Suppr超能文献

成人艰难梭菌相关性腹泻的抗生素治疗

Antibiotic treatment for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea in adults.

作者信息

Nelson Richard L, Suda Katie J, Evans Charlesnika T

机构信息

Epidemiology/Biometry Division, University of Illinois School of Public Health, 1603 West Taylor, Room 956, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 60612.

University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 3;3(3):CD004610. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004610.pub5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is recognized as a frequent cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and colitis. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to investigate the efficacy and safety of antibiotic therapy for C. difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD), or C. difficile infection (CDI), being synonymous terms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register from inception to 26 January 2017. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov and clinicaltrialsregister.eu for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials assessing antibiotic treatment for CDI were included in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed abstracts and full text articles for inclusion and extracted data. The risk of bias was independently rated by two authors. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We pooled data using a fixed-effect model, except where significant heterogeneity was detected, at which time a random-effects model was used. The following outcomes were sought: sustained symptomatic cure (defined as initial symptomatic response and no recurrence of CDI), sustained bacteriologic cure, adverse reactions to the intervention, death and cost.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (3215 participants) were included. The majority of studies enrolled patients with mild to moderate CDI who could tolerate oral antibiotics. Sixteen of the included studies excluded patients with severe CDI and few patients with severe CDI were included in the other six studies. Twelve different antibiotics were investigated: vancomycin, metronidazole, fusidic acid, nitazoxanide, teicoplanin, rifampin, rifaximin, bacitracin, cadazolid, LFF517, surotomycin and fidaxomicin. Most of the studies were active comparator studies comparing vancomycin with other antibiotics. One small study compared vancomycin to placebo. There were no other studies that compared antibiotic treatment to a placebo or a 'no treatment' control group. The risk of bias was rated as high for 17 of 22 included studies. Vancomycin was found to be more effective than metronidazole for achieving symptomatic cure. Seventy-two per cent (318/444) of metronidazole patients achieved symptomatic cure compared to 79% (339/428) of vancomycin patients (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97; moderate quality evidence). Fidaxomicin was found to be more effective than vancomycin for achieving symptomatic cure. Seventy-one per cent (407/572) of fidaxomicin patients achieved symptomatic cure compared to 61% (361/592) of vancomycin patients (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; moderate quality evidence). Teicoplanin may be more effective than vancomycin for achieving a symptomatic cure. Eightly-seven per cent (48/55) of teicoplanin patients achieved symptomatic cure compared to 73% (40/55) of vancomycin patients (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.46; very low quality evidence). For other comparisons including the one placebo-controlled study the quality of evidence was low or very low due to imprecision and in many cases high risk of bias because of attrition and lack of blinding. One hundred and forty deaths were reported in the studies, all of which were attributed by study authors to the co-morbidities of the participants that lead to acquiring CDI. Although many other adverse events were reported during therapy, these were attributed to the participants' co-morbidities. The only adverse events directly attributed to study medication were rare nausea and transient elevation of liver enzymes. Recent cost data (July 2016) for a 10 day course of treatment shows that metronidazole 500 mg is the least expensive antibiotic with a cost of USD 13 (Health Warehouse). Vancomycin 125 mg costs USD 1779 (Walgreens for 56 tablets) compared to fidaxomicin 200 mg at USD 3453.83 or more (Optimer Pharmaceuticals) and teicoplanin at approximately USD 83.67 (GBP 71.40, British National Formulary).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the efficacy of antibiotic treatment in severe CDI as most studies excluded patients with severe disease. The lack of any 'no treatment' control studies does not allow for any conclusions regarding the need for antibiotic treatment in patients with mild CDI beyond withdrawal of the initiating antibiotic. Nonetheless, moderate quality evidence suggests that vancomycin is superior to metronidazole and fidaxomicin is superior to vancomycin. The differences in effectiveness between these antibiotics were not too large and the advantage of metronidazole is its far lower cost compared to the other two antibiotics. The quality of evidence for teicoplanin is very low. Adequately powered studies are needed to determine if teicoplanin performs as well as the other antibiotics. A trial comparing the two cheapest antibiotics, metronidazole and teicoplanin, would be of interest.

摘要

背景

艰难梭菌被认为是抗生素相关性腹泻和结肠炎的常见病因。本综述是对之前发表的Cochrane综述的更新。

目的

本综述旨在研究抗生素治疗艰难梭菌相关性腹泻(CDAD)或艰难梭菌感染(CDI,二者为同义词)的疗效和安全性。

检索方法

我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、CENTRAL以及Cochrane炎症性肠病小组专业试验注册库,检索时间从建库至2017年1月26日。我们还检索了clinicaltrials.gov和clinicaltrialsregister.eu以获取正在进行的试验。

入选标准

本综述仅纳入评估抗生素治疗CDI的随机对照试验。

数据收集与分析

三位作者独立评估摘要和全文文章以确定是否纳入,并提取数据。两位作者独立评估偏倚风险。对于二分法结局,我们计算风险比(RR)和相应的95%置信区间(95%CI)。我们使用固定效应模型合并数据,除非检测到显著异质性,此时使用随机效应模型。我们关注以下结局:症状持续缓解(定义为初始症状缓解且CDI无复发)、细菌学持续治愈、干预的不良反应、死亡和成本。

主要结果

纳入了22项研究(3215名参与者)。大多数研究纳入了能够耐受口服抗生素的轻至中度CDI患者。纳入的16项研究排除了重度CDI患者,其他6项研究纳入的重度CDI患者很少。研究了12种不同的抗生素:万古霉素、甲硝唑、夫西地酸、硝唑尼特、替考拉宁、利福平、利福昔明、杆菌肽、卡达唑利、LFF517、苏罗霉素和非达霉素。大多数研究是活性对照研究,比较万古霉素与其他抗生素。一项小型研究比较了万古霉素与安慰剂。没有其他研究将抗生素治疗与安慰剂或“未治疗”对照组进行比较。22项纳入研究中的17项偏倚风险被评为高。发现万古霉素在实现症状缓解方面比甲硝唑更有效。甲硝唑组72%(318/444)的患者实现了症状缓解,而万古霉素组为79%(339/428)(RR 0.90,95%CI 0.84至0.97;中等质量证据)。发现非达霉素在实现症状缓解方面比万古霉素更有效。非达霉素组71%(407/572)的患者实现了症状缓解,而万古霉素组为61%(361/592)(RR 1.17,95%CI 1.04至1.31;中等质量证据)。替考拉宁在实现症状缓解方面可能比万古霉素更有效。替考拉宁组87%(48/55)的患者实现了症状缓解,而万古霉素组为73%(40/55)(RR 1.21,95%CI 1.00至1.46;极低质量证据)。对于其他比较,包括一项安慰剂对照研究,由于不精确,证据质量低或极低,并且在许多情况下,由于失访和缺乏盲法,偏倚风险高。研究中报告了140例死亡,所有这些均被研究作者归因于导致感染CDI的参与者的合并症。尽管治疗期间报告了许多其他不良事件,但这些均归因于参与者的合并症。唯一直接归因于研究药物的不良事件是罕见的恶心和肝酶短暂升高。最近(2016年7月)10天疗程的治疗成本数据显示,500mg甲硝唑是最便宜的抗生素,成本为13美元(Health Warehouse)。125mg万古霉素成本为1779美元(Walgreens,56片装),而200mg非达霉素成本为3453.83美元或更高(Optimer Pharmaceuticals),替考拉宁约为83.67美元(71.40英镑,英国国家处方集)。

作者结论

由于大多数研究排除了重症患者,因此无法就抗生素治疗重症CDI的疗效得出确凿结论。缺乏任何“未治疗”对照研究,无法就轻度CDI患者除停用起始抗生素外是否需要抗生素治疗得出任何结论。尽管如此,中等质量证据表明万古霉素优于甲硝唑,非达霉素优于万古霉素。这些抗生素之间的有效性差异不大,甲硝唑的优势在于其成本远低于其他两种抗生素。替考拉宁的证据质量极低。需要有足够样本量的研究来确定替考拉宁是否与其他抗生素表现相当。比较两种最便宜的抗生素甲硝唑和替考拉宁的试验将很有意义。

相似文献

1
成人艰难梭菌相关性腹泻的抗生素治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 3;3(3):CD004610. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004610.pub5.
2
成人艰难梭菌相关性腹泻的抗生素治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18(3):CD004610. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004610.pub3.
3
成人艰难梭菌相关性腹泻的抗生素治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jan 25(1):CD004610. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004610.pub2.
4
成人艰难梭菌相关性腹泻的抗生素治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Sep 7(9):CD004610. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004610.pub4.
5
慢性斑块状银屑病的全身药理学治疗:一项网状荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 22;12(12):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2.
6
用于预防成人和儿童艰难梭菌相关性腹泻的益生菌
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 19;12(12):CD006095. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006095.pub4.
7
系统性药理学治疗慢性斑块状银屑病:网络荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.
8
成人全身麻醉后预防术后恶心呕吐的药物:网状Meta分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD012859. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2.
9
盆腔炎的抗生素治疗。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 24;4(4):CD010285. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010285.pub2.
10
用于慢性化脓性中耳炎的局部用抗生素
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jun 9;6:CD013051. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013051.pub3.

引用本文的文献

1
波兰一家临床医院艰难梭菌感染管理的趋势与疗效
Med Sci Monit. 2025 Aug 7;31:e948254. doi: 10.12659/MSM.948254.
2
评估万古霉素单药治疗及与硝呋太尔联合治疗中重度艰难梭菌感染的效果
Antibiotics (Basel). 2025 Apr 14;14(4):400. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics14040400.
3
成人严重和暴发性感染的管理。
J Med Microbiol. 2025 Apr;74(4). doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.001991.
4
2017 - 2019年波兰中部罗兹医科大学中央教学医院住院患者感染的分子流行病学
Antibiotics (Basel). 2025 Feb 21;14(3):219. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics14030219.
5
细胞壁蛋白2作为候选疫苗可保护小鼠免受感染。
Vaccines (Basel). 2024 Dec 30;13(1):21. doi: 10.3390/vaccines13010021.
7
重症结肠炎和中毒性巨结肠的管理
Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2023 Dec 29;37(6):404-410. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1777665. eCollection 2024 Nov.
8
重症患者抗生素处方指南
Indian J Crit Care Med. 2024 Aug;28(Suppl 2):S104-S216. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24677. Epub 2024 Aug 10.
9
用于治疗复发性感染的粪便微生物群活菌制剂-jslm(Rebyota™/RBL)
Future Microbiol. 2024;19(14):1243-1251. doi: 10.1080/17460913.2024.2364583. Epub 2024 Jul 11.
10
用于预防感染的活体生物治疗产品的合理设计。
bioRxiv. 2024 May 2:2024.04.30.591969. doi: 10.1101/2024.04.30.591969.

本文引用的文献

1
抗生素和病例暴露对医院获得性艰难梭菌感染的影响,与疾病严重程度无关。
J Hosp Infect. 2017 Apr;95(4):400-409. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2016.10.007. Epub 2016 Oct 14.
2
抗菌药物管理干预对艰难梭菌感染患者结局的影响。
Am J Infect Control. 2016 Dec 1;44(12):1539-1543. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2016.05.027. Epub 2016 Aug 31.
3
苏拉托霉素与万古霉素治疗艰难梭菌感染:2期随机对照双盲非劣效性多中心试验
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 Oct;71(10):2964-71. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkw246. Epub 2016 Jul 17.
4
非达霉素与万古霉素治疗艰难梭菌感染的加拿大研究结果
Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2016;2016:8048757. doi: 10.1155/2016/8048757. Epub 2016 May 24.
5
确定一种针对艰难梭菌感染的候选类毒素疫苗的最佳配方和接种方案:一项随机2期临床试验。
Vaccine. 2016 Apr 27;34(19):2170-8. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.03.028. Epub 2016 Mar 21.
7
艰难梭菌感染患者抗菌药物管理干预包的效果。
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 Mar;71(3):836-40. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkv404. Epub 2015 Dec 11.
8
来自卡达唑胺和万古霉素治疗艰难梭菌感染2期临床试验的艰难梭菌分离株的敏感性
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 Jan;71(1):213-9. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkv300. Epub 2015 Oct 3.
9
评估新型抗生素卡地唑胺治疗艰难梭菌感染患者的多中心、双盲、随机2期研究
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015 Oct;59(10):6266-73. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00504-15. Epub 2015 Jul 27.
10
成人艰难梭菌感染的益生菌治疗(PICO):一项双盲随机对照试验的研究方案
Contemp Clin Trials. 2015 Sep;44:26-32. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.07.015. Epub 2015 Jul 22.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验