Eliakim-Raz Noa, Robenshtok Eyal, Shefet Daphna, Gafter-Gvili Anat, Vidal Liat, Paul Mical, Leibovici Leonard
Department of Medicine E, Beilinson Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12;2012(9):CD004418. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004418.pub4.
Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is caused by various pathogens, traditionally divided into 'typical' and 'atypical'. Initial antibiotic treatment of CAP is usually empirical, customarily covering both typical and atypical pathogens. To date, no sufficient evidence exists to support this broad coverage, while limiting coverage is bound to reduce toxicity, resistance and expense.
The main objective was to estimate the mortality and proportion with treatment failure using regimens containing atypical antibiotic coverage compared to those that had typical coverage only. Secondary objectives included the assessment of adverse events.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 3, 2012 which includes the Acute Respiratory Infection Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (January 1966 to April week 1, 2012) and EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2012).
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients hospitalized due to CAP, comparing antibiotic regimens with atypical coverage (quinolones, macrolides, tetracyclines, chloramphenicol, streptogramins or ketolides) to a regimen without atypical antibiotic coverage.
Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from included trials. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using a Chi(2) test.
We included 28 trials, encompassing 5939 randomized patients. The atypical antibiotic was administered as monotherapy in all but three studies. Only one study assessed a beta-lactam combined with a macrolide compared to the same beta-lactam. There was no difference in mortality between the atypical arm and the non-atypical arm (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.55), RR < 1 favors the atypical arm. The atypical arm showed an insignificant trend toward clinical success and a significant advantage to bacteriological eradication, which disappeared when evaluating methodologically high quality studies alone. Clinical success for the atypical arm was significantly higher for Legionella pneumophilae (L. pneumophilae) and non-significantly lower for pneumococcal pneumonia. There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of (total) adverse events, or those requiring discontinuation of treatment. However, gastrointestinal events were less common in the atypical arm (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92). Although the trials assessed different antibiotics, no significant heterogeneity was detected in the analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No benefit of survival or clinical efficacy was shown with empirical atypical coverage in hospitalized patients with CAP. This conclusion relates mostly to the comparison of quinolone monotherapy to beta-lactams. Further trials, comparing beta-lactam monotherapy to the same combined with a macrolide, should be performed.
社区获得性肺炎(CAP)由多种病原体引起,传统上分为“典型”和“非典型”两类。CAP的初始抗生素治疗通常是经验性的,习惯上覆盖典型和非典型病原体。迄今为止,尚无充分证据支持这种广泛覆盖,而限制覆盖范围必然会降低毒性、耐药性和费用。
主要目的是评估与仅采用典型覆盖方案相比,采用包含非典型抗生素覆盖方案的死亡率和治疗失败比例。次要目的包括评估不良事件。
我们检索了《Cochrane系统评价数据库》2012年第3期,其中包括急性呼吸道感染组的专业注册库、MEDLINE(1966年1月至2012年4月第1周)和EMBASE(1980年1月至2012年4月)。
因CAP住院的成年患者的随机对照试验(RCT),比较含非典型覆盖的抗生素方案(喹诺酮类、大环内酯类、四环素类、氯霉素、链阳菌素或酮内酯类)与不含非典型抗生素覆盖的方案。
两位综述作者独立评估偏倚风险并从纳入试验中提取数据。我们估计了风险比(RRs)及95%置信区间(CIs)。我们使用卡方检验评估异质性。
我们纳入了28项试验,涉及5939例随机分组患者。除三项研究外,所有研究中均将非典型抗生素作为单一疗法使用。仅一项研究评估了β-内酰胺类与大环内酯类联合使用与相同β-内酰胺类的比较。非典型组与非非典型组之间在死亡率上无差异(RR 1.14;95% CI 0.84至1.55),RR<1有利于非典型组。非典型组在临床成功方面显示出不显著的趋势,在细菌清除方面有显著优势,而单独评估方法学质量高的研究时该优势消失。对于嗜肺军团菌(L. pneumophilae),非典型组的临床成功率显著更高,对于肺炎球菌肺炎则非显著更低。两组在(总)不良事件频率或需要停药的不良事件频率方面无显著差异。然而,非典型组的胃肠道事件较少见(RR 0.70;95% CI 0.53至0.92)。尽管试验评估了不同抗生素,但分析中未检测到显著异质性。
在住院的CAP患者中,经验性非典型覆盖未显示出生存或临床疗效方面的益处。该结论主要涉及喹诺酮类单一疗法与β-内酰胺类的比较。应开展进一步试验,比较β-内酰胺类单一疗法与β-内酰胺类联合大环内酯类的疗效。