Comparative effectiveness of antibiotics for the treatment of MRSA complicated skin and soft tissue infections

References

• 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
• Shorr AF. Epidemiology of staphylococcal resistance. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:S171-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klevens RM, Morrison MA, Nadle J, et al. Invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the United States. JAMA 2007;298:1763-71
   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
• Eron LJ, Lipsky BA, Low DE, et al. Managing skin and soft tissue infections: expert panel recommendations on key decision points. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003;52:S3-17
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nixon M, Jackson B, Varghese P, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on orthopaedic wards: incidence, spread, mortality, cost and control. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88:812-17
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Micek ST. Alternatives to vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:S184-90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollef MH. Limitations of vancomycin in the management of resistant staphylococcal infections. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:S191-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deresinski S. Vancomycin: does it still have a role as an antistaphylococcal agent?. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2007;5:393-401
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lentino JR, Narita M, Yu VL. New antimicrobial agents as therapy for resistant gram-positive cocci. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2007;27:3-15
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anstead GM, Owens AD. Recent advances in the treatment of infections due to resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2004;17:549-55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Annex C: Proposed data requirements for sponsors’ submissions. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Available at: www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/whatwedo/niceandthenhs/fasteraccesstomoderntreatment/annex_c_proposed_data_requirements_for_sponsors_submissions.jsp [Last accessed: 3 June 2009]
   Google Scholar
• Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:1-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Churchill R, Barbui C. Validity of indirect comparisons in meta-analysis. Lancet 2007;369:270-1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Afilalo J, Duque G, Steele R, et al. Statins for secondary prevention in elderly patients: a hierarchical bayesian meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:37-45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen FH, Lesaffre E, Penali LK, et al. Assessment of the relative advantage of various artesunate-based combination therapies by a multi-treatment Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2007;77:1005-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orr PK. The impact of prophylactic axillary node dissection on breast cancer survival – a Bayesian meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 1999;6:109-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sung L, Beyene J, Hayden J, et al. A Bayesian meta-analysis of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in children with cancer. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:811-17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babapulle MN, Joseph L, Belisle P, et al. A hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials of drug-eluting stents. Lancet 2004;364:583-91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Blackburn B, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 1981;2:31-49
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Cheung CM, et al. Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal. JAMA 1994;272:108-13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Measur 1960;20:37-46
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warn DE, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales. Stat Med 2002;21:1601-23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spiegelhalter DL, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation. Chapter 8. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2004
   Google Scholar
• Stangl D, Berry DA. Meta-Analysis in Medicine and Health Policy. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 2000
   Google Scholar
• Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, et al. Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000
   Google Scholar
• Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D. WinBUGS User Manual. Version 1.4. Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics unit, 2003
   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, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yogev R, Patterson LE, Kaplan SL, et al. Linezolid for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003;22:S172-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan SL, Afghani B, Lopez P, et al. Linezolid for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003;22:S178-85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deville JG, Adler S, Azimi PH, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin in the treatment of known or suspected resistant gram-positive infections in neonates. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003;22:S158-63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox M, Nathwani D, Dryden M. Linezolid compared with teicoplanin for the treatment of suspected or proven Gram-positive infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004;53:335-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens DL, Smith LG, Bruss JB, et al. Randomized comparison of linezolid (PNU-100766) versus oxacillin–dicloxacillin for treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44:3408-13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens DL. Teicoplanin for skin and soft tissue infections: an open study and a randomized, comparative trial versus cefazolin. J Infect Chemother 1999;5:40-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Steer JA, Papini RP, Wilson AP, et al. Teicoplanin versus flucloxacillin in the treatment of infection following burns. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997;39:383-92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chirurgi VA, Edelstein H, Oster SE, et al. Randomized comparison trial of teicoplanin i.v., teicoplanin i.m., and cefazolin therapy for skin and soft tissue infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. South Med J 1994;87:875-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelstein HE, Oster SE, Chirurgi VA, et al. Intravenous or intramuscular teicoplanin once daily for skin and soft-tissue infections. DICP 1991;25:914-18
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen YP, Lee SC, Kim WJ. Efficacy and tolerability of linezolid in treating severe skin and soft tissue infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens. J Formos Med Assoc 2004;103:349-54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang E, Foldes M, Marghescu S. Teicoplanin in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections: results of a multicentre study. Infection 1991;19:190-94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis P, Garaud JJ, Parenti F. A multicentre open clinical trial of teicoplanin in infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988;21:A61-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Auwera P, Aoun M, Meunier F. Randomized study of vancomycin versus teicoplanin for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections in immunocompromised hosts. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991;35:451-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cepeda JA, Whitehouse T, Cooper B, et al. Linezolid versus teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections in the critically ill: a randomized, double-blind, multicentre study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004;53:345-55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menichetti F, Martino P, Bucaneve G, et al. Effects of teicoplanin and those of vancomycin in initial empirical antibiotic regimen for febrile, neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies. Gimema Infection Program. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994;38:2041-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nichols RL, Graham DR, Barriere SL, et al. Treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated gram-positive skin and skin structure infections: two randomized, multicentre studies of quinupristin/dalfopristin versus cefazolin, oxacillin or vancomycin. Synercid Skin and Skin Structure Infection Group. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999;44:263-73
   Google Scholar
• Noel GJ, Bush K, Bagchi P, et al. A randomized, double-blind trial comparing ceftobiprole medocaril with vancomycin plus ceftazidime for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:647-55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Itani KM, Weigelt J, Li JZ, Duttagupta S. Linezolid reduces length of stay and duration of intravenous treatment compared with vancomycin for complicated skin and soft tissue infections due to suspected or proven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Int J Antimicrob Agents 2005;26:442-8
   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
• Lipsky BA, Stoutenburgh U. Daptomycin for treating infected diabetic foot ulcers: evidence from a randomized, controlled trial comparing daptomycin with vancomycin or semi-synthetic penicillins for complicated skin and skin-structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005;55:240-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis-Grosse EJ, Babinchak T, Dartois N, et al. The efficacy and safety of tigecycline in the treatment of skin and skin-structure infections: results of 2 double-blind phase 3 comparison studies with vancomycin-aztreonam. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41:S341-53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nichols RL, Graham DR, Barriere SL, et al. Corrigendum: Treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated gram-positive skin and skin structure infections: two randomized, multicentre studies of quinupristin/dalfopristin versus cefazolin, oxacillin or vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999;44:585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jauregui LE, Babazadeh S, Seltzer E, et al. Randomized, double-blind comparison of once-weekly dalbavancin versus twice-daily linezolid therapy for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41:1407-15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seltzer E, Dorr MB, Goldstein BP, et al. Once-weekly dalbavancin versus standard-of-care antimicrobial regimens for treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Infect Dis 2003;37:1298-303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weigelt J, Itani KM, Stevens D, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005;49:2260-66
   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
• Sharpe JN, Shively EH, Polk HCJ. 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;189:425-28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacchidanand S, Penn RL, Embil JM, et al. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections: Results from a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial. Int J Infect Dis 2005;9:251-61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breedt J, Teras J, Gardovskis J, et al. Safety and efficacy of tigecycline in treatment of skin and skin structure infections: results of a double-blind phase 3 comparison study with vancomycin-aztreonam. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005;49:4658-66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stryjewski ME, Chu VH, O’Riordan WD, et al. Telavancin versus standard therapy for treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by gram-positive bacteria: FAST 2 study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006;50:862-67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stryjewski ME, O’Riordan WD, Lau W, et al. Telavancin versus standard therapy for treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections due to gram-positive bacteria. Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:1601-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arbeit RD, Maki D, Tally FP, et al. The safety and efficacy of daptomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:1673-81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postier RG, Green SL, Klein SR, et al. Results of a multicenter, randomized, open-label efficacy and safety study of two doses of tigecycline for complicated skin and skin-structure infections in hospitalized patients. Clin Ther 2004;26:704-14
   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
• Stryjewski ME, Graham DR, Wilson SE, et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections caused by gram-positive organisms. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:1683-93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Itani K, Weigelt J, Stevens D, et al. Efficacy and safety of linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections proven to be due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008;14(S7):S16
   Google Scholar
• Itani KM, Dryden MS, Bhattacharyya H, et al. Efficacy and safety of linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections proven to be caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Surg 2010 Mar 12 [Epub ahead of print]
   Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res 2001;10:277-303
   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
• Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, et al. Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med 2002;21:371-87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chou R, Fu R, Huffman LH, et al. Initial highly-active antiretroviral therapy with a protease inhibitor versus a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor: discrepancies between direct and indirect meta-analyses. Lancet 2006;368:1503-15
   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
• Tang T, Aquilina J, Betz T. A randomized, open-label, third-party blind, comparator-controlled multicentre, multinational study of intravenous (IV) linezolid (660 mg every 12 hours) with optional switch to oral linezolid, and teicoplanin (IV or IM as per approved prescribing information) for 7 to 28 days for the treatment of suspected or proven gram-positive infection. Pharmacia Corporation. Data on file at Pfizer Inc. Final phase IIIb clinical study report 766-INF-0026-86, 2002
   Google Scholar