Mills Graham D, Oehley Michael R, Arrol Bruce
Respiratory and Infectious Diseases Department, Waikato Hospital, Private Bag 3200, Hamilton 2001, New Zealand.
BMJ. 2005 Feb 26;330(7489):456. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38334.591586.82. Epub 2005 Jan 31.
To systematically compare beta lactam antibiotics with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in the management of community acquired pneumonia.
Medline, Embase, Cochrane register of controlled trials, international conference proceedings, drug registration authorities, and pharmaceutical companies. Review methods Double blind randomised controlled monotherapy trials comparing beta lactam antibiotics with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in adults with community acquired pneumonia. Primary outcome was failure to achieve clinical cure or improvement.
18 trials totalling 6749 participants were identified, with most patients having mild to moderate community acquired pneumonia. The summary relative risk for treatment failure in all cause community acquired pneumonia showed no advantage of antibiotics active against atypical pathogens over beta lactam antibiotics (0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.07). Subgroup analysis was undertaken in those with a specific diagnosis involving atypical pathogens. We found a significantly lower failure rate in patients with Legionella species who were treated with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens (0.40, 0.19 to 0.85). Equivalence was seen for Mycoplasma pneumoniae (0.60, 0.31 to 1.17) and Chlamydia pneumoniae (2.32, 0.67 to 8.03).
Evidence is lacking that clinical outcomes are improved by using antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in all cause non-severe community acquired pneumonia. Although such antibiotics were superior in the management of patients later shown to have legionella related pneumonia, this pathogen was rarely responsible for pneumonia within the included trials. beta lactam agents should remain the antibiotics of initial choice in adults with non-severe community acquired pneumonia.
系统比较β-内酰胺类抗生素与抗非典型病原体的抗生素在社区获得性肺炎治疗中的效果。
医学文献数据库(Medline)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)、Cochrane对照试验注册库、国际会议论文集、药品注册机构及制药公司。综述方法:采用双盲随机对照单药治疗试验,比较β-内酰胺类抗生素与抗非典型病原体的抗生素用于成人社区获得性肺炎的疗效。主要结局指标为未实现临床治愈或病情改善。
共纳入18项试验,总计6749名参与者,大多数患者患有轻至中度社区获得性肺炎。在所有病因的社区获得性肺炎中,治疗失败的汇总相对风险显示,抗非典型病原体的抗生素并不比β-内酰胺类抗生素更具优势(相对风险0.97,95%置信区间0.87至1.07)。对明确诊断为涉及非典型病原体的患者进行了亚组分析。我们发现,使用抗非典型病原体的抗生素治疗的军团菌属患者的失败率显著较低(相对风险0.40,0.19至0.85)。肺炎支原体(相对风险0.60,0.31至1.17)和肺炎衣原体(相对风险2.32,0.67至8.03)的情况显示二者疗效相当。
缺乏证据表明在所有病因的非重症社区获得性肺炎中使用抗非典型病原体的抗生素可改善临床结局。尽管这类抗生素在治疗后来被证明患有军团菌相关性肺炎的患者方面更具优势,但在所纳入的试验中,该病原体导致的肺炎很少见。β-内酰胺类药物应仍是非重症社区获得性肺炎成人患者的初始首选抗生素。