Meta-analysis on safety of standard vs. prolonged infusion of beta-lactams

Abstract

Background

Efficacy for prolonged infusion beta-lactam dosing schemes has been previously described, but there has been less focus on the safety of standard vs. prolonged infusion protocols of beta-lactams. This study explored differences in adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported for beta-lactams between each of these infusion protocols.

Methods

A systematic review of MEDLINE literature databases via PubMed was conducted and references were reviewed. Articles were compiled and assessed with specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included randomised and nonrandomised, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies that reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) due to either standard (30–60 mins) or prolonged (≥3 h) infusions of beta-lactam infusions. Total ADRs between strategies were analysed by infusion methodology. The most consistently reported ADRs were subject to meta-analysis across studies.

Results

12 studies met inclusion/exclusion criteria with data for 4163 patients. There was insufficient data to systematically analyse neurotoxicity or cytopenias. Seven studies reported on nephrotoxicity outcomes with no significant difference in event rates between standard (n = 434/2258,19.2%) vs. prolonged infusion (n = 266/1271, 20.9%) of beta-lactams (OR = 1.08, 95% CI [0.91, 1.29]). Six studies observed diarrhoea in a total of 759 patients with no significant difference in patients of standard (n = 18/399, 4.5%) vs. prolonged (n = 19/360, 5.3%) infusion of beta-lactams (OR = 1.14, 95% CI [0.59,2.20]).

Conclusion

Prolonged and standard infusion schemes for beta-lactams demonstrated similar adverse event rates. Future research should focus on improved standardisation of adverse effect definitions and a priori aim to study neurotoxicity and cytopenias. Consistent recording of ADRs and standardised definitions of these reactions will be paramount to further study of this subject.