Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Athens, Greece; Department of Medicine, Henry Dunant Hospital Centre, Athens, Greece.
Hellenic Police Health Headquarters, Athens, Greece.
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018 Apr;51(4):535-547. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.12.020. Epub 2017 Dec 27.
To evaluate whether intravenous colistin in combination with other antibiotics (IVCC) is associated with lower mortality compared with intravenous colistin monotherapy (IVCM), and to identify factors influencing study outcomes.
PubMed and Scopus were searched up to November 2016. Studies were included if they evaluated adult patients with multi-drug-resistant (MDR) or extensively-drug-resistant Gram-negative infections, and reported comparative mortality data (adjusted and unadjusted) for patients receiving IVCC vs. IVCM. Random effects meta-analyses were performed.
Thirty-two studies (29 observational, three randomized) were included. The overall quality of data was low to very low, and studies were characterized by the lack of adjusted data. The majority of studies were not designed to evaluate the outcome of the meta-analysis, and focused mainly on infections due to Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Colistin was administered at variable doses, with or without a loading dose, and in combination with several antibiotics. Overall, IVCC was not associated with lower mortality than IVCM [32 studies, 2328 patients, risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.02, I 8%]. A significant difference was observed in favour of IVCC when high-dose (>6 million international units) colistin was used (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93), in studies conducted in Asia (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.95), in patients with bacteraemia (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.98) and in patients with acinetobacter infections (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-1.00).
Overall, low-quality data suggest that IVCC did not lower mortality in patients with MDR Gram-negative infections. However, there is some evidence for a benefit observed with high intravenous doses of colistin.
评估静脉注射多黏菌素联合其他抗生素(IVCC)与静脉注射多黏菌素单药治疗(IVCM)相比,是否能降低死亡率,并确定影响研究结果的因素。
检索 PubMed 和 Scopus 数据库,截至 2016 年 11 月。纳入评估多药耐药(MDR)或广泛耐药革兰阴性菌感染的成年患者,并报告接受 IVCC 与 IVCM 治疗的患者比较死亡率(调整和未调整)数据的研究。采用随机效应荟萃分析。
共纳入 32 项研究(29 项观察性研究,3 项随机对照研究)。数据整体质量低至极低,研究特点为缺乏调整后数据。大多数研究并非旨在评估荟萃分析的结局,主要关注鲍曼不动杆菌和肺炎克雷伯菌引起的感染。多黏菌素的给药剂量不同,有或无负荷剂量,联合使用几种抗生素。总体而言,与 IVCM 相比,IVCC 并未降低死亡率[32 项研究,2328 例患者,风险比(RR)0.91,95%置信区间(CI)0.81-1.02,I 2=8%]。当使用高剂量(>600 万国际单位)多黏菌素时(RR 0.80,95%CI 0.69-0.93)、在亚洲进行的研究中(RR 0.82,95%CI 0.71-0.95)、菌血症患者中(RR 0.75,95%CI 0.57-0.98)和不动杆菌感染患者中(RR 0.88,95%CI 0.78-1.00),观察到 IVCC 更有利。
总体而言,低质量数据表明,IVCC 并未降低 MDR 革兰阴性菌感染患者的死亡率。但是,静脉注射高剂量多黏菌素可能有获益的证据。