SynthesisClinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2018
Newer glycopeptide antibiotics for treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Do Patients with Cellulitis Need to be Hospitalized? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Mortality Rates of Inpatients with Cellulitis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of linezolid versus vancomycin in the treatment of adult hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated methicillin-resistant staphylococcus Aureus Pneumonia (a systematic review).Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Review
- The future approach for the management of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2025Review
- ORItavancin as a therapeutic regimen for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices infections with multidrug-resistant Gram-positive cocci (ORI-4-CIEDi) pilot study: rationale and design.Cardiology journal · 2025Article
- Challenges in monitoring vancomycin in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: opportunities for mitigation utilizing OSHA's framework for mitigating workplace hazards.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Dalbavancin Sequential Therapy for Gram-Positive Bloodstream Infection: A Multicenter Observational Study.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2024Article
- GEO dataset mining analysis reveals novelFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2024Article
- Cost analysis of dalbavancin versus standard of care for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) in two Italian hospitals.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2023Article
- Role of Extracellular DNA in Dalbavancin Activity against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Biofilms in Patients with Skin and Soft Tissue Infections.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Current and future options for treating complicated skin and soft tissue infections: focus on fluoroquinolones and long-acting lipoglycopeptide antibiotics.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2021Article
- Comparative Analysis of Dalbavancin versus Other Antimicrobial Options for Gram-Positive Cocci Infections: Effectiveness, Hospital Stay and Mortality.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Dalbavancin Efficacy and Impact on Hospital Length-of-Stay and Treatment Costs in Different Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections.Clinical drug investigation · 2021Article
- Review: A Safety Profile of Dalbavancin for On- and Off-Label Utilization.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2021Review
- Real-World Use of Dalbavancin in the Era of Empowerment of Outpatient Antimicrobial Treatment: A Careful Appraisal Beyond Approved Indications Focusing on Unmet Clinical Needs.Drug design, development and therapy · 2021Review
- New Antibiotics for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Soft Tissue Infections in Pediatrics.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Septic arthritis in the antimicrobial stewardship era.Internal and emergency medicine · 2020Article
- Considerations and Caveats in Combating ESKAPE Pathogens against Nosocomial Infections.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2020Review
- Clinical Efficacy of Tonic Traditional Chinese Medicine Injection on Acute Cerebral Infarction: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Review
- New Molecular Tools for Regulation and Improvement of A40926 Glycopeptide Antibiotic Production inFrontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSkin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) carry significant economic burden, as well as morbidity and mortality, especially when caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Several new MRSA-active antibiotics have been developed, including semisynthetic glycopeptides (telavancin, dalbavancin and oritavancin). Of these, dalbavancin and oritavancin offer extended dosing intervals.
methodsWe performed a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost analysis to compare the newer glycopeptides to standard care and to each other for the treatment of complicated SSTIs (cSSTI). A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We also developed a model to evaluate the costs associated with dalbavancin and oritavancin from the third-party payer perspective.
resultsSeven RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Network meta-analyses suggested that the clinical response to telavancin, dalbavancin and oritavancin was similar to standard care (odds ratio (OR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-1.33; OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52-1.18; and OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85-1.33, respectively). Head-to-head comparisons showed no difference in clinical response between oritavancin and dalbavancin (OR 1.36; 95% CI 0.85-2.18), oritavancin and telavancin (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.72-1.31) or dalbavancin and telavancin (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.45-1.13). Telavancin had a higher incidence of overall adverse events compared to standard care (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.10-1.61). Compared to telavancin, there were fewer overall adverse events with dalbavancin (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.45-0.76) and oritavancin (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.55-0.92). Studies were of high quality overall. Our cost analyses demonstrated that dalbavancin and oritavancin were less costly compared to standard care under baseline assumptions and many scenarios evaluated. The use of dalbavancin could save third-party payers $1442 to $4803 per cSSTI, while the use of oritavancin could save $3571 to $6932 per cSSTI.
conclusionsDalbavancin and oritavancin demonstrate efficacy and safety comparable to standard care in well-designed RCTs and result in cost savings when standard care is treatment that covers MRSA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.