Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Department of Medicine, Veteran Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA.
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2023 May 3;78(5):1150-1159. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkad078.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effect of early active empirical antibiotics for MRSA on mortality, both in patients admitted with MRSA infections and in patients admitted with common infectious syndromes, for whom the causative pathogen may not have been MRSA.
A systematic literature search was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus and Google Scholar from the earliest entry through to 26 April 2022. We included studies of patients hospitalized with culture-proven MRSA infections that compared mortality rates depending on whether patients received active empirical antibiotics. The primary outcome was the adjusted OR for mortality with early active empirical antibiotics. After performing random-effects meta-analysis, we estimated the absolute risk reduction in mortality with initial empirical MRSA coverage for common infectious syndromes based on the prevalence of MRSA and baseline mortality rate for each syndrome, as reported in the medical literature.
Of an initial 2136 unique manuscripts, 37 studies (11 661 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Fifteen studies (6066 participants) reported adjusted OR of mortality. The pooled adjusted OR for mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48-0.84), favouring active empirical antibiotics. The estimated absolute mortality benefit was 0% for patients with pneumonia, 0.1% (95% CI, 0.04-0.2) for non-critically ill patients with soft tissue infections, 0.04% (95% CI, 0.01-0.05) for non-critically ill patients with urinary tract infections, 0.6% (95% CI, 0.2-1.0) for patients with septic shock, and 1.0% (95% CI, 0.3-1.4) for patients with catheter-related infections admitted to ICUs.
For the three most common infections in the hospital, the absolute benefit on mortality of empirical antibiotics against MRSA is 0.1% or less. Meaningful benefit of empirical antimicrobials against MRSA is limited to patients with approximately 30% mortality and 10% prevalence of MRSA. Avoiding empirical antibiotics against MRSA for low-risk infections would substantially reduce the use of anti-MRSA therapy.
我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估早期经验性使用抗耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)抗生素对 MRSA 感染患者和常见感染综合征患者(其病原体可能不是 MRSA)死亡率的影响。
我们使用 Embase、MEDLINE、PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane、Scopus 和 Google Scholar 进行了系统的文献检索,检索时间从最早记录到 2022 年 4 月 26 日。我们纳入了比较了根据患者是否接受经验性抗生素治疗,死亡率是否有所不同的患有培养证实的 MRSA 感染的患者的研究。主要结局是使用早期经验性抗生素治疗时死亡率的调整比值比(OR)。在进行随机效应荟萃分析后,我们根据医学文献中报道的 MRSA 患病率和每种综合征的基线死亡率,估计了常见感染综合征中初始经验性 MRSA 覆盖对死亡率的绝对风险降低。
最初有 2136 篇独特的手稿,37 项研究(11661 名参与者)符合我们的纳入标准。15 项研究(6066 名参与者)报告了死亡率的调整 OR。死亡率的汇总调整 OR 为 0.64(95%CI,0.48-0.84),支持经验性抗生素治疗。对于肺炎患者,估计绝对死亡率获益为 0%,对于非重症软组织感染患者为 0.1%(95%CI,0.04-0.2),对于非重症尿路感染患者为 0.04%(95%CI,0.01-0.05),对于脓毒症休克患者为 0.6%(95%CI,0.2-1.0),对于 ICU 中导管相关感染患者为 1.0%(95%CI,0.3-1.4)。
对于医院中最常见的三种感染,经验性使用抗 MRSA 抗生素治疗对死亡率的绝对获益小于 0.1%。经验性使用抗微生物药物治疗 MRSA 的实际获益仅限于死亡率约为 30%且 MRSA 患病率为 10%的患者。避免对低危感染使用经验性抗 MRSA 治疗,可显著减少抗 MRSA 治疗的使用。