治疗耐大环内酯类药物的儿童肺炎支原体肺炎:大环内酯类药物与四环素类药物的 Meta 分析。

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q3 IMMUNOLOGY
Erdenetuya Bolormaa, Ji Young Park, Young June Choe, Cho Ryok Kang, Seung Ah Choe, Eleftherios Mylonakis
{"title":"治疗耐大环内酯类药物的儿童肺炎支原体肺炎:大环内酯类药物与四环素类药物的 Meta 分析。","authors":"Erdenetuya Bolormaa, Ji Young Park, Young June Choe, Cho Ryok Kang, Seung Ah Choe, Eleftherios Mylonakis","doi":"10.1097/INF.0000000000004568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The global prevalence of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) pneumonia infections, particularly in children, is on the rise. It is imperative to assess the clinical efficacies of alternative antibiotics such as tetracyclines to ensure effective treatment, mitigate antibiotic resistance, enhance clinical outcomes, and minimize the spread of resistant strains among MRMP-infected children. The objective of this study was to compare the therapeutic efficacies of macrolides and tetracyclines in treating MRMP pneumonia in children.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched the literature to identify comparative studies that examined the clinical outcomes of macrolide and tetracycline antibiotics in children with MRMP pneumonia. We conducted a meta-analysis of the mean duration of fever, hospital stay duration, therapeutic efficacies, and time to defervescence to compare macrolides and tetracyclines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies involving 1143 patients compared the clinical efficacies of macrolides and tetracyclines in children with MRMP pneumonia. The studies were conducted in China, Japan, and Korea, and the outcomes of febrile days, hospital stay duration, therapeutic efficacy, and time to defervescence were analyzed. The macrolides studied were azithromycin and clarithromycin, whereas the tetracyclines included minocycline and doxycycline. The pooled estimate of 5 studies showed that the mean duration of febrile days and hospital stay was longer in the macrolides group than tetracycline group [weighted mean difference = 1.64 days, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-2.59, weighted mean difference = 1.22 days, 95% CI: 0.82-1.62, respectively]. The therapeutic efficacy was significantly lower in the macrolide group than in the tetracycline group (odds ratio: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.20-0.57).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical efficacy of tetracycline treatment was superior to that of macrolide treatment in children with MRMP pneumonia. However, further research is required to validate these findings and inform evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":19858,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment of Macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae Pneumonia in Children: A Meta-analysis of Macrolides Versus Tetracyclines.\",\"authors\":\"Erdenetuya Bolormaa, Ji Young Park, Young June Choe, Cho Ryok Kang, Seung Ah Choe, Eleftherios Mylonakis\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/INF.0000000000004568\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The global prevalence of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) pneumonia infections, particularly in children, is on the rise. It is imperative to assess the clinical efficacies of alternative antibiotics such as tetracyclines to ensure effective treatment, mitigate antibiotic resistance, enhance clinical outcomes, and minimize the spread of resistant strains among MRMP-infected children. The objective of this study was to compare the therapeutic efficacies of macrolides and tetracyclines in treating MRMP pneumonia in children.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched the literature to identify comparative studies that examined the clinical outcomes of macrolide and tetracycline antibiotics in children with MRMP pneumonia. We conducted a meta-analysis of the mean duration of fever, hospital stay duration, therapeutic efficacies, and time to defervescence to compare macrolides and tetracyclines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies involving 1143 patients compared the clinical efficacies of macrolides and tetracyclines in children with MRMP pneumonia. The studies were conducted in China, Japan, and Korea, and the outcomes of febrile days, hospital stay duration, therapeutic efficacy, and time to defervescence were analyzed. The macrolides studied were azithromycin and clarithromycin, whereas the tetracyclines included minocycline and doxycycline. The pooled estimate of 5 studies showed that the mean duration of febrile days and hospital stay was longer in the macrolides group than tetracycline group [weighted mean difference = 1.64 days, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-2.59, weighted mean difference = 1.22 days, 95% CI: 0.82-1.62, respectively]. The therapeutic efficacy was significantly lower in the macrolide group than in the tetracycline group (odds ratio: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.20-0.57).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical efficacy of tetracycline treatment was superior to that of macrolide treatment in children with MRMP pneumonia. However, further research is required to validate these findings and inform evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19858,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0000000000004568\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0000000000004568","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:全球耐大环内酯类药物肺炎支原体(MRMP)肺炎感染率正在上升,尤其是在儿童中。当务之急是评估替代抗生素(如四环素)的临床疗效,以确保有效治疗、减轻抗生素耐药性、提高临床疗效并尽量减少耐药菌株在受 MRMP 感染儿童中的传播。本研究旨在比较大环内酯类药物和四环素类药物治疗儿童 MRMP 肺炎的疗效:我们对文献进行了系统检索,以确定对大环内酯类和四环素类抗生素治疗儿童 MRMP 肺炎的临床疗效进行比较的研究。我们对大环内酯类和四环素类抗生素的平均发热持续时间、住院时间、疗效和退热时间进行了荟萃分析:有 11 项研究对大环内酯类药物和四环素类药物在 MRMP 肺炎患儿中的临床疗效进行了比较,共涉及 1143 名患者。这些研究在中国、日本和韩国进行,分析了发热天数、住院时间、疗效和康复时间等结果。大环内酯类药物包括阿奇霉素和克拉霉素,四环素类药物包括米诺环素和强力霉素。5 项研究的汇总估计结果显示,大环内酯类药物组的平均发热天数和住院时间长于四环素类药物组[加权平均差=1.64 天,95% 置信区间(CI):0.68-2.59;加权平均差=1.22 天,95% CI:0.82-1.62]。大环内酯类药物组的疗效明显低于四环素类药物组(几率比:0.33,95% CI:0.20-0.57):结论:在MRMP肺炎患儿中,四环素治疗的临床疗效优于大环内酯治疗。然而,还需要进一步的研究来验证这些发现,并为循证临床实践指南提供依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Treatment of Macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae Pneumonia in Children: A Meta-analysis of Macrolides Versus Tetracyclines.

Background: The global prevalence of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) pneumonia infections, particularly in children, is on the rise. It is imperative to assess the clinical efficacies of alternative antibiotics such as tetracyclines to ensure effective treatment, mitigate antibiotic resistance, enhance clinical outcomes, and minimize the spread of resistant strains among MRMP-infected children. The objective of this study was to compare the therapeutic efficacies of macrolides and tetracyclines in treating MRMP pneumonia in children.

Methods: We systematically searched the literature to identify comparative studies that examined the clinical outcomes of macrolide and tetracycline antibiotics in children with MRMP pneumonia. We conducted a meta-analysis of the mean duration of fever, hospital stay duration, therapeutic efficacies, and time to defervescence to compare macrolides and tetracyclines.

Results: Eleven studies involving 1143 patients compared the clinical efficacies of macrolides and tetracyclines in children with MRMP pneumonia. The studies were conducted in China, Japan, and Korea, and the outcomes of febrile days, hospital stay duration, therapeutic efficacy, and time to defervescence were analyzed. The macrolides studied were azithromycin and clarithromycin, whereas the tetracyclines included minocycline and doxycycline. The pooled estimate of 5 studies showed that the mean duration of febrile days and hospital stay was longer in the macrolides group than tetracycline group [weighted mean difference = 1.64 days, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-2.59, weighted mean difference = 1.22 days, 95% CI: 0.82-1.62, respectively]. The therapeutic efficacy was significantly lower in the macrolide group than in the tetracycline group (odds ratio: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.20-0.57).

Conclusions: The clinical efficacy of tetracycline treatment was superior to that of macrolide treatment in children with MRMP pneumonia. However, further research is required to validate these findings and inform evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.

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
6.30
自引率
2.80%
发文量
566
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal® (PIDJ) is a complete, up-to-the-minute resource on infectious diseases in children. Through a mix of original studies, informative review articles, and unique case reports, PIDJ delivers the latest insights on combating disease in children — from state-of-the-art diagnostic techniques to the most effective drug therapies and other treatment protocols. It is a resource that can improve patient care and stimulate your personal research.
×
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