ArticleInfection and drug resistance2018
Daptomycin versus teicoplanin for bloodstream infection due to methicillin-resistant
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and in vitro evaluation of teicoplanin PEGylated (TEC-PEGylated) niosomes for antimicrobial and anti-biofilm activity against vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (VISA).BMC biotechnology · 2026Article
- Formulation and Characterization of Teicoplanin Niosomal Gel for Healing Chronic Wounds Infected with Methicillin-ResistantGels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Teicoplanin versus β-lactam for febrile patients with Staphylococcus-like bacteremia: focus on methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent reports have described decreased effectiveness of teicoplanin in the treatment of bacteremia due to methicillin-resistant PATIENTS AND
methodsTo compare the clinical outcome among patients with bacteremia due to MRSA with teicoplanin MIC ≥1.5 mg/L, we included patients who received high-dose daptomycin (≥8 mg/kg/day) and those who received standard-dose (6 mg/kg/day) or high-dose (6 mg/kg/12 hours) maintenance teicoplanin. The primary endpoint was a favorable outcome, defined as the resolution of clinical signs and symptoms and a negative culture report at the end of therapy. Adjusted analyses were performed by multivariate analysis and propensity score-based matching.
resultsOf 142 patients eligible for inclusion, 28 (19.7%) were treated with high-dose daptomycin, 27 (19.0%) with high-dose teicoplanin, and 87 (61.3%) with standard-dose teicoplanin. In multivariate regression analysis, Pittsburgh bacteremia score ≥4 (OR, 5.3; 95%CI, 1.9-14.5) was independently associated with an unfavorable outcome. After propensity-score matching with age and Pittsburgh bacteremia score ≥4, patients on high-dose daptomycin were more likely to have favorable outcomes than those on standard-dose teicoplanin (74.1% vs 42.6%;
conclusionTreatment with high-dose daptomycin resulted in significantly better outcomes than with standard-dose teicoplanin in the treatment of MRSA bacteremia with teicoplanin MIC ≥1.5 mg/L. However, the clinical outcome of the patients receiving high-dose teicoplanin was similar to that of the patients receiving high-dose daptomycin.
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.