Department of Clinical Microbiology, Hippokration General Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2011 Nov;11(11):834-44. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70177-3. Epub 2011 Jul 23.
Multidrug resistance among bacteria increases the need for new antimicrobial drugs with high potency and stability. Tigecycline is one candidate drug, and a previous meta-analysis of only published randomised controlled trials suggested that it might as effective as comparator treatments; we did a meta-analysis to include new and unpublished trials to assess its efficacy for the treatment of adult patients with serious bacterial infection.
We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase up to March 30, 2011, to identify published studies, and we searched clinical trial registries to identify completed unpublished studies, the results of which were obtained through the manufacturer. Eligible studies were randomised trials assessing the clinical efficacy, safety, and eradication efficiency of tigecycline versus other antimicrobial agents for any bacterial infection. The primary outcome was treatment success in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug, had clinical evidence of disease, and had complete follow-up (the clinically assessable population). Meta-analysis was done with random-effects models because of heterogeneity across the trials.
14 randomised trials, comprising about 7400 patients, were included. Treatment success was lower with tigecycline than with control antibiotic agents, but the difference was not significant (odds ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·74-1·02). Adverse events were more frequent in the tigecycline group than in the control groups (1·45, 1·11-1·88), with significantly more vomiting and nausea. All-cause mortality was higher in the tigecycline group than in the comparator groups, but the difference was not significant (1·28, 0·97-1·69). Eradication efficiency did not differ between tigecycline and control regimens, but the sample size for these comparisons was small.
Tigecycline is not better than standard antimicrobial agents for the treatment of serious infections. Our findings show that assessment with unpublished studies is needed to make appropriate decisions about new agents.
None.
细菌的多药耐药性增加了对具有高效力和稳定性的新型抗菌药物的需求。替加环素是一种候选药物,先前对仅发表的随机对照试验进行的荟萃分析表明,它可能与对照治疗同样有效;我们进行了一项荟萃分析,纳入新的和未发表的试验,以评估其治疗成人严重细菌感染的疗效。
我们检索了 PubMed、Cochrane 中央注册库和 Embase,截至 2011 年 3 月 30 日,以确定已发表的研究,并检索临床试验注册处以确定已完成的未发表研究,这些研究结果是通过制造商获得的。合格的研究是评估替加环素与其他抗菌药物治疗任何细菌感染的临床疗效、安全性和清除效率的随机试验。主要结局是接受至少一剂研究药物、有疾病临床证据且有完整随访(可评估临床的人群)的患者的治疗成功。由于试验之间存在异质性,故采用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。
纳入了 14 项随机试验,共约 7400 例患者。替加环素治疗的成功率低于对照抗生素治疗,但差异无统计学意义(比值比 0.87,95%可信区间 0.74-1.02)。替加环素组的不良事件比对照组更常见(1.45,1.11-1.88),且呕吐和恶心的发生率显著更高。替加环素组的全因死亡率高于对照组,但差异无统计学意义(1.28,0.97-1.69)。替加环素和对照方案的清除效率无差异,但这些比较的样本量较小。
替加环素并不优于标准抗菌药物治疗严重感染。我们的研究结果表明,需要使用未发表的研究来对新药物做出适当的决策。
无。