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.
Therapeutic advancements have improved pediatric cancer prognosis, shifting the interest towards the management of psychosocial burden and treatment-related morbidity. To critically appraise the available evidence, we conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on supportive interventions for childhood cancer. Thirty-four publications (92 meta-analyses, 1 network, 14,521 participants) were included. The most concrete data showed a reduction in procedure-related pain and distress through hypnosis. Moreover, exercise improved the functional mobility of the patients. Regarding pharmacological interventions, most of the meta-analyses regarded the treatment of nausea/vomiting (ondansetron was effective) and infections/febrile neutropenia [granulocyte-(macrophage) colony-stimulating factors showed benefits]. Substantial heterogeneity was detected in 31 associations. Conclusively, supportive interventions for pediatric cancer are being thoroughly evaluated. However, most of the studies are small and of moderate quality, highlighting the need for more randomized evidence in order to increase precision in improving the quality of life of patients, survivors and their families.
It is still controversial if the combined use of beta-lactam antibiotics and aminoglycosides has advantages over broad-spectrum beta-lactam monotherapy for the empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified three systematic reviews including 14 pertinent randomized trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded the combination of beta-lactam antibiotics and aminoglycosides probably does not lead to a reduced mortality in febrile neutropenic cancer patients and it might increase nephrotoxicity.
Vancomycin has been considered the standard of care for treatment of Gram-positive skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs). Its value has been questioned over the last decade owing to well acknowledged limitations in efficacy and tolerability and the emergence of newer meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-active antibacterial agents. However, no single agent has shown better results versus vancomycin in SSTI trials. The aim of this review was to identify and summarise data from meta-analyses (MAs) for the treatment of Gram-positive and MRSA SSTIs. A systematic search identified 21 published MAs examining the use of newer antibiotics and vancomycin in SSTIs. In terms of clinical and microbiological efficacy, linezolid (in Gram-positive and MRSA SSTIs) and telavancin (in MRSA SSTIs) were shown to be more effective than vancomycin. The safety of newer antimicrobials in general was comparable with vancomycin, except for telavancin, which was associated with more severe adverse events (AEs), and tigecycline owing to an all-cause mortality imbalance observed in all infections but not confirmed in SSTIs. Specific AEs were related to the use of newer agents, such as nephrotoxicity for telavancin, creatine phosphokinase elevations for daptomycin, and thrombocytopenia with linezolid. Some evidence suggests that daptomycin could be associated with reduced treatment duration, and linezolid with reduced length of intravenous treatment and hospital length of stay compared with vancomycin. Considering the limitations of this type of research and the comparative efficacy results demonstrated in head-to-head randomised controlled trials, data are still not sufficient to support the widespread use of new agents over vancomycin.
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.
