The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2018
Clinical effectiveness of carbapenems versus alternative antibiotics for treating ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae bacteraemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Son Soo Kyung, Lee Na Rae, Ko Jae-Hoon, Choi Jae Ki, Moon Soo-Youn, Joo Eun Jeong, Peck Kyong Ran, Park Dong Ah
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The widespread administration of carbapenems to patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae bacteraemia (ESBL-B) has accelerated the emergence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. This study aimed to systematically review recently published data to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of carbapenems, compared with other antibiotics, in the treatment of ESBL-B.
METHODS: We searched the Ovid-Medline, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Library and five Korean local databases until January 2016. We selected studies that reported overall mortality in patients with ESBL-B who had been treated with carbapenems and alternatives. Overall mortality was assessed as the primary outcome and sepsis-related mortality and adverse events were analysed as secondary outcomes.
RESULTS: Thirty-five publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Regarding empirical therapy, there were no significant differences between the groups that received carbapenems and those that received non-carbapenems in relation to overall mortality. Regarding definitive therapy, overall mortality was lower for patients administered carbapenems compared with those administered non-carbapenems [risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.61-0.98], non-β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations (non-BL/BLI) (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90) and cephalosporins (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.74). There were no differences between the carbapenems and the other antibiotics, namely BL/BLIs, quinolones and aminoglycosides.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that BL/BLIs may be promising alternative antibiotics for definitive therapy in patients with ESBL-B. However, the lack of robust data derived from randomized controlled trials limits the conclusions and inferences from the pooled data.
METHODS: We searched the Ovid-Medline, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Library and five Korean local databases until January 2016. We selected studies that reported overall mortality in patients with ESBL-B who had been treated with carbapenems and alternatives. Overall mortality was assessed as the primary outcome and sepsis-related mortality and adverse events were analysed as secondary outcomes.
RESULTS: Thirty-five publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Regarding empirical therapy, there were no significant differences between the groups that received carbapenems and those that received non-carbapenems in relation to overall mortality. Regarding definitive therapy, overall mortality was lower for patients administered carbapenems compared with those administered non-carbapenems [risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.61-0.98], non-β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations (non-BL/BLI) (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90) and cephalosporins (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.74). There were no differences between the carbapenems and the other antibiotics, namely BL/BLIs, quinolones and aminoglycosides.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that BL/BLIs may be promising alternative antibiotics for definitive therapy in patients with ESBL-B. However, the lack of robust data derived from randomized controlled trials limits the conclusions and inferences from the pooled data.