LAUSR

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.