{"title":"短期抗生素与标准疗程抗生素治疗培养阴性新生儿败血症的疗效和安全性：系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Risha Devi, Mayank Priyadarshi, Poonam Singh, Suman Chaurasia, Sriparna Basu","doi":"10.1093/tropej/fmae002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a short course of antibiotics (2-4 days), to a standard course (5-7 days), for the treatment of culture-negative neonatal sepsis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Relevant databases were searched for RCTs comparing short- vs. standard-course of antibiotics for culture-negative sepsis. The primary outcomes were mortality and treatment failure, defined as the reappearance of clinical signs suggestive of sepsis within 7 days of stoppage of antibiotics. Secondary outcomes included neurological impairment, duration of hospital stay, need for oxygen, respiratory support and double-volume exchange transfusion (DVET).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven RCTs were included in the review with 729 neonates >30 weeks gestational age at birth. No mortality occurred in either of the groups (2 studies; 276 neonates). Treatment failure rates were similar in the short- and standard-course antibiotic groups [7 studies; 729 neonates; risk ratio (RR) = 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.55 to 1.86; very low certainty]. The short course of antibiotics resulted in a shorter hospital stay [3 studies; 293 neonates; mean difference (MD), -2.46 days; 95% CI, -3.16 to -1.75]. There was no difference in the need for oxygen supplementation (2 studies; 258 neonates; RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.40 to 4.91), any respiratory support (2 studies; 258 neonates; RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17) or DVET (2 studies; 258 neonates; RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.56 to 2.95).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Very-low certainty evidence suggests that a short antibiotic course, compared to a standard course, does not affect treatment failure rates in culture-negative neonatal sepsis. There is a need for well-designed RCTs powered enough to assess critical outcomes such as mortality and neurological sequelae to generate stronger evidence and inform guidelines.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023437199.</p>","PeriodicalId":17521,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Tropical Pediatrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of short- vs. standard-course antibiotics for culture-negative neonatal sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Risha Devi, Mayank Priyadarshi, Poonam Singh, Suman Chaurasia, Sriparna Basu\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tropej/fmae002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a short course of antibiotics (2-4 days), to a standard course (5-7 days), for the treatment of culture-negative neonatal sepsis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Relevant databases were searched for RCTs comparing short- vs. standard-course of antibiotics for culture-negative sepsis. The primary outcomes were mortality and treatment failure, defined as the reappearance of clinical signs suggestive of sepsis within 7 days of stoppage of antibiotics. Secondary outcomes included neurological impairment, duration of hospital stay, need for oxygen, respiratory support and double-volume exchange transfusion (DVET).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven RCTs were included in the review with 729 neonates >30 weeks gestational age at birth. No mortality occurred in either of the groups (2 studies; 276 neonates). Treatment failure rates were similar in the short- and standard-course antibiotic groups [7 studies; 729 neonates; risk ratio (RR) = 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.55 to 1.86; very low certainty]. The short course of antibiotics resulted in a shorter hospital stay [3 studies; 293 neonates; mean difference (MD), -2.46 days; 95% CI, -3.16 to -1.75]. There was no difference in the need for oxygen supplementation (2 studies; 258 neonates; RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.40 to 4.91), any respiratory support (2 studies; 258 neonates; RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17) or DVET (2 studies; 258 neonates; RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.56 to 2.95).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Very-low certainty evidence suggests that a short antibiotic course, compared to a standard course, does not affect treatment failure rates in culture-negative neonatal sepsis. There is a need for well-designed RCTs powered enough to assess critical outcomes such as mortality and neurological sequelae to generate stronger evidence and inform guidelines.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023437199.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17521,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Tropical Pediatrics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Tropical Pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tropej/fmae002\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Tropical Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tropej/fmae002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficacy and safety of short- vs. standard-course antibiotics for culture-negative neonatal sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a short course of antibiotics (2-4 days), to a standard course (5-7 days), for the treatment of culture-negative neonatal sepsis.
Methods: Relevant databases were searched for RCTs comparing short- vs. standard-course of antibiotics for culture-negative sepsis. The primary outcomes were mortality and treatment failure, defined as the reappearance of clinical signs suggestive of sepsis within 7 days of stoppage of antibiotics. Secondary outcomes included neurological impairment, duration of hospital stay, need for oxygen, respiratory support and double-volume exchange transfusion (DVET).
Results: Seven RCTs were included in the review with 729 neonates >30 weeks gestational age at birth. No mortality occurred in either of the groups (2 studies; 276 neonates). Treatment failure rates were similar in the short- and standard-course antibiotic groups [7 studies; 729 neonates; risk ratio (RR) = 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.55 to 1.86; very low certainty]. The short course of antibiotics resulted in a shorter hospital stay [3 studies; 293 neonates; mean difference (MD), -2.46 days; 95% CI, -3.16 to -1.75]. There was no difference in the need for oxygen supplementation (2 studies; 258 neonates; RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.40 to 4.91), any respiratory support (2 studies; 258 neonates; RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17) or DVET (2 studies; 258 neonates; RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.56 to 2.95).
Conclusion: Very-low certainty evidence suggests that a short antibiotic course, compared to a standard course, does not affect treatment failure rates in culture-negative neonatal sepsis. There is a need for well-designed RCTs powered enough to assess critical outcomes such as mortality and neurological sequelae to generate stronger evidence and inform guidelines.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Tropical Pediatrics provides a link between theory and practice in the field. Papers report key results of clinical and community research, and considerations of programme development. More general descriptive pieces are included when they have application to work preceeding elsewhere. The journal also presents review articles, book reviews and, occasionally, short monographs and selections of important papers delivered at relevant conferences.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
