Supplemental Table 1: Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Bacteriostatic vs.

Bactericidal Therapy

Author, Year Type of Prospective Disease Bacteriostatic Bactericidal Clinical Efficacy Findings

(Reference) Randomized Controlled Study Agents Agents

Skin Structure Infections

Breedt et al, double-blind, multicenter Complicated SSTI Tigecycline Vancomycin plus No significant difference.

2005 [1] aztreonam

Chuang et al, Two international, Phase 3, Complicated SSTI Tigecycline Vancomycin plus No significant difference.

2011 [2] double-blind studies aztreonam

Ellis-Grosse et Two Phase 3, double-blind SSTI Tigecycline Vancomycin plus No significant difference.

al, 2005 [3] studies aztreonam

Sacchidanand Phase 3, double-blind, Complicated SSTI Tigecycline Vancomycin plus No significant difference.

et al, 2005 [4] multicenter aztreonam

Itani et al, Phase 4, open-label, Complicated SSTI Linezolid Vancomycin Linezolid (static) superior.

2010 [5] multicenter

Weigelt et al, Open-label, multicenter Complicated SSTI Linezolid Vancomycin No significant difference.

2005 [6]

Jauregui et al, Phase 3, double-blind, Complicated SSTI Linezolid Dalbavancin No significant difference.

2005 [7] multicenter

Stevens et al, Double-blind, multicenter Complicated SSTI Linezolid Oxacillin/ No significant difference.

2000 [8] dicloxacillin

Bernard et al, prospective, multicenter Complicated SSTI Roxithromycin Penicillin No significant difference.

1992 [9]

Cenizal et al, Open-label, single center Outpatient SSTI Doxycycline TMP-SMX No significant difference.

2007 [10]

Wilcox et al, Open-label, multicenter Complicated SSTI and Catheter- Linezolid Vancomycin No significant difference.

2009 [11] related bloodstream infections

Pneumonia

Rubinstein et Double-blind, multicenter Nosocomial Pneumonia Linezolid Vancomycin No significant difference.

al, 2001 [12]

Freire et al, Phase 3, double-blind, Nosocomial Pneumonia Tigecycline Imipenem Imipenem (cidal) superior.

2010 [13] multicenter (subtherapeutic

dose)

Ramirez et al, Phase 2, double-blind, Nosocomial Pneumonia Tigecycline Imipenem No significant difference.

2013 [14] multicenter (high dose)

Bergallo et al, Phase 3, multicenter, double- Community-Acquired Pneumonia Tigecycline Levofloxacin No significant difference.

2009 [15] blind study

Dartois et al, Phase 3, double-blind Community-Acquired Pneumonia Tigecycline Levofloxacin No significant difference.

2008 [16] multicenter

Tanaseanu et Two Phase 3, double-blind, Community-Acquired Pneumonia Tigecycline Levofloxacin No significant difference.

al, 2008 [17] multicenter studies

Tanaseanu et Phase 3, double-blind, Community-Acquired Pneumonia Tigecycline Levofloxacin No significant difference.

al, 2009 [18] multicenter

Bohte et al, Open-label, randomized, Community-Acquired Pneumonia Azithromycin Penicillin No significant difference.

1995 [19] multicenter

Genne et al, Open-label, single center Community-Acquired Pneumonia Amoxicillin- Clarithromycin No significant difference.

1997 [20] clavunanate

Kuzman et al, Open-label, international Community-Acquired Pneumonia Azithromycin Cefuroxime No significant difference.

2005 [21] multicenter

Mokabberi et Double-blind, single center Community-Acquired Pneumonia Doxycycline Levofloxacin No significant difference.

al, 2010 [22]

Plouffe et al, Two Phase 3, open-label Community-Acquired Pneumonia Azithromycin Cefuroxime No significant difference.

2000 [23] studies

Asghar et al, Open-label, international Severe Community-Acquired Chloramphenicol Ampicillin plus No significant difference.

2008 [24] multicenter Pediatric Pneumonia gentamicin

Duke et al, Open-label, multicenter Severe Community-Acquired Chloramphenicol Benzylpenicillin plus No significant difference.

2002 [25] Pediatric Pneumonia gentamicin

Ragnar et al, Double-blind, international Atypical Community-Acquired Doxycycline Fleroxacin No significant difference.

1997 [26] multicenter Pneumonia

Jacobson et al, Double-blind, single-center Aspiration Pneumonia in Children Clindamycin Penicillin No significant difference.

1997 [27]

Kadowaki et Open-label, multicenter Aspiration Pneumonia in Elderly Clindamycin Ampicillin/sulbactam or No significant difference.

al, 2004 [28] panipenem/betamipro

 m

Intra-Abdominal Infections

Chen et al, Phase 3, multicenter, open- Complicated intra-abdominal Tigecycline Imipenem No significant difference.

2010 [29] label infections

Oliva et al, Double-blind, multicenter Complicated intra-abdominal Tigecycline Imipenem No significant difference.

2005 [30] infections

Qvist et al, Phase 3b/4, open-label, Complicated intra-abdominal Tigecycline Ceftriaxone plus No significant difference.

2012 [31] multicenter infections metronidazole

Towfigh et al, Phase 3b/4, open-label, Complicated intra-abdominal Tigecycline Ceftriaxone plus No significant difference.

2010 [32] multicenter infections metronidazole

Solomkin et al, Phase 2, double-blind, Complicated intra-abdominal Eravacycline Ertapenem No significant difference.

2014 [33] international multicenter infections

Solomkin et al, Phase 2, double-blind, Complicated intra-abdominal Eravacycline Ertapenem No significant difference.

2017 [34] multicenter infections

Pathogen-Specific Infections

Begum et al, Open-label, single center Typhoid fever Azithromycin Cefixime No significant difference.

2014 [35]

Frenck et al, Open-label, single center Typhoid fever Azithromycin Ceftriaxone No significant difference.

2000 [36]
Girgis et al, Open-label, single center Typhoid fever Azithromycin Ciprofloxacin No significant difference

1999 [37]

Acharya et al, Open-label, single center Typhoid fever Chloramphenicol Ceftriaxone No significant difference.

1995 [38]

Islam et al, Open-label, single center Typhoid fever Chloramphenicol Ceftriaxone No significant difference.

1988 [39]

Gasem et al, Open-label, single center Typhoid fever Chloramphenicol Ciprofloxacin No significant difference.

2003 [40]

Arjyal et al, Open-label, single center Typhoid fever Chloramphenicol Gatifloxacin No significant difference.

2011 [41]

Phongmany et Open-label, single center Typhoid fever Chloramphenicol Ofloxacin No significant difference.

al, 2004 [42]

Harbarth et al, Open-label, single center MRSA infections (SSTI, surgical site Linezolid TMP-SMX plus No significant difference.

2014 [43] infection, bacteremia, nosocomial rifampicin

pneumonia, osteoarticular,

abdominal, UTI)

Itani et al, Open-label, international MRSA complicated SSTI Linezolid Vancomycin Linezolid (static) superior.

2005 [44] multicenter

Sharpe et al, Open-label, single center MRSA complicated SSTI Linezolid Vancomycin Linezolid (static) superior.

2005 [45]

Kohno et al, Open-label, multicenter MRSA infections (complicated SSTI or Linezolid Vancomycin No significant difference.
2007 [46] nosocomial pneumonia)

Wunderink et Double-blind, multicenter MRSA pneumonia Linezolid Vancomycin Linezolid (static) superior.

al, 2012 [47]

Kaplan et al, Open-label, international Gram-positive infections in children Linezolid Vancomycin No significant difference.

2003 [48] multicenter (SSTI, pneumonia, bacteremia)

Lin et al, 2008 Double-blind, multicenter Gram-positive infections (nosocomial Linezolid Vancomycin Linezolid (static) superior.

[49] pneumonia or complicated SSTI)

Cepeda et al, Double-blind, multicenter Gram-positive infections in critically Linezolid Teicoplanin No significant difference.

2004 [50] ill patients (nosocomial pneumonia,

SSTI, bacteremia, osteoarticular)

Wilcox et al, Phase IIIb, open-label Gram-positive infections Linezolid Teicoplanin No significant difference.

2004 [51] international multicenter (pneumonia, SSTI, bacteremia)

San Pedro et Open-label, multicenter Pneumococcal pneumonia Linezolid Ceftriaxone/ Linezolid (static) superior.

al, 2002 [52] cefpodoxime

Geisler et al, Double-blind, multicenter Genital Chlamydia trachomatis in Azithromycin Rifalazil No significant difference.

2014 [53] women

Greaves et al, Open-label, single center Bacterial vaginosis due to Clindamycin (static Metronidazole No significant difference.

1988 [54] Gardnerella vaginalis for anaerobes)

Mwengee et Open-label, single center Plague Doxycycline Gentamicin No significant difference.

al, 2006 [55]

Febrile Neutropenia
 Jaksic et al, Double-blind, multicenter Proven of suspected Gram-positive Linezolid Vancomycin No significant difference.

2006 [56] infections in febrile, neutropenic

cancer patients

Abbreviations: MRSA methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, SSTI skin and soft tissue infections, UTI urinary tract infections

1
2
3 References
4

5 1. Breedt J, Teras J, Gardovskis J, et al. Safety and efficacy of tigecycline in treatment of skin and skin structure infections:

6 results of a double-blind phase 3 comparison study with vancomycin-aztreonam. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy

7 2005; 49(11): 4658-66.

8 2. Chuang YC, Chang CM, Aradhya S, et al. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy compared with vancomycin-

9 aztreonam in the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections in patients from India and Taiwan. J Microbiol

10 Immunol Infect 2011; 44(2): 116-24.

11 3. Ellis-Grosse EJ, Babinchak T, Dartois N, et al. The efficacy and safety of tigecycline in the treatment of skin and skin-structure

12 infections: results of 2 double-blind phase 3 comparison studies with vancomycin-aztreonam. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41 Suppl 5:

13 S341-53.
 1 4. Sacchidanand S, Penn RL, Embil JM, et al. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy compared with vancomycin plus

2 aztreonam in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections: Results from a phase 3, randomized, double-blind

3 trial. Int J Infect Dis 2005; 9(5): 251-61.

4 5. Itani KM, Dryden MS, Bhattacharyya H, Kunkel MJ, Baruch AM, Weigelt JA. Efficacy and safety of linezolid versus

5 vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections proven to be caused by methicillin-resistant

6 Staphylococcus aureus. American journal of surgery 2010; 199(6): 804-16.

7 6. Weigelt J, Itani K, Stevens D, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections.

8 Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49(6): 2260-6.

9 7. Jauregui LE, Babazadeh S, Seltzer E, et al. Randomized, double-blind comparison of once-weekly dalbavancin versus twice-

10 daily linezolid therapy for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41(10): 1407-

11 15.

12 8. Stevens DL, Smith LG, Bruss JB, et al. Randomized comparison of linezolid (PNU-100766) versus oxacillin-dicloxacillin for

13 treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44(12): 3408-13.

14 9. Bernard P, Plantin P, Roger H, et al. Roxithromycin versus penicillin in the treatment of erysipelas in adults: a comparative

15 study. Br J Dermatol 1992; 127(2): 155-9.

 1 10. Cenizal MJ, Skiest D, Luber S, et al. Prospective randomized trial of empiric therapy with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or

2 doxycycline for outpatient skin and soft tissue infections in an area of high prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus

3 aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007; 51(7): 2628-30.

4 11. Wilcox MH, Tack KJ, Bouza E, et al. Complicated skin and skin-structure infections and catheter-related bloodstream

5 infections: noninferiority of linezolid in a phase 3 study. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48(2): 203-12.

6 12. Rubinstein E, Cammarata S, Oliphant T, Wunderink R, Linezolid Nosocomial Pneumonia Study G. Linezolid (PNU-100766)

7 versus vancomycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized, double-blind,

8 multicenter study. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32(3): 402-12.

9 13. Freire AT, Melnyk V, Kim MJ, et al. Comparison of tigecycline with imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of hospital-

10 acquired pneumonia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2010; 68(2): 140-51.

11 14. Ramirez J, Dartois N, Gandjini H, Yan JL, Korth-Bradley J, McGovern PC. Randomized Phase 2 Trial To Evaluate the

12 Clinical Efficacy of Two High-Dosage Tigecycline Regimens versus Imipenem-Cilastatin for Treatment of Hospital-Acquired

13 Pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57(4): 1756-62.

14 15. Bergallo C, Jasovich A, Teglia O, et al. Safety and efficacy of intravenous tigecycline in treatment of community-acquired

15 pneumonia: results from a double-blind randomized phase 3 comparison study with levofloxacin. Diagnostic microbiology and

16 infectious disease 2009; 63(1): 52-61.

 1 16. Dartois N, Castaing N, Gandjini H, Cooper A, Tigecycline 313 Study G. Tigecycline versus levofloxacin for the treatment of

2 community-acquired pneumonia: European experience. J Chemother 2008; 20 Suppl 1: 28-35.

3 17. Tanaseanu C, Bergallo C, Teglia O, et al. Integrated results of 2 phase 3 studies comparing tigecycline and levofloxacin in

4 community-acquired pneumonia. Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 2008; 61(3): 329-38.

5 18. Tanaseanu C, Milutinovic S, Calistru PI, et al. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline versus levofloxacin for community-acquired

6 pneumonia. BMC Pulm Med 2009; 9: 44.

7 19. Bohte R, van't Wout JW, Lobatto S, et al. Efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus benzylpenicillin or erythromycin in

8 community-acquired pneumonia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 14(3): 182-7.

9 20. Genne D, Siegrist HH, Humair L, Janin-Jaquat B, de Torrente A. Clarithromycin versus amoxicillin-clavulanic acid in the

10 treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1997; 16(11): 783-8.

11 21. Kuzman I, Dakovic-Rode O, Oremus M, Banaszak AM. Clinical efficacy and safety of a short regimen of azithromycin

12 sequential therapy vs standard cefuroxime sequential therapy in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: an

13 international, randomized, open-label study. J Chemother 2005; 17(6): 636-42.

14 22. Mokabberi R, Haftbaradaran A, Ravakhah K. Doxycycline vs. levofloxacin in the treatment of community-acquired

15 pneumonia. Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics 2010; 35(2): 195-200.

 1 23. Plouffe J, Schwartz DB, Kolokathis A, et al. Clinical efficacy of intravenous followed by oral azithromycin monotherapy in

2 hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia. The Azithromycin Intravenous Clinical Trials Group.

3 Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy 2000; 44(7): 1796-802.

4 24. Asghar R, Banajeh S, Egas J, et al. Chloramphenicol versus ampicillin plus gentamicin for community acquired very severe

5 pneumonia among children aged 2-59 months in low resource settings: multicentre randomised controlled trial (SPEAR study).

6 Bmj 2008; 336(7635): 80-4.

7 25. Duke T, Poka H, Dale F, Michael A, Mgone J, Wal T. Chloramphenicol versus benzylpenicillin and gentamicin for the

8 treatment of severe pneumonia in children in Papua New Guinea: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359(9305): 474-80.

9 26. Ragnar Norrby S. Atypical pneumonia in the Nordic countries: aetiology and clinical results of a trial comparing fleroxacin

10 and doxycycline. Nordic Atypical Pneumonia Study Group. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 39(4): 499-508.

11 27. Jacobson SJ, Griffiths K, Diamond S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of penicillin vs clindamycin for the treatment of

12 aspiration pneumonia in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1997; 151(7): 701-4.

13 28. Kadowaki M, Demura Y, Mizuno S, et al. Reappraisal of clindamycin IV monotherapy for treatment of mild-to-moderate

14 aspiration pneumonia in elderly patients. Chest 2005; 127(4): 1276-82.

15 29. Chen Z, Wu J, Zhang Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy vs. imipenem/cilastatin in Chinese patients with

16 complicated intra-abdominal infections: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Infect Dis 2010; 10: 217.
 1 30. Oliva ME, Rekha A, Yellin A, et al. A multicenter trial of the efficacy and safety of tigecycline versus imipenem/cilastatin in

2 patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections [Study ID Numbers: 3074A1-301-WW; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:

3 NCT00081744]. BMC Infect Dis 2005; 5: 88.

4 31. Qvist N, Warren B, Leister-Tebbe H, et al. Efficacy of tigecycline versus ceftriaxone plus metronidazole for the treatment of

5 complicated intra-abdominal infections: results from a randomized, controlled trial. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2012; 13(2): 102-9.

6 32. Towfigh S, Pasternak J, Poirier A, Leister H, Babinchak T. A multicentre, open-label, randomized comparative study of

7 tigecycline versus ceftriaxone sodium plus metronidazole for the treatment of hospitalized subjects with complicated intra-

8 abdominal infections. Clin Microbiol Infect 2010; 16(8): 1274-81.

9 33. Solomkin JS, Ramesh MK, Cesnauskas G, et al. Phase 2, randomized, double-blind study of the efficacy and safety of two

10 dose regimens of eravacycline versus ertapenem for adult community-acquired complicated intra-abdominal infections.

11 Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58(4): 1847-54.

12 34. Solomkin J, Evans D, Slepavicius A, et al. Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Eravacycline vs Ertapenem in Complicated

13 Intra-abdominal Infections in the Investigating Gram-Negative Infections Treated With Eravacycline (IGNITE 1) Trial: A

14 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg 2017; 152(3): 224-32.

15 35. Begum B, Haque MA, Ahmed MS, et al. Comparison between azithromycin and cefixime in the treatment of typhoid fever in

16 children. Mymensingh Med J 2014; 23(3): 441-8.

 1 36. Frenck RW, Jr., Nakhla I, Sultan Y, et al. Azithromycin versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of uncomplicated typhoid fever in

2 children. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31(5): 1134-8.

3 37. Girgis NI, Butler T, Frenck RW, et al. Azithromycin versus ciprofloxacin for treatment of uncomplicated typhoid fever in a

4 randomized trial in Egypt that included patients with multidrug resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43(6): 1441-4.

5 38. Acharya G, Butler T, Ho M, et al. Treatment of typhoid fever: randomized trial of a three-day course of ceftriaxone versus a

6 fourteen-day course of chloramphenicol. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene 1995; 52(2): 162-5.

7 39. Islam A, Butler T, Nath SK, et al. Randomized treatment of patients with typhoid fever by using ceftriaxone or

8 chloramphenicol. J Infect Dis 1988; 158(4): 742-7.

9 40. Gasem MH, Keuter M, Dolmans WM, Van Der Ven-Jongekrijg J, Djokomoeljanto R, Van Der Meer JW. Persistence of

10 Salmonellae in blood and bone marrow: randomized controlled trial comparing ciprofloxacin and chloramphenicol treatments

11 against enteric fever. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47(5): 1727-31.

12 41. Arjyal A, Basnyat B, Koirala S, et al. Gatifloxacin versus chloramphenicol for uncomplicated enteric fever: an open-label,

13 randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2011; 11(6): 445-54.

14 42. Phongmany S, Phetsouvanh R, Sisouphone S, et al. A randomized comparison of oral chloramphenicol versus ofloxacin in the

15 treatment of uncomplicated typhoid fever in Laos. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2005; 99(6): 451-8.

16 43. Harbarth S, von Dach E, Pagani L, et al. Randomized non-inferiority trial to compare trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus

17 rifampicin versus linezolid for the treatment of MRSA infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015; 70(1): 264-72.
 1 44. Itani KM, Weigelt J, Li JZ, Duttagupta S. Linezolid reduces length of stay and duration of intravenous treatment compared

2 with vancomycin for complicated skin and soft tissue infections due to suspected or proven methicillin-resistant

3 Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Int J Antimicrob Agents 2005; 26(6): 442-8.

4 45. Sharpe JN, Shively EH, Polk HC, Jr. Clinical and economic outcomes of oral linezolid versus intravenous vancomycin in the

5 treatment of MRSA-complicated, lower-extremity skin and soft-tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant

6 Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Surg 2005; 189(4): 425-8.

7 46. Kohno S, Yamaguchi K, Aikawa N, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of infections caused by methicillin-

8 resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Japan. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007; 60(6): 1361-9.

9 47. Wunderink RG, Niederman MS, Kollef MH, et al. Linezolid in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nosocomial

10 Pneumonia: A Randomized, Controlled Study. Clin Infect Dis 2012.

11 48. Kaplan SL, Deville JG, Yogev R, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin for treatment of resistant Gram-positive infections in

12 children. The Pediatric infectious disease journal 2003; 22(8): 677-86.

13 49. Lin DF, Zhang YY, Wu JF, et al. Linezolid for the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive pathogens in China. Int J

14 Antimicrob Agents 2008; 32(3): 241-9.

15 50. Cepeda JA, Whitehouse T, Cooper B, et al. Linezolid versus teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections in the

16 critically ill: a randomized, double-blind, multicentre study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 53(2): 345-55.
 1 51. Wilcox M, Nathwani D, Dryden M. Linezolid compared with teicoplanin for the treatment of suspected or proven Gram-

2 positive infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 53(2): 335-44.

3 52. San Pedro GS, Cammarata SK, Oliphant TH, Todisco T, Linezolid Community-Acquired Pneumonia Study G. Linezolid

4 versus ceftriaxone/cefpodoxime in patients hospitalized for the treatment of Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia.

5 Scandinavian journal of infectious diseases 2002; 34(10): 720-8.

6 53. Geisler WM, Pascual ML, Mathew J, et al. Randomized, double-blind, multicenter safety and efficacy study of rifalazil

7 compared with azithromycin for treatment of uncomplicated genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women. Antimicrob

8 Agents Chemother 2014; 58(7): 4014-9.

9 54. Greaves WL, Chungafung J, Morris B, Haile A, Townsend JL. Clindamycin versus metronidazole in the treatment of bacterial

10 vaginosis. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72(5): 799-802.

11 55. Mwengee W, Butler T, Mgema S, et al. Treatment of plague with gentamicin or doxycycline in a randomized clinical trial in

12 Tanzania. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42(5): 614-21.

13 56. Jaksic B, Martinelli G, Perez-Oteyza J, Hartman CS, Leonard LB, Tack KJ. Efficacy and safety of linezolid compared with

14 vancomycin in a randomized, double-blind study of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42(5): 597-

15 607.