Efficiency of combination therapy versus monotherapy for the treatment of infections due to carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Chengcheng Lai, Zijun Ma, Jun Zhang, Junjun Wang, Jinghui Wang, Zhuanghao Wu, Yonggang Luo
{"title":"Efficiency of combination therapy versus monotherapy for the treatment of infections due to carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Chengcheng Lai, Zijun Ma, Jun Zhang, Junjun Wang, Jinghui Wang, Zhuanghao Wu, Yonggang Luo","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02695-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>For resistant Gram-positive bacteria, evidence suggests that combination therapy is more effective. However, for resistant Gram-negative bacteria, no consensus has been reached. This study aims to comprehensively summarize the evidence and evaluate the impact of combination versus monotherapy on infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CRGNB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Embase up to June 15, 2024, to identify relevant studies. This study included comparisons of monotherapy and combination therapy for treating infections caused by CRGNB. Topical antibiotics (i.e., inhalational or intratracheal administration) and monotherapy with sulbactam/relebactam was excluded. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were clinical success and microbiological eradication. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated in order to systematically assess effect of treatment on mortality, clinical success and microbiological eradication. Subgroup analyses, publication bias tests, and sensitivity analyses were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 62 studies, including 8342 participants, were analyzed, comprising 7 randomized controlled trials and 55 non-randomized studies. Monotherapy was associated with higher mortality (OR = 1.29, 95%CI: 1.11-1.51), lower clinical success (OR = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.56-0.98), and lower microbiological eradication (OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.55-0.91) compared to combination therapy for CRGNB infections. Specifically, patients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections receiving monotherapy had higher mortality (OR = 1.50, 95%CI: 1.15-1.95), comparable clinical success (OR = 0.57,95%CI: 0.28-1.16), and lower microbiological eradication (OR = 0.48,95%CI:0.25-0.91) than those receiving combination therapy. For carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infections, no significant differences were observed in mortality (OR = 1.15.95%CI: 0.90-1.47), clinical success (OR = 0.95,95%CI: 0.74-1.24) and microbiological eradication (OR = 0.78,95%CI: 0.54-1.12).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Monotherapy or combination therapy is controversial. The systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that monotherapy is associated with higher mortality, lower clinical success, and lower microbiological eradication for treating infection caused by CRGNB. The available evidence suggests that treatment should be selected based on the specific bacteria and antibiotic used. Monotherapy for CRE infections may lead to adverse outcomes. For CRAB infections, no significant differences were found between combination therapy and monotherapy.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42022331861.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"13 1","pages":"309"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11658076/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02695-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: For resistant Gram-positive bacteria, evidence suggests that combination therapy is more effective. However, for resistant Gram-negative bacteria, no consensus has been reached. This study aims to comprehensively summarize the evidence and evaluate the impact of combination versus monotherapy on infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CRGNB).

Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Embase up to June 15, 2024, to identify relevant studies. This study included comparisons of monotherapy and combination therapy for treating infections caused by CRGNB. Topical antibiotics (i.e., inhalational or intratracheal administration) and monotherapy with sulbactam/relebactam was excluded. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were clinical success and microbiological eradication. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated in order to systematically assess effect of treatment on mortality, clinical success and microbiological eradication. Subgroup analyses, publication bias tests, and sensitivity analyses were also performed.

Results: A total of 62 studies, including 8342 participants, were analyzed, comprising 7 randomized controlled trials and 55 non-randomized studies. Monotherapy was associated with higher mortality (OR = 1.29, 95%CI: 1.11-1.51), lower clinical success (OR = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.56-0.98), and lower microbiological eradication (OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.55-0.91) compared to combination therapy for CRGNB infections. Specifically, patients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections receiving monotherapy had higher mortality (OR = 1.50, 95%CI: 1.15-1.95), comparable clinical success (OR = 0.57,95%CI: 0.28-1.16), and lower microbiological eradication (OR = 0.48,95%CI:0.25-0.91) than those receiving combination therapy. For carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infections, no significant differences were observed in mortality (OR = 1.15.95%CI: 0.90-1.47), clinical success (OR = 0.95,95%CI: 0.74-1.24) and microbiological eradication (OR = 0.78,95%CI: 0.54-1.12).

Conclusions: Monotherapy or combination therapy is controversial. The systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that monotherapy is associated with higher mortality, lower clinical success, and lower microbiological eradication for treating infection caused by CRGNB. The available evidence suggests that treatment should be selected based on the specific bacteria and antibiotic used. Monotherapy for CRE infections may lead to adverse outcomes. For CRAB infections, no significant differences were found between combination therapy and monotherapy.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022331861.

联合治疗与单一治疗治疗碳青霉烯耐药革兰氏阴性菌感染的疗效:系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:对于耐药革兰氏阳性菌,证据表明联合治疗更有效。然而,对于耐药革兰氏阴性菌,尚未达成共识。本研究旨在全面总结证据并评估联合治疗与单药治疗对碳青霉烯耐药革兰氏阴性菌(CRGNB)感染的影响。方法:系统检索PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、Web of Science和Embase数据库,检索截止到2024年6月15日的相关研究。本研究比较了单药治疗和联合治疗对CRGNB感染的影响。排除局部抗生素(即吸入或气管内给药)和舒巴坦/瑞巴坦单药治疗。主要结局是死亡率,次要结局是临床成功和微生物根除。计算合并优势比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI),以便系统评估治疗对死亡率、临床成功率和微生物根除的影响。还进行了亚组分析、发表偏倚检验和敏感性分析。结果:共纳入62项研究,纳入受试者8342人,其中随机对照研究7项,非随机对照研究55项。与CRGNB感染的联合治疗相比,单药治疗与较高的死亡率(OR = 1.29, 95%CI: 1.11-1.51)、较低的临床成功率(OR = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.56-0.98)和较低的微生物根除(OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.55-0.91)相关。具体而言,与接受联合治疗的患者相比,接受单药治疗的碳青霉烯耐药肠杆菌科(CRE)感染患者死亡率更高(OR = 1.50, 95%CI: 1.15-1.95),临床成功率相当(OR = 0.57,95%CI: 0.28-1.16),微生物根除率更低(OR = 0.48,95%CI:0.25-0.91)。耐碳青霉烯鲍曼不动杆菌(CRAB)感染在死亡率(OR = 1.15.95%CI: 0.90-1.47)、临床成功率(OR = 0.95,95%CI: 0.74-1.24)和微生物根除(OR = 0.78,95%CI: 0.54-1.12)方面无显著差异。结论:单药或联合治疗存在争议。系统评价和荟萃分析表明,单药治疗CRGNB感染的死亡率较高,临床成功率较低,微生物根除率较低。现有证据表明,应根据所使用的特定细菌和抗生素选择治疗方法。单药治疗CRE感染可能导致不良后果。对于螃蟹感染,联合治疗和单一治疗之间没有发现显著差异。系统评价注册:PROSPERO CRD42022331861。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信