经验性抗生素治疗方案对非呼吸机相关医院获得性肺炎成人患者的影响:随机对照试验的系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。

IF 10.9 1区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Maryam Ghadimi, Reed A C Siemieniuk, Gordon Guyatt, Mark Loeb, Afeez Abiola Hazzan, Danial Aminaei, Huda Gomaa, Ying Wang, Liang Yao, Arnav Agarwal, John Basmaji, Alexandre Grant, William S H Kim, Giancarlo Alvarado-Gamarra, Valery Likhvantsev, João Pedro Lima, Shahrzad Motaghi, Rachel Couban, Behnam Sadeghirad, Romina Brignardello-Petersen
{"title":"经验性抗生素治疗方案对非呼吸机相关医院获得性肺炎成人患者的影响:随机对照试验的系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Maryam Ghadimi, Reed A C Siemieniuk, Gordon Guyatt, Mark Loeb, Afeez Abiola Hazzan, Danial Aminaei, Huda Gomaa, Ying Wang, Liang Yao, Arnav Agarwal, John Basmaji, Alexandre Grant, William S H Kim, Giancarlo Alvarado-Gamarra, Valery Likhvantsev, João Pedro Lima, Shahrzad Motaghi, Rachel Couban, Behnam Sadeghirad, Romina Brignardello-Petersen","doi":"10.1016/j.cmi.2024.05.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal empiric antibiotic regimen for non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the effectiveness and safety of alternative empiric antibiotic regimens in HAP using a network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from database inception to July 06, 2023.</p><p><strong>Study eligibility criteria: </strong>RCTs.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adults with clinical suspicion of HAP.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Any empiric antibiotic regimen vs. another, placebo, or no treatment.</p><p><strong>Assessment of risk of bias: </strong>Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials.</p><p><strong>Methods of data synthesis: </strong>Paired reviewers independently extracted data on trial and patient characteristics, antibiotic regimens, and outcomes of interest. We conducted frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses for treatment failure and all-cause mortality and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-nine RCTs proved eligible. Thirty RCTs involving 4807 participants found low certainty evidence that piperacillin-tazobactam (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42, 1.01) and carbapenems (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.53, 1.11) might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. The findings were robust to the secondary analysis comparing piperacillin-tazobactam vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins or antipseudomonal carbapenems vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins. Eleven RCTs involving 2531 participants found low certainty evidence that ceftazidime and linezolid combination may not be convincingly different from cephalosporin alone in reducing all-cause mortality. Evidence on other antibiotic regimens is very uncertain. Data on other patient-important outcomes including adverse events was sparse, and we did not perform network or pairwise meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For empiric antibiotic therapy of adults with HAP, piperacillin-tazobactam might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. Empiric methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus coverage may not exert additional benefit in reducing mortality.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD 42022297224).</p>","PeriodicalId":10444,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Microbiology and Infection","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Empiric antibiotic regimens in adults with non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Maryam Ghadimi, Reed A C Siemieniuk, Gordon Guyatt, Mark Loeb, Afeez Abiola Hazzan, Danial Aminaei, Huda Gomaa, Ying Wang, Liang Yao, Arnav Agarwal, John Basmaji, Alexandre Grant, William S H Kim, Giancarlo Alvarado-Gamarra, Valery Likhvantsev, João Pedro Lima, Shahrzad Motaghi, Rachel Couban, Behnam Sadeghirad, Romina Brignardello-Petersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cmi.2024.05.017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal empiric antibiotic regimen for non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the effectiveness and safety of alternative empiric antibiotic regimens in HAP using a network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from database inception to July 06, 2023.</p><p><strong>Study eligibility criteria: </strong>RCTs.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adults with clinical suspicion of HAP.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Any empiric antibiotic regimen vs. another, placebo, or no treatment.</p><p><strong>Assessment of risk of bias: </strong>Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials.</p><p><strong>Methods of data synthesis: </strong>Paired reviewers independently extracted data on trial and patient characteristics, antibiotic regimens, and outcomes of interest. We conducted frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses for treatment failure and all-cause mortality and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-nine RCTs proved eligible. Thirty RCTs involving 4807 participants found low certainty evidence that piperacillin-tazobactam (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42, 1.01) and carbapenems (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.53, 1.11) might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. The findings were robust to the secondary analysis comparing piperacillin-tazobactam vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins or antipseudomonal carbapenems vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins. Eleven RCTs involving 2531 participants found low certainty evidence that ceftazidime and linezolid combination may not be convincingly different from cephalosporin alone in reducing all-cause mortality. Evidence on other antibiotic regimens is very uncertain. Data on other patient-important outcomes including adverse events was sparse, and we did not perform network or pairwise meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For empiric antibiotic therapy of adults with HAP, piperacillin-tazobactam might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. Empiric methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus coverage may not exert additional benefit in reducing mortality.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD 42022297224).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10444,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Microbiology and Infection\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Microbiology and Infection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2024.05.017\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Microbiology and Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2024.05.017","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:非呼吸机相关医院获得性肺炎(HAP)的最佳经验性抗生素方案尚不确定:非呼吸机相关性医院获得性肺炎(HAP)的最佳经验性抗生素方案尚不确定:目的:通过网络荟萃分析(NMA)比较治疗 HAP 的其他经验性抗生素方案:方法:数据来源:研究资格标准:随机对照试验(RCT):干预措施:干预措施:任何经验性抗生素疗法与其他疗法、安慰剂或不治疗:数据分析方法:配对审稿人独立提取有关试验和患者特征、抗生素方案和相关结果的数据。我们对治疗失败和全因死亡率进行了频数随机效应NMA分析,并采用建议分级评估、发展和评价(GRADE)方法对证据的确定性进行了评估:有 39 项试验符合条件。涉及 4,807 名参与者的 30 项研究发现,有低确定性证据表明,哌拉西林-他唑巴坦(与所有头孢菌素相比的 RR 值:0.65;95% CI:0.42, 1.01)和碳青霉烯类(与所有头孢菌素相比的 RR 值:0.77;95% CI:0.53, 1.11)在减少治疗失败方面可能是最有效的。在比较哌拉西林-他唑巴坦与抗假性头孢菌素或抗假性碳青霉烯类与抗假性头孢菌素的二次分析中,研究结果是可靠的。11 项涉及 2,531 名参与者的研究发现,有低确定性证据表明,头孢他啶和利奈唑胺联合用药在降低全因死亡率方面与单用头孢菌素可能没有令人信服的差异。有关其他抗生素治疗方案的证据非常不确定。包括不良事件在内的其他对患者重要的结果数据稀少,我们没有进行网络或配对荟萃分析:结论:对于成人 HAP 患者的经验性抗生素治疗,哌拉西林-他唑巴坦可能是减少 HAP 治疗失败的最有效方案之一。注册:PROPRONO(CRD 42022297224)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Empiric antibiotic regimens in adults with non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: The optimal empiric antibiotic regimen for non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is uncertain.

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and safety of alternative empiric antibiotic regimens in HAP using a network meta-analysis.

Data sources: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from database inception to July 06, 2023.

Study eligibility criteria: RCTs.

Participants: Adults with clinical suspicion of HAP.

Interventions: Any empiric antibiotic regimen vs. another, placebo, or no treatment.

Assessment of risk of bias: Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials.

Methods of data synthesis: Paired reviewers independently extracted data on trial and patient characteristics, antibiotic regimens, and outcomes of interest. We conducted frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses for treatment failure and all-cause mortality and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

Results: Thirty-nine RCTs proved eligible. Thirty RCTs involving 4807 participants found low certainty evidence that piperacillin-tazobactam (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42, 1.01) and carbapenems (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.53, 1.11) might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. The findings were robust to the secondary analysis comparing piperacillin-tazobactam vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins or antipseudomonal carbapenems vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins. Eleven RCTs involving 2531 participants found low certainty evidence that ceftazidime and linezolid combination may not be convincingly different from cephalosporin alone in reducing all-cause mortality. Evidence on other antibiotic regimens is very uncertain. Data on other patient-important outcomes including adverse events was sparse, and we did not perform network or pairwise meta-analysis.

Conclusions: For empiric antibiotic therapy of adults with HAP, piperacillin-tazobactam might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. Empiric methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus coverage may not exert additional benefit in reducing mortality.

Registration: PROSPERO (CRD 42022297224).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
25.30
自引率
2.10%
发文量
441
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Microbiology and Infection (CMI) is a monthly journal published by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. It focuses on peer-reviewed papers covering basic and applied research in microbiology, infectious diseases, virology, parasitology, immunology, and epidemiology as they relate to therapy and diagnostics.
×
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