Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are life-threatening infections often caused by toxin-producing bacteria. Clindamycin has historically been favoured for its toxin-inhibiting properties but increasing resistance and adverse effects have prompted interest in alternatives. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of linezolid versus clindamycin plus anti-gram-positive therapy in patients with severe or necrotizing skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs).</p> Methods <p>A systematic literature search through December 12, 2024, was conducted across eight databases and clinical trial registries. Studies comparing linezolid-containing regimens to clindamycin plus anti-gram-positive therapy in patients with severe SSTIs were included. Outcomes of interest included ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, mortality, ventilator days, vasopressor days, antimicrobial duration, and adverse effects. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for ICU LOS and hospital LOS.</p> Results <p>Of 310 articles screened, four retrospective studies met inclusion criteria. Moderate to significant risk of bias was present. No significant differences were observed in ICU LOS (mean difference [MD]: -0.001&#xa0;days; 95% CI: -1.110 to 1.107; p = 0.998; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.8%) or hospital LOS (MD: -2.797&#xa0;days; 95% CI: -7.027 to 1.433; p = 0.195). Two studies reported lower rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) with linezolid. Mortality data were limited. No other significant differences were found.</p> Conclusions <p>No significant difference in ICU and hospital length of stay were noted between linezolid and clindamycin-based regimens. Lower rates of AKI were reported with linezolid. However, given the study design and potential risk of bias these results should be interpreted with caution.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Linezolid versus clindamycin for toxin inhibition in severe skin and soft tissue infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月8日

查看全文
  • Ashton Stropes,
  • Caleb Lautenschlager,
  • Andrew Smith,
  • Taylor D. Steuber,
  • Morgan Sperry

摘要

Purpose

Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are life-threatening infections often caused by toxin-producing bacteria. Clindamycin has historically been favoured for its toxin-inhibiting properties but increasing resistance and adverse effects have prompted interest in alternatives. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of linezolid versus clindamycin plus anti-gram-positive therapy in patients with severe or necrotizing skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs).

Methods

A systematic literature search through December 12, 2024, was conducted across eight databases and clinical trial registries. Studies comparing linezolid-containing regimens to clindamycin plus anti-gram-positive therapy in patients with severe SSTIs were included. Outcomes of interest included ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, mortality, ventilator days, vasopressor days, antimicrobial duration, and adverse effects. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for ICU LOS and hospital LOS.

Results

Of 310 articles screened, four retrospective studies met inclusion criteria. Moderate to significant risk of bias was present. No significant differences were observed in ICU LOS (mean difference [MD]: -0.001 days; 95% CI: -1.110 to 1.107; p = 0.998; I2 = 0.8%) or hospital LOS (MD: -2.797 days; 95% CI: -7.027 to 1.433; p = 0.195). Two studies reported lower rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) with linezolid. Mortality data were limited. No other significant differences were found.

Conclusions

No significant difference in ICU and hospital length of stay were noted between linezolid and clindamycin-based regimens. Lower rates of AKI were reported with linezolid. However, given the study design and potential risk of bias these results should be interpreted with caution.