Ceftazidime-avibactam combination therapy versus monotherapy for treating carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infection: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
{"title":"Ceftazidime-avibactam combination therapy versus monotherapy for treating carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infection: a systemic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Wei Hsu, Min-Hsiang Chuang, Wen-Wen Tsai, Chih-Cheng Lai, Hsin-Yu Lai, Hung-Jen Tang","doi":"10.1007/s15010-024-02277-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam combination therapy with that of monotherapy in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacterial (CR-GNB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted until September 1, 2023. Only studies that compared CZA combination therapy with monotherapy for CR-GNB infections were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 25 studies (23 retrospective observational studies and 2 prospective studies) involving 2676 patients were included. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the study group receiving combination therapy and the control group receiving monotherapy (risk ratio [RR] 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.18). In addition, no significant differences were observed between the study and the control group in terms of in-hospital mortality (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.79-1.27), 14-day mortality (RR 1.54; 95% CI 0.24-9.91), 90-day mortality (RR 1.18; 95% CI 0.62-2.22), and clinical cure rate (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.84-1.08). However, the combination group had a borderline higher microbiological eradication rate than the control group (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.00-1.32).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to monotherapy, CZA combination therapy did not yield additional clinical benefits. However, combination therapy may be associated with favorable microbiological outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":13600,"journal":{"name":"Infection","volume":" ","pages":"2029-2042"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-024-02277-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam combination therapy with that of monotherapy in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacterial (CR-GNB).
Methods: A literature search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted until September 1, 2023. Only studies that compared CZA combination therapy with monotherapy for CR-GNB infections were included.
Results: A total of 25 studies (23 retrospective observational studies and 2 prospective studies) involving 2676 patients were included. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the study group receiving combination therapy and the control group receiving monotherapy (risk ratio [RR] 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.18). In addition, no significant differences were observed between the study and the control group in terms of in-hospital mortality (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.79-1.27), 14-day mortality (RR 1.54; 95% CI 0.24-9.91), 90-day mortality (RR 1.18; 95% CI 0.62-2.22), and clinical cure rate (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.84-1.08). However, the combination group had a borderline higher microbiological eradication rate than the control group (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.00-1.32).
Conclusions: Compared to monotherapy, CZA combination therapy did not yield additional clinical benefits. However, combination therapy may be associated with favorable microbiological outcomes.
期刊介绍：
Infection is a journal dedicated to serving as a global forum for the presentation and discussion of clinically relevant information on infectious diseases. Its primary goal is to engage readers and contributors from various regions around the world in the exchange of knowledge about the etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases, both in outpatient and inpatient settings.
The journal covers a wide range of topics, including:
Etiology: The study of the causes of infectious diseases.
Pathogenesis: The process by which an infectious agent causes disease.
Diagnosis: The methods and techniques used to identify infectious diseases.
Treatment: The medical interventions and strategies employed to treat infectious diseases.
Public Health: Issues of local, regional, or international significance related to infectious diseases, including prevention, control, and management strategies.
Hospital Epidemiology: The study of the spread of infectious diseases within healthcare settings and the measures to prevent nosocomial infections.
In addition to these, Infection also includes a specialized "Images" section, which focuses on high-quality visual content, such as images, photographs, and microscopic slides, accompanied by brief abstracts. This section is designed to highlight the clinical and diagnostic value of visual aids in the field of infectious diseases, as many conditions present with characteristic clinical signs that can be diagnosed through inspection, and imaging and microscopy are crucial for accurate diagnosis. The journal's comprehensive approach ensures that it remains a valuable resource for healthcare professionals and researchers in the field of infectious diseases.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
