期刊文献+

利奈唑胺对比糖肽类抗菌药物治疗MRSA相关性院内获得性肺炎的疗效和安全性的Meta分析 被引量:3

A Meta-analysis of Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Linezolid vs. Glycopeptide Antibiotic in the Treatment of MRSA Relative Nosocomial Pneumonia
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的:系统评价利奈唑胺对比糖肽类抗菌药物治疗耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)相关性院内获得性肺炎的疗效和安全性。方法:计算机检索Medline、EMBase、OVID、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、维普及万方数据库,查找利奈唑胺对比糖肽类抗菌药物治疗MRSA相关性院内获得性肺炎的随机对照试验(RCT)。对符合条件的RCT进行资料提取和质量评价后,采用Rev Man 5.1统计软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入8项RCT,合计1 966例患者。Meta分析结果显示,利奈唑胺治疗MRSA相关性院内获得性肺炎的临床治愈率[RR=1.10,95%CI(1.01,1.20),P=0.03]、微生物清除率[RR=1.14,95%CI(1.03,1.27),P=0.01]均高于糖肽类抗菌药物;而两者的病死率[RR=0.86,95%CI(0.68,1.08),P=0.20]和不良反应发生率[RR=1.05,95%CI(0.94,1.16),P=0.41]比较差异无统计学意义。结论:利奈唑胺较糖肽类抗菌药物治疗MRSA相关性院内获得性肺炎可以提高患者的临床治愈率和微生物清除率,但是不能改善患者病死率及不良反应发生率。限于研究的设计及报告质量,该结论仍有进一步评价的必要。 OBJECTIVE: To evaluate therapeutic efficacy and safety of linezolid vs. glycopeptide antibiotic in the treatment of MRSA related nosocomial pneumonia systematically. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about linezolid vs. glyco peptide antibiotic in the treatment of MRSA relative nosocomial pneumonia were searched from Medline, EMBase, OVID, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang datebase. The quality of included RCTs were evaluated and the data were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed with Rev Man 5.1 software. RESULTS: 8 RCTs were included, involving 1 966 patients. Meta-analysis showed that clinical cure rate [RR= 1.10, 95%CI(1.01,1.20), P=0.03] and microbial clearance rate [RR= 1.14,95%CI(1.03,1.27), P=0.01] of linezolid group were significantly higher than those of glycopeptide antibiotic group; but there were no significant differences in mortality [RR=0.86, 95%CI(0.68, 1.08), P=0.20] and the incidence ofADR [RR=1.05, 95%CI(0.94, 1.16), P=0.41] . CONCLUSIONS: Compared with glycopeptide antibiotics, linezolid can improve clinical cure rate and microbial clearance rate in patients with MRSA related nosocomial pneumonia; but has no effect on the mortality and the incidence of ADR. Due to small-scale and low quality of included studies, more large-scale and high quality RCTs are required for the validation of the conclusion.
出处 《中国药房》 CAS CSCD 2014年第20期1900-1903,共4页 China Pharmacy
关键词 利奈唑胺 糖肽类抗菌药物 万古霉素 替考拉宁 耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌 院内获得性肺炎 META分析 Linezolid Glycopeptide antibiotics Vancomycin Teicoplanin MRSA Nosocomial pneumonia Meta-analysis
  • 相关文献

参考文献12

  • 1Rubinstein E, Cammarata S, Oliphant T, et al. Linezolid (PNU-100766) versus vancomycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia: a ran- domized, double-blind, multicenter study[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2001,32(3) :402.
  • 2Stevens DL, Herr D, Lampiris H, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2002,34(11):1 481.
  • 3Wunderink RG, Cammarata SK, Oliphant TH, et al. Co- ntinuation of a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of linezolid versus vancomycin in the treatment of patients with nosocomial pneumonia[J]. Clin Ther, 2003, 25(3).980.
  • 4Wunderink RG, Rello J, Cammarata SK, et al. Linezolid vs vancomycin: analysis of two double-blind studies of patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia[J]. Chest, 2003,124(5) : 1 789.
  • 5Wilcox M, Nathwani D, Dryden M. Linezolid compared with teicoplanin for the treatment of suspected or proven Gram-positive infections[J]. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2004,53(2):335.
  • 6Kohno S, Yamaguchi K, Aikawa N, et al. Linezolid ver- sus vancomycin for the treatment of infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Japan[J]. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2007,60(6) : 1 361.
  • 7Lin DF, Zhang YY, Wu JF, et al. Linezolid for the treat- ment of infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens in China[J]. Int JAntimicrob Agents, 2008,32 (3) : 241.
  • 8Wunderink RG, Niederman MS, Kollef MH, et al. Line- zolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus noso- comial pneumonia: a randomized, controlled study[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2012,54(5) : 621.
  • 9朱爱江,徐磊.利奈唑胺与替考拉宁治疗革兰阳性球菌感染的疗效比较[J].中国药房,2012,23(10):914-916. 被引量:3
  • 10Rybak MJ. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of vancomycin[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2006, 42 (Suppl 1):S35.

二级参考文献7

共引文献2

同被引文献48

  • 1曾宪涛,邝心颖,孙燕,冷卫东.什么是循证医学?[J].湖北医药学院学报,2013,32(1):1-5. 被引量:39
  • 2张杏怡,何礼贤,胡必杰,李锡莹.耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌的耐药性研究[J].中华医院感染学杂志,1996,6(2):114-116. 被引量:51
  • 3徐赤裔,金雨虹,陈东妹.万古霉素与替考拉宁治疗老年MRSA/MRSE肺部感染的疗效比较[J].现代实用医学,2006,18(9):656-657. 被引量:26
  • 4Li S, Kwong IS, Zeng XT, et al. Plasmakinetic resection technology for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep, 2015, 5: 12002.
  • 5Li S, Zeng XT, Ruan XL, et al. Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection in patients with benign prostate hyperplasia: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. PLoS One, 2014, 9(7): e101615.
  • 6Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
  • 7Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med, 2015, 8(1): 2-10.
  • 8Higgins J, Thompson S. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta- analysis. StatMed, 2002, 21(11): 1539-1559.
  • 9Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 1997, 315(7129): 629-634.
  • 10Gould FK, Brindle R, Chadwick PR, et al. Guidelines (2008) for the prophylaxis and treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the United Kingdom. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2009, 63(5): 849-861.

引证文献3

二级引证文献32

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部