This HTML5 document contains 37 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

n2:w

rdf:type

rdac:C10001 bibo:Article

dcterms:isPartOf

n19:w

dcterms:subject

n12:originalarticles n18:keywordsbloodstreaminfectionsmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusmrsamethicillinsusceptiblestaphylococcusaureusmssa

dcterms:title

Linezolid versus teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections in the critically ill: a randomized, double-blind, multicentre study

rdaw:P10072

n10:print n10:web

vivo:relatedBy

n4:1 n4:2 n4:10 n4:8 n4:13 n4:6 n4:11 n4:5 n4:12 n4:7 n4:4 n4:9 n4:3

marcrel:aut

n2:joneskaren n2:taylorlee n2:shulmanrobert n2:hailsjaneane n2:kwakufelicia n2:shawsteven n2:cepedajorgea n2:haymansamantha n14:person n2:wilsonapeterr n15:id n16:id n20:person

dcterms:abstract

Objectives: Linezolid, the only commercially available oxazolidinone, is indicated for the treatment of Gram-positive infections, although little has been published specifically on its use in the critically ill. A randomized, prospective study was therefore performed to compare linezolid with the glycopeptide antibiotic, teicoplanin, for the treatment of suspected or proven Gram-positive infections in an intensive care population. Methods: Using a double-blind, double-dummy, prospective design, patients were randomized to (i) intravenous linezolid (600 mg/12 h) plus teicoplanin dummy [one dose/12 h for three doses then every 24 h intravenously (iv)] or (ii) teicoplanin (400 mg/12 h for three doses then 400 mg/24 h iv) plus linezolid dummy (one dose/12 h iv). Other antibiotics were used in combination with the trial agents in empirical treatment. Clinical and microbiological assessments were made daily in the first week, and at 8 and 21 days after treatment. Results: One hundred patients received linezolid plus placebo-teicoplanin, whereas 102 received teicoplanin plus placebo-linezolid. Population baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. At end of treatment, clinical success [71 (78.9%) linezolid versus 67 (72.8%) teicoplanin] and microbiological success [49 (70.0%) versus 45 (66.2%)] rates were similar, as were adverse effects, intensive care unit mortality, and success rates at short- and long-term follow-up. Linezolid was superior at initial clearance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization (end of treatment, 51.1% versus 18.6%, P = 0.002). Two MRSA isolates showed reduced susceptibility to teicoplanin. Conclusions: Linezolid has similar safety and efficacy to teicoplanin in treating Gram-positive infections in the critically ill. Short-term MRSA clearance achieved with linezolid suggests better skin and mucosal penetration.

hub:articleType

n17:other

hub:isPartOfThisJournal

n7:w