Efficacy and safety of daptomycin for skin and soft tissue infections: a systematic review with trial sequential analysis
Authors Liu C, Mao Z, Yang M, Kang H, Liu H, Pan L, Hu J, Luo J, Zhou F
Received 16 June 2016
Accepted for publication 4 August 2016
Published 22 September 2016 Volume 2016:12 Pages 1455—1466
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Hoa Le
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Professor Deyun Wang
Chao Liu,1,* Zhi Mao,1,* Mengmeng Yang,1 Hongjun Kang,1 Hui Liu,1 Liang Pan,1 Jie Hu,1 Jun Luo,2 Feihu Zhou1
1Department of Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, 2Department of Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Xuanhan People’s Hospital, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Background: Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are significant indications for antibiotic treatment. Daptomycin, a novel antibiotic, has been registered and licensed to be used in the treatment of these infections. However, its efficacy and safety remain controversial.
Objective: The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review with trial sequential analysis (TSA) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of daptomycin for the treatment of SSTIs and to analyze whether the available sample size has been large enough and is conclusive.
Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared daptomycin with other antibiotics in adult patients with SSTIs up to February 2016.
Results: This meta-analysis included eight randomized controlled trials (n=2,002). There was no difference in either the clinical success rate (intention-to-treat population: relative risk [RR] =1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.99–1.10, P=0.12; clinically evaluable population: RR =1.00, 95% CI =0.97–1.04, P=0.82) or the microbiological success rate (RR =1.00, 95% CI =0.95–1.06, P=0.92) between the daptomycin and comparator groups for treating SSTIs, which was confirmed by TSA. Compared with vancomycin, daptomycin exhibited no advantage in increasing the clinical success rate (RR =1.03, 95% CI =0.95–1.13, P=0.47), and this was also confirmed by TSA. All-cause mortality, overall treatment-related adverse events, and creatine phosphokinase events were similar between these two groups.
Conclusion: Daptomycin and comparator drugs are equally efficacious with regard to clinical and microbiological success for patients with SSTIs, and TSA showed that no additional randomized controlled trials are required. Although daptomycin is a good alternative when other antibiotics are contraindicated for patients with SSTIs and it can serve as a first-line treatment for SSTIs, clinicians should be aware of potential adverse events, such as daptomycin-induced acute eosinophilic pneumonia and creatine phosphokinase, when treating patients with daptomycin.
Keywords: daptomycin, skin and soft tissue infections, vancomycin, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]