Ceftobiprole mono-therapy versus combination or non-combination regimen of standard antibiotics for the treatment of complicated infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Various bacteria produce complicated infections that are difficult to treat worldwide. Ceftobiprole is effective against resistant Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. METHODS: This review assessed effectiveness and safety of ceftobiprole monotherapy for severe infections. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing clinical cure, microbiological cure, and safety of ceftobiprole alone to a combination or non-combination antibiotic regimen was conducted. Until December 20, 2022, we searched a major databases. RESULTS: This study includes 4168 patients from six trials. Ceftobiprole and comparator-received patients had similar clinical responses for all patient population. Also, the eradication rate of all organisms and specific pathogenic bacteria in microbiologically examined patients was comparable between the groups. Ceftobiprole induced more gastrointestinal side events than comparable drugs, mostly nausea [OR 1.91 (1.26-2.90), p=<0.01]. While skin-related adverse events were significantly associated with comparator antibiotics [6 trials, 4062 patients; OR 0.77 (0.60-0.99), p=0.03]. CONCLUSION: Ceftobiprole monotherapy is effective and safe for severe infections caused by Gram-positive or Gram-negative bacteria.

Efficacy and safety of novel glycopeptides versus vancomycin for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections including methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare between current evidence of novel glycopeptides against vancomycin for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review and meta-analysis was done. Major databases were searched for eligible randomized control trials that assessed clinical success, microbiological success and safety profile of novel glycopeptides versus vancomycin for infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included eleven trials (7289 participants) comparing telavancin, dalbavancin and oritavancin with vancomycin. No differences were detected between novel glycopeptides and vancomycin for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) among modified intent-to-treat patients (OR: 1.04, CI: 0.92-1.17) as well as within the clinically evaluable patients (OR: 1.09, CI: 0.91-1.30). Data analysed from SSTIs, HAP and bacteremia studies on telavancin showed insignificant high clinical response in microbiologically evaluable patients infected with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (OR: 1.57, CI: 0.94-2.62, p: 0.08) and in the eradication of MRSA (OR: 1.39, CI: 0.99-1.96, P:0.06). Dalbavancin was non-inferior to vancomycin for the treatment of osteomyelitis in a phase II trial, while it was superior to vancomycin for the treatment of bacteremia in a phase II trial. Data analysed from all trials showed similar rates of all-cause mortality between compared antibiotics groups (OR: 0.67, CI: 0.11-4.03). Telavancin was significantly related with higher adverse events (OR: 1.24, CI: 1.07-1.44, P: <0.01) while dalbavancin and oritavancin were associated with significant fewer adverse events (OR: 0.73, CI: 0.57-0.94, p: 0.01; OR: 0.72, CI: 0.59-0.89, p: <0.01 respectively). CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety profiles of both dalbavancin and oritavancin were the same as vancomycin in the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections in different clinical settings, while telavancin might be an effective alternative to vancomycin in MRSA infections, but caution is required during its clinical use due to the high risk of adverse events, especially nephrotoxicity.