Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Pharmaceutical Design

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1381-6128
ISSN (Online): 1873-4286

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Meta-Analysis

Efficacy and Safety of Different Antibiotic Therapies for Bone and Joint Infections: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author(s): Xiangwen Shi, Yipeng Wu, Haonan Ni, Minzheng Guo, Qi Cheng and Yongqing Xu*

Volume 29, Issue 29, 2023

Published on: 12 October, 2023

Page: [2313 - 2322] Pages: 10

DOI: 10.2174/0113816128236536231010051130

Price: $65

Abstract

Background: Although an increasing number of antibiotics are being used to treat bone and joint infections, their specific efficacy remains controversial. Thus, we aimed to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotic therapies for orthopedic infections.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to April 2022. Two authors independently and rigorously conducted the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of the relevant studies. All the extracted data were evaluated using traditional metaanalysis and network meta-analysis by STATA SE 16.0.

Results: A total of eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1,063 patients were included for data analysis. The analysis results from the NMA indicated that in terms of the clinical effectiveness rate, linezolid (OR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.01 to 3.02) showed significant efficacy compared to ampicillin/sulbactam. With regard to the microbiological eradication rate, linezolid showed significant efficacy compared to cephalosporins (OR: 8.13, 95% CI: 1.16 to 57.09) and quinolones (OR: 3.51, 95% CI: 1.18 to 10.49). Similar findings were obtained for subgroup populations with diabetic foot infections (DFI). However, linezolid was significantly related to higher adverse events than ampicillin/sulbactam (OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.68 to 6.30) and cephalosporins (OR: 18.29, 95% CI: 1.59 to 209.76).

Conclusion: Linezolid appeared to be the most promising treatment regimen for staphylococcal bone and joint infections. However, due to the overall limited evidence, the research results need further high-quality RCTs for confirmation.

« Previous Next »
[1]
Kurtz SM, Lau E, Schmier J, Ong KL, Zhao K, Parvizi J. Infection burden for hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23(7): 984-91.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.10.017] [PMID: 18534466]
[2]
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89(4): 780-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200704000-00012] [PMID: 17403800]
[3]
Osmon DR, Berbari EF, Berendt AR, et al. Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56(1): e1-e25.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis803] [PMID: 23223583]
[4]
Berbari EF, Kanj SS, Kowalski TJ, et al. 2015 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of native vertebral osteomyelitis in adultsa. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 61(6): e26-46.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/civ482] [PMID: 26229122]
[5]
Stengel D, Bauwens K, Sehouli J, Ekkernkamp A, Porzsolt F. Systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic therapy for bone and joint infections. Lancet Infect Dis 2001; 1(3): 175-88.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(01)00094-9] [PMID: 11871494]
[6]
Kutscha-Lissberg F, Hebler U, Muhr G, Köller M. Linezolid penetration into bone and joint tissues infected with methicillin-resistant staphylococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47(12): 3964-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.47.12.3964-3966.2003] [PMID: 14638510]
[7]
Cisse H, Vernet-Garnier V, Hentzien M, et al. Treatment of bone and joint infections caused by Enterobacter cloacae with a fluoroquinolone-cotrimoxazole combination. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2019; 54(2): 245-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.05.010] [PMID: 31096009]
[8]
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339(jul21 1): b2700.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700] [PMID: 19622552]
[9]
Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: A new edition of the cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Libr 2019; 10: ED000142.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000142] [PMID: 31643080]
[10]
Löffler L, Bauernfeind A, Keyl W. Sulbactam/ampicillin versus cefotaxime as initial therapy in serious soft tissue, joint and bone infections. Drugs 1988; 35(S7): 46-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00003495-198800357-00012] [PMID: 3265378]
[11]
Grayson ML, Gibbons GW, Habershaw GM, et al. Use of ampicillin/sulbactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of limb-threatening foot infections in diabetic patients. Clin Infect Dis 1994; 18(5): 683-93.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/clinids/18.5.683] [PMID: 8075257]
[12]
McKinnon PS, Paladino JA, Grayson ML, Gibbons GW, Karchmer AW. Cost-effectiveness of ampicillin/sulbactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of limb-threatening foot infections in diabetic patients. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24(1): 57-63.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/clinids/24.1.57] [PMID: 8994756]
[13]
Lipsky BA, Baker PD, Landon GC, Fernau R. Antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infections: comparison of two parenteral-to-oral regimens. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24(4): 643-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/clind/24.4.643] [PMID: 9145738]
[14]
Lipsky BA, Itani K, Norden C. Treating foot infections in diabetic patients: A randomized, multicenter, open-label trial of linezolid versus ampicillin-sulbactam/amoxicillin-clavulanate. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38(1): 17-24.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/380449] [PMID: 14679443]
[15]
Harkless L, Boghossian J, Pollak R, et al. An open-label, randomized study comparing efficacy and safety of intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam and ampicillin/sulbactam for infected diabetic foot ulcers. Surg Infect 2005; 6(1): 27-40.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/sur.2005.6.27] [PMID: 15865549]
[16]
Gentry LO, Rodriguez GG. Oral ciprofloxacin compared with parenteral antibiotics in the treatment of osteomyelitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34(1): 40-3.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.34.1.40] [PMID: 2183710]
[17]
Gentry LO, Rodriguez-Gomez G. Ofloxacin versus parenteral therapy for chronic osteomyelitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35(3): 538-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.35.3.538] [PMID: 2039205]
[18]
Nguyen S, Pasquet A, Legout L, et al. Efficacy and tolerance of rifampicin-linezolid compared with rifampicin-cotrimoxazole combinations in prolonged oral therapy for bone and joint infections. Clin Microbiol Infect 2009; 15(12): 1163-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.02761.x] [PMID: 19438638]
[19]
Defino HLA, Moretti JE, Fuentes AER. Comparative efficacy of pefloxacin and cefalothin/cefalexin with or without gentamicin in the treatment of post-traumatic or postsurgical osteomyelitis. Clin Drug Investig 1995; 9(3): 166-70.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00044011-199509030-00006]
[20]
Saltoglu N, Dalkiran A, Tetiker T, et al. Piperacillin/tazobactam versus imipenem/cilastatin for severe diabetic foot infections: A prospective, randomized clinical trial in a university hospital. Clin Microbiol Infect 2010; 16(8): 1252-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.03067.x] [PMID: 19832720]
[21]
Jørgensen NP, Skovdal SM, Meyer RL, Dagnæs-Hansen F, Fuursted K, Petersen E. Rifampicin-containing combinations are superior to combinations of vancomycin, linezolid and daptomycin against Staphylococcus aureus biofilm infection in vivo and in vitro. Pathog Dis 2016; 74(4): ftw019.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/femspd/ftw019] [PMID: 27036412]
[22]
Braun V, Bös C, Braun M, Killmann H. Outer membrane channels and active transporters for the uptake of antibiotics. J Infect Dis 2001; 183(S1): S12-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/318840] [PMID: 11171005]
[23]
Malanovic N, Lohner K. Gram-positive bacterial cell envelopes: The impact on the activity of antimicrobial peptides. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr 2016; 1858(5): 936-46.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2015.11.004] [PMID: 26577273]
[24]
Bozdogan B, Appelbaum PC. Oxazolidinones: Activity, mode of action, and mechanism of resistance. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2004; 23(2): 113-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2003.11.003] [PMID: 15013035]
[25]
Abad L, Tafani V, Tasse J, et al. Evaluation of the ability of linezolid and tedizolid to eradicate intraosteoblastic and biofilm-embedded Staphylococcus aureus in the bone and joint infection setting. J Antimicrob Chemother 2019; 74(3): 625-32.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dky473] [PMID: 30517641]
[26]
Ballow CH, Jones RN, Biedenbach DJ. A multicenter evaluation of linezolid antimicrobial activity in North America. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2002; 43(1): 75-83.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0732-8893(01)00334-0] [PMID: 12052632]
[27]
Rana B, Butcher I, Grigoris P, Murnaghan C, Seaton RA, Tobin CM. Linezolid penetration into osteo-articular tissues. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002; 50(5): 747-50.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkf207] [PMID: 12407135]
[28]
Vercillo M, Patzakis MJ, Holtom P, Zalavras CG. Linezolid in the treatment of implant-related chronic osteomyelitis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 461(461): 40-3.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BLO.0b013e3180986d60] [PMID: 17514011]
[29]
Manfredi R, Sabbatani S, Chiodo F. Severe staphylococcal knee arthritis responding favourably to linezolid, after glycopeptide-rifampicin failure: A case report and literature review. Scand J Infect Dis 2005; 37(6-7): 513-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00365540510036589] [PMID: 16012016]
[30]
Murillo O, Domenech A, Euba G, et al. Efficacy of linezolid alone and in combination with rifampin in staphylococcal experimental foreign-body infection. J Infect 2008; 57(3): 229-35.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2008.07.003] [PMID: 18715649]
[31]
Moise PA, Forrest A, Birmingham MC, Schentag JJ. The efficacy and safety of linezolid as treatment for Staphylococcus aureus infections in compassionate use patients who are intolerant of, or who have failed to respond to, vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002; 50(6): 1017-26.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkf215] [PMID: 12461026]
[32]
Birmingham MC, Rayner CR, Meagher AK, Flavin SM, Batts DH, Schentag JJ. Linezolid for the treatment of multidrug-resistant, gram-positive infections: Experience from a compassionate-use program. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36(2): 159-68.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/345744] [PMID: 12522747]
[33]
Lu PL, Wang JT, Chen CJ, et al. Compassionate use of linezolid for adult Taiwanese patients with bone and joint infections. Chemotherapy 2010; 56(6): 429-35.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000317752] [PMID: 21088393]
[34]
Papadopoulos A, Plachouras D, Giannitsioti E, Poulakou G, Giamarellou H, Kanellakopoulou K. Efficacy and tolerability of linezolid in chronic osteomyelitis and prosthetic joint infections: A case-control study. J Chemother 2009; 21(2): 165-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/joc.2009.21.2.165] [PMID: 19423469]
[35]
Chow I, Lemos EV, Einarson TR. Management and prevention of diabetic foot ulcers and infections: A health economic review. PharmacoEconomics 2008; 26(12): 1019-35.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/0019053-200826120-00005] [PMID: 19014203]
[36]
Yeager SD, Oliver JE, Shorman MA, Wright LR, Veve MP. Comparison of linezolid step-down therapy to standard parenteral therapy in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2021; 57(5): 106329.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106329] [PMID: 33785363]
[37]
Sharpe JN, Shively EH, Polk HC. Clinical and economic outcomes of oral linezolid versus intravenous vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA-complicated, lower-extremity skin and soft-tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Surg 2005; 189(4): 425-8.

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy