative performance of pharmacotherapies for AW.MethodsSix databases were searched for randomized clinical trials through November 2021. Trials were included after a blinded review by two independent reviewers. Outcomes included incident seizures, delirium tremens, AW severity scores, adverse events, dropouts, dropouts from adverse events, length of hospital stay, use of additional medications, total benzodiazepine requirements, and death. Effect sizes were pooled using frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis models to generate summary ORs and Cohen's d standardized mean differences (SMDs).ResultsAcross the 149 trials, there were 10 692 participants (76% male, median 43.5 years old). AW severity spanned mild (n = 32), moderate (n = 51), and severe (n = 66). Fixed-schedule chlormethiazole (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.65), fixed-schedule diazepam (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.59), fixed-schedule lorazepam (OR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.45), fixed-schedule chlordiazepoxide (OR = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.08-0.53), and divalproex (OR = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.86) were superior to placebo at reducing incident AW seizures. However, only fixed-schedule diazepam (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.76) reduced incident delirium tremens. Oxcarbazepine (d = -3.69; 95% CI, -6.21 to -1.17), carbamazepine (d = -2.76; 95% CI, -4.13 to -1.40), fixed-schedule oxazepam (d = -2.55; 95% CI, -4.26 to -0.83), and γ-hydroxybutyrate (d = -1.80; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.26) improved endpoint Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised scores over placebo. Promazine and carbamazepine were the only agents significantly associated with greater dropouts because of adverse events. The quality of evidence was downgraded because of the substantial risk of bias, heterogeneity, inconsistency, and imprecision.ConclusionsAlthough some pharmacotherapeutic modalities, particularly benzodiazepines, appear to be safe and efficacious for reducing some measures of alcohol withdrawal, methodological issues and a high risk of bias prevent a consistent estimate of their comparative performance.

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets