Peterson Shaylee C, Lau Tim T Y, Ensom Mary H H
1 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
2 Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Ann Pharmacother. 2017 Jun;51(6):496-503. doi: 10.1177/1060028017692357. Epub 2017 Feb 7.
The aim of this systematic review is to review all human trials assessing the efficacy and safety of ampicillin and ceftriaxone for enterococcal endocarditis and to discuss the clinical implications of the findings.
MEDLINE (1946-), EMBASE (1974-), CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched through January 2017 using the search terms ampicillin, penicillin, ceftriaxone, cephalosporin, enterococ*, and endocarditis. Unpublished studies were eligible for inclusion. Additional references were identified from literature citations.
Clinical trials in humans that reported on clinical efficacy or adverse outcomes with ceftriaxone and ampicillin therapy in patients with enterococcal endocarditis were included. Case reports, nonhuman, and non-English studies were excluded.
Four observational clinical studies were identified. One examined the effects of ceftriaxone and ampicillin alone, and 3 compared the therapy to the current standard of care, ampicillin and gentamicin. The studies had small sample sizes and were not adequately designed or powered to establish noninferiority or equivalence to the current standard of care. Rates of clinical cure with ampicillin 2 g every 4 hours and ceftriaxone 2 g every 12 hours were similar to those of ampicillin and gentamicin. Ampicillin and ceftriaxone therapy was well tolerated with low rates of renal failure (0%-33%).
The evidence to support the use of ampicillin and ceftriaxone for enterococcal endocarditis is not definitive. In the absence of compelling evidence, clinicians may consider ampicillin and ceftriaxone in patients with Enterococcus faecalis infection at high risk for nephrotoxicity or those with aminoglycoside-resistant pathogens.
本系统评价旨在回顾所有评估氨苄西林和头孢曲松治疗肠球菌性心内膜炎的疗效和安全性的人体试验,并探讨研究结果的临床意义。
通过检索MEDLINE(1946年起)、EMBASE(1974年起)、CENTRAL、谷歌学术以及世界卫生组织临床试验注册平台,检索截至2017年1月的文献,检索词为氨苄西林、青霉素、头孢曲松、头孢菌素、肠球菌*和心内膜炎。未发表的研究也符合纳入标准。通过文献引用确定了其他参考文献。
纳入报告了头孢曲松和氨苄西林治疗肠球菌性心内膜炎患者的临床疗效或不良结局的人体临床试验。排除病例报告、非人体研究和非英文研究。
共识别出四项观察性临床研究。一项研究单独考察了头孢曲松和氨苄西林的效果,另外三项将该治疗方法与当前的标准治疗方案氨苄西林和庆大霉素进行了比较。这些研究样本量较小,设计和效能不足以确立与当前标准治疗方案的非劣效性或等效性。每4小时静脉注射2g氨苄西林和每12小时静脉注射2g头孢曲松的临床治愈率与氨苄西林和庆大霉素相似。氨苄西林和头孢曲松治疗耐受性良好,肾衰竭发生率较低(0%-33%)。
支持使用氨苄西林和头孢曲松治疗肠球菌性心内膜炎的证据并不确凿。在缺乏确凿证据的情况下,对于有肾毒性高风险的粪肠球菌感染患者或对氨基糖苷类耐药病原体感染的患者,临床医生可考虑使用氨苄西林和头孢曲松。