Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region of Denmark, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Ospedale "A. Manzoni", Lecco, Italy.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Nov 2;11(11):CD013864. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013864.pub2.
Hospital-acquired pneumonia is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections in children worldwide. Most of our understanding of hospital-acquired pneumonia in children is derived from adult studies. To our knowledge, no systematic review with meta-analysis has assessed the benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens in neonates and children with hospital-acquired pneumonia.
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registers to February 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
We included randomised clinical trials comparing one antibiotic regimen with any other antibiotic regimen for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children.
Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events; our secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, pneumonia-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and treatment failure. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up.
We included four randomised clinical trials (84 participants). We assessed all trials as having high risk of bias. We did not conduct any meta-analyses, as the included trials did not compare similar antibiotic regimens. Each of the four trials assessed a different comparison, as follows: cefepime versus ceftazidime; linezolid versus vancomycin; meropenem versus cefotaxime; and ceftobiprole versus cephalosporin. Only one trial reported our primary outcomes of all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Three trials reported our secondary outcome of treatment failure. Two trials primarily included community-acquired pneumonia and hospitalised children with bacterial infections, hence the children with hospital-acquired pneumonia constituted subgroups of the total sample sizes. Where outcomes were reported, the certainty of the evidence was very low for each of the comparisons. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. None of the included trials assessed health-related quality of life, pneumonia-related mortality, or non-serious adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The relative beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the very low certainty of the available evidence. The current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. Randomised clinical trials assessing different antibiotic regimens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in children and neonates are warranted.
医院获得性肺炎是全球儿童中最常见的医院获得性感染之一。我们对儿童医院获得性肺炎的了解大多来自成人研究。据我们所知,尚无系统评价和荟萃分析评估不同抗生素方案在新生儿和儿童医院获得性肺炎中的益处和危害。
评估不同抗生素方案治疗新生儿和儿童医院获得性肺炎的益处和危害。
我们检索了 CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、另外 3 个数据库以及 2 个试验注册库,检索截至 2021 年 2 月,此外还进行了参考文献检查、引文搜索以及与研究作者联系以确定其他研究。
我们纳入了比较一种抗生素方案与任何其他抗生素方案治疗新生儿和儿童医院获得性肺炎的随机临床试验。
3 位综述作者独立评估纳入研究、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。我们使用 GRADE 方法评估证据确定性。我们的主要结局是全因死亡率和严重不良事件;次要结局是健康相关生活质量、肺炎相关死亡率、非严重不良事件和治疗失败。我们的主要关注时间点是随访的最大时间。
我们纳入了 4 项随机临床试验(84 名参与者)。我们评估所有试验均具有高偏倚风险。由于纳入的试验并未比较类似的抗生素方案,因此我们未进行任何荟萃分析。这 4 项试验中的每一项都评估了不同的比较,如下所示:头孢吡肟与头孢他啶;利奈唑胺与万古霉素;美罗培南与头孢噻肟;头孢托罗匹酯与头孢菌素。只有一项试验报告了我们的全因死亡率和严重不良事件这两个主要结局。3 项试验报告了我们的次要结局治疗失败。两项试验主要纳入社区获得性肺炎和住院细菌性感染的儿童,因此医院获得性肺炎儿童构成了总样本量的亚组。在报告结局的地方,每项比较的证据确定性都非常低。我们无法从数值结果中得出有意义的结论。纳入的试验均未评估健康相关生活质量、肺炎相关死亡率或非严重不良事件。
由于现有证据的确定性非常低,不同抗生素方案的相对益处和危害仍不清楚。目前的证据不足以支持任何一种抗生素方案优于另一种。有必要开展评估儿童和新生儿医院获得性肺炎不同抗生素方案的随机临床试验。