Gafter-Gvili Anat, Fraser Abigail, Paul Mical, Vidal Liat, Lawrie Theresa A, van de Wetering Marianne D, Kremer Leontien C M, Leibovici Leonard
Department of Medicine E, Beilinson Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, 39 Jabotinski Street, PetahTikva, 49100, Israel.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jan 18;1(1):CD004386. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004386.pub3.
Bacterial infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients who are neutropenic following chemotherapy for malignancy. Trials have shown the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing the incidence of bacterial infections but not in reducing mortality rates. Our systematic review from 2006 also showed a reduction in mortality.
This updated review aimed to evaluate whether there is still a benefit of reduction in mortality when compared to placebo or no intervention.
We searched the Cochrane Cancer Network Register of Trials (2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), abstracts of conference proceedings and the references of identified studies.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing different types of antibiotic prophylaxis with placebo or no intervention, or another antibiotic, to prevent bacterial infections in afebrile neutropenic patients.
Two authors independently appraised the quality of each trial and extracted data from the included trials. Analyses were performed using RevMan 5.1 software.
One-hundred and nine trials (involving 13,579 patients) that were conducted between the years 1973 to 2010 met the inclusion criteria. When compared with placebo or no intervention, antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of death from all causes (46 trials, 5635 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.79) and the risk of infection-related death (43 trials, 5777 participants; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77). The estimated number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one death was 34 (all-cause mortality) and 48 (infection-related mortality).Prophylaxis also significantly reduced the occurrence of fever (54 trials, 6658 participants; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.87), clinically documented infection (48 trials, 5758 participants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.76), microbiologically documented infection (53 trials, 6383 participants; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.62) and other indicators of infection.There were no significant differences between quinolone prophylaxis and TMP-SMZ prophylaxis with regard to death from all causes or infection, however, quinolone prophylaxis was associated with fewer side effects leading to discontinuation (seven trials, 850 participants; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.87) and less resistance to the drugs thereafter (six trials, 366 participants; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis in afebrile neutropenic patients significantly reduced all-cause mortality. In our review, the most significant reduction in mortality was observed in trials assessing prophylaxis with quinolones. The benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis outweighed the harm such as adverse effects and the development of resistance since all-cause mortality was reduced. As most trials in our review were of patients with haematologic cancer, we strongly recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for these patients, preferably with a quinolone. Prophylaxis may also be considered for patients with solid tumours or lymphoma.
细菌感染是恶性肿瘤化疗后中性粒细胞减少患者发病和死亡的主要原因。试验表明抗生素预防在降低细菌感染发生率方面有效,但在降低死亡率方面无效。我们2006年的系统评价也显示死亡率有所降低。
本次更新的评价旨在评估与安慰剂或不干预相比,抗生素预防在降低死亡率方面是否仍有益处。
我们检索了Cochrane癌症试验注册库(2011年)、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》2011年第2期)、MEDLINE(1966年至2011年3月)、EMBASE(1980年至2011年3月)、会议论文摘要以及已识别研究的参考文献。
比较不同类型抗生素预防与安慰剂或不干预,或另一种抗生素,以预防无发热中性粒细胞减少患者细菌感染的随机对照试验(RCT)或半随机对照试验。
两位作者独立评估每个试验的质量,并从纳入试验中提取数据。使用RevMan 5.1软件进行分析。
1973年至2010年间进行的109项试验(涉及13579名患者)符合纳入标准。与安慰剂或不干预相比,抗生素预防显著降低了各种原因导致的死亡风险(46项试验,5635名参与者;风险比(RR)0.66,95%可信区间0.55至0.79)以及感染相关死亡风险(43项试验,5777名参与者;RR 0.61,95%可信区间0.48至0.77)。预防一例死亡所需治疗的估计人数(NNT)为34(全因死亡率)和48(感染相关死亡率)。预防还显著降低了发热的发生率(54项试验,6658名参与者;RR 0.80,95%可信区间0.74至0.87)、临床记录的感染(48项试验,5758名参与者;RR 0.65,95%可信区间0.56至0.76)、微生物学记录的感染(53项试验,6383名参与者;RR 0.51,95%可信区间0.42至0.62)以及其他感染指标。在全因死亡或感染方面,喹诺酮预防与复方新诺明预防之间无显著差异,然而,喹诺酮预防导致停药的副作用较少(7项试验,850名参与者;RR 0.37,95%可信区间0.16至0.87),且此后对药物的耐药性较低(6项试验,366名参与者;RR 0.45,95%可信区间0.27至0.74)。
无发热中性粒细胞减少患者的抗生素预防显著降低了全因死亡率。在我们的评价中,在评估喹诺酮预防的试验中观察到死亡率降低最为显著。由于全因死亡率降低,抗生素预防的益处超过了诸如不良反应和耐药性产生等危害。由于我们评价中的大多数试验是针对血液系统癌症患者,我们强烈建议对这些患者进行抗生素预防,最好使用喹诺酮类药物。对于实体瘤或淋巴瘤患者也可考虑进行预防。