-
JAMA Nov 2022The effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) in critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation is uncertain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Association Between Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract and In-Hospital Mortality in Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
The effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) in critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation is uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether SDD is associated with reduced risk of death in adults receiving mechanical ventilation in intensive care units (ICUs) compared with standard care.
DATA SOURCES
The primary search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases until September 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials including adults receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU comparing SDD vs standard care or placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed in duplicate. The primary analysis was conducted using a bayesian framework.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Subgroups included SDD with an intravenous agent compared with SDD without an intravenous agent. There were 8 secondary outcomes including the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, ICU-acquired bacteremia, and the incidence of positive cultures of antimicrobial-resistant organisms.
RESULTS
There were 32 randomized clinical trials including 24 389 participants in the analysis. The median age of participants in the included studies was 54 years (IQR, 44-60), and the median proportion of female trial participants was 33% (IQR, 25%-38%). Data from 30 trials including 24 034 participants contributed to the primary outcome. The pooled estimated risk ratio (RR) for mortality for SDD compared with standard care was 0.91 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.82-0.99; I2 = 33.9%; moderate certainty) with a 99.3% posterior probability that SDD reduced hospital mortality. The beneficial association of SDD was evident in trials with an intravenous agent (RR, 0.84 [95% CrI, 0.74-0.94]), but not in trials without an intravenous agent (RR, 1.01 [95% CrI, 0.91-1.11]) (P value for the interaction between subgroups = .02). SDD was associated with reduced risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR, 0.44 [95% CrI, 0.36-0.54]) and ICU-acquired bacteremia (RR, 0.68 [95% CrI, 0.57-0.81]). Available data regarding the incidence of positive cultures of antimicrobial-resistant organisms were not amenable to pooling and were of very low certainty.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among adults in the ICU treated with mechanical ventilation, the use of SDD compared with standard care or placebo was associated with lower hospital mortality. Evidence regarding the effect of SDD on antimicrobial resistance was of very low certainty.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Infective Agents; Bacteremia; Bayes Theorem; Gastrointestinal Tract; Hospital Mortality; Intensive Care Units; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Respiration, Artificial; Critical Illness; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Infection Control
PubMed: 36286098
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.19709 -
The Ocular Surface Oct 2019We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of different treatment for Demodex blepharitis. Parameters studied were mites count,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of different treatment for Demodex blepharitis. Parameters studied were mites count, improvement of symptoms and mites' eradication, stratified on type of treatments and mode of delivery of treatments (local or systemic).
METHOD
The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google scholar and Science Direct databases were searched for studies reporting an efficacy of treatments for Demodex blepharitis.
RESULTS
We included 19 studies (14 observational and 5 randomized clinical trials), for a total of 934 patients, 1741 eyes, and 13 different treatments. For mites count, eradication rate, and symptoms improvement, meta-analysis included fifteen, fourteen and thirteen studies, respectively. The overall effect sizes for efficiency of all treatments, globally, were 1.68 (95CI 1.25 to 2.12), 0.45 (0.26-0.64), and 0.76 (0.59-0.90), respectively. Except usual lid hygiene for mites count, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario ointment (CHEO) for both eradication rate and symptoms, and CHEO, 2% metronidazole ointment, and systemic metronidazole for eradication rate, all treatments were efficient. Stratified meta-analysis did not show significant differences between local and systemic treatments (1.22, 0.83 to 1.60 vs 2.24, 1.30 to 3.18 for mites count; 0.37, 0.21 to 0.54 vs 0.56, 0.06 to 0.99 for eradication rate; and 0.77, 0.58 to 0.92 vs 0.67, 0.25 to 0.98 for symptoms improvement).
CONCLUSION
We reported the efficiency of the different treatments of Demodex blepharitis. Because of less systemic side effects, local treatments seem promising molecules in the treatment of Demodex blepharitis.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antiparasitic Agents; Blepharitis; Eye Infections, Parasitic; Humans; Ivermectin; Metronidazole; Miotics; Mite Infestations; Mites; Pilocarpine; Tea Tree Oil
PubMed: 31229586
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtos.2019.06.004 -
Microbial Pathogenesis Jun 2023Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) infections are a significant public health issue. CRKP infections can increase the mortality of severely ill... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam compared to other antimicrobials for the treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae strains, a systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) infections are a significant public health issue. CRKP infections can increase the mortality of severely ill hospitalised patients and elevate the financial burden of their hospitalisation globally. Colistin and tigecycline are the main antimicrobials which have been widely used for the treatment of CRKP infections. However, novel antimicrobials have been recently launched. Ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) seems one of the most efficient ones.
AIM
The aim of the current systematic literature review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and safety of CAZ-AVI compared to other antimicrobials in adult patients (aged >18) with CRKP infection.
METHODS
All data were retrieved using PubMed/Medline, the Web of Science and Cochrane library. The main outcome was the effective treatment of CRKP infection or the microbiological eradication of CRKP in the culture of biological samples. Secondary outcomes included the impact on 28- or 30-day mortality and adverse effects, if available. Pooled analysis was conducted using Review Manager v. 5.4.1 software (RevMan). The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS
CAZ-AVI was proved more effective than other antimicrobials against CRKP infections and CRKP bloodstream infections (p < 0.00001 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Patients in the CAZ-AVI arm displayed statistically lower 28- and 30-day mortality rates (p = 0.002 and p < 0.00001, respectively). Concerning the microbiological eradication, no meta-analysis was feasible due to high heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
The promotion of CAZ-AVI for treating CRKP infections over other antimicrobials seems favourable. However, there is a long way ahead to reveal additional scientific findings to further strengthen this statement.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Klebsiella pneumoniae; Ceftazidime; Drug Combinations; Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae; Anti-Infective Agents; Carbapenems; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Klebsiella Infections; beta-Lactamases
PubMed: 37004964
DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2023.106090 -
International Journal of Clinical... Apr 2022Background Surgical site infections account for 14-17% of all healthcare-associated infections. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) are complementary strategies developed to... (Review)
Review
Background Surgical site infections account for 14-17% of all healthcare-associated infections. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) are complementary strategies developed to optimize the use of antimicrobials. Aim to evaluate the effectiveness of AMS in promoting adherence to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis protocols in hospitalized patients, reducing surgical site infection rate and cost-benefit ratio. Method This systematic review of randomized clinical trials, non-randomized clinical trials and before and after studies was performed using Pubmed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov, in addition to reference lists of included studies. The risk of bias of studies was measured by the ROBINS-I checklist and the quality of the evidence synthesis by GRADE. Results Fourteen before and after design studies were included. In 85.7% of the studies, AMS was effective in increasing adherence to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis protocols and in 28.5%, there was reduction in surgical site infection rate. Three studies evaluated cost-benefit ratio and found a favorable impact. Eight (57%) studies were at risk of moderate bias and six had severe bias. The evaluation of the synthesis of evidence showed quality ranging from low to very low. Conclusion AMS, such as audit, feedback, education, implementation of a protocol, and a computer-assisted decision support methodology, appear to be effective in promoting adherence to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, reducing surgical site infection rate with a positive economic impact. However, more studies, particularly randomized clinical trials, are needed to improve the level of evidence of available information on AMS in order to favor decision-making.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Antimicrobial Stewardship; Humans; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 34843035
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-021-01358-4 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018To report the clinical outcomes for patients with implants treated for peri-implantitis who subsequently received supportive care (supportive peri-implant/periodontal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To report the clinical outcomes for patients with implants treated for peri-implantitis who subsequently received supportive care (supportive peri-implant/periodontal therapy) for at least 3 years.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic search of multiple electronic databases, grey literature and hand searching, without language restriction, to identify studies including ≥10 patients was constructed. Data and risk of bias were explored qualitatively. Estimated cumulative survival at the implant- and patient-level was pooled with random-effects meta-analysis and explored for publication bias (funnel plot) at different time intervals.
RESULTS
The search identified 5,761 studies. Of 83 records selected during screening, 65 were excluded through independent review (kappa = 0.94), with 18 retained for qualitative and 13 of those for quantitative assessments. On average, studies included 26 patients (median, IQR 21-32), with 36 implants (median, IQR 26-45). Study designs (case definitions of peri-implantitis, peri-implantitis treatment, supportive care) and population characteristics (patient, implant and prosthesis characteristics) varied markedly. Data extraction was affected by reduced reporting quality, but over 75% of studies had low risk of bias. Implant survival was 81.73%-100% at 3 years (seven studies), 74.09%-100% at 4 years (three studies), 76.03%-100% at 5 years (four studies) and 69.63%-98.72% at 7 years (two studies). Success and recurrence definitions were reported in five and two studies respectively, were heterogeneous, and those outcomes were unable to be explored quantitatively.
CONCLUSION
Therapy of peri-implantitis followed by regular supportive care resulted in high patient- and implant-level survival in the medium to long term. Favourable results were reported, with clinical improvements and stable peri-implant bone levels in the majority of patients.
Topics: Aftercare; Anti-Infective Agents; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30328195
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13287 -
European Journal of Internal Medicine May 2022To evaluate the evidence concerning the effectiveness of antiseptic barrier caps vs. manual disinfection in preventing central line-associated bloodstream infection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the evidence concerning the effectiveness of antiseptic barrier caps vs. manual disinfection in preventing central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI).
METHODS
The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021259582). PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched from 2011 to 2021. Randomized-controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies on hospitalized patients of any age were included.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included. Compared with manual disinfection, antiseptic barrier caps significantly reduced CLABSI rate per 1000 line-days (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD]: -0.02; 95%CI: -0.03 to -0.01) and number of CLABSI per patient (RR: 0.60; 95%CI: 0.41-0.89). Subgroup analysis showed that antiseptic barrier caps were more effective in reducing CLABSI rate per 1000 line-days in ICU (SMD: -0.02; 95%CI: -0.03 to -0.01) and non-ICU patients (SMD: -0.03; 95%CI: -0.05 to -0.01), adults (SMD: -0.02; 95%CI: -0.04 to -0.01), as in observational studies (SMD: -0.02; 95%CI: -0.02 to -0.01). Antiseptic barrier caps also significantly reduce CLABSI risk in ICU patients (RR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.42-1.00), adults (RR: 0.50, 95%CI: 0.29-0.86), and observational studies (RR: 0.54; 95%CI: 0.32-0.91). No differences were found when only children or RCTs were taken into account. Median cost savings amongst studies were $21,890 [IQR 16,350-45,000] per CLABSI.
CONCLUSIONS
Antiseptic barrier caps appear to be effective in reducing CLABSI. The real-world impact needs to be confirmed by RCTs.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Catheter-Related Infections; Child; Humans; Sepsis
PubMed: 35151542
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2022.01.040 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease and is used in more than 200,000 such patients globally. However, its value... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease and is used in more than 200,000 such patients globally. However, its value is often limited by the development of infections such as peritonitis and exit-site and tunnel infections. Multiple strategies have been developed to reduce the risk of peritonitis including antibiotics, topical disinfectants to the exit site and antifungal agents. However, the effectiveness of these strategies has been variable and are based on a small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The optimal preventive strategies to reduce the occurrence of peritonitis remain unclear.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of antimicrobial strategies used to prevent peritonitis in PD patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 4 October 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs or quasi-RCTs in patients receiving chronic PD, which evaluated any antimicrobial agents used systemically or locally to prevent peritonitis or exit-site/tunnel infection were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-nine studies, randomising 4435 patients, were included. Twenty additional studies have been included in this update. The risk of bias domains were often unclear or high; risk of bias was judged to be low in 19 (49%) studies for random sequence generation, 12 (31%) studies for allocation concealment, 22 (56%) studies for incomplete outcome reporting, and in 12 (31%) studies for selective outcome reporting. Blinding of participants and personnel was considered to be at low risk of bias in 8 (21%) and 10 studies (26%) for blinding of outcome assessors. It should be noted that blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in many of the studies because of the nature of the intervention or control treatment.The use of oral or topical antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment, had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 191 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.04) and the risk of peritonitis (5 studies, 395 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.19).The use of nasal antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.87) and the risk of peritonitis (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.31).Pre/perioperative intravenous vancomycin compared with no treatment may reduce the risk of early peritonitis (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61) but has an uncertain effect on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.32).The use of topical disinfectant compared with standard care or other active treatment (antibiotic or other disinfectant) had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (8 studies, 973 patients, low quality evidence, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33) and the risk of peritonitis (6 studies, 853 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06).Antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin/fluconazole compared with placebo/no treatment may reduce the risk of fungal peritonitis occurring after a patient has had an antibiotic course (2 studies, 817 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63).No intervention reduced the risk of catheter removal or replacement. Most of the available studies were small and of suboptimal quality. Only six studies enrolled 200 or more patients.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this update, we identified limited data from RCTs and quasi-RCTs which evaluated strategies to prevent peritonitis and exit-site/tunnel infections. This review demonstrates that pre/peri-operative intravenous vancomycin may reduce the risk of early peritonitis and that antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin or fluconazole reduces the risk of fungal peritonitis following an antibiotic course. However, no other antimicrobial interventions have proven efficacy. In particular, the use of nasal antibiotic to eradicate Staphylococcus aureus, had an uncertain effect on the risk of peritonitis and raises questions about the usefulness of this approach. Given the large number of patients on PD and the importance of peritonitis, the lack of adequately powered and high quality RCTs to inform decision making about strategies to prevent peritonitis is striking.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Antifungal Agents; Catheter-Related Infections; Device Removal; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Mupirocin; Mycoses; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 28390069
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004679.pub3 -
Oxidative Medicine and Cellular... 2021Despite evidence of health benefits from kefir administration, a systematic review with meta-analysis on bioactive compounds associated with these benefits is still... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Despite evidence of health benefits from kefir administration, a systematic review with meta-analysis on bioactive compounds associated with these benefits is still absent in the literature. Kefir is fermented milk resulting from the metabolism of a complex microbiota in symbiosis. Recent researches have investigated the bioactive compounds responsible for the preventive and therapeutic effects attributed to kefir. However, differences in functional potential between industrial and artisanal kefir are still controversial. Firstly, we identified differences in the microbial composition among both types of kefir. Available evidence concerning the action of different bioactive compounds from kefir on health, both from and studies, was subsequently summarized to draw a primary conclusion of the dose and the intervention time for effect, the producer microorganisms, the precursor in the milk, and the action mechanism. Meta-analysis was performed to investigate the statistically significant differences ( < 0.05) between intervention and control and between both types of kefir for each health effect studied. In summary, the bioactive compounds more commonly reported were exopolysaccharides, including kefiran, bioactive peptides, and organic acids, especially lactic acid. Kefir bioactive compounds presented antimicrobial, anticancer, and immune-modulatory activities corroborated by the meta-analysis. However, clinical evidence is urgently needed to strengthen the practical applicability of these bioactive compounds. The mechanisms of their action were diverse, indicating that they can act by different signaling pathways. Still, industrial and artisanal kefir may differ regarding functional potential-OR of 8.56 (95% CI: 2.27-32.21, ≤ .001)-according to the observed health effect, which can be associated with differences in the microbial composition between both types of kefir.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Biological Products; Fermentation; Humans; Immunomodulating Agents; Kefir; Milk
PubMed: 34745425
DOI: 10.1155/2021/9081738 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Mar 2022Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine are the most common disinfectants used in preoperative skin preparation. However, there is no consistent conclusion regarding the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine are the most common disinfectants used in preoperative skin preparation. However, there is no consistent conclusion regarding the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) and bacterial culture data.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative SSI and relevant bacterial data.
DESIGN
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis SETTINGS: N/A PARTICIPANTS: N/A METHOD: Literature relevant to "skin antisepsis" and "surgical site infections" was retrieved from PUBMED, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINHAL and CNKI. The incidence of SSI was the primary outcome, while the secondary outcome was bacterial data from the infected incision. All data were analyzed with Revman 5.3 and Stata Statistical Software.
RESULTS
A total of 36 studies were identified in this study, which included 16,872 participants. This study revealed that chlorhexidine is superior to povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative SSI (risk ratio [RR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.87; p = 0.019, I = 39%). Further meta-regression analysis revealed that the effect of chlorhexidine was directly associated with the type of incision, but failed to differentiate between the subgroups divided according to the type of incision. With respect to bacteria colonization, the most common bacteria for chlorhexidine arm were propionibacterium's, while the most common bacteria for the iodine arm were staphylococci species.
CONCLUSION
In comparison to povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine showed better results in preventing postoperative SSI.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Iodine; Preoperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 35121520
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104059 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Apr 2023Which antimicrobial agents provide the optimal efficacy, safety, and tolerability for the empirical treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Which antimicrobial agents provide the optimal efficacy, safety, and tolerability for the empirical treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) remains unclear but is paramount in the context of evolving antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, updated meta-analyses on this issue are warranted.
METHODS
We systematically searched four major electronic databases from their inception through October 2022. Randomized controlled trials examining antimicrobial agents for cIAI treatment were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies utilizing the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool as described in the updated version 1 of the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and extracted data from all manuscripts according to a predetermined list of topics. All meta-analyses were conducted using R software. The primary outcome was clinical success rate in patients with cIAIs.
RESULTS
Forty-five active-controlled trials with low to medium methodological quality and involving 14,267 adults with cIAIs were included in the network meta-analyses. The vast majority of patients with an acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score < 10 had low risk of treatment failure or death. Twenty-one regimens were investigated. In the network meta-analyses, cefepime plus metronidazole was more effective than tigecycline and ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole (odds ratio [OR] = 1.96, 95% credibility interval [CrI] 1.05 ~ 3.79; OR = 3.09, 95% CrI 1.02 ~ 9.79, respectively). No statistically significant differences were found among antimicrobial agents regarding microbiological success rates. Cefepime plus metronidazole had lower risk of all-cause mortality than tigecycline (OR = 0.22, 95% CrI 0.05 ~ 0.85). Statistically significant trends were observed favoring cefotaxime plus metronidazole, which exhibited fewer discontinuations because of adverse events (AEs) when compared with eravacycline, meropenem and ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole (OR = 0.0, 95% CrI 0.0 ~ 0.8; OR = 0.0, 95% CrI 0.0 ~ 0.7; OR = 0.0, 95% CrI 0.0 ~ 0.64, respectively). Compared with tigecycline, eravacycline was associated with fewer discontinuations because of AEs (OR = 0.17, 95% CrI 0.03 ~ 0.81). Compared with meropenem, ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole had a higher rate of discontinuation due to AEs (OR = 2.09, 95% CrI 1.0 ~ 4.41). In pairwise meta-analyses, compared with ceftriaxone plus metronidazole, ertapenem and moxifloxacin (one trial, OR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.06 ~ 3.50; one trial, OR = 4.24, 95% CI 1.18 ~ 15.28, respectively) were associated with significantly increased risks of serious AEs. Compared with imipenem/cilastatin, tigecycline (four trials, OR = 1.57, 95%CI 1.07 ~ 2.32) was associated with a significantly increased risk of serious AEs. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, Cefepime plus metronidazole was more likely to be optimal among all treatments in terms of efficacy and safety, tigecycline was more likely to be worst regimen in terms of tolerability, and eravacycline was more likely to be best tolerated.
CONCLUSION
This study suggests that cefepime plus metronidazole is optimal for empirical treatment of patients with cIAIs and that tigecycline should be prescribed cautiously considering the safety and tolerability concerns. However, it should be noted that data currently available on the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of antimicrobial agents pertain mostly to lower-risk patients with cIAIs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Metronidazole; Meropenem; Network Meta-Analysis; Tigecycline; Cefepime; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Intraabdominal Infections; Tazobactam; Anti-Infective Agents
PubMed: 37085768
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08209-9