Cochrane meta-analysis: teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Bugano,Diogo Diniz Gomes
Data de Publicação: 2011
Outros Autores: Cavalcanti,Alexandre Biasi, Goncalves,Anderson Roman, Almeida,Claudia Salvini de, Silva,Eliézer
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Einstein (São Paulo)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-45082011000300265
Resumo: ABSTRACT Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin in patients with proven or suspected infection. Methods: Data Sources: Cochrane Renal Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, nephrology textbooks and review articles. Inclusion criteria: Randomized controlled trials in any language comparing teicoplanin to vancomycin for patients with proven or suspected infection. Data extraction: Two authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted data. Study investigators were contacted for unpublished information. A random effect model was used to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of 24 studies (2,610 patients) were included. The drugs had similar rates of clinical cure (RR: 1.03; 95%CI: 0.98-1.08), microbiological cure (RR: 0.98; 95%CI: 0.93-1.03) and mortality (RR: 1.02; 95%CI: 0.79-1.30). Teicoplanin had lower rates of skin rash (RR: 0.57; 95%CI: 0.35-0.92), red man syndrome (RR: 0.21; 95%CI: 0.08-0.59) and total adverse events (RR: 0.73; 95%CI: 0.53-1.00). Teicoplanin reduced the risk of nephrotoxicity (RR: 0.66; 95%CI: 0.48-0.90). This effect was consistent for patients receiving aminoglycosides (RR: 0.51; 95%CI: 0.30-0.88) or having vancomycin doses corrected by serum levels (RR: 0.22; 95%CI: 0.10-0.52). There were no cases of acute kidney injury needing dialysis. Limitations: Studies lacked a standardized definition for nephrotoxicity. Conclusions: Teicoplanin and vancomycin are equally effective; however the incidence of nephrotoxicity and other adverse events was lower with teicoplanin. It may be reasonable to consider teicoplanin for patients at higher risk for acute kidney injury.
id IIEPAE-1_645ac99221849395697fd1a5242b5524
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1679-45082011000300265
network_acronym_str IIEPAE-1
network_name_str Einstein (São Paulo)
repository_id_str
spelling Cochrane meta-analysis: teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infectionAnti-bacterial agents/adverse effectsAnti-bacterial agents/therapeutic useTeicoplanin/adverse effectsTeicoplanin/therapeutic useVancomycin/adverse effectsVancomycin/therapeutic useKidney/drug effectsDrug eruptions/etiologyABSTRACT Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin in patients with proven or suspected infection. Methods: Data Sources: Cochrane Renal Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, nephrology textbooks and review articles. Inclusion criteria: Randomized controlled trials in any language comparing teicoplanin to vancomycin for patients with proven or suspected infection. Data extraction: Two authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted data. Study investigators were contacted for unpublished information. A random effect model was used to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of 24 studies (2,610 patients) were included. The drugs had similar rates of clinical cure (RR: 1.03; 95%CI: 0.98-1.08), microbiological cure (RR: 0.98; 95%CI: 0.93-1.03) and mortality (RR: 1.02; 95%CI: 0.79-1.30). Teicoplanin had lower rates of skin rash (RR: 0.57; 95%CI: 0.35-0.92), red man syndrome (RR: 0.21; 95%CI: 0.08-0.59) and total adverse events (RR: 0.73; 95%CI: 0.53-1.00). Teicoplanin reduced the risk of nephrotoxicity (RR: 0.66; 95%CI: 0.48-0.90). This effect was consistent for patients receiving aminoglycosides (RR: 0.51; 95%CI: 0.30-0.88) or having vancomycin doses corrected by serum levels (RR: 0.22; 95%CI: 0.10-0.52). There were no cases of acute kidney injury needing dialysis. Limitations: Studies lacked a standardized definition for nephrotoxicity. Conclusions: Teicoplanin and vancomycin are equally effective; however the incidence of nephrotoxicity and other adverse events was lower with teicoplanin. It may be reasonable to consider teicoplanin for patients at higher risk for acute kidney injury.Instituto Israelita de Ensino e Pesquisa Albert Einstein2011-09-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-45082011000300265einstein (São Paulo) v.9 n.3 2011reponame:Einstein (São Paulo)instname:Instituto Israelita de Ensino e Pesquisa Albert Einstein (IIEPAE)instacron:IIEPAE10.1590/s1679-45082011ao2020info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBugano,Diogo Diniz GomesCavalcanti,Alexandre BiasiGoncalves,Anderson RomanAlmeida,Claudia Salvini deSilva,Eliézereng2017-03-10T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1679-45082011000300265Revistahttps://journal.einstein.br/pt-br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||revista@einstein.br2317-63851679-4508opendoar:2017-03-10T00:00Einstein (São Paulo) - Instituto Israelita de Ensino e Pesquisa Albert Einstein (IIEPAE)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Cochrane meta-analysis: teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection
title Cochrane meta-analysis: teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection
spellingShingle Cochrane meta-analysis: teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection
Bugano,Diogo Diniz Gomes
Anti-bacterial agents/adverse effects
Anti-bacterial agents/therapeutic use
Teicoplanin/adverse effects
Teicoplanin/therapeutic use
Vancomycin/adverse effects
Vancomycin/therapeutic use
Kidney/drug effects
Drug eruptions/etiology
title_short Cochrane meta-analysis: teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection
title_full Cochrane meta-analysis: teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection
title_fullStr Cochrane meta-analysis: teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection
title_full_unstemmed Cochrane meta-analysis: teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection
title_sort Cochrane meta-analysis: teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection
author Bugano,Diogo Diniz Gomes
author_facet Bugano,Diogo Diniz Gomes
Cavalcanti,Alexandre Biasi
Goncalves,Anderson Roman
Almeida,Claudia Salvini de
Silva,Eliézer
author_role author
author2 Cavalcanti,Alexandre Biasi
Goncalves,Anderson Roman
Almeida,Claudia Salvini de
Silva,Eliézer
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Bugano,Diogo Diniz Gomes
Cavalcanti,Alexandre Biasi
Goncalves,Anderson Roman
Almeida,Claudia Salvini de
Silva,Eliézer
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Anti-bacterial agents/adverse effects
Anti-bacterial agents/therapeutic use
Teicoplanin/adverse effects
Teicoplanin/therapeutic use
Vancomycin/adverse effects
Vancomycin/therapeutic use
Kidney/drug effects
Drug eruptions/etiology
topic Anti-bacterial agents/adverse effects
Anti-bacterial agents/therapeutic use
Teicoplanin/adverse effects
Teicoplanin/therapeutic use
Vancomycin/adverse effects
Vancomycin/therapeutic use
Kidney/drug effects
Drug eruptions/etiology
description ABSTRACT Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin in patients with proven or suspected infection. Methods: Data Sources: Cochrane Renal Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, nephrology textbooks and review articles. Inclusion criteria: Randomized controlled trials in any language comparing teicoplanin to vancomycin for patients with proven or suspected infection. Data extraction: Two authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted data. Study investigators were contacted for unpublished information. A random effect model was used to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of 24 studies (2,610 patients) were included. The drugs had similar rates of clinical cure (RR: 1.03; 95%CI: 0.98-1.08), microbiological cure (RR: 0.98; 95%CI: 0.93-1.03) and mortality (RR: 1.02; 95%CI: 0.79-1.30). Teicoplanin had lower rates of skin rash (RR: 0.57; 95%CI: 0.35-0.92), red man syndrome (RR: 0.21; 95%CI: 0.08-0.59) and total adverse events (RR: 0.73; 95%CI: 0.53-1.00). Teicoplanin reduced the risk of nephrotoxicity (RR: 0.66; 95%CI: 0.48-0.90). This effect was consistent for patients receiving aminoglycosides (RR: 0.51; 95%CI: 0.30-0.88) or having vancomycin doses corrected by serum levels (RR: 0.22; 95%CI: 0.10-0.52). There were no cases of acute kidney injury needing dialysis. Limitations: Studies lacked a standardized definition for nephrotoxicity. Conclusions: Teicoplanin and vancomycin are equally effective; however the incidence of nephrotoxicity and other adverse events was lower with teicoplanin. It may be reasonable to consider teicoplanin for patients at higher risk for acute kidney injury.
publishDate 2011
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2011-09-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-45082011000300265
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-45082011000300265
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/s1679-45082011ao2020
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Instituto Israelita de Ensino e Pesquisa Albert Einstein
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Instituto Israelita de Ensino e Pesquisa Albert Einstein
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv einstein (São Paulo) v.9 n.3 2011
reponame:Einstein (São Paulo)
instname:Instituto Israelita de Ensino e Pesquisa Albert Einstein (IIEPAE)
instacron:IIEPAE
instname_str Instituto Israelita de Ensino e Pesquisa Albert Einstein (IIEPAE)
instacron_str IIEPAE
institution IIEPAE
reponame_str Einstein (São Paulo)
collection Einstein (São Paulo)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Einstein (São Paulo) - Instituto Israelita de Ensino e Pesquisa Albert Einstein (IIEPAE)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||revista@einstein.br
_version_ 1752129906229116928