Pakhale Smita, Mulpuru Sunita, Verheij Theo J M, Kochen Michael M, Rohde Gernot G U, Bjerre Lise M
Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and the University of Ottawa, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1H 8L6.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Oct 9;2014(10):CD002109. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002109.pub4.
Lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) is the third leading cause of death worldwide and the first leading cause of death in low-income countries. Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common condition that causes a significant disease burden for the community, particularly in children younger than five years, the elderly and immunocompromised people. Antibiotics are the standard treatment for CAP. However, increasing antibiotic use is associated with the development of bacterial resistance and side effects for the patient. Several studies have been published regarding optimal antibiotic treatment for CAP but many of these data address treatments in hospitalised patients. This is an update of our 2009 Cochrane Review and addresses antibiotic therapies for CAP in outpatient settings.
To compare the efficacy and safety of different antibiotic treatments for CAP in participants older than 12 years treated in outpatient settings with respect to clinical, radiological and bacteriological outcomes.
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March week 3, 2014), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2014), CINAHL (2009 to March 2014), Web of Science (2009 to March 2014) and LILACS (2009 to March 2014).
We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), fully published in peer-reviewed journals, of antibiotics versus placebo as well as antibiotics versus another antibiotic for the treatment of CAP in outpatient settings in participants older than 12 years of age. However, we did not find any studies of antibiotics versus placebo. Therefore, this review includes RCTs of one or more antibiotics, which report the diagnostic criteria and describe the clinical outcomes considered for inclusion in this review.
Two review authors (LMB, TJMV) independently assessed study reports in the first publication. In the 2009 update, LMB performed study selection, which was checked by TJMV and MMK. In this 2014 update, two review authors (SP, SM) independently performed and checked study selection. We contacted trial authors to resolve any ambiguities in the study reports. We compiled and analysed the data. We resolved differences between review authors by discussion and consensus.
We included 11 RCTs in this review update (3352 participants older than 12 years with a diagnosis of CAP); 10 RCTs assessed nine antibiotic pairs (3321 participants) and one RCT assessed four antibiotics (31 participants) in people with CAP. The study quality was generally good, with some differences in the extent of the reporting. A variety of clinical, bacteriological and adverse events were reported. Overall, there was no significant difference in the efficacy of the various antibiotics. Studies evaluating clarithromycin and amoxicillin provided only descriptive data regarding the primary outcome. Though the majority of adverse events were similar between all antibiotics, nemonoxacin demonstrated higher gastrointestinal and nervous system adverse events when compared to levofloxacin, while cethromycin demonstrated significantly more nervous system side effects, especially dysgeusia, when compared to clarithromycin. Similarly, high-dose amoxicillin (1 g three times a day) was associated with higher incidence of gastritis and diarrhoea compared to clarithromycin, azithromycin and levofloxacin.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence from recent RCTs is insufficient to make new evidence-based recommendations for the choice of antibiotic to be used for the treatment of CAP in outpatient settings. Pooling of study data was limited by the very low number of studies assessing the same antibiotic pairs. Individual study results do not reveal significant differences in efficacy between various antibiotics and antibiotic groups. However, two studies did find significantly more adverse events with use of cethromycin as compared to clarithromycin and nemonoxacin when compared to levofloxacin. Multi-drug comparisons using similar administration schedules are needed to provide the evidence necessary for practice recommendations. Further studies focusing on diagnosis, management, cost-effectiveness and misuse of antibiotics in CAP and LRTI are warranted in high-, middle- and low-income countries.
下呼吸道感染(LRTI)是全球第三大死因,在低收入国家则是首要死因。社区获得性肺炎(CAP)是一种常见疾病,给社区带来了沉重的疾病负担,尤其是对于五岁以下儿童、老年人以及免疫功能低下者。抗生素是治疗CAP的标准疗法。然而,抗生素使用的增加与细菌耐药性的产生以及患者的副作用相关。关于CAP的最佳抗生素治疗已有多项研究发表,但其中许多数据针对的是住院患者的治疗。这是我们2009年Cochrane系统评价的更新版本,探讨门诊环境中CAP的抗生素治疗。
比较门诊环境中不同抗生素治疗12岁以上CAP患者的疗效和安全性,涉及临床、影像学和细菌学结果。
我们检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库(CENTRAL,2014年第1期)、医学文献数据库(MEDLINE,1966年1月至2014年3月第3周)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE,1974年1月至2014年3月)、护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL,2009年至2014年3月)、科学引文索引数据库(Web of Science,2009年至2014年3月)以及拉丁美洲和加勒比地区健康科学文献数据库(LILACS,2009年至2014年3月)。
我们查找在同行评审期刊上全文发表的随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验对比了抗生素与安慰剂以及抗生素与另一种抗生素用于门诊环境中12岁以上CAP患者的治疗情况。然而,我们未找到任何抗生素与安慰剂对比的研究。因此,本系统评价纳入了一项或多种抗生素的RCT,这些研究报告了诊断标准并描述了纳入本系统评价考虑的临床结果。
两位系统评价作者(LMB、TJMV)在首次发表时独立评估研究报告。在2009年更新时,LMB进行研究筛选,由TJMV和MMK检查。在本次2014年更新中,两位系统评价作者(SP、SM)独立进行并检查研究筛选。我们联系试验作者以解决研究报告中的任何模糊之处。我们汇总并分析数据。我们通过讨论和达成共识解决系统评价作者之间的分歧。
本系统评价更新纳入了11项RCT(3352名12岁以上诊断为CAP的患者);10项RCT评估了九组抗生素对(3321名患者),一项RCT评估了四种抗生素(31名患者)用于CAP患者。研究质量总体良好,但报告的详细程度存在一些差异。报告了各种临床、细菌学和不良事件。总体而言,各种抗生素的疗效无显著差异。评估克拉霉素和阿莫西林的研究仅提供了关于主要结局的描述性数据。尽管所有抗生素之间的大多数不良事件相似,但与左氧氟沙星相比,奈诺沙星的胃肠道和神经系统不良事件发生率更高,而与克拉霉素相比,头孢罗星的神经系统副作用明显更多,尤其是味觉障碍。同样,与克拉霉素、阿奇霉素和左氧氟沙星相比,高剂量阿莫西林(每日三次,每次1克)的胃炎和腹泻发生率更高。
近期RCT的现有证据不足以就门诊环境中治疗CAP所用抗生素的选择提出新的循证建议。由于评估相同抗生素对的研究数量极少,研究数据的汇总受到限制。个体研究结果未显示各种抗生素和抗生素组之间在疗效上有显著差异。然而,两项研究确实发现,与克拉霉素相比,使用头孢罗星的不良事件明显更多,与左氧氟沙星相比,奈诺沙星的不良事件明显更多。需要进行使用相似给药方案的多种药物比较,以提供实践建议所需的证据。高、中、低收入国家有必要开展进一步研究,重点关注CAP和LRTI中抗生素的诊断、管理、成本效益及滥用问题。