In randomized studies linezolid, indicated for Gram-positive infections, was as effective as teicoplanin in critical ill patients or was superior to teicoplanin in skin infection, pneumonia and bacteremia. We performed a 2-year comparative, retrospective study of patients treated with linezolid or teicoplanin in a single hospital for the same indications. We collected information about the type of infection, the responsible pathogen, therapy administered before study drugs, antibiotic associated with the study drugs, length of hospital stay (LOS), adverse events and outcome of the infections. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of linezolid in this retrospective patients series. Overall we identified 169 patients treated with linezolid and 91 with teicoplanin. Response to therapy, (resolution or improvement of infection) was better in patients treated with linezolid compared to teicoplanin (83.9% versus 69.2%, p=0.002). Response to therapy by type of pathogen showed the superior efficacy of linezolid against Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA) and enterococci; although not statistically significant because of the small number of patients enrolled, they were close to significance (p<0.056 for S. aureus, p<0.055 for MRSA, p<0.061 for enterococci). Overall LOS in linezolid-treated patients was 4.6 days (p<0.041) less. Empirical use of linezolid reduced lOS by 6 days (p<0.038), especially in VAP and bacteremia patients (p<0.05). Mortality due to infection was 9.8% in both groups, and adverse events were most frequently documented in linezolid-treated patients. Linezolid was clinically superior to teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections.

Linezolid treatment for gram-positive infections: a retrospective comparison with teicoplanin

BIANCOFIORE, GIANDOMENICO LUIGI;PAPINESCHI, FEDERICO;FILIPPONI, FRANCO;
2009

Abstract

In randomized studies linezolid, indicated for Gram-positive infections, was as effective as teicoplanin in critical ill patients or was superior to teicoplanin in skin infection, pneumonia and bacteremia. We performed a 2-year comparative, retrospective study of patients treated with linezolid or teicoplanin in a single hospital for the same indications. We collected information about the type of infection, the responsible pathogen, therapy administered before study drugs, antibiotic associated with the study drugs, length of hospital stay (LOS), adverse events and outcome of the infections. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of linezolid in this retrospective patients series. Overall we identified 169 patients treated with linezolid and 91 with teicoplanin. Response to therapy, (resolution or improvement of infection) was better in patients treated with linezolid compared to teicoplanin (83.9% versus 69.2%, p=0.002). Response to therapy by type of pathogen showed the superior efficacy of linezolid against Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA) and enterococci; although not statistically significant because of the small number of patients enrolled, they were close to significance (p<0.056 for S. aureus, p<0.055 for MRSA, p<0.061 for enterococci). Overall LOS in linezolid-treated patients was 4.6 days (p<0.041) less. Empirical use of linezolid reduced lOS by 6 days (p<0.038), especially in VAP and bacteremia patients (p<0.05). Mortality due to infection was 9.8% in both groups, and adverse events were most frequently documented in linezolid-treated patients. Linezolid was clinically superior to teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections.
Gemignani, G; Doria, R; Biancofiore, GIANDOMENICO LUIGI; Urbani, L; Mosca, C; Malacarne, P; Papineschi, Federico; Passaglia, C; DAL CANTO, L; Procaccini, M; Furneri, G; Didoni, G; Filipponi, Franco; Menichetti, F.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11568/201265
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 11
social impact