Suppr超能文献

不同的抗生素治疗方案用于治疗 A 组链球菌性咽炎。

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis.

机构信息

Primary Care Clinical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

General Practice Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 17;3(3):CD004406. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004406.pub5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although their effectiveness increases in people with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. This is an update of a review first published in 2010, and updated in 2013, 2016, and 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing clinical relapse (i.e. recurrence of symptoms after initial resolution); and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 3 September 2020: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), Embase Elsevier (from 1974), and Web of Science Thomson Reuters (from 2010). We also searched clinical trial registers on 3 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics, and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications and/or adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes. We have reported the intention-to-treat analysis, and also performed an analysis of evaluable participants to explore the robustness of the intention-to-treat results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials reported in 18 publications (5839 randomised participants): six trials compared penicillin with cephalosporins; six compared penicillin with macrolides; three compared penicillin with carbacephem; one compared penicillin with sulphonamides; one compared clindamycin with ampicillin; and one compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All participants had confirmed acute GABHS tonsillopharyngitis, and ages ranged from one month to 80 years. Nine trials included only, or predominantly, children. Most trials were conducted in an outpatient setting. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both; heterogeneity; and wide confidence intervals. Cephalosporins versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference in symptom resolution (at 2 to 15 days) for cephalosporins versus penicillin (odds ratio (OR) for absence of symptom resolution 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12; 5 trials; 2018 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results of the sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants differed (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 5 trials; 1660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; 4 trials; 1386 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence showed no difference in reported adverse events. Macrolides versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference between macrolides and penicillin for resolution of symptoms (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; 6 trials; 1728 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants resulted in an OR of 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.09; 6 trials; 1159 participants). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be different (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.03; 6 trials; 802 participants; low-certainty evidence).  Azithromycin versus amoxicillin Based on one unpublished trial in children, we are uncertain if resolution of symptoms is better with azithromycin in a single dose versus amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; 1 trial; 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis for per-protocol analysis resulted in an OR of 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; 1 trial; 482 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain if there was a difference in relapse between groups (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; 1 trial; 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were more common with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; 1 trial; 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Carbacephem versus penicillin There is low-certainty evidence that compared with penicillin, carbacephem may provide better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14.3; 3 trials; 795 participants). Studies did not report on long-term complications, so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better in preventing serious but rare complications.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if there are clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Low-certainty evidence in children suggests that carbacephem may be more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the other comparisons in this review. Data on complications were too scarce to draw conclusions. These results do not demonstrate that other antibiotics are more effective than penicillin in the treatment of GABHS pharyngitis. All studies were conducted in high-income countries with a low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is a need for trials in low-income countries and Aboriginal communities, where the risk of complications remains high.

摘要

背景

抗生素在治疗咽痛方面的疗效仅为中等,尽管在咽拭子检测为 A 组乙型溶血性链球菌(GABHS)阳性的患者中,抗生素的疗效会有所提高。如果需要使用抗生素,哪种抗生素是最佳选择尚不清楚。这是对 2010 年首次发表的一篇综述的更新,并且在 2013 年、2016 年和 2020 年进行了更新。

目的

评估不同抗生素在以下方面的疗效差异:(a)缓解症状(疼痛、发热);(b)缩短病程;(c)预防临床复发(即初始缓解后症状再次出现);(d)预防并发症(化脓性并发症、急性风湿热、链球菌后肾小球肾炎)。评估抗生素治疗链球菌性咽炎的比较不良反应发生率和风险效益的证据。

检索方法

我们截至 2020 年 9 月 3 日检索了以下数据库:Cochrane 图书馆(2020 年第 8 期)、MEDLINE Ovid(1946 年起)、Embase Elsevier(1974 年起)和 Web of Science Thomson Reuters(2010 年起)。我们还于 2020 年 9 月 3 日检索了临床试验注册库。

选择标准

随机、双盲试验,比较不同的抗生素,并至少报告以下一项:临床治愈、临床复发或并发症和/或不良反应。

数据收集和分析

两名综述作者独立筛选试验并使用 Cochrane 系统评价干预措施手册中推荐的标准方法提取数据。我们根据 Cochrane 手册中概述的方法评估纳入研究的偏倚风险,并使用 GRADE 方法评估结局的总体证据确定性。我们报告了意向治疗分析,并对可评估参与者进行了分析,以探索意向治疗结果的稳健性。

主要结果

我们纳入了 19 项试验,这些试验分别在 18 篇出版物中报道(5839 名随机参与者):6 项试验比较了青霉素与头孢菌素;6 项试验比较了青霉素与大环内酯类药物;3 项试验比较了青霉素与碳青霉烯类药物;1 项试验比较了青霉素与磺胺类药物;1 项试验比较了克林霉素与氨苄西林;1 项试验比较了阿奇霉素与阿莫西林,所有参与者均患有确诊的急性 GABHS 扁桃体咽炎,年龄从 1 个月到 80 岁不等。9 项试验仅包括或主要包括儿童。大多数试验是在门诊环境中进行的。所有试验的随机化、分配隐藏和盲法报告均较差。由于缺乏(或报告不佳的)随机化或盲法,或两者兼而有之,我们主要降低了证据的确定性;异质性;和宽置信区间。头孢菌素与青霉素 我们不确定头孢菌素与青霉素相比在症状缓解(2 至 15 天)方面是否存在差异(无症状缓解的比值比(OR)0.79,95%置信区间(CI)0.55 至 1.12;5 项试验;2018 名参与者;低确定性证据)。对可评估参与者的敏感性分析结果不同(OR 0.51,95%CI 0.27 至 0.97;5 项试验;1660 名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。我们不确定头孢菌素是否可能比青霉素导致更低的临床复发(OR 0.55,95%CI 0.30 至 0.99;需要治疗的额外有益结果数(NNTB)50;4 项试验;1386 名参与者;低确定性证据)。非常低确定性证据表明,报告的不良反应无差异。大环内酯类药物与青霉素 我们不确定大环内酯类药物与青霉素相比,在症状缓解方面是否存在差异(OR 1.11,95%CI 0.92 至 1.35;6 项试验;1728 名参与者;低确定性证据)。对可评估参与者的敏感性分析结果为 OR 0.79,95%CI 0.57 至 1.09;6 项试验;1159 名参与者)。我们不确定头孢菌素是否可能导致更低的临床复发(OR 1.21,95%CI 0.48 至 3.03;6 项试验;802 名参与者;低确定性证据)。阿奇霉素与阿莫西林 根据一项在儿童中进行的未发表试验,我们不确定单次使用阿奇霉素与 10 天阿莫西林相比,症状缓解是否更好(OR 0.76,95%CI 0.55 至 1.05;1 项试验;673 名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。对符合方案分析的敏感性分析得出的 OR 为 0.29,95%CI 0.11 至 0.73;1 项试验;482 名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。我们也不确定两组之间是否存在复发差异(OR 0.88,95%CI 0.43 至 1.82;1 项试验;422 名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。与阿莫西林相比,阿奇霉素的不良反应更常见(OR 2.67,95%CI 1.78 至 3.99;1 项试验;673 名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。碳青霉烯类药物与青霉素 与青霉素相比,碳青霉烯类药物可能在成人和儿童中提供更好的治疗后症状缓解,这方面有低确定性证据(OR 0.70,95%CI 0.49 至 0.99;NNTB 14.3;3 项试验;795 名参与者)。研究未报告长期并发症,因此尚不清楚哪种抗生素在预防严重但罕见的并发症方面更好。

作者结论

我们不确定头孢菌素和大环内酯类药物与青霉素相比,在治疗 GABHS 扁桃体咽炎时是否具有临床相关的症状缓解差异。儿童中的低确定性证据表明,碳青霉烯类药物可能比青霉素更有效治疗症状缓解。其他比较在本综述中没有足够的证据得出结论。并发症数据太少,无法得出结论。这些结果并未表明其他抗生素在治疗 GABHS 咽炎方面比青霉素更有效。所有研究均在高收入国家进行,链球菌并发症风险较低,因此需要在低收入国家和原住民社区开展试验,这些地区的并发症风险仍然较高。

相似文献

2
Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis.不同的抗生素治疗方案用于治疗 A 组链球菌性咽炎。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Nov 15;11(11):CD004406. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004406.pub6.
3
Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis.针对A组链球菌性咽炎的不同抗生素治疗方法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Sep 11;9(9):CD004406. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004406.pub4.
4
Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis.A组链球菌性咽炎的不同抗生素治疗方法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 30(4):CD004406. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004406.pub3.
5
Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis.针对A组链球菌性咽炎的不同抗生素治疗方法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct 6(10):CD004406. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004406.pub2.
8
Antibiotics for treatment of sore throat in children and adults.抗生素治疗儿童和成人咽痛。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Dec 9;12(12):CD000023. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000023.pub5.

引用本文的文献

5
Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis.不同的抗生素治疗方案用于治疗 A 组链球菌性咽炎。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Nov 15;11(11):CD004406. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004406.pub6.

本文引用的文献

1
Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis.针对A组链球菌性咽炎的不同抗生素治疗方法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Sep 11;9(9):CD004406. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004406.pub4.
5
Streptococcal pharyngitis in children: to treat or not to treat?儿童链球菌性咽炎:治疗还是不治疗?
Eur J Pediatr. 2014 Oct;173(10):1275-83. doi: 10.1007/s00431-014-2395-2. Epub 2014 Aug 12.
6
[Tonsillitis and sore throat in childhood].[儿童扁桃体炎与咽喉痛]
Laryngorhinootologie. 2014 Mar;93 Suppl 1:S84-102. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1363210. Epub 2014 Apr 7.
7
Antibiotics for sore throat.治疗喉咙痛的抗生素。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Nov 5;2013(11):CD000023. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000023.pub4.
8
Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis.A组链球菌性咽炎的不同抗生素治疗方法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 30(4):CD004406. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004406.pub3.

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