基于药物监测的抗生素治疗方案对危重患者的疗效:随机对照试验的系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Nozomi Takahashi, Yutaka Kondo, Kenji Kubo, Moritoki Egi, Ken-Ichi Kano, Yoshiyasu Ohshima, Taka-Aki Nakada
{"title":"基于药物监测的抗生素治疗方案对危重患者的疗效:随机对照试验的系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Nozomi Takahashi, Yutaka Kondo, Kenji Kubo, Moritoki Egi, Ken-Ichi Kano, Yoshiyasu Ohshima, Taka-Aki Nakada","doi":"10.1186/s40560-023-00699-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficacy of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-based antimicrobial dosing optimization strategies on pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and specific drug properties for critically ill patients is unclear. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of TDM-based regimen in these patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Articles from three databases were systematically retrieved to identify relevant randomized control studies. Version two of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials was used to assess the risk of bias in studies included in the analysis, and quality assessment of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Primary outcome was the 28-day mortality and secondary outcome were in-hospital mortality, clinical cure, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and target attainment at day 1 and 3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 5 studies involving 1011 patients were included for meta-analysis of the primary outcome, of which no significant difference was observed between TDM-based regimen and control groups (risk ratio [RR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-1.14; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). In-hospital mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.76-1.20), clinical cure (RR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.91-1.67), length of stay in the ICU (mean difference 0, 95% CI: - 2.18-2.19), and target attainment at day 1 (RR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.88-1.48) and day 3 (RR 1.35, 95% CI: 0.90-2.03) were not significantly different between the two groups, and all evidence for the secondary outcomes had a low or very low level of certainty because the included studies had serious risk of bias, variation of definition for outcomes, and small sample sizes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TDM-based regimens had no significant efficacy for clinical or pharmacological outcomes. Further studies with other achievable targets and well-defined outcomes are required.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinical trial registration; PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ), registry number: CRD 42022371959. Registered 24 November 2022.</p>","PeriodicalId":16123,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10631080/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of therapeutic drug monitoring-based antibiotic regimen in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Nozomi Takahashi, Yutaka Kondo, Kenji Kubo, Moritoki Egi, Ken-Ichi Kano, Yoshiyasu Ohshima, Taka-Aki Nakada\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40560-023-00699-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficacy of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-based antimicrobial dosing optimization strategies on pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and specific drug properties for critically ill patients is unclear. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of TDM-based regimen in these patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Articles from three databases were systematically retrieved to identify relevant randomized control studies. Version two of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials was used to assess the risk of bias in studies included in the analysis, and quality assessment of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Primary outcome was the 28-day mortality and secondary outcome were in-hospital mortality, clinical cure, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and target attainment at day 1 and 3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 5 studies involving 1011 patients were included for meta-analysis of the primary outcome, of which no significant difference was observed between TDM-based regimen and control groups (risk ratio [RR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-1.14; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). In-hospital mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.76-1.20), clinical cure (RR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.91-1.67), length of stay in the ICU (mean difference 0, 95% CI: - 2.18-2.19), and target attainment at day 1 (RR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.88-1.48) and day 3 (RR 1.35, 95% CI: 0.90-2.03) were not significantly different between the two groups, and all evidence for the secondary outcomes had a low or very low level of certainty because the included studies had serious risk of bias, variation of definition for outcomes, and small sample sizes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TDM-based regimens had no significant efficacy for clinical or pharmacological outcomes. Further studies with other achievable targets and well-defined outcomes are required.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinical trial registration; PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ), registry number: CRD 42022371959. Registered 24 November 2022.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16123,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intensive Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10631080/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-023-00699-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-023-00699-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于治疗药物监测(TDM)的抗菌药物给药优化策略对危重患者的药代动力学/药效学和特定药物特性的疗效尚不清楚。在此,我们对随机对照试验进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,以评估基于TDM的方案对这些患者的有效性。方法:系统检索来自三个数据库的文章,以确定相关的随机对照研究。用于评估随机试验中偏倚风险的Cochrane工具第二版用于评估分析中研究中的偏倚风险,并使用建议分级评估、发展和评估方法对证据质量评估进行分级。主要结果为28天死亡率,次要结果为住院死亡率、临床治愈率、在重症监护室(ICU)的住院时间以及第1天和第3天的目标实现情况,其中以TDM为基础的方案与对照组之间没有观察到显著差异(风险比[RR]0.94,95%置信区间[CI]:0.77-1.14;I2 = 0%)。两组的住院死亡率(RR 0.96,95%CI:0.76-120)、临床治愈率(RR 1.23,95%CI:0.91-1.67)、ICU住院时间(平均差异0,95%CI:2.18-19)以及第1天和第3天的目标实现率(RR 1.14,95%CI=0.88-1.48)(RR 1.35,95%CI0.90-2.03)无显著差异,所有次要结果的证据的确定性都很低或非常低,因为纳入的研究存在严重的偏倚风险、结果定义的变化以及样本量小。结论:基于TDM的方案对临床或药理学结果没有显著疗效。需要进一步研究其他可实现的目标和明确的结果。试验注册:临床试验注册;普罗斯科(https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/),注册号:CRD 42022371959。注册时间:2022年11月24日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Efficacy of therapeutic drug monitoring-based antibiotic regimen in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Efficacy of therapeutic drug monitoring-based antibiotic regimen in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Efficacy of therapeutic drug monitoring-based antibiotic regimen in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Efficacy of therapeutic drug monitoring-based antibiotic regimen in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: The efficacy of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-based antimicrobial dosing optimization strategies on pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and specific drug properties for critically ill patients is unclear. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of TDM-based regimen in these patients.

Methods: Articles from three databases were systematically retrieved to identify relevant randomized control studies. Version two of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials was used to assess the risk of bias in studies included in the analysis, and quality assessment of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Primary outcome was the 28-day mortality and secondary outcome were in-hospital mortality, clinical cure, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and target attainment at day 1 and 3.

Results: In total, 5 studies involving 1011 patients were included for meta-analysis of the primary outcome, of which no significant difference was observed between TDM-based regimen and control groups (risk ratio [RR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-1.14; I2 = 0%). In-hospital mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.76-1.20), clinical cure (RR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.91-1.67), length of stay in the ICU (mean difference 0, 95% CI: - 2.18-2.19), and target attainment at day 1 (RR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.88-1.48) and day 3 (RR 1.35, 95% CI: 0.90-2.03) were not significantly different between the two groups, and all evidence for the secondary outcomes had a low or very low level of certainty because the included studies had serious risk of bias, variation of definition for outcomes, and small sample sizes.

Conclusion: TDM-based regimens had no significant efficacy for clinical or pharmacological outcomes. Further studies with other achievable targets and well-defined outcomes are required.

Trial registration: Clinical trial registration; PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ), registry number: CRD 42022371959. Registered 24 November 2022.

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
Journal of Intensive Care
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
1.40%
发文量
51
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: "Journal of Intensive Care" is an open access journal dedicated to the comprehensive coverage of intensive care medicine, providing a platform for the latest research and clinical insights in this critical field. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including intensive and critical care, trauma and surgical intensive care, pediatric intensive care, acute and emergency medicine, perioperative medicine, resuscitation, infection control, and organ dysfunction. Recognizing the importance of cultural diversity in healthcare practices, "Journal of Intensive Care" also encourages submissions that explore and discuss the cultural aspects of intensive care, aiming to promote a more inclusive and culturally sensitive approach to patient care. By fostering a global exchange of knowledge and expertise, the journal contributes to the continuous improvement of intensive care practices worldwide.
×
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