Efficacy and safety of dalbavancin in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections.

OBJECTIVES

In this meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of dalbavancin compared with commonly used anti-Gram-positive agents.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception up to 25 February 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of dalbavancin with other antibiotics against Gram-positive infections were included. Reviews, conference abstracts, editorials, case reports, studies on healthy people, or those lacking a comparator group or focusing on different dosages were excluded.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs comprising 2665 patients were included. Five RCTs included 2109 patients with skin and skin-structure infections (SSSIs) and the other two included patients with catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) and osteomyelitis, respectively. Clinical and microbiological responses to dalbavancin were similar to other antibiotics in treating infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria, including the SSSI subgroup. Clinical response to dalbavancin showed superiority in the CRBSI and osteomyelitis subgroups. No significant difference was observed between dalbavancin and other treatments in terms of adverse events (AEs), adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and serious AEs. However, the single-dose regimen had significantly more AEs compared with the comparator group, while the dual-dose regimen resulted in fewer AEs and ADRs and a lower incidence of diarrhoea compared with the comparator group. Moreover, the dalbavancin group showed a decreased mortality risk compared with other treatments.

CONCLUSION

Dalbavancin was comparable with other antibiotics in treating chronic Gram-positive infections in terms of efficacy and safety. The dual-dose regimen showed a better safety profile compared with the single-dose regimen in the treatment of SSSIs.