Efficacy and Safety of Antibiotics in the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Infections: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Antibiotics (Basel) 2024-09, Vol.13 (9), p.866
• Main Authors: Liu, Qi, He, Dongxia, Wang, Lei, Wu, Yuewei, Liu, Xian, Yang, Yahan, Chen, Zhizhi, Dong, Zhan, Luo, Ying, Song, Yuzhu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis; Antibiotics; Bacterial pneumonia; Ceftaroline; Clinical trials; Combination therapy; Complications and side effects; Drug resistance; Drug resistance in microorganisms; Drug therapy; Effectiveness; Health services; Linezolid; Meta-analysis; Methicillin; Minocycline; MRSA infection; network meta-analysis; Pharmaceutical research; Pneumonia; Rifampin; Side effects; Skin diseases; Soft tissues; Staphylococcus aureus; Staphylococcus aureus infections; Staphylococcus infections; Statistical analysis; Statistical significance; Subgroups; Success; Systematic Review; Teicoplanin; treatment; Vancomycin
• ISSN: 2079-6382; 2079-6382
• DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics13090866

Vancomycin is a first-line drug for the treatment of MRSA infection. However, overuse of vancomycin can cause bacteria to become resistant, forming resistant strains and making infections more difficult to treat. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different antibiotics in the treatment of MRSA infections and to compare them, mainly with vancomycin, to find better vancomycin alternatives. All studies were obtained from the PubMed and Embase databases from inception to 13 April 2023. The three comprehensive indicators of clinical cure success rate, clinical microbiological success rate, and adverse reactions were evaluated, and the clinical cure success rates of three disease types, complex skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs), complex skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs), and pneumonia, were analyzed in subgroups. All statistical analyses were performed using R and STATA 14.0 software for network meta-analysis. A total of 38 trials with 6281 patients were included, and 13 drug treatments were evaluated. For MRSA infections, the results of network meta-analysis showed that the clinical success rates of linezolid, the combination of vancomycin and rifampin, and the combination of minocycline and rifampin were better than that of vancomycin (RR 1.71; 95%-CI 1.45-2.02), (RR 2.46; 95%-CI 1.10-5.49) (RR, 2.77; 95%-CI 1.06-7.21). The success rate of clinical microbiological treatment with vancomycin was inferior to that with telavancin (RR 0.74; 95%-CI 0.55-0.99). Linezolid had a higher rate of adverse reactions than teicoplanin (RR 5.35; 95%-CI 1.10-25.98). Subgroup analysis showed that vancomycin had a lower clinical success rate than linezolid in the treatment of MRSA-induced cSSSIs, cSSTIs, and pneumonia (RR 0.59; 95%-CI 0.44-0.80) (RR 0.55; 95%-CI 0.35-0.89) (RR 0.55; 95%-CI 0.32-0.93). This systematic review and NMA provide a new comparison framework for the clinical treatment of MRSA infection. The NMA suggests that linezolid may be the antibiotic of choice for the treatment of MRSA infections, with the ability to improve clinical and microbiological success rates despite its disadvantage in terms of adverse effects. At the same time, the combination of minocycline and rifampicin may be the most effective drug to treat MRSA-induced cSSSIs, tedizolid may be the best drug to treat MRSA-induced cSSTIs, and the combination of vancomycin and rifampicin may be the most effective treatment for MRSA-induced pneumonia. More high-quali