Thaver Durrane, Zaidi Anita K M, Critchley Julia, Azmatullah Asma, Madni Syed Ali, Bhutta Zulfiqar A
Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, The Aga Khan University, PO Box 3500, Karachi 74800, Pakistan.
BMJ. 2009 Jun 3;338:b1865. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1865.
To review evidence supporting use of fluoroquinolones as first line agents over other antibiotics for treating typhoid and paratyphoid fever (enteric fever).
Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialised register, CENTRAL (issue 4, 2007), Medline (1966-2007), Embase (1974-2007), LILACS (1982-2007), selected conferences, reference lists, and ongoing trial register (November 2007). Review methods Trials comparing fluoroquinolones with chloramphenicol, cephalosporins, or azithromycin in culture-proven enteric fever were included. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated. Trials recruiting over 60% children were analysed separately from trials on adults. Primary outcomes studied were clinical failure, microbiological failure, and relapse.
Twenty trials were included. Trials were small and often of limited methodological quality. Only 10 trials concealed allocation and only three were blinded. In trials on adults, fluoroquinolones were not significantly different from chloramphenicol for clinical failure (594 participants) or microbiological failure (n=378), but reduced clinical relapse (odds ratio 0.14 (95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.50), n=467, 6 trials). Azithromycin and fluoroquinolones were comparable (n=152, 2 trials). Compared with ceftriaxone, fluoroquinolones reduced clinical failure (0.08 (0.01 to 0.45), n=120, 3 trials) but not microbiological failure or relapse. Compared with cefixime, fluoroquinolones reduced clinical failure (0.05 (0.01 to 0.24), n=238, 2 trials) and relapse (0.18 (0.03 to 0.91), n=218, 2 trials). In trials on children infected with nalidixic acid resistant strains, older fluoroquinolones (ofloxacin) produced more clinical failures than azithromycin (2.67 (1.16 to 6.11), n=125, 1 trial), but there were no differences with newer fluoroquinolones (gatifloxacin, n=285, 1 trial). Fluoroquinolones and cefixime were not significantly different (n=82, 1 trial).
In adults, fluoroquinolones may be better than chloramphenicol for preventing clinical relapse. Data were limited for other comparisons, particularly for children.
回顾支持将氟喹诺酮类药物作为治疗伤寒和副伤寒热(肠热病)的一线用药而非其他抗生素的证据。
随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
Cochrane传染病小组专业注册库、CENTRAL(2007年第4期)、Medline(1966 - 2007年)、Embase(1974 - 2007年)、LILACS(1982 - 2007年)、选定会议、参考文献列表以及正在进行的试验注册库(2007年11月)。综述方法纳入了比较氟喹诺酮类药物与氯霉素、头孢菌素或阿奇霉素用于经培养证实的肠热病的试验。两名研究者提取数据并评估方法学质量。估计了具有95%置信区间的比值比。招募儿童超过60%的试验与成人试验分开分析。研究的主要结局为临床失败、微生物学失败和复发。
纳入20项试验。试验规模较小且方法学质量往往有限。仅10项试验采用了分配隐藏,仅三项试验为盲法。在成人试验中,氟喹诺酮类药物在临床失败(594名参与者)或微生物学失败(n = 378)方面与氯霉素无显著差异,但降低了临床复发率(比值比0.14(95%置信区间0.04至0.50),n = 467,6项试验)。阿奇霉素和氟喹诺酮类药物相当(n = 152,2项试验)。与头孢曲松相比,氟喹诺酮类药物降低了临床失败率(0.08(0.01至0.45),n = 120,3项试验),但未降低微生物学失败率或复发率。与头孢克肟相比,氟喹诺酮类药物降低了临床失败率(0.05(0.01至0.24),n = 238,2项试验)和复发率(0.18(0.03至0.91),n = 218,2项试验)。在感染耐萘啶酸菌株的儿童试验中,较老的氟喹诺酮类药物(氧氟沙星)产生的临床失败比阿奇霉素更多(2.67(1.16至6.11),n = 125,1项试验),但与较新的氟喹诺酮类药物(加替沙星,n = 285,1项试验)无差异。氟喹诺酮类药物和头孢克肟无显著差异(n = 82,1项试验)。
在成人中,氟喹诺酮类药物在预防临床复发方面可能优于氯霉素。其他比较的数据有限,尤其是儿童方面。