Efficacy and safety of linezolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI): a meta-analysis

References

• Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 1999;27:97-132
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nichols RL, Florman S. Clinical presentations of soft-tissue infections and surgical site infections. Clin Infect Dis 2001;33(Suppl 2):S84-93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson SE, Solomkin JS, Le V, et al. A severity score for complicated skin and soft tissue infections derived from phase III studies of linezolid. Am J Surg 2003;185:369-75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nichols RL. Optimal treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999;44(Suppl A):19-23
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October 2004. Am J Infect Control 2004;32:470-85
   Google Scholar
• King MD, Humphrey BJ, Wang YF, et al. Emergence of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA 300 clone as the predominant cause of skin and soft-tissue infections. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:309-17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moellering RC Jr. The growing menace of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:368-70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, et al. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 2006;355:666-74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naimi TS, LeDell KH, Como-Sabetti K, et al. Comparison of community-and health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. JAMA 2003;290:2976-84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lodise TP, Jr McKinnon PS. Burden of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: focus on clinical and economic outcomes. Pharmacotherapy 2007;27:1001-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah NP, Reddy P, Paladino JA, et al. Direct medical costs associated with using vancomycin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: an economic model. Curr Med Res Opin 2004;20:779-90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shorr AF. Epidemiology and economic impact of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: review and analysis of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2007;25:751-68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCollum M, Sorensen SV, Liu LZ. A comparison of costs and hospital length of stay associated with intravenous/oral linezolid or intravenous vancomycin treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections caused by suspected or confirmed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in elderly US patients. Clin Ther 2007;29:469-77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weigelt J, Itani K, Stevens D, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005;49:2260-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohno S, Yamaguchi K, Aikawa N, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Japan. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007;60:1361-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharpe JN, Shively EH, Polk HC Jr. Clinical and economic outcomes of oral linezolid versus intravenous vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA-complicated, lower-extremity skin and soft-tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Surg 2005;189:425-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens DL, Herr D, Lampiris H, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:1481-90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weigelt J, Kaafarani HM, Itani KM, et al. Linezolid eradicates MRSA better than vancomycin from surgical-site infections. Am J Surg 2004;188:760-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox MH, Tack KJ, Bouza E, et al. Complicated skin and skin-structure infections and catheter-related bloodstream infections: noninferiority of linezolid in a phase 3 study. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48:203-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welshman IR, Sisson TA, Jungbluth GL, et al. Linezolid absolute bioavailability and the effect of food on oral bioavailability. Biopharm Drug Dispos 2001;22:91-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nathwani D. The management of skin and soft tissue infections: outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy in the United Kingdom. Chemotherapy 2001;47(Suppl 1):17-23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker SE, Nathwani D, O’Reilly D, et al. Evaluation of the impact of non-inpatient i.v. antibiotic treatment for acute infections on the hospital, primary care services and the patient. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998;42:373-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bounthavong M, Hsu DI, Okamoto MP. Cost-effectiveness analysis of linezolid vs. vancomycin in treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus complicated skin and soft tissue infections using a decision analytic model. Int J Clin Pract 2009;63:376-86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schurmann D, Sorensen SV, De Cock E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin for hospitalised patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 2009;10:65-79
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howden BP, Charles PG, Johnson PD, et al. Improved outcomes with linezolid for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: better drug or reduced vancomycin susceptibility?. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005;49:4816; author reply -7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falagas ME, Siempos, II, Vardakas KZ. Linezolid versus glycopeptide or beta-lactam for treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Infect Dis 2008;8:53-66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. [Last accessed April 4, 2009]
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896-900
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954;10:101-29
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539-58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177-88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begg CB. Publication Bias. In: Cooper H. Hedges LV, eds. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994:400-8
   Google Scholar
• Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bax L, Yu LM, Ikeda N, et al. MIX: comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data. Version 1.7. http://mix-for-meta-analysis.info, 2008. [Last accessed April 4, 2009]
   Google Scholar
• Bax L, Yu LM, Ikeda N, et al. Development and validation of MIX: comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson SG. Why and how sources of heterogeneity should be investigated. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001:157-75
   Google Scholar
• Rybak M, Lomaestro B, Rotschafer JC, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin in adult patients: a consensus review of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2009;66:82-98
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hair PI, Keam SJ. Daptomycin: a review of its use in the management of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections and Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Drugs 2007;67:1483-512
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raghavan M, Linden PK. Newer treatment options for skin and soft tissue infections. Drugs 2004;64:1621-42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Struelens MJ, Ronveaux O, Jans B, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus epidemiology and control in Belgian hospitals, 1991 to 1995. Groupement pour le Depistage, l’Etude et al. Prevention des Infections Hospitalieres. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:503-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidaillac C, Rybak MJ. Ceftobiprole: first cephalosporin with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Pharmacotherapy 2009;29:511-25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar