Mohammed Cara, Choi Hoi Kei, Altaf Sana, Sajja Joshua, Ezike Lynda A, Wang Jada, Ihezue Urenna O, Prieto Juan J, Fatima Syeda Simrah, Mowo-Wale Adetola G
Orthopaedic Surgery, Sangre Grande Hospital, Sangre Grande, TTO.
Neuroscience, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Cureus. 2024 Jul 24;16(7):e65298. doi: 10.7759/cureus.65298. eCollection 2024 Jul.
Bloodstream infections (BSIs) are a major public health concern worldwide, requiring prompt and effective antibiotic therapy. Traditionally, intravenous (IV) antibiotics have been preferred for their rapid action and consistent absorption. However, interest is growing in transitioning to oral (PO) antibiotics when suitable, due to similar pharmacokinetics, improved patient outcomes, and reduced healthcare costs. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of switching from IV to PO antibiotics for both gram-negative and gram-positive BSIs. Scopus, Embase, and PubMed databases were comprehensively searched until March 2023. The review included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing continued IV therapy with early transition from IV to PO antibiotics within the first week of admission. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies involving adult patients (≥18 years) and reporting specific outcomes such as treatment success, mortality, and hospital readmissions. Meta-analysis of 17 studies comprising 11,245 patients demonstrated higher treatment success rates overall (OR: 1.40, P=0.04), particularly in gram-negative infections (OR: 1.42, P=0.05). However, this effect was not statistically significant in the gram-positive subgroup (OR: 1.41, P=0.036). Oral switch significantly reduced all-cause mortality overall (OR: 0.35, P=0.003), especially in gram-negative infections (OR: 0.22, P=0.008), but not significantly in gram-positive infections (OR: 0.60, P=0.09). Both gram-negative and gram-positive infections benefited from shorter hospital stays (P<0.0001), despite significant heterogeneity. Hospital readmission rates did not significantly differ between IV and oral switch groups (P=0.53). Our meta-analysis suggests potential benefits of early transition from IV to PO antibiotics for BSIs, including improved treatment outcomes and shorter hospital stays without an increased risk of readmission. However, these findings are subject to selection bias, and further standardized randomized trials are essential to validate these results.
血流感染(BSIs)是全球主要的公共卫生问题,需要及时有效的抗生素治疗。传统上,静脉注射(IV)抗生素因其起效迅速和吸收一致而更受青睐。然而,由于相似的药代动力学、改善的患者预后以及降低的医疗成本,在合适的情况下,向口服(PO)抗生素过渡的兴趣日益增加。这项荟萃分析旨在评估革兰氏阴性和革兰氏阳性血流感染从静脉注射抗生素转换为口服抗生素的临床效果。全面检索了Scopus、Embase和PubMed数据库,直至2023年3月。该综述纳入了随机对照试验和队列研究,比较了持续静脉治疗与入院第一周内从静脉注射早期转换为口服抗生素的情况。纳入标准包括涉及成年患者(≥18岁)并报告特定结局(如治疗成功、死亡率和再入院率)的研究。对17项研究(共11245名患者)的荟萃分析表明,总体治疗成功率更高(OR:1.40,P = 0.04),尤其是在革兰氏阴性感染中(OR:1.42,P = 0.05)。然而,在革兰氏阳性亚组中,这种效果无统计学意义(OR:1.41,P = 0.036)。口服转换总体上显著降低了全因死亡率(OR:0.35,P = 0.003),尤其是在革兰氏阴性感染中(OR:0.22,P = 0.008),但在革兰氏阳性感染中无显著差异(OR:0.60,P = 0.09)。尽管存在显著异质性,但革兰氏阴性和革兰氏阳性感染均受益于较短的住院时间(P < 0.0001)。静脉注射组和口服转换组之间的再入院率无显著差异(P = 0.53)。我们的荟萃分析表明,血流感染从静脉注射早期转换为口服抗生素有潜在益处,包括改善治疗结局和缩短住院时间,且再入院风险不增加。然而,这些发现存在选择偏倚,进一步的标准化随机试验对于验证这些结果至关重要。