Kaehne Axel, Milan Stephen J, Felix Lambert M, Sheridan Emer, Marsden Paul A, Spencer Sally
EPRC, Faculty of Health and Social Care, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 5;9(9):CD012590. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012590.pub2.
The diagnosis of bronchiectasis is defined by abnormal dilation of the airways related to a pathological mechanism of progressive airway destruction that is due to a 'vicious cycle' of recurrent bacterial infection, inflammatory mediator release, airway damage, and subsequent further infection. Antibiotics are the main treatment option for reducing bacterial burden in people with exacerbations of bronchiectasis and for longer-term eradication, but their use is tempered against potential adverse effects and concerns regarding antibiotic resistance. The comparative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of different antibiotics have been highlighted as important issues, but currently little evidence is available to help resolve uncertainty on these questions.
To evaluate the comparative effects of different antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through searches of the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials and online trials registries, run 30 April 2018. We augmented these with searches of the reference lists of published studies.
We included RCTs reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data. We included adults and children (younger than 18 years) with a diagnosis of bronchiectasis by bronchography or high-resolution computed tomography who reported daily signs and symptoms, such as cough, sputum production, or haemoptysis, and those with recurrent episodes of chest infection; we included studies that compared one antibiotic versus another when they were administered by the same delivery method.
Two review authors independently assessed trial selection, data extraction, and risk of bias. We assessed overall quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We made efforts to collect missing data from trial authors. We have presented results with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios (ORs).
Four randomised trials were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review - two studies with 83 adults comparing fluoroquinolones with β-lactams and two studies with 55 adults comparing aminoglycosides with polymyxins.None of the included studies reported information on exacerbations - one of our primary outcomes. Included studies reported no serious adverse events - another of our primary outcomes - and no deaths. We graded this evidence as low or very low quality. Included studies did not report quality of life. Comparison between fluoroquinolones and β-lactams (amoxicillin) showed fewer treatment failures in the fluoroquinolone group than in the amoxicillin group (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.32; low-quality evidence) after 7 to 10 days of therapy. Researchers reported that Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection was eradicated in more participants treated with fluoroquinolones (Peto OR 20.09, 95% CI 2.83 to 142.59; low-quality evidence) but provided no evidence of differences in the numbers of participants showing improvement in sputum purulence (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.96 to 5.72; very low-quality evidence). Study authors presented no evidence of benefit in relation to forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁). The two studies that compared polymyxins versus aminoglycosides described no clear differences between groups in the proportion of participants with P aeruginosa eradication (OR 1.40. 95% CI 0.36 to 5.35; very low-quality evidence) or improvement in sputum purulence (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.85; very low-quality evidence). The evidence for changes in FEV₁ was inconclusive. Two of three trials reported adverse events but did not report the proportion of participants experiencing one or more adverse events, so we were unable to interpret the information.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited low-quality evidence favours short-term oral fluoroquinolones over beta-lactam antibiotics for patients hospitalised with exacerbations. Very low-quality evidence suggests no benefit from inhaled aminoglycosides verus polymyxins. RCTs have presented no evidence comparing other modes of delivery for each of these comparisons, and no RCTs have included children. Overall, current evidence from a limited number of head-to-head trials in adults or children with bronchiectasis is insufficient to guide the selection of antibiotics for short-term or long-term therapy. More research on this topic is needed.
支气管扩张症的诊断定义为气道异常扩张,这与由于反复细菌感染、炎症介质释放、气道损伤及随后的进一步感染所形成的“恶性循环”导致的进行性气道破坏的病理机制相关。抗生素是减轻支气管扩张症急性加重期患者细菌负荷及长期根除细菌的主要治疗选择,但其使用需权衡潜在的不良反应及抗生素耐药性问题。不同抗生素的比较疗效、成本效益及安全性已成为重要问题,但目前几乎没有证据可帮助解决这些问题的不确定性。
评估不同抗生素治疗成人和儿童支气管扩张症的比较效果。
我们通过检索Cochrane气道组试验注册库及在线试验注册库(检索截至2018年4月30日)来识别随机对照试验(RCT)。我们还通过检索已发表研究的参考文献列表来补充这些检索结果。
我们纳入以全文发表的RCT、仅以摘要形式发表的研究以及未发表的数据。我们纳入通过支气管造影或高分辨率计算机断层扫描诊断为支气管扩张症的成人和儿童(年龄小于18岁),这些患者报告有每日的症状和体征,如咳嗽、咳痰或咯血,以及有反复胸部感染发作的患者;我们纳入比较一种抗生素与另一种抗生素且给药方式相同的研究。
两位综述作者独立评估试验选择、数据提取及偏倚风险。我们使用GRADE标准评估证据的总体质量。我们努力从试验作者处收集缺失数据。我们以95%置信区间(CI)的均值差(MD)或比值比(OR)呈现结果。
四项随机试验符合纳入本系统综述的条件——两项针对83名成人的研究比较了氟喹诺酮类与β-内酰胺类抗生素,两项针对55名成人的研究比较了氨基糖苷类与多粘菌素类。纳入的研究均未报告关于急性加重(我们的主要结局之一)的信息。纳入的研究未报告严重不良事件(我们另一个主要结局)及死亡情况。我们将此证据分级为低质量或极低质量。纳入的研究未报告生活质量。氟喹诺酮类与β-内酰胺类(阿莫西林)比较显示,治疗7至10天后,氟喹诺酮组的治疗失败情况少于阿莫西林组(OR 0.07,95%CI 0.01至0.32;低质量证据)。研究人员报告,接受氟喹诺酮治疗的更多参与者根除了铜绿假单胞菌感染(Peto OR 20.09,95%CI 2.83至142.59;低质量证据),但未提供显示痰脓性改善的参与者数量有差异的证据(OR 2.35,95%CI 0.96至5.72;极低质量证据)。研究作者未提供关于一秒用力呼气量(FEV₁)有益的证据。两项比较多粘菌素类与氨基糖苷类的研究表明,两组在根除铜绿假单胞菌的参与者比例(OR 1.40,95%CI 0.36至5.35;极低质量证据)或痰脓性改善方面(OR 0.16,95%CI 0.01至3.85;极低质量证据)无明显差异。关于FEV₁变化的证据尚无定论。三项试验中的两项报告了不良事件,但未报告经历一种或多种不良事件的参与者比例,因此我们无法解读这些信息。
有限的低质量证据表明,对于因急性加重住院的患者,短期口服氟喹诺酮类优于β-内酰胺类抗生素。极低质量证据表明吸入氨基糖苷类与多粘菌素类相比无益处。RCT未提供这些比较中其他给药方式的比较证据,且没有RCT纳入儿童。总体而言,目前来自成人或儿童支气管扩张症有限的直接对比试验的证据不足以指导短期或长期治疗中抗生素的选择。对此主题需要更多研究。