Clinical Efficacy of Oral Linezolid Compared With Intravenous Vancomycin for the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus-Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: A Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched, Case-Control Analysis
ABSTRACT Linezolid is 100% bioavailable in oral and intravenous formulations. In a recent prospective, randomized, open-label, comparator-controlled, multicenter, phase 4 clinical trial in adults with complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), linezolid achieved clinical and microbiologic success comparable to appropriately dosed intravenous vancomycin. Although patients were randomly assigned to receive linezolid or vancomycin, the protocol allowed patients to start therapy using oral or intravenous linezolid on the basis of investigator discretion and patient ability to tolerate oral medication.
The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of linezolid when administered orally in adults with cSSTI caused by MRSA. In this retrospective analysis, we examined data collected from the aforementioned trial to compare outcomes in patients who received either oral linezolid or intravenous vancomycin therapy.
This study analyzed outcomes in patients who received treatment for 7 to 14 days with either oral linezolid (600 mg q12h; n = 95) or intravenous vancomycin (15 mg/kg q12h, adjusted for creatinine clearance and trough concentration; n = 210). By design, these groups were not randomized. Propensity score matching on baseline variables was used to balance these groups by identifying a comparable group of patients who received vancomycin therapy and comparing them with patients who received oral linezolid therapy. Clinical and microbiologic success rates at the end of treatment and the end of the study (EOS) were then directly compared between the groups using matched-pair logistic regression. The tolerability of the 2 treatments (within this matched group) was also described.
Ninety-two patients with well-matched baseline characteristics were included in each treatment group. At EOS, the odds ratio for clinical success of oral linezolid therapy vs intravenous vancomycin therapy was 4.0 (95% CI, 1.3-12.0; P = 0.01), and the odds ratio for microbiologic success at EOS was 2.7 (95% CI, 1.2-5.7; P = 0.01). Overall rates of adverse events in each group were consistent with reported safety profiles for each drug.
A favorable clinical cure rate was achieved with oral linezolid therapy when compared with intravenous vancomycin therapy in propensity score-matched patients with cSSTI proved to be caused by MRSA. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00087490.
- SourceAvailable from: Richard R Watkins[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), including community-associated and hospital-associated strains, is a major cause of human morbidity and mortality. Treatment options have become limited due to the emergence of MRSA strains with decreased sensitivity to vancomycin, which has long been the first-line therapy for serious infections. This has prompted the search for novel antibiotics that are efficacious against MRSA. Linezolid, an oxazolidinone class of antibiotic, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000 for treatment of MRSA infections. Since then, there have been a multitude of clinical trials and research studies evaluating the effectiveness of linezolid against serious infections, including pneumonia (both community- and hospital-acquired), skin and soft-tissue infections such as diabetic foot ulcers, endocarditis, osteomyelitis, prosthetic devices, and others. The primary aim of this review is to provide an up-to-date evaluation of the clinical evidence for using linezolid to treat MRSA infections, with a focus on recently published studies, including those on nosocomial pneumonia. Other objectives are to analyze the cost-effectiveness of linezolid compared to other agents, and to review the pharmokinetics and pharmacodynamics of linezolid, emphasizing the most current concepts.Core Evidence 12/2012; 7:131-43. DOI:10.2147/CE.S33430
- Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy 05/2013; 31(3). DOI:10.1007/s10156-013-0599-4 · 1.38 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In the UK, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-associated skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are predominantly managed in the hospital using intravenous (IV) glycopeptides. We set out to explore the potential for and relative healthcare costs of earlier hospital discharge through switch to oral antibiotic therapy (linezolid or rifampicin and doxycycline) or continuation of IV therapy (teicoplanin) via an outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) service. Over 16 months, 173 patients were retrospectively identified with MRSA SSTI, of whom 82.8 % were treated with IV therapy. Thirty-seven patients were potentially suitable for earlier discharge with outpatient therapy. The model assumed 3 days of inpatient management and a maximum of 14 days of outpatient therapy. For the status quo, where patients received only inpatient care with IV therapy, hospital costs were calculated at £12,316 per patient, with 97 % of costs accounted for by direct bed day costs. The mean total cost savings achievable through OPAT or oral therapy was estimated to be £6,136 and £6,159 per patient treated, respectively. A significant proportion of patients with MRSA SSTI may be suitable for outpatient management with either oral therapy or via OPAT, with the potential for significant reduction in healthcare costs.European Journal of Clinical Microbiology 08/2013; 33(3). DOI:10.1007/s10096-013-1956-z · 2.54 Impact Factor