Paul Mical, Benuri-Silbiger Ishay, Soares-Weiser Karla, Leibovici Leonard
Department of Medicine E and Infectious Diseases Unit, Rabin Medical Centre, Beilinson Campus, Petah-Tikva 49100, Israel.
BMJ. 2004 Mar 20;328(7441):668. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38028.520995.63. Epub 2004 Mar 2.
To compare beta lactam monotherapy with beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for severe infections.
Medline, Embase, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, and conference proceedings, to 2003; references of included studies; contact with all authors. No restrictions, such as language, year of publication, or publication status.
All randomised trials of beta lactam monotherapy compared with beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for patients without neutropenia who fulfilled criteria for sepsis.
Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria, performed quality assessment, and extracted the data. The primary outcome assessed was all cause fatality by intention to treat. Relative risks were pooled with the random effect model (relative risk < 1 favours monotherapy).
64 trials with 7586 patients were included. There was no difference in all cause fatality (relative risk 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.06). 12 studies compared the same beta lactam (1.02, 0.76 to 1.38), and 31 studies compared different beta lactams (0.85, 0.69 to 1.05). Clinical failure was more common with combination treatment overall (0.87, 0.78 to 0.97) and among studies comparing different beta lactams (0.76, 0.68 to 0.86). There was no advantage to combination therapy among patients with Gram negative infections (1835 patients) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections (426 patients). There was no difference in the rate of development of resistance. Nephrotoxicity was significantly more common with combination therapy (0.36, 0.28 to 0.47). Heterogeneity was not significant for these comparisons.
In the treatment of sepsis the addition of an aminoglycoside to beta lactams should be discouraged. Fatality remains unchanged, while the risk for adverse events is increased.
比较β-内酰胺类单药治疗与β-内酰胺类-氨基糖苷类联合治疗对严重感染的疗效。
截至2003年的医学文献数据库(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)、考克兰图书馆以及会议论文集;纳入研究的参考文献;与所有作者联系。无语言、出版年份或出版状态等限制。
所有针对无中性粒细胞减少且符合脓毒症标准患者的β-内酰胺类单药治疗与β-内酰胺类-氨基糖苷类联合治疗的随机试验。
两名评价者独立应用选择标准、进行质量评估并提取数据。评估的主要结局是按意向性治疗分析的全因死亡率。采用随机效应模型汇总相对危险度(相对危险度<1支持单药治疗)。
纳入64项试验,共7586例患者。全因死亡率无差异(相对危险度0.90,95%置信区间0.77至1.06)。12项研究比较了相同的β-内酰胺类药物(1.02,0.76至1.38),31项研究比较了不同的β-内酰胺类药物(0.85,0.69至1.05)。总体而言,联合治疗的临床失败更常见(0.87,0.78至0.97),在比较不同β-内酰胺类药物的研究中也是如此(0.76,0.68至0.86)。在革兰阴性菌感染患者(1835例)或铜绿假单胞菌感染患者(426例)中,联合治疗并无优势。耐药发生率无差异。联合治疗的肾毒性明显更常见(0.36,0.28至0.47)。这些比较中的异质性不显著。
在脓毒症治疗中,不建议在β-内酰胺类药物基础上加用氨基糖苷类药物。死亡率不变,但不良事件风险增加。