Linezolid versus teicoplanin for MRSA pneumonia: A meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of linezolid versus teicoplanin in patients with MRSA pneumonia. Methods Such databases as CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, Science Direct, PubMed, Ovid, SciFinder, The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2013) and EMbase were electronically searched for published articles (randomized controlled trials or non-randomized prospective trials with comparable baseline between groups) at home and abroad on the clinical effectiveness and safety of linezolid versus teicoplanin in patients with MRSA pneumonia from January 2003 to March 2013. Using the Cochrane methods, two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software in clinical cure rates, clinical effective rates, microbiologic eradication rates, and adverse reaction incidences. Results Finally, 7 studies were included involving 637 patients. The results of meta-analysis were clinical effective rates (RR=1.17, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.32, P=0.009), clinical cure rates (RR=1.06, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.19, P=0.37), bacterial clearance rates (RR=1.32, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.68, P=0.03), and adverse events rates (RR=1.24, 95%CI 0.78 to 1.97, P=0.37). The results of Begg test and Egger test were not significant (P>0.05). Conclusion Current evidence shows that, in treating MRSA pneumonia, linezolid is better than teicoplanin in clinical effective rates and bacterial clearance rates. However, they are alike in clinical cure rates and bacterial clearance rates.