Efficacy and safety of vancomycin compared with those of alternative treatments for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: An umbrella review

Abstract

Objective: To summarize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of vancomycin compared with those of alternative treatments in adult patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to December 15, 2023, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing vancomycin with alternative MRSA treatments. Primary outcomes included clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates. Organ-specific safety outcomes were assessed. Summary estimates were recalculated using a random-effects model. Evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022340359).

Results: This umbrella review included 19 studies and 71 meta-analyses (46 efficacy and 25 safety) comparing vancomycin with 10 alternative treatments across different MRSA infection types and populations. GRADE assessment showed that 29.58% of the meta-analyses were of high quality. Linezolid and daptomycin showed higher efficacy in MRSA-induced skin and soft tissue infections and pneumonia (moderate evidence quality) and bacteremia (very low evidence quality), respectively, compared with that of vancomycin. Cephalosporins had a higher risk of nausea, whereas linezolid had a higher risk of nausea, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia than that of vancomycin. Vancomycin posed a higher risk of rash, pruritus, red man syndrome, and nephrotoxicity than that of alternatives.

Conclusions: The quality of evidence supporting the higher efficacy of alternative treatment over vancomycin for MRSA infection was not high. Given varying safety profiles and advancements in therapeutic monitoring, careful consideration of patient-specific factors and pharmacokinetics is crucial when selecting treatment alternatives to vancomycin.

Keywords

meta-analysis / MRSA / treatment outcome / umbrella review / vancomycin

References

[1] LowyFD. Staphylococcus aureus infections. N Engl J Med. 1998; 339(8): 520–532.

[2] StryjewskiME,CoreyGR. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an evolving pathogen. Clin Infect Dis. 2014; 58(1): S10–S19.

[3] BrownNM,GoodmanAL, HornerC,Jenkins A,BrownEM. Treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): updated guidelines from the UK. JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2021; 3(1): dlaa114.

[4] DiazR,AfreixoV, RamalheiraE,Rodrigues C,GagoB. Evaluation of vancomycin MIC creep in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018; 24(2): 97–104.

[5] MacDougallC,PolkRE. Antimicrobial stewardship programs in health care systems. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005; 18(4): 638–656.

[6] DiekemaDJ,PfallerMA, ShortridgeD,Zervos M,JonesRN. Twenty-year trends in antimicrobial susceptibilities among Staphylococcus aureus from the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019; 6(1): S47–S53.

[7] DantesR,MuY, BelflowerR, et al. National burden of invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, United States, 2011. JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 173(21): 1970–1978.

[8] WangSZ,HuJT, ZhangC, et al. The safety and efficacy of daptomycin versus other antibiotics for skin and soft-tissue infections: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(6): e004744.

[9] HsuCK,ChenCY, ChenWC,Chao CM,LaiCC. Clinical efficacy and safety of novel lipoglycopeptides in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2022; 20(3): 435–444.

[10] MaL,ZhangX, ZhaoX,Zhao L,QiaoY. Comparison of efficacy of linezolid and vancomycin for treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia: a meta-analysis. Biomed Res (India). 2017; 28(8): 3420–3426.

[11] ZhangW,XuN, BaiT, et al. Efficacy and safety of linezolid versus vancomycin for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-related pneumonia: updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2019; 12(4): 3185–3200.

[12] FengJJ,XiangF, ChengJ,Gou YL,LiJ. Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin, linezolid, tedizolid, and daptomycin in treating patients with suspected or proven complicated skin and soft tissue infections: an updated network meta-analysis. Infect Dis Ther. 2021; 10(3): 1531–1547.

[13] PatikornC,RoubalK, VeettilSK, et al. Intermittent fasting and obesity-related health outcomes: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4(12): e2139558.

[14] PageMJ,Mckenzie JE,BossuytPM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71.

[15] SheaBJ,ReevesBC, WellsG, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017; 358: j4008.

[16] GuyattG,OxmanAD, AklEA, et al. GRADE guidelines:1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(4): 383–394.

[17] VardakasKZ,MavrosMN, RoussosN,Falagas ME. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of vancomycin for the treatment of patients with Gram-positive infections: focus on the study design. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012; 87(4): 349–363.

[18] ZhangG,ZhangN, XuJ,YangT, YinH,CaiY. Efficacy and safety of vancomycin for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2023; 62(4): 106946.

[19] ChenCY,ChenWC, LaiCC,Shih TP,TangHJ. Anti-MRSA cephalosporin versus vancomycin-based treatment for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Antibiotics (Basel). 2021; 10(8): 1020.

[20] LanSH,ChangSP, LaiCC,Lu LC,ChaoCM. Ceftaroline efficacy and safety in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infection: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Med. 2019; 8(6): 776.

[21] AnMM,ShenH, ZhangJD,Xu GT,JiangYY. Linezolid versus vancomycin for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2013; 41(5): 426–433.

[22] BounthavongM,HsuDI. Efficacy and safety of linezolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI): a meta-analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010; 26(2): 407–421.

[23] KatoH,Hagihara M,AsaiN, et al. Meta-analysis of vancomycin versus linezolid in pneumonia with proven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2021; 24: 98–105.

[24] LiangBB,CaiY, ChenML,Bai N,YuXH,WangR. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010; 35(1): 3–12.

[25] WangY,ZouY, XieJ, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review employing meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015; 71(1): 107–115.

[26] YueJ,DongBR, YangM,Chen X,WuT,LiuGJ. Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 2016(1): Cd008056.

[27] JameW,BasgutB, AbdiA. Efficacy and safety of novel glycopeptides versus vancomycin for the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections including methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. 2021; 16(11): e0260539.

[28] PolyzosKA,MavrosMN, VardakasKZ,Makris MC,RafailidisPI,FalagasME. Efficacy and safety of telavancin in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. 2012;7(8):e41870.

[29] CavalcantiAB,Goncalves AR,AlmeidaCS,BuganoDD,SilvaE. Teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(6):Cd007022.

[30] CaiY,WangR, LiangB,Bai N,LiuY. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of tigecycline for treatment of infectious disease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(3):1162–1172.

[31] GrabovacI,Veronese N,StefanacS, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus infection and diverse physical health outcomes: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;70(9):1809–1815.

[32] SchünemannHJ. Interpreting GRADE’s levels of certainty or quality of the evidence: GRADE for statisticians, considering review information size or less emphasis on imprecision? J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:6–15.

[33] AmrheinV,Greenland S,McShaneB. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature. 2019;567(7748):305–307.

[34] PurjaS,ParkS, OhS,KimM, KimE. Reporting quality was suboptimal in a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with adaptive designs. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;154:85–96.

[35] KalilAC,Metersky ML,KlompasM, et al. Management of adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia:2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(5): e61–e111.

[36] RybakMJ,LeJ, LodiseTP, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: a revised consensus guideline and review by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2020;77(11):835–864.

[37] van HalSJ,LodiseTP, PatersonDL. The clinical significance of vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration in Staphylococcus aureus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54(6):755–771.

[38] OdaK,SaitoH, JonoH. Bayesian prediction-based individualized dosing of anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus treatment: recent advancements and prospects in therapeutic drug monitoring. Pharmacol Ther. 2023;246:108433.

[39] AljefriDM,Avedissian SN,RhodesNJ,PostelnickMJ,NguyenK, ScheetzMH. Vancomycin area under the curve and acute kidney injury: a meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(11):1881–1887.

[40] OdaK,Hashiguchi Y,KimuraT, et al. Performance of area under the concentration–time curve estimations of vancomycin with limited sampling by a newly developed web application. Pharm Res. 2021;38(4):637–646.

[41] VlachakiI,Vacchelli M,ZinziD, et al. Comparative efficacy of delafloxacin for complicated and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: results from a network meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21(1):1036.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine published by Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.