Aabenhus Rune, Jensen Jens-Ulrik S, Jørgensen Karsten Juhl, Hróbjartsson Asbjørn, Bjerrum Lars
Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, Copenhagen, 1014, Denmark.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Nov 6(11):CD010130. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010130.pub2.
Background Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are by far the most common reason for prescribing an antibiotic in primary care, even though the majority of ARIs are of viral or non-severe bacterial aetiology. Unnecessary antibiotic use will, in many cases, not be beneficial to the patients' recovery and expose them to potential side effects. Furthermore, as a causal link exists between antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance, reducing unnecessary antibiotic use is a key factor in controlling this important problem. Antibiotic resistance puts increasing burdens on healthcare services and renders patients at risk of future ineffective treatments, in turn increasing morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases. One strategy aiming to reduce antibiotic use in primary care is the guidance of antibiotic treatment by use of a point-of-care biomarker. A point-of-care biomarker of infection forms part of the acute phase response to acute tissue injury regardless of the aetiology (infection, trauma and inflammation) and may in the correct clinical context be used as a surrogate marker of infection,possibly assisting the doctor in the clinical management of ARIs.Objectives To assess the benefits and harms of point-of-care biomarker tests of infection to guide antibiotic treatment in patients presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory infections in primary care settings regardless of age.Search methods We searched CENTRAL (2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1946 to January 2014), EMBASE (2010 to January 2014), CINAHL (1981 to January 2014), Web of Science (1955 to January 2014) and LILACS (1982 to January 2014).Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care patients with ARIs that compared use of point-of-care biomarkers with standard of care. We included trials that randomised individual patients as well as trials that randomised clusters of patients(cluster-RCTs).Two review authors independently extracted data on the following outcomes: i) impact on antibiotic use; ii) duration of and recovery from infection; iii) complications including the number of re-consultations, hospitalisations and mortality; iv) patient satisfaction. We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials and applied GRADE. We used random-effects meta-analyses when feasible. We further analysed results with a high level of heterogeneity in pre-specified subgroups of individually and cluster-RCTs.Main results The only point-of-care biomarker of infection currently available to primary care identified in this review was C-reactive protein. We included six trials (3284 participants; 139 children) that evaluated a C-reactive protein point-of-care test. The available information was from trials with a low to moderate risk of bias that address the main objectives of this review.Overall a reduction in the use of antibiotic treatments was found in the C-reactive protein group (631/1685) versus standard of care(785/1599). However, the high level of heterogeneity and the statistically significant test for subgroup differences between the three RCTs and three cluster-RCTs suggest that the results of the meta-analysis on antibiotic use should be interpreted with caution and the pooled effect estimate (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92; I2 statistic = 68%) may not be meaningful.The observed heterogeneity disappeared in our pre planned subgroup analysis based on study design: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; I2 statistic = 5% for RCTs and RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75; I2 statistic = 0% for cluster-RCTs, suggesting that this was the cause of the observed heterogeneity.There was no difference between using a C-reactive protein point-of-care test and standard care in clinical recovery (defined as at least substantial improvement at day 7 and 28 or need for re-consultations day 28). However, we noted an increase in hospitalisations in the C-reactive protein group in one study, but this was based on few events and may be a chance finding. No deaths were reported in any of the included studies.We classified the quality of the evidence as moderate according to GRADE due to imprecision of the main effect estimate.Authors' conclusions A point-of-care biomarker (e.g. C-reactive protein) to guide antibiotic treatment of ARIs in primary care can reduce antibiotic use,although the degree of reduction remains uncertain. Used as an adjunct to a doctor's clinical examination this reduction in antibiotic use did not affect patient-reported outcomes, including recovery from and duration of illness.However, a possible increase in hospitalisations is of concern. A more precise effect estimate is needed to assess the costs of the intervention and compare the use of a point-of-care biomarker to other antibiotic-saving strategies.
背景 急性呼吸道感染(ARIs)是基层医疗中开具抗生素处方最常见的原因,尽管大多数ARIs是由病毒或非严重细菌病因引起的。在许多情况下,不必要地使用抗生素对患者康复并无益处,反而会使他们面临潜在的副作用。此外,由于抗生素使用与抗生素耐药性之间存在因果关系,减少不必要的抗生素使用是控制这一重要问题的关键因素。抗生素耐药性给医疗服务带来了越来越大的负担,并使患者面临未来治疗无效的风险,进而增加了传染病的发病率和死亡率。旨在减少基层医疗中抗生素使用的一种策略是使用即时检测生物标志物来指导抗生素治疗。无论病因(感染、创伤和炎症)如何,感染的即时检测生物标志物都是急性组织损伤急性期反应的一部分,在正确的临床背景下可用作感染的替代替代替代标志物,可能有助于医生对ARIs进行临床管理。
目的 评估在基层医疗环境中,无论年龄大小,使用感染即时检测生物标志物来指导急性呼吸道感染症状患者抗生素治疗的益处和危害。
检索方法 我们检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库(CENTRAL,2013年第12期)、医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE,1946年至2014年1月)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE,2010年至2014年1月)、护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL,1981年至2014年1月)、科学引文索引数据库(Web of Science,1955年至2014年1月)和拉丁美洲及加勒比地区健康科学数据库(LILACS,1982年至2014年1月)。
入选标准 我们纳入了针对基层医疗中患有ARIs的患者的随机对照试验(RCTs),这些试验比较了即时检测生物标志物与标准治疗的使用情况。我们纳入了将个体患者随机分组的试验以及将患者群体随机分组的试验(整群RCTs)。
i)对抗生素使用的影响;ii)感染的持续时间和康复情况;iii)并发症,包括再次就诊次数、住院次数和死亡率;iv)患者满意度。我们评估了所有纳入试验的偏倚风险并应用了GRADE方法。可行时我们使用随机效应荟萃分析。我们还在个体RCTs和整群RCTs的预先指定亚组中对具有高度异质性的结果进行了进一步分析。
主要结果 本综述中确定的目前基层医疗中唯一可用的感染即时检测生物标志物是C反应蛋白。我们纳入了六项试验(3284名参与者;139名儿童),这些试验评估了C反应蛋白即时检测试验。现有信息来自偏倚风险低至中等的试验,这些试验涉及本综述的主要目标。
总体而言,与标准治疗(785/1599)相比,C反应蛋白组(631/1685)的抗生素治疗使用量有所减少。然而,高度的异质性以及三项RCTs和三项整群RCTs之间亚组差异的统计学显著检验表明,关于抗生素使用的荟萃分析结果应谨慎解释,合并效应估计值(风险比(RR)0.78,95%置信区间(CI)0.66至0.92;I²统计量 = 68%)可能没有意义。
在我们基于研究设计的预先计划的亚组分析中,观察到的异质性消失了:RCTs的RR为0.90,95%CI为0.80至1.02;I²统计量 = 5%,整群RCTs的RR为0.68,95%CI为0.61至0.75;I²统计量 = 0%,这表明这是观察到的异质性的原因。
使用C反应蛋白即时检测试验与标准治疗在临床康复方面(定义为第7天和第28天至少有显著改善或第28天需要再次就诊)没有差异。然而,在一项研究中我们注意到C反应蛋白组的住院人数有所增加,但这基于少数事件,可能是偶然发现。纳入的任何研究均未报告死亡病例。
根据GRADE方法,由于主要效应估计值不精确,我们将证据质量分类为中等。
作者结论 在基层医疗中,使用即时检测生物标志物(如C反应蛋白)来指导ARIs的抗生素治疗可以减少抗生素的使用,尽管减少的程度仍不确定。作为医生临床检查的辅助手段,这种抗生素使用的减少并未影响患者报告的结局,包括疾病的康复和持续时间。然而,住院人数可能增加令人担忧。需要更精确的效应估计值来评估干预措施的成本,并将即时检测生物标志物的使用与其他节省抗生素的策略进行比较。