The Effectiveness of Linezolid and Teicoplanin for Managing Infections After Burn Injuries: A Retrospective Study

ABSTRACT Background and Aims Gram‐positive infections in burn patients present significant treatment challenges. This study compared the efficacy and safety of linezolid vs. teicoplanin for managing such infections in a clinical setting. Methods We conducted a retrospective study involving 77 burn patients with confirmed Gram‐positive infections at Shahid Motahari Hospital (2020–2022). Participants were allocated to: linezolid 600 mg BID ( n = 40), teicoplanin 400 mg daily ( n = 32), or combination therapy ( n = 5). Primary endpoints were treatment duration and mortality; secondary endpoints included safety outcomes. Statistical analyses used SPSS v25 with two‐tailed tests ( α = 0.05). Results Linezolid demonstrated superior outcomes compared to teicoplanin: treatment duration was significantly shorter (5.68 ± 2.88 vs. 10.53 ± 6.86 days; mean difference −4.85 [95% CI −7.12 to −2.58], p < 0.001), mortality lower (5.0% vs. 40.6%; OR = 0.09 [0.02–0.42], p = 0.002), and time to clinical improvement faster (4.94 ± 2.21 vs. 9.88 ± 5.95 days, p < 0.001). Safety profiles were comparable (thrombocytopenia: 5.0% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.602). Conclusion Linezolid showed significantly better efficacy than teicoplanin for Gram‐positive burn infections, with reduced treatment duration and mortality while maintaining similar safety. Teicoplanin remains an alternative for specific cases.