Treatment of MRSA pneumonia: Clinical and economic comparison of linezolid vs. vancomycin - a retrospective analysis of medical charts and re-imbursement data of real-life patient populations.

GMS infectious diseases Pub Date : 2017-01-27 eCollection Date: 2017-01-01 DOI:10.3205/id000028
Michael H Wilke, Karsten Becker, Sebastian Kloss, Sebastian M Heimann, Anton Goldmann, Bertram Weber, Mathias W Pletz, Philipp Simon, Christian Petrik
{"title":"Treatment of MRSA pneumonia: Clinical and economic comparison of linezolid vs. vancomycin - a retrospective analysis of medical charts and re-imbursement data of real-life patient populations.","authors":"Michael H Wilke, Karsten Becker, Sebastian Kloss, Sebastian M Heimann, Anton Goldmann, Bertram Weber, Mathias W Pletz, Philipp Simon, Christian Petrik","doi":"10.3205/id000028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> To supplement the data collected in randomized clinical trials, the present study in patients with methicillin resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) pneumonia was conducted to explore the clinical effectiveness of linezolid and vancomycin in a routine clinical setting. Further, the overall costs of the patients' stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) were compared. <b>Methods:</b> This was a retrospective analysis of medical and reimbursement data of adult patients who were treated for MRSA pneumonia with linezolid or vancomycin. Since the subjects were not randomly assigned to treatments, propensity score adjustment was applied to reduce a potential selection bias. <b>Results:</b> In total, 226 patients were included; 95 received linezolid and 131 received vancomycin as initial therapy for MRSA pneumonia. Switches to another antibiotic were observed in 4 patients (4.2%) receiving linezolid and in 23 patients (17.6%) receiving vancomycin (logistic regression analysis; odds ratio linezolid/vancomycin: 0.183; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.052-0.647; p<0.01). All-cause in-hospital mortality was also lower in patients receiving linezolid (22 patients [23.2%] vs. 54 patients [41.2%]) (logistic regression analysis; odds ratio linezolid/vancomycin: 0.351; 95% CI: 0.184-0.671; p<0.01). The analysis of the total costs of stay in ICU did not reveal any major differences between the two treatment groups (cost ratio linezolid/vancomycin: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.84-1.98; p=0.24). <b>Conclusions:</b> These findings confirm in a routine clinical setting that linezolid is a valuable therapeutic alternative to vancomycin for the treatment of MRSA pneumonia. However, prospective studies in real-life patient populations are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":91688,"journal":{"name":"GMS infectious diseases","volume":"5 ","pages":"Doc02"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6301724/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS infectious diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/id000028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To supplement the data collected in randomized clinical trials, the present study in patients with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia was conducted to explore the clinical effectiveness of linezolid and vancomycin in a routine clinical setting. Further, the overall costs of the patients' stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) were compared. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of medical and reimbursement data of adult patients who were treated for MRSA pneumonia with linezolid or vancomycin. Since the subjects were not randomly assigned to treatments, propensity score adjustment was applied to reduce a potential selection bias. Results: In total, 226 patients were included; 95 received linezolid and 131 received vancomycin as initial therapy for MRSA pneumonia. Switches to another antibiotic were observed in 4 patients (4.2%) receiving linezolid and in 23 patients (17.6%) receiving vancomycin (logistic regression analysis; odds ratio linezolid/vancomycin: 0.183; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.052-0.647; p<0.01). All-cause in-hospital mortality was also lower in patients receiving linezolid (22 patients [23.2%] vs. 54 patients [41.2%]) (logistic regression analysis; odds ratio linezolid/vancomycin: 0.351; 95% CI: 0.184-0.671; p<0.01). The analysis of the total costs of stay in ICU did not reveal any major differences between the two treatment groups (cost ratio linezolid/vancomycin: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.84-1.98; p=0.24). Conclusions: These findings confirm in a routine clinical setting that linezolid is a valuable therapeutic alternative to vancomycin for the treatment of MRSA pneumonia. However, prospective studies in real-life patient populations are warranted.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌肺炎的治疗:利奈唑胺与万古霉素的临床和经济比较——对真实患者群体的医疗图表和再灌注数据的回顾性分析。
目的:为了补充随机临床试验中收集的数据,本研究在常规临床环境中对耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)肺炎患者进行了研究,以探讨利奈唑胺和万古霉素的临床有效性。此外,对患者在重症监护室(ICU)的总体住院费用进行了比较。方法:对利奈唑胺或万古霉素治疗MRSA肺炎的成年患者的医疗和报销数据进行回顾性分析。由于受试者不是随机分配接受治疗的,因此应用倾向评分调整来减少潜在的选择偏差。结果:共纳入226例患者;95例接受利奈唑胺治疗,131例接受万古霉素治疗。在接受利奈唑胺治疗的4名患者(4.2%)和接受万古霉素治疗的23名患者(17.6%)中观察到改用另一种抗生素(逻辑回归分析;利奈唑利/万古霉素比值比:0.183;95%置信区间[CI]:0.052-0.647;结论:这些发现在常规临床环境中证实,利奈唑胺是治疗耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌肺炎的一种有价值的万古霉素替代品。然而,对现实生活中的患者群体进行前瞻性研究是有必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
Trichosporon infection in chronic kidney disease patients from a tertiary care hospital - a case series or an outbreak? An unanswered question but a well-managed problem. Fusarium spp.: infections and intoxications. A complex case of bacterial pericarditis caused by a new pathogenic agent. The interpretation of COVID-19 in cause-of-death statistics: a matter of causality. Therapeutic strategies for uncomplicated cystitis in women.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1