No abstract

Significant geographic variation is evident among cases of candidemia in different parts of the world. Local epidemiological data continue to be of major significance.

The advancing antimicrobial drug resistance in common bacterial pathogens, along with the relative shortage of new antibacterial agents, call for the re-evaluation of available therapeutic options.

As reported in the identified studies, the susceptibility rate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus to fosfomycin was > or = 90% in 12/22, and 50-90% in 7/22 studies; the cumulative susceptibility rate was 87.9% (4240/4892 isolates). The cumulative susceptibility rate of vancomycin-resistant enterococci to fosfomycin was 30.3% (183/604 isolates), and that of penicillin-non-susceptible pneumococci was 87.2% (191/219 isolates). Clinical data show that fosfomycin, primarily in combination regimens, has been associated with clinical success in 28/29 (96.6%) cases of infection (mainly pneumonia, bacteremia, and meningitis) by fosfomycin-susceptible isolates of methicillin-resistant S. aureus. The above data support further research on the role of fosfomycin against infections caused by Gram-positive cocci with advanced antimicrobial drug resistance.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: To study the effectiveness and safety of vancomycin compared with that of other antibiotics for the treatment of gram-positive infections. Methods: Major electronic databases were searched. Data from published randomized controlled trials (January 1, 1950, to September 15, 2011 were pooled using a meta-analytic method. Results: Fifty-three trials comparing vancomycin with linezolid, daptomycin, quinupristin-dalfopristin, tigecycline, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, telavancin, teicoplanin, iclaprim, and dalbavancin were included in the meta-analysis. Individual antibiotics were as effective as vancomycin, except for linezolid, which was more effective than vancomycin for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.43). Comparators were as effective as vancomycin in the intent-to-treat population (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.98-1.18) but were more effective in the clinically evaluable population (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.27) when all infections were pooled. When available data from all trials were pooled, no differences were noted when patients with febrile neutropenia (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.82-1.39), pneumonia (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.87-1.37), bacteremia (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.76-1.45), and skin and soft tissue infections (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.39) were studied. Comparators were more effective in open-label (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.50) but not in double-blind trials (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.20). Total adverse events attributed to studied antibiotics (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.90-1.28) and patients withdrawn from trials (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.09) were similar in the compared groups. Mortality was not different between vancomycin and comparator antibiotics when all trials were included in the analysis (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.23). Comparators were associated with higher mortality in open-label (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05-1.54) but not double-blind trials (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.80-1.14). Conclusion: On the basis mainly of data from open-label trials, vancomycin is a treatment choice that is as effective as other available antibiotics for patients with gram-positive infections. Study design seems to make a major contribution to the outcome.