Department of Ophthalmology, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 13;3(3):CD001211. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001211.pub4.
Acute bacterial conjunctivitis is an infection of the conjunctiva and is one of the most common ocular disorders in primary care. Antibiotics are generally prescribed on the basis that they may speed recovery, reduce persistence, and prevent keratitis. However, many cases of acute bacterial conjunctivitis are self-limited, resolving without antibiotic therapy. This Cochrane Review was first published in The Cochrane Library in 1999, then updated in 2006, 2012, and 2022.
To assess the benefits and side effects of antibiotic therapy in the management of acute bacterial conjunctivitis.
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2022, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1950 to May 2022), Embase (January 1980 to May 2022), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.
gov), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases in May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which any form of antibiotic treatment, with or without steroid, had been compared with placebo/vehicle in the management of acute bacterial conjunctivitis. This included topical and systemic antibiotic treatments.
Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies. We assessed the full text of all potentially relevant studies and determined the included RCTs, which were further assessed for risk of bias using Cochrane methodology. We performed data extraction in a standardized manner and conducted random-effects meta-analyses using RevMan Web.
We included 21 eligible RCTs, 10 of which were newly identified in this update. A total of 8805 participants were randomized. All treatments were topical in the form of drops or ointment. The trials were heterogeneous in terms of their eligibility criteria, the nature of the intervention (antibiotic drug class, which included fluoroquinolones [FQs] and non-FQs; dosage frequency; duration of treatment), the outcomes assessed and the time points of assessment. We judged one trial to be of high risk of bias, four as low risk of bias, and the others as raising some concerns. Based on intention-to-treat (ITT) population, antibiotics likely improved clinical cure (resolution of clinical symptoms or signs) by 26% (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.46; 5 trials, 1474 participants; moderate certainty) as compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis showed no differences by antibiotic class (P = 0.67) or treatment duration (P = 0.60). In the placebo group, 55.5% (408/735) of participants had spontaneous clinical resolution by days 4 to 9 versus 68.2% (504/739) of participants treated with an antibiotic. Based on modified ITT population, in which participants were analyzed after randomization on the basis of positive microbiological culture, antibiotics likely increased microbiological cure (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.74; 10 trials, 2827 participants) compared with placebo at the end of therapy; there were no subgroup differences by drug class (P = 0.60). No study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic treatment. Patients receiving antibiotics had a lower risk of treatment incompletion than those in the placebo group (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.78; 13 trials, 5573 participants; moderate certainty) and were 27% less likely to have persistent clinical infection (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.81; 19 trials, 5280 participants; moderate certainty). There was no evidence of serious systemic side effects reported in either the antibiotic or placebo group (very low certainty). When compared with placebo, FQs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90) but not non-FQs (RR 4.05, 95% CI 1.36 to 12.00) may result in fewer participants with ocular side effects. However, the estimated effects were of very low certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this update suggest that the use of topical antibiotics is associated with a modestly improved chance of resolution in comparison to the use of placebo. Since no evidence of serious side effects was reported, use of antibiotics may therefore be considered to achieve better clinical and microbiologic efficacy than placebo. Increasing the proportion of participants with clinical cure or increasing the speed of recovery or both are important for individual return to work or school, allowing people to regain quality of life. Future studies may examine antiseptic treatments with topical antibiotics for reasons of cost and growing antibiotic resistance.
急性细菌性结膜炎是一种结膜感染,是初级保健中最常见的眼部疾病之一。通常开抗生素是基于它们可能加速康复、减少持续时间并预防角膜炎。然而,许多急性细菌性结膜炎病例是自限性的,无需抗生素治疗即可自行缓解。本 Cochrane 综述最初发表于 1999 年的 Cochrane 图书馆,然后于 2006 年、2012 年和 2022 年更新。
评估抗生素治疗在管理急性细菌性结膜炎中的益处和副作用。
我们检索了 CENTRAL(包含 Cochrane 眼部和视觉组试验登记册)(Cochrane 图书馆 2022 年,第 5 期)、MEDLINE(1950 年 1 月至 2022 年 5 月)、Embase(1980 年 1 月至 2022 年 5 月)、荟萃分析注册中心(mRCT)(www.controlled-trials.com)、ClinicalTrials.gov(www.clinicaltrials.gov)和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)(www.who.int/ictrp/search/en)。我们在试验电子搜索中没有使用任何日期或语言限制。我们最后一次在 2022 年 5 月搜索了电子数据库。
我们纳入了任何形式的抗生素治疗(包括局部和全身抗生素治疗)与安慰剂/载体在急性细菌性结膜炎管理中比较的随机对照试验(RCT)。这包括局部和全身抗生素治疗。
两名作者独立审查了确定研究的标题和摘要。我们评估了所有潜在相关研究的全文,并确定了包括的 RCT,进一步使用 Cochrane 方法评估了这些 RCT 的偏倚风险。我们以标准化的方式进行数据提取,并使用 RevMan Web 进行随机效应荟萃分析。
我们纳入了 21 项符合条件的 RCT,其中 10 项是本次更新新发现的。共有 8805 名参与者被随机分组。所有治疗均为滴眼剂或眼膏的局部形式。这些试验在纳入标准、干预措施的性质(抗生素药物类别,包括氟喹诺酮类[FQs]和非 FQs;剂量频率;治疗持续时间)、评估的结局和评估时间点等方面存在异质性。我们判断一项试验存在高偏倚风险,四项试验存在低偏倚风险,其余试验存在一些关注。基于意向治疗(ITT)人群,抗生素治疗可能使临床治愈率提高 26%(RR 1.26,95% CI 1.09 至 1.46;5 项试验,1474 名参与者;中等确定性),与安慰剂相比。亚组分析显示,抗生素类别(P=0.67)或治疗持续时间(P=0.60)无差异。在安慰剂组中,4 至 9 天内有 55.5%(408/735)的参与者出现自发性临床缓解,而接受抗生素治疗的参与者中有 68.2%(504/739)。在基于改良 ITT 人群的分析中,基于阳性微生物培养对参与者进行随机化后分析,与安慰剂相比,抗生素治疗在治疗结束时可能增加微生物治愈率(RR 1.53,95% CI 1.34 至 1.74;10 项试验,2827 名参与者);药物类别无差异(P=0.60)。没有研究评估抗生素治疗的成本效益。接受抗生素治疗的患者比安慰剂组更有可能完成治疗(RR 0.64,95% CI 0.52 至 0.78;13 项试验,5573 名参与者;中等确定性),并且持续临床感染的可能性降低 27%(RR 0.73,95% CI 0.65 至 0.81;19 项试验,5280 名参与者;中等确定性)。在抗生素组或安慰剂组均未报告严重的全身副作用(极低确定性)。与安慰剂相比,氟喹诺酮类(RR 0.70,95% CI 0.54 至 0.90)而非非氟喹诺酮类(RR 4.05,95% CI 1.36 至 12.00)可能导致较少的参与者出现眼部副作用。然而,估计的效果是极低确定性的。
本次更新的结果表明,与安慰剂相比,局部使用抗生素可能会适度提高缓解的机会。由于没有报告严重的副作用,因此与安慰剂相比,使用抗生素可能会带来更好的临床和微生物疗效。增加临床治愈率或增加恢复速度或两者兼而有之,对于个人重返工作或学校、恢复生活质量非常重要。未来的研究可能会研究针对成本和抗生素耐药性日益增长的问题的局部抗生素与防腐剂联合治疗。