Paul Mical, Lador Adi, Grozinsky-Glasberg Simona, Leibovici Leonard
Division of Infectious Diseases, Rambam Health Care Campus and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, 6 Ha'Aliya Street, Haifa, Israel, 31096.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 7;2014(1):CD003344. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003344.pub3.
Optimal antibiotic treatment for sepsis is imperative. Combining a beta lactam antibiotic with an aminoglycoside antibiotic may provide certain advantages over beta lactam monotherapy.
Our objectives were to compare beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in patients with sepsis and to estimate the rate of adverse effects with each treatment regimen, including the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11); MEDLINE (1966 to 4 November 2013); EMBASE (1980 to November 2013); LILACS (1982 to November 2013); and conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (1995 to 2013). We scanned citations of all identified studies and contacted all corresponding authors. In our previous review, we searched the databases to July 2004.
We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing any beta lactam monotherapy versus any combination of a beta lactam with an aminoglycoside for sepsis.
The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure, superinfections and adverse events. Two review authors independently collected data. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed-effect model. We extracted outcomes by intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.
We included 69 trials that randomly assigned 7863 participants. Twenty-two trials compared the same beta lactam in both study arms, while the remaining trials compared different beta lactams using a broader-spectrum beta lactam in the monotherapy arm. In trials comparing the same beta lactam, we observed no difference between study groups with regard to all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.30) and clinical failure (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29). In studies comparing different beta lactams, we observed a trend for benefit with monotherapy for all-cause mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01) and a significant advantage for clinical failure (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84). No significant disparities emerged from subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including assessment of participants with Gram-negative infection. The subgroup of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections was underpowered to examine effects. Results for mortality were classified as low quality of evidence mainly as the result of imprecision. Results for failure were classified as very low quality of evidence because of indirectness of the outcome and possible detection bias in non-blinded trials. We detected no differences in the rate of development of resistance. Nephrotoxicity was significantly less frequent with monotherapy (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.39). We found no heterogeneity for all these comparisons.We included a small subset of studies addressing participants with Gram-positive infection, mainly endocarditis. We identified no difference between monotherapy and combination therapy in these studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The addition of an aminoglycoside to beta lactams for sepsis should be discouraged. All-cause mortality rates are unchanged. Combination treatment carries a significant risk of nephrotoxicity.
败血症的最佳抗生素治疗至关重要。将β-内酰胺类抗生素与氨基糖苷类抗生素联合使用可能比β-内酰胺类单药治疗具有某些优势。
我们的目的是比较败血症患者中β-内酰胺类单药治疗与β-内酰胺类-氨基糖苷类联合治疗,并评估每种治疗方案的不良反应发生率,包括细菌对抗生素产生耐药性的情况。
在本次更新的综述中,我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(2013年第11期);MEDLINE(1966年至2013年11月4日);EMBASE(1980年至2013年11月);LILACS(1982年至2013年11月);以及抗微生物药物和化疗跨科学会议的会议论文集(1995年至2013年)。我们浏览了所有已识别研究的参考文献,并联系了所有通讯作者。在我们之前的综述中,我们检索数据库至2004年7月。
我们纳入了比较任何β-内酰胺类单药治疗与任何β-内酰胺类与氨基糖苷类联合治疗败血症的随机和半随机试验。
主要结局是全因死亡率。次要结局包括治疗失败、二重感染和不良事件。两位综述作者独立收集数据。我们使用固定效应模型汇总风险比(RR)及其95%置信区间(CI)。我们尽可能通过意向性分析提取结局数据。
我们纳入了69项试验,随机分配了7863名参与者。22项试验在两个研究组中比较了相同的β-内酰胺类药物,而其余试验在单药治疗组中使用更广谱的β-内酰胺类药物比较了不同的β-内酰胺类药物。在比较相同β-内酰胺类药物的试验中,我们观察到研究组之间在全因死亡率(RR 0.97,95%CI 0.73至1.30)和临床失败率(RR 1.11,95%CI 0.95至1.29)方面没有差异。在比较不同β-内酰胺类药物的研究中,我们观察到单药治疗在全因死亡率方面有获益趋势(RR 0.85,95%CI 0.71至1.01),在临床失败方面有显著优势(RR 0.75,95%CI 0.67至0.84)。亚组分析和敏感性分析未发现显著差异,包括对革兰氏阴性感染参与者的评估。铜绿假单胞菌感染亚组的检验效能不足以检测效应。死亡率结果主要由于不精确性被归类为低质量证据。失败结果由于结局的间接性和非盲法试验中可能的检测偏倚被归类为极低质量证据。我们未发现耐药性发展率的差异。单药治疗的肾毒性显著更低(RR 0.30,95%CI 0.23至0.39)。所有这些比较均未发现异质性。我们纳入了一小部分针对革兰氏阳性感染参与者(主要是心内膜炎)的研究。在这些研究中,我们未发现单药治疗与联合治疗之间存在差异。
不建议在β-内酰胺类药物基础上加用氨基糖苷类药物治疗败血症。全因死亡率没有变化。联合治疗有显著的肾毒性风险。