JAC Advance Access originally published online on January 16, 2004
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (2004) 53, 335-344
© 2004 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Linezolid compared with teicoplanin for the treatment of suspected or proven Gram-positive infections
1 Department of Microbiology, Leeds General Infirmary & University of Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Old Medical School, Leeds LS1 3EX; 2 Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, East Block, Dundee; 3 Department of Microbiology, Royal Hampshire County Hospital, Winchester, UK
Received 15 January 2003; returned 19 February 2003; revised 27 November 2003; accepted 27 November 2003
The efficacy, safety and tolerability of linezolid was compared with teicoplanin in a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicentre study of 430 patients with suspected or proven Gram-positive infection. Patients received intravenous (iv) ± oral linezolid 600 mg every 12 h (n = 215) or iv or intramuscular teicoplanin (n = 215) for up to 28 days. Clinical outcomes in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and clinically-evaluable populations and microbiological success rates in microbiologically evaluable patients were assessed at follow-up (test of cure). Investigator assessed clinical cure rates at end of treatment (EOT) in ITT patients treated with linezolid (95.5%) were superior to those of teicoplanin (87.6%) for all infections combined, indicating a 7.9% statistically significant treatment advantage for linezolid (P = 0.005, 95% CI: 2.5, 13.2). Clinical cure rates by baseline diagnosis were consistently higher at EOT for the linezolid versus teicoplanin groups with skin and soft tissue infection (96.6% versus 92.8%), pneumonia (96.2% versus 92.9%) and bacteraemia (88.5% versus 56.7%). The 31.8% treatment advantage in bacteraemic patients (but not for those seen in the other infection categories) for linezolid-treated patients was statistically significant (P = 0.009, 95% CI: 10.2, 53.4). Bacterial eradication rates for linezolid exceeded those of teicoplanin for all infection sites combined but this did not reach statistical significance (81.9% versus 69.8%, respectively; P = 0.056). Adverse event rates were similar between the treatment groups, were mild to moderate in severity, and resolved quickly following treatment. The linezolid group experienced a higher incidence of drug related adverse events (30% versus 17%; P = 0.002), and notably of gastrointestinal effects (13.0% versus 1.9%, P = 0.001). However, antibiotic discontinuation rates as a result of drug related adverse events were similar (4.7% in the linezolid group versus 3.7%). Linezolid was clinically superior to teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections.
Keywords: glycopeptides, Gram-positive bacteria, oxazolidinones
* Corresponding author. Tel: +44-113-392-6818; Fax: +44-113-343-5649; E-mail: markwi{at}pathology.leeds.ac.uk
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. L. French Bactericidal agents in the treatment of MRSA infections--the potential role of daptomycin J. Antimicrob. Chemother., December 1, 2006; 58(6): 1107 - 1117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. G. Gemmell, D. I. Edwards, A. P. Fraise, F. K. Gould, G. L. Ridgway, R. E. Warren, and on behalf of the Joint Working Party of the Britis Guidelines for the prophylaxis and treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the UK J. Antimicrob. Chemother., April 1, 2006; 57(4): 589 - 608. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. M. Ziglam, I. Elliott, V. Wilson, K. Hill, and D. Nathwani Clinical audit of linezolid use in a large teaching hospital J. Antimicrob. Chemother., August 1, 2005; 56(2): 423 - 426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Bassetti, F. Vitale, G. Melica, E. Righi, A. Di Biagio, L. Molfetta, F. Pipino, M. Cruciani, and D. Bassetti Linezolid in the treatment of Gram-positive prosthetic joint infections J. Antimicrob. Chemother., March 1, 2005; 55(3): 387 - 390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|