SCIRP Mobile Website
Paper Submission

Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.


Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat

Article citations


Wunderink, R.G., Rello, J., Cammarata, S.K., Croos-Dabrera, R.V. and Kollef, M.H. (2003) Linezolid vs Vancomycin: Analysis of Two Double-Blind Studies of Patients with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nosocomial Pneumonia. Chest, 124, 1789-1797.

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Linezolid versus Vancomycin for the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Hospital-Acquired, Ventilator-Associated, and Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia at Tertiary Care Hospital

    AUTHORS: Eman Mohammad Hamdan, Majda Al-Attas

    KEYWORDS: Linezolid, Vancomycin, Pneumonia, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureu

    JOURNAL NAME: Advances in Infectious Diseases, Vol.7 No.1, March 1, 2017

    ABSTRACT: Aim: To evaluate morbidity and mortality rate, clinical cure rate and cost of linezolid versus vancomycin in patients who have hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) or Healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Methods: Retrospective analysis data. Data were collected for adult patients admitted to King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre-Jeddah (KFSH & RC-J) from January 2010 to May 2015. Method: A total of 88 patients with HAP, VAP and HCAP caused by MRSA treated with vancomycin (IV) or linezolid (IV or PO) either as empirically or directed therapy ≥ 7 days. They are retrospectively evaluated and analyzed. The primary end points are morbidity and mortality rate as well as clinical cure rate. The secondary end point is the cost analysis for each medication. Results: A total of 40 patients (ICU, n = 13 (32.5% and non ICU, n = 27 (67.5%)) were included in the study. Among vancomycin, n = 21 (52.5%); age (54.95 ± 18.255) and linezolid, n = 19 (74.5%); age (48.684 ± 25.593), there was no statistical differences in mortality and morbidity rate (P = 0.375). Clinical cure rate (fever improvement, 12 (57.1%) vs 12 (63.2%); P = 0.698, leukocytosis improvement, 15 (71.4%) vs 14 (73.7%); P = 0.873, purulent sputum improvement, 6 (28.6%) vs 4 (21.1%); P = 0.429, dyspnea improvement, 8 (38.1%) vs 3 (15.8%); P = 0.115,cough improvement 4 (19.0%) vs 4 (21.1%); P = 0.592, microbiological eradication of MRSA from sputum culture, 2 (9.5%) vs 6 (31.6%); P = 0.089 and improvement of radiographic finding (pulmonary infiltration), 17 (81.0%) vs 16 (84.2%); P = 0.559) of vancomycin vs linezolid, respectively. The cost analysis in the treatment of MRSA pneumonia with linezolid is statistical significantly higher than vancomycin. The mean cost of vancomycin = 185.9143 SR and of linezolid = 4547.3684 SR (P Conclusion: There are no statistical differences in mortality and morbidity rate and clinical cure rate between linezolid and vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA in HAP, VAP, and HCAP. However, the cost of linezlid is significantly higher than vancomycin during the treatment period of one patient.