Efficacy and safety of vancomycin compared with those of alternative treatments for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: An umbrella review.
Sujata Purja, Minji Kim, Yomna Elghanam, Hae Jung Shim, Eunyoung Kim
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of vancomycin compared with those of alternative treatments for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: An umbrella review.","authors":"Sujata Purja, Minji Kim, Yomna Elghanam, Hae Jung Shim, Eunyoung Kim","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To summarize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of vancomycin compared with those of alternative treatments in adult patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to December 15, 2023, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing vancomycin with alternative MRSA treatments. Primary outcomes included clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates. Organ-specific safety outcomes were assessed. Summary estimates were recalculated using a random-effects model. Evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022340359).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This umbrella review included 19 studies and 71 meta-analyses (46 efficacy and 25 safety) comparing vancomycin with 10 alternative treatments across different MRSA infection types and populations. GRADE assessment showed that 29.58% of the meta-analyses were of high quality. Linezolid and daptomycin showed higher efficacy in MRSA-induced skin and soft tissue infections and pneumonia (moderate evidence quality) and bacteremia (very low evidence quality), respectively, compared with that of vancomycin. Cephalosporins had a higher risk of nausea, whereas linezolid had a higher risk of nausea, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia than that of vancomycin. Vancomycin posed a higher risk of rash, pruritus, red man syndrome, and nephrotoxicity than that of alternatives.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The quality of evidence supporting the higher efficacy of alternative treatment over vancomycin for MRSA infection was not high. Given varying safety profiles and advancements in therapeutic monitoring, careful consideration of patient-specific factors and pharmacokinetics is crucial when selecting treatment alternatives to vancomycin.</p>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12644","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To summarize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of vancomycin compared with those of alternative treatments in adult patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection.
Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to December 15, 2023, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing vancomycin with alternative MRSA treatments. Primary outcomes included clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates. Organ-specific safety outcomes were assessed. Summary estimates were recalculated using a random-effects model. Evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022340359).
Results: This umbrella review included 19 studies and 71 meta-analyses (46 efficacy and 25 safety) comparing vancomycin with 10 alternative treatments across different MRSA infection types and populations. GRADE assessment showed that 29.58% of the meta-analyses were of high quality. Linezolid and daptomycin showed higher efficacy in MRSA-induced skin and soft tissue infections and pneumonia (moderate evidence quality) and bacteremia (very low evidence quality), respectively, compared with that of vancomycin. Cephalosporins had a higher risk of nausea, whereas linezolid had a higher risk of nausea, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia than that of vancomycin. Vancomycin posed a higher risk of rash, pruritus, red man syndrome, and nephrotoxicity than that of alternatives.
Conclusions: The quality of evidence supporting the higher efficacy of alternative treatment over vancomycin for MRSA infection was not high. Given varying safety profiles and advancements in therapeutic monitoring, careful consideration of patient-specific factors and pharmacokinetics is crucial when selecting treatment alternatives to vancomycin.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (EMB) is an esteemed international healthcare and medical decision-making journal, dedicated to publishing groundbreaking research outcomes in evidence-based decision-making, research, practice, and education. Serving as the official English-language journal of the Cochrane China Centre and West China Hospital of Sichuan University, we eagerly welcome editorials, commentaries, and systematic reviews encompassing various topics such as clinical trials, policy, drug and patient safety, education, and knowledge translation.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
