Paul Mical, Soares-Weiser Karla, Leibovici Leonard
Rabin Medical Centre, Beilinson Campus, Infectious Diseases Unit and Department of Medicine E, Petah-Tiqva 49100, Israel.
BMJ. 2003 May 24;326(7399):1111. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7399.1111.
To compare the effectiveness of beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in the treatment of patients with fever and neutropenia.
Medline, Embase, Lilacs, the Cochrane Library, and conference proceedings to 2002. References of included studies and contact with authors. No restrictions on language, year of publication, or publication status.
All randomised trials of beta lactam monotherapy compared with beta lactam-minoglycoside combination therapy as empirical treatment for patients with fever and neutropenia.
Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria, performed quality assessment, and extracted data. An intention to treat approach was used. Relative risks were pooled with the random effect model.
All cause fatality.
Forty seven trials with 7807 patients met inclusion criteria. Nine trials compared the same beta lactam. There was no significant difference in all cause fatality (relative risk 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.02). For success of treatment there was a significant advantage with monotherapy (0.92, 0.85 to 0.99), though there was considerable heterogeneity among trials. There was no significant difference between monotherapy and combination treatment in trials that compared the same beta lactam, whereas there was major advantage with monotherapy in trials that compared different beta lactams (0.87, 0.80 to 0.93). Rates of superinfection were similar. Adverse events, including those associated with severe morbidity, were significantly more common in the combination treatment group. Detected flaws in methods did not affect results.
For patients with fever and neutropenia there is no clinical advantage in treatment with beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy. Broad spectrum beta lactams as monotherapy should be regarded as the standard of care for such patients.
比较β-内酰胺单药治疗与β-内酰胺-氨基糖苷类联合治疗对发热伴中性粒细胞减少患者的疗效。
截至2002年的医学期刊数据库(Medline)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)、拉丁美洲和加勒比地区卫生科学数据库(Lilacs)、考克兰图书馆及会议论文集。纳入研究的参考文献并与作者联系。对语言、出版年份或出版状态无限制。
所有比较β-内酰胺单药治疗与β-内酰胺-氨基糖苷类联合治疗作为发热伴中性粒细胞减少患者经验性治疗的随机试验。
两名评价员独立应用选择标准、进行质量评估并提取数据。采用意向性分析方法。相对危险度采用随机效应模型合并。
全因死亡率。
47项试验共7807例患者符合纳入标准。9项试验比较了相同的β-内酰胺类药物。全因死亡率无显著差异(相对危险度0.85,95%可信区间0.72至1.02)。治疗成功方面,单药治疗有显著优势(0.92,0.85至0.99),尽管各试验间存在相当大的异质性。在比较相同β-内酰胺类药物的试验中,单药治疗与联合治疗无显著差异,而在比较不同β-内酰胺类药物的试验中,单药治疗有主要优势(0.87,0.80至0.93)。二重感染发生率相似。不良事件,包括与严重发病相关的事件,在联合治疗组中明显更常见。检测到的方法缺陷未影响结果。
对于发热伴中性粒细胞减少患者,β-内酰胺-氨基糖苷类联合治疗无临床优势。广谱β-内酰胺类单药治疗应被视为这类患者的治疗标准。