Search

This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of novel tetracyclines for treating acute bacterial infections. Data from PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane databases, Ovid Medline, and Embase databases were accessed until 11 July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of novel tetracyclines with that of other antibiotics for treating acute bacterial infections were included. Primary outcomes included the clinical response, microbiological response, and risk of adverse events (AEs). A total of eight RCTs were included, involving 2283 and 2197 patients who received novel tetracyclines and comparators, respectively. Overall, no significant difference was observed in the clinical response rate at test of cure between the experimental and control groups (for modified intent-to-treat [MITT] population, risk ratio [RR]: 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99−1.05; for clinically evaluable [CE] population, RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00−1.04; and for microbiological evaluable [ME] population, RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99−1.04). No significant difference in the microbiological response at the end of treatment was observed between the experimental and control groups (for ME population, RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99−1.03; for microbiological MITT population, RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.96−1.07). No difference was observed concerning the risk of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious adverse events, and discontinuation of treatment due to TEAEs and all-cause mortality between the two groups. In conclusion, clinical efficacy and safety profile for novel tetracyclines in the treatment of acute bacterial infections were found to be similar to those for other available antibiotics.

This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of tedizolid, compared to linezolid, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI). PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO (Elton B. Stephens Co.), Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline and Embase databases were accessed until 18 July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tedizolid with linezolid for adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The outcomes included the clinical response, microbiological response, and risk of adverse events (AEs). A total of four RCTs involving 2056 adult patients with ABSSSI were enrolled. The early clinical response rate was 79.6% and 80.5% for patients receiving tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. The pooled analysis showed that tedizolid had a non-inferior early clinical response rate to linezolid (odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.77−1.19, I2 = 0%). The early response rate was similar between tedizolid and linezolid among patients with cellulitis/erysipelas (75.1% vs. 77.1%; OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.64−1.27, I2 = 25%), major cutaneous abscess (85.1% vs. 86.8%; OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.42−2.03, I2 = 37%) and wound infection (85.9% vs. 82.6%; OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.66−2.51, I2 = 45%). For methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus patients, tedizolid had a favorable microbiological response rate of 95.2% which was comparable to linezolid (94%) (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.49−2.90, I2 = 0%). In addition to the similar risk of treatment-emergent AEs (a serious event, the discontinuation of the study drug due to AEs and mortality between tedizolid and linezolid), tedizolid was associated with a lower risk of nausea, vomiting and abnormal neutrophil count than linezolid. In conclusion, once-daily tedizolid (200 mg for six days) compared to linezolid (600 mg twice-daily for 10 days) was non-inferior in efficacy in the treatment of ABSSSI. Besides, tedizolid was generally as well tolerated as linezolid, and had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs and bone marrow suppression than linezolid.