Paul Mical, Yahav Dafna, Bivas Assaf, Fraser Abigail, Leibovici Leonard
Infectious Diseases Unit, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, 49100.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Nov 10;2010(11):CD005197. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005197.pub3.
Several beta-lactams are recommended as single agents for the treatment of febrile neutropenia.
To compare the effectiveness of different anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams as single agents in the treatment of febrile neutropenia. To compare the development of bacterial resistance, bacterial and fungal superinfections during or following treatment with the different beta-lactams.
We searched the Cochane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 3, 2010. MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, FDA drug applications, conference proceedings and ongoing clinical trial databases up to August 2010. References of included studies were scanned.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an antipseudomonal beta-lactam to another antipseudomonal beta-lactam antibiotic, both given alone or with the addition of the same glycopeptide to both study arms, for the initial treatment of fever and neutropenia among cancer patients.
Two review authors applied inclusion criteria and extracted the data independently. Missing data were sought. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and pooled using the fixed effect model. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Risk of bias was assessed using a domain-based evaluation and its effect of results was assessed through sensitivity analyses.
Forty-four trials were included. The antibiotics assessed were cefepime, ceftazidime, piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem and meropenem. Adequate allocation concealment and generation were reported in about half of the trials and only two trials were double-blinded. The risk for all-cause mortality was significantly higher with cefepime compared to other beta-lactams (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.86, 21 trials, 3471 participants), without heterogeneity and with higher RRs in trials at low risk for bias. There were no differences in secondary outcomes but for a non-significantly higher rate of bacterial superinfections with cefepime. Mortality was significantly lower with piperacillin-tazobactam compared to other antibiotics (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.92, 8 trials, 1314 participants), without heterogeneity. Carbapenems resulted in similar all-cause mortality and a lower rate of clinical failure and antibiotic modifications as compared to other antibiotics, but a higher rate of diarrhea caused by Clostridium difficile.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports the use of piperacillin-tazobactam in locations where antibiotic resistance profiles do not mandate empirical use of carbapenems. Carbapenems result in a higher rate of antibiotic-associated and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. There is a high level of evidence that all-cause mortality is higher with cefepime compared to other beta-lactams and it should not be used as monotherapy for patients with febrile neutropenia.
几种β-内酰胺类药物被推荐作为治疗发热性中性粒细胞减少症的单一药物。
比较不同抗假单胞菌β-内酰胺类药物作为单一药物治疗发热性中性粒细胞减少症的有效性。比较不同β-内酰胺类药物治疗期间或治疗后细菌耐药性、细菌和真菌二重感染的发生情况。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)2010年第3期。检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、LILACS、FDA药物申请、会议论文集以及截至2010年8月的正在进行的临床试验数据库。对纳入研究的参考文献进行了筛选。
随机对照试验(RCT),比较一种抗假单胞菌β-内酰胺类药物与另一种抗假单胞菌β-内酰胺类抗生素,两者均单独使用或在两个研究组中均添加相同的糖肽,用于癌症患者发热和中性粒细胞减少症的初始治疗。
两位综述作者独立应用纳入标准并提取数据。查找缺失数据。计算风险比(RR)及其95%置信区间(CI),并使用固定效应模型进行汇总。主要结局是全因死亡率。使用基于领域的评估方法评估偏倚风险,并通过敏感性分析评估其对结果的影响。
纳入了44项试验。评估的抗生素有头孢吡肟、头孢他啶、哌拉西林-他唑巴坦、亚胺培南和美罗培南。约一半的试验报告了充分的分配隐藏和随机化,只有两项试验为双盲试验。与其他β-内酰胺类药物相比,头孢吡肟导致的全因死亡率显著更高(RR 1.39,95%CI 1.04至1.86,21项试验,3471名参与者),无异质性,且在偏倚风险较低的试验中RR更高。次要结局无差异,但头孢吡肟导致的细菌二重感染率略高。与其他抗生素相比,哌拉西林-他唑巴坦导致的死亡率显著更低(RR 0.56,95%CI 0.34至0.92,8项试验,1314名参与者),无异质性。与其他抗生素相比,碳青霉烯类药物导致的全因死亡率相似,临床失败率和抗生素调整率更低,但艰难梭菌引起的腹泻率更高。
目前的证据支持在抗生素耐药情况不要求经验性使用碳青霉烯类药物的地区使用哌拉西林-他唑巴坦。碳青霉烯类药物导致抗生素相关性腹泻和艰难梭菌相关性腹泻的发生率更高。有充分证据表明,与其他β-内酰胺类药物相比,头孢吡肟导致的全因死亡率更高,不应将其用作发热性中性粒细胞减少症患者的单一疗法。