Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Linezolid Versus Teicoplanin in Bacteremia by Gram-Positive Microorganisms*

Grau, Santiago; Antonio, Javier; Soto, Javier Solis; Marín-Casino, Mónica; Salas, E.

doi:10.1007/s11096-005-1638-8

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, in a recent cohort study, empiric therapy with linezolid was associated with greater survival and more successful microbiological eradication compared to standard therapy in the treatment of methicillin-resistant S. aureus bacteremia [29]. Further, in a pharmacoeconomic evaluation study linezolid was considered more efficient than teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive bacteremia [30]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates from blood with reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides and therapeutic options

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCoagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) are a major cause of nosocomial blood stream infection, especially in critically ill and haematology patients. CoNS are usually multidrug-resistant and glycopeptide antibiotics have been to date considered the drugs of choice for treatment. The aim of this study was to characterize CoNS with reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides causing blood stream infection (BSI) in critically ill and haematology patients at the University Hospital Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, in 2007.MethodsHospital microbiology records for transplant haematology and ICU were reviewed to identify CoNS with elevated MICs for glycopeptides, and isolates were matched to clinical records to determine whether the isolates caused a BSI. The isolates were tested for susceptibility to new drugs daptomicin and tigecycline and the genetic relationship was assessed using f-AFLP.ResultsOf a total of 17,418 blood cultures, 1,609 were positive for CoNS and of these, 87 (5.4%) displayed reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides. Clinical review revealed that in 13 cases (7 in haematology and 6 in ICU), CoNS with reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides were responsible for a BSI. Staphylococcus epidermidis was the causative organism in 11 instances and Staphylococcus haemolyticus in 2. The incidence of oxacillin resistance was high (77%), although all isolates remained susceptible to linezolid, daptomycin and tigecycline. Fingerprinting of CoNS identified one clonal relationship between two isolates.ConclusionMulti-resistant CoNS with reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides, although still relatively infrequent in our hospital, are emerging pathogens of clinical concern. Surveillance by antibiotyping with attention to multi-resistant profile, and warning to clinicians, is necessary.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates from blood with reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides and therapeutic options

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the results are presented probabilistically (over 1,000 simulations) to account for uncertainty in the mean estimates. Finally, the model structure used in the analysis is common to other economic models previously published in cSSTI 21 , 22 and in other types of infections, such as treatment for bacteremia, 23 community acquired pneumonia, 41 urinary tract infections, 42 persistent febrile neutropenia, 43 hospitalized influenza and intra-abdominal infections. 44 This is due to the common clinical pathways observed across different types of infections where resolution of signs and symptoms occur over a relatively short period of time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Empiric Treatment of Hospitalized Adults with cSSTI: An Economic Analysis from the Perspective of the Spanish National Health System

Torres¹,

Soriano²,

Rivolo³

et al. 2022

CEOR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) are associated with high healthcare resource use and costs. The emergency nature of cSSTI hospitalizations requires starting immediate empiric intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment, making the appropriate choice of initial antibiotic therapy crucial. Patients and Methods The use of ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other IV antibiotic therapies for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with cSSTI (vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin, cloxacillin, tedizolid) was evaluated through cost consequences analysis. The model structure was a decision tree accounting for four different pathways: patients demonstrating early response (ER) either discharged early (with oral antibiotic) or remaining in hospital to continue the initial therapy; non-responders either remaining on the initial IV therapy or switching to a second-line antibiotic. The model perspective was the Spanish National Health System. Results CFT resulted in average percentage of patients discharged early (PDE) of 24.6% (CI 19.49–30.2%) with average total cost per patient of €6763 (€6268–€7219). Vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin and tedizolid resulted in average PDE of 22% (17.34–27.09%), 26.4% (20.5–32.32%), 28.6% (22.08–35.79%) and 26.5% (20.39–33.25%), respectively, for a total cost per patient of €6,619 (€5,902–€6,929), €6,394 (€5,881–€6,904), €6,855 (€5,800–€7,410) and €7,173 (€6,608–€7,763), respectively. Key model drivers were ER and antibiotic treatment duration, with hospital costs accounting for over 83% of the total expenditures. Conclusion Given its clinical and safety profile, CFT is an acceptable choice for cSSTI empiric therapy providing comparable ER and costs to other relevant antibiotic options.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the reported good penetration of linezolid into skin was an important factor shown in several studies that may partly explain the higher efficacy of skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI). Meanwhile, the availability of an oral formulation can improve the patient's quality of life [40]. In the present meta-analysis, several studies focused on elderly patients with nosocomial pneumonia and reported linezolid was associated with better efficacy compared with teicoplanin in elderly patients [27,29,[32][33][34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety of linezolid versus teicoplanin for the treatment of MRSA infections: a meta-analysis

Chen

et al. 2018

J Infect Dev Ctries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an important cause of serious infections. Linezolid and teicoplanin are widely used in the treatment of infections caused by MRSA. However, the efficacy and safety of linezolid compared with teicoplanin remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of linezolid versus teicoplanin for the treatment of MRSA infections. Methodology: A meta-analysis was performed on the published studies. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated to determine whether there were significant differences between the linezolid group and the teicoplanin group on the efficacy and safety. Results: Seventeen studies were included, involving 2,040 patients. The results showed that linezolid was associated with better clinical cure rate (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.08-1.21, p < 0.00001) and microbiological eradication rate (RR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.18-1.39, p < 0.00001) compared with teicoplanin. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the treatment of MRSA infections regarding the adverse events (RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.97-1.35, p = 0.10) and the mortality (RR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.61-1.18, p = 0.33). Conclusions: The results suggest that linezolid may be a better choice for the treatment of patients with MRSA infections. However, our recommendation is that the decision about treating MRSA infections with linezolid or with teicoplanin should depend on local availability, patient population, dosage regimens, costs and safety, rather than presumed differences in efficacy.

show abstract

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Linezolid Versus Teicoplanin in Bacteremia by Gram-Positive Microorganisms*

Abstract: Linezolid is a more efficient option than teicoplanin because it presents higher rate of effectiveness with lower consumption of resources, thus being a dominant alternative in the treatment of Gram-positive infection with bacteremia.

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Characterization of coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates from blood with reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides and therapeutic options

Characterization of coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates from blood with reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides and therapeutic options

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Empiric Treatment of Hospitalized Adults with cSSTI: An Economic Analysis from the Perspective of the Spanish National Health System

Efficacy and safety of linezolid versus teicoplanin for the treatment of MRSA infections: a meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About