ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of teicoplanin versus vancomycin for lower respiratory tract infection with gram-positive bacteria in Chinese population.
MethodsThe PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2016), CNKI, and WanFang Data databases were searched from their inception to March 20, 2016, to collect randomized controlled trials about teicoplanin versus vancomycin for lower respiratory tract infection with gram-positive bacteria in Chinese population. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.
ResultsA total of 12 RCTs involving 921 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis suggested that there were no significant associations between the teicoplanin group and the vancomycin group in total effective rate (RR=0.99, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.05, P=0.69), clinical cure rate (RR=1.05, 95%CI 0.92 to 1.19, P=0.49), and bacteria clearance rate (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.05, P=0.69). However, the teicoplanin group had lower incidences of the total adverse event (RR=0.65, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.90, P=0.008) and nephrotoxicity (RR=0.33, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.66, P=0.002), and shorter course of treatment (MD=-1.78, 95%CI -3.27 to -0.29, P=0.02) than that in the vancomycin group.
ConclusionCurrent evidence indicates that teicoplanin is similar to vancomycin in therapeutic effects on treating lower respiratory tract infection with gram-positive bacteria in Chinese population, but teicoplanin is better in safety and has a shorter course of treatment than vancomycin. Due to limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm the above conclusions.
