-
Epilepsia Oct 2023Seizures are common in neonates, but there is substantial management variability. The Neonatal Task Force of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) developed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Seizures are common in neonates, but there is substantial management variability. The Neonatal Task Force of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) developed evidence-based recommendations about antiseizure medication (ASM) management in neonates in accordance with ILAE standards. Six priority questions were formulated, a systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed, and results were reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 standards. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool and risk of Bias in non-randomised studies - of interventions (ROBINS-I), and quality of evidence was evaluated using grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE). If insufficient evidence was available, then expert opinion was sought using Delphi consensus methodology. The strength of recommendations was defined according to the ILAE Clinical Practice Guidelines development tool. There were six main recommendations. First, phenobarbital should be the first-line ASM (evidence-based recommendation) regardless of etiology (expert agreement), unless channelopathy is likely the cause for seizures (e.g., due to family history), in which case phenytoin or carbamazepine should be used. Second, among neonates with seizures not responding to first-line ASM, phenytoin, levetiracetam, midazolam, or lidocaine may be used as a second-line ASM (expert agreement). In neonates with cardiac disorders, levetiracetam may be the preferred second-line ASM (expert agreement). Third, following cessation of acute provoked seizures without evidence for neonatal-onset epilepsy, ASMs should be discontinued before discharge home, regardless of magnetic resonance imaging or electroencephalographic findings (expert agreement). Fourth, therapeutic hypothermia may reduce seizure burden in neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (evidence-based recommendation). Fifth, treating neonatal seizures (including electrographic-only seizures) to achieve a lower seizure burden may be associated with improved outcome (expert agreement). Sixth, a trial of pyridoxine may be attempted in neonates presenting with clinical features of vitamin B6-dependent epilepsy and seizures unresponsive to second-line ASM (expert agreement). Additional considerations include a standardized pathway for the management of neonatal seizures in each neonatal unit and informing parents/guardians about the diagnosis of seizures and initial treatment options.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Anticonvulsants; Levetiracetam; Phenytoin; Consensus; Epilepsy; Seizures
PubMed: 37655702
DOI: 10.1111/epi.17745 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Jan 2024Despite widespread use, summary evidence from prior meta-analyses has contradictory conclusions regarding whether oseltamivir decreases the risk of hospitalization when... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Despite widespread use, summary evidence from prior meta-analyses has contradictory conclusions regarding whether oseltamivir decreases the risk of hospitalization when given to outpatients. Several large investigator-initiated randomized clinical trials have not yet been meta-analyzed.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in preventing hospitalization among influenza-infected adult and adolescent outpatients.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Europe PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception to January 4, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing oseltamivir vs placebo or nonactive controls in outpatients with confirmed influenza infection.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers (R.H. and É.B.C.) extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Each effect size was pooled using a restricted maximum likelihood random effects model. The quality of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Hospitalization was pooled as risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) estimates with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Of 2352 studies identified, 15 were included. The intention-to-treat infected (ITTi) population was comprised of 6166 individuals with 54.7% prescribed oseltamivir. Across study populations, 53.9% (5610 of 10 471) were female and the mean age was 45.3 (14.5) years. Overall, oseltamivir was not associated with reduced risk of hospitalization within the ITTi population (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.29; RD, -0.17%; 95% CI, -0.23% to 0.48%). Oseltamivir was also not associated with reduced hospitalization in older populations (mean age ≥65 years: RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.21 to 4.90) or in patients considered at greater risk of hospitalization (RR, 0.65; 0.33 to 1.28). Within the safety population, oseltamivir was associated with increased nausea (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.82) and vomiting (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.63) but not serious adverse events (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46 to1.08).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis among influenza-infected outpatients, oseltamivir was not associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization but was associated with increased gastrointestinal adverse events. To justify continued use for this purpose, an adequately powered trial in a suitably high-risk population is justified.
Topics: Adult; Adolescent; Humans; Female; Aged; Middle Aged; Male; Oseltamivir; Influenza, Human; Outpatients; Hospitalization; Europe
PubMed: 37306992
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.0699 -
Clinical Rheumatology Sep 2023Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality... (Review)
Review
Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality CPG recommendations, highlighting areas of consistency, and inconsistency. Electronic searches of five databases and four online guideline repositories were performed. RA management CPGs were eligible for inclusion if they were written in English and published between January 2015 and February 2022; focused on adults ≥ 18 years of age; met the criteria of a CPG as defined by the Institute of Medicine; and were rated as high quality on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. RA CPGs were excluded if they required additional payment to access; only addressed recommendations for the system/organization of care and did not include interventional management recommendations; and/or included other arthritic conditions. Of 27 CPGs identified, 13 CPGs met eligibility criteria and were included. Non-pharmacological care should include patient education, patient-centered care, shared decision-making, exercise, orthoses, and a multi-disciplinary approach to care. Pharmacological care should include conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), with methotrexate as the first-line choice. If monotherapy conventional synthetic DMARDs fail to achieve a treatment target, this should be followed by combination therapy conventional synthetic DMARDs (leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), biologic DMARDS and targeted synthetic DMARDS. Management should also include monitoring, pre-treatment investigations and vaccinations, and screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis. Surgical care should be recommended if non-surgical care fails. This synthesis offers clear guidance of evidence-based RA care to healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UB3Y7 ).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Hydroxychloroquine; Methotrexate; Sulfasalazine; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 37291382
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-023-06654-0 -
Supportive care and antiviral treatments in primary herpetic gingivostomatitis: a systematic review.Clinical Oral Investigations Nov 2023Herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) is the main pathogen responsible for herpes infections. In 13-30% of the cases, primary HSV-1 leads to the primary herpetic... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) is the main pathogen responsible for herpes infections. In 13-30% of the cases, primary HSV-1 leads to the primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (PHGS), often a self-limiting infection; however, it can limit the ability to drink/eat with, sometimes, the need for hospitalization. Multiple therapeutic methods have been proposed. This systematic review aims to collect and critically appraise the available evidence about the clinical management of PHGS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Literature search including three databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase), study design, and data analysis were performed following PRISMA guidelines, according to the PICO tool (PROSPERO n° CRD42023391386). Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I.
RESULTS
Five studies on a total of 364 patients (average age: 7.6 years) were identified. The treatment regimens were summarized in acyclovir; acyclovir + honey; fluids and analgesic; maalox + diphenhydramine; lidocaine; chlorhexidine (CHX); CHX + ialuronic acid; CHX + Mucosyte®; antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT); topical antiviral; topical antiviral + aPDT; and others.
CONCLUSIONS
Although PHGS is a disease with a high worldwide prevalence, the lack of consensus about therapeutic management indicates gaps in existing evidence. Most of the proposed treatment consists in symptomatic drugs with empiric regimens which are ineffective for the viral replication. The main limit to realize randomized clinical trial is due to the rapid onset and remission of the disease. In fact, the diagnostic delay, estimated in 72 h, decreases the effectiveness of any antiviral drugs.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Out of the five studies included in this systematic review, only one was able to provide some weak evidence that ACV is an effective treatment, improving healing of oral lesions and reducing duration of symptoms.
Topics: Humans; Child; Stomatitis, Herpetic; Delayed Diagnosis; Antiviral Agents; Acyclovir; Lidocaine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37733027
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05250-5 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Feb 2024Cefiderocol is a last resort option for carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative bacteria, especially metallo-β-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa and CR... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Global prevalence of cefiderocol non-susceptibility in Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Cefiderocol is a last resort option for carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative bacteria, especially metallo-β-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa and CR Acinetobacter baumannii. Monitoring global levels of cefiderocol non-susceptibility (CFDC-NS) is important.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically collate and examine studies investigating in vitro CFDC-NS and estimate the global prevalence of CFDC-NS against major Gram-negative pathogens.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and Scopus, up to May 2023.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Eligible were studies reporting CFDC-NS in Enterobacterales, P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, or Stenotrophomonas maltophilia clinical isolates.
RISK-OF-BIAS ASSESSMENT
Two independent reviewers extracted study data and assessed the risk of bias on the population, setting, and measurement (susceptibility testing) domains.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Binomial-Normal mixed-effects models were applied to estimate CFDC-NS prevalence by species, coresistance phenotype, and breakpoint definition (EUCAST, CLSI, and FDA). Sources of heterogeneity were investigated by subgroup and meta-regression analyses.
RESULTS
In all, 78 studies reporting 82 035 clinical isolates were analysed (87% published between 2020 and 2023). CFDC-NS prevalence (EUCAST breakpoints) was low overall but varied by species (S. maltophilia 0.4% [95% CI 0.2-0.7%], Enterobacterales 3.0% [95% CI 1.5-6.0%], P. aeruginosa 1.4% [95% CI 0.5-4.0%]) and was highest for A. baumannii (8.8%, 95% CI 4.9-15.2%). CFDC-NS was much higher in CR Enterobacterales (12.4%, 95% CI 7.3-20.0%) and CR A. baumannii (13.2%, 95% CI 7.8-21.5%), but relatively low for CR P. aeruginosa (3.5%, 95% CI 1.6-7.8%). CFDC-NS was exceedingly high in New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (38.8%, 95% CI 22.6-58.0%), New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-producing A. baumannii (44.7%, 95% CI 34.5-55.4%), and ceftazidime/avibactam-resistant Enterobacterales (36.6%, 95% CI 22.7-53.1%). CFDC-NS varied considerably with breakpoint definition, predominantly among CR bacteria. Additional sources of heterogeneity were single-centre investigations and geographical regions.
CONCLUSIONS
CFDC-NS prevalence is low overall, but alarmingly high for specific CR phenotypes circulating in some institutions or regions. Continuous surveillance and updating of global CFDC-NS estimates are imperative while cefiderocol is increasingly introduced into clinical practice. The need to harmonize EUCAST and CLSI breakpoints was evident.
Topics: Humans; Cefiderocol; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Stenotrophomonas maltophilia; Cephalosporins; Acinetobacter baumannii; Prevalence; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Carbapenems; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 37666449
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2023.08.029 -
Journal of Neurology Oct 2023To compare the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs), both as monotherapies and adjunctive therapies, for idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGEs) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs), both as monotherapies and adjunctive therapies, for idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGEs) and related entities.
METHODS
Two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for relevant randomized controlled trials from December 2022 to February 2023. Studies on the efficacy and safety of ASM monotherapies or adjunctive therapies for IGEs and related entities-including juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, childhood absence epilepsy (CAE), juvenile absence epilepsy, or generalized tonic-clonic seizures alone (GTCA)-were included. Efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients remaining seizure free for 1, 3, 6, and 12 months; safety outcomes were the proportions of any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Network meta-analyses were performed in a random-effects model to obtain odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Rankings of ASMs were based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). This study is registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42022372358).
RESULTS
Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials containing 4282 patients were included. As monotherapies, all ASMs were more effective than placebo, and valproate and ethosuximide were significantly better than lamotrigine. According to the SUCRA for efficacy, ethosuximide ranked first for CAE, whereas valproate ranked first for other types of IGEs. As adjunctive therapies, topiramate ranked best for GTCA as well as overall for IGEs, while levetiracetam ranked best for myoclonic seizures. For safety, perampanel ranked best (measured by any TEAE).
CONCLUSIONS
All of the studied ASMs were more effective than placebo. Valproate monotherapy ranked best overall for IGEs, whereas ethosuximide ranked best for CAE. Adjunctive topiramate and levetiracetam were most effective for GTCA and myoclonic seizures, respectively. Furthermore, perampanel had the best tolerability.
Topics: Humans; Child; Valproic Acid; Topiramate; Network Meta-Analysis; Levetiracetam; Ethosuximide; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy, Generalized; Seizures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37378757
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-023-11834-8 -
The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Jan 2024We previously showed rising primary antibiotic resistance of Helicobacter pylori during 1990-2015 in the Asia-Pacific region. However, whether primary antibiotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We previously showed rising primary antibiotic resistance of Helicobacter pylori during 1990-2015 in the Asia-Pacific region. However, whether primary antibiotic resistance continues to rise is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to assess the latest prevalence of H pylori antibiotic resistance in this region.
METHODS
We did an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials published in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library between Jan 1, 1990, and July 12, 2023. Studies investigating primary H pylori resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, levofloxacin, amoxicillin, or tetracycline in individuals naive to eradication therapy in the Asia-Pacific region (as defined by the UN geoscheme) were eligible for inclusion. There were no language restrictions. Studies that focused on specific subpopulations (eg, children) were excluded. Using a standardised extraction form, two authors independently reviewed and extracted summary data from all eligible articles. The updated prevalence of antibiotic resistance was generated by meta-analysis under a random-effects model and subgroup analyses were done by countries and periods of study. Between-study variability was assessed by use of I. The study is registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022339956.
FINDINGS
A total of 351 studies, including 175 new studies and 176 studies from our previous analysis, were included in this meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of primary antibiotic resistance of H pylori between 1990 and 2022 was 22% (95% CI 20-23; I=96%) for clarithromycin, 52% (49-55; I=99%) for metronidazole, 26% (24-29; I=96%) for levofloxacin, 4% (3-5; I=95%) for tetracycline, and 4% (3-5; I=95%) for amoxicillin. Prevalence varied considerably between countries and across study periods. From 1990 to 2022, the prevalence of primary resistance increased for clarithromycin, metronidazole, and levofloxacin but remained stable for amoxicillin and tetracycline. The latest primary resistance prevalences were 30% (95% CI 28-33; I=93%) for clarithromycin, 61% (55-66; I=99%) for metronidazole, 35% (31-39; I=95%) for levofloxacin, 4% (2-6; I=96%) for tetracycline, and 6% (4-8; I=96%) for amoxicillin in the Asia-Pacific region.
INTERPRETATION
Treatment guidelines should be adapted in response to the rising primary resistance of key antibiotics for H pylori eradication. A global policy to control and monitor the antibiotic resistance of H pylori is urgently needed.
FUNDING
Ministry of Health and Welfare of Taiwan, National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan, and National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATION
For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Topics: Child; Humans; Clarithromycin; Metronidazole; Levofloxacin; Helicobacter pylori; Helicobacter Infections; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Amoxicillin; Tetracycline; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Asia
PubMed: 37972625
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(23)00281-9 -
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy :... Mar 2024Baloxavir marboxil (BXM), a newly developed cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor, is widely used to treat influenza virus infections in inpatients and outpatients. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety of baloxavir marboxil versus oseltamivir as the treatment for influenza virus infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Baloxavir marboxil (BXM), a newly developed cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor, is widely used to treat influenza virus infections in inpatients and outpatients. A previous meta-analysis included only outpatients and patients suspected of having an influenza virus infection based on clinical symptoms. However, whether BXM or oseltamivir is safer and more effective for inpatients remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis validating the effectiveness and safety of BXM versus oseltamivir in inpatients with influenza virus.
METHODS
The Scopus, EMBASE, PubMed, Ichushi, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for articles published until January 2023. The outcomes were mortality, hospitalization period, incidence of BXM- or oseltamivir-related adverse events, illness duration, and changes of virus titers and viral RNA load in patients with influenza virus infections.
RESULTS
Two randomized controlled trials with 1624 outpatients and two retrospective studies with 874 inpatients were enrolled. No deaths occurred in outpatients treated with BXM or oseltamivir. Among inpatients, BXM reduced mortality (p = 0.06) and significantly shortened hospitalization period (p = 0.01) compared to oseltamivir. In outpatients, BXM had a significantly lower incidence of adverse events (p = 0.03), reductions in influenza virus titers (p < 0.001) and viral RNA loads (p < 0.001), and a tendency to be a shorter illness duration compared with that of oseltamivir (p = 0.27).
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis showed that BXM was safer and more effective in patients than oseltamivir; thus, supporting the use of BXM for the initial treatment of patients with proven influenza virus infection.
Topics: Humans; Oseltamivir; Influenza, Human; Retrospective Studies; Antiviral Agents; Oxazines; Pyridines; Thiepins; Orthomyxoviridae Infections; Treatment Outcome; RNA, Viral; Dibenzothiepins; Morpholines; Pyridones; Triazines
PubMed: 37866622
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2023.10.017 -
JAMA Oct 2023Gefapixant represents an emerging therapy for patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Gefapixant represents an emerging therapy for patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gefapixant for the treatment of adults with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from November 2014 to July 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Two reviewers independently screened for parallel and crossover randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared, in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough, either gefapixant with placebo, or 2 or more doses of gefapixant with or without placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data. A frequentist random-effects dose-response meta-analysis or pairwise meta-analysis was used for each outcome. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in whether patients would perceive the effects as important (greater than the minimal important difference [MID]) or small (less than the MID).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Cough frequency (measured using the VitaloJAK cough monitor; MID, 20%), cough severity (measured using the 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]; higher score is worse; MID, 30 mm), cough-specific quality of life (measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire [LCQ]; score range, 3 [maximal impairment] to 21 [no impairment]; MID, 1.3 points), treatment-related adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, and taste-related adverse events.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs including 2980 patients were included in the primary analysis. Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) had small effects on awake cough frequency (17.6% reduction [95% CI, 10.6%-24.0%], moderate certainty), cough severity on the 100-mm VAS (mean difference, -6.2 mm [95% CI, -4.1 to -8.4]; high certainty), and cough-specific quality of life on the LCQ (mean difference, 1.0 points [95% CI, 0.7-1.4]; moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) probably caused an important increase in treatment-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 13-64 more], moderate certainty) and taste-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 22-46 more], high certainty). High-certainty evidence suggests that gefapixant (15 mg twice daily) had small effects on taste-related adverse events (6 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 5-8 more]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg orally twice daily) led to modest improvements in cough frequency, cough severity, and cough-specific quality of life but increased taste-related adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Cough; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Sulfonamides; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Treatment Outcome; Chronic Disease; Taste
PubMed: 37694849
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.18035 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Sep 2023Guidelines recommend respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy or β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy as first-line options for hospitalized adults with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy vs. β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy for hospitalized adults with community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
INTRODUCTION
Guidelines recommend respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy or β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy as first-line options for hospitalized adults with mild-to-moderate community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Efficacy of these regimens has not been adequately evaluated.
METHODS
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy and β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy in hospitalised adults with CAP was performed. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. The primary outcome was clinical cure rate. Quality of evidence (QoE) was evaluated using GRADE methodology.
RESULTS
A total of 4140 participants in 18 RCTs were included. Levofloxacin (11 trials) or moxifloxacin (6 trials) were the predominant respiratory fluoroquinolones evaluated, and the β-lactam plus macrolide group used ceftriaxone plus a macrolide (10 trials), cefuroxime plus azithromycin (5 trials), and amoxicillin/clavulanate plus a macrolide (2 trials). Patients receiving respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy had a significantly higher clinical cure rate (86.5% vs. 81.5%; odds ratio [OR] 1.47; 95% confidence interval [95% CI: 1.17-1.83]; P = 0.0008; I = 0%; 17 RCTs; moderate QoE) and microbiological eradication rate (86.0% vs. 81.0%; OR 1.51 [95% CI: 1.00-2.26]; P = 0.05; I = 0%; 15 RCTs; moderate QoE) than patients receiving β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy. All-cause mortality (7.2% vs. 7.7%; OR 0.88 [95% CI: 0.67-1.17]; I = 0%; low QoE) and adverse events (24.8% vs. 28.1%; OR 0.87 [95% CI: 0.69-1.09]; I = 0%; low QoE] were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSION
Respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy demonstrated an advantage in clinical cure and microbiological eradication; however, it did not impact mortality.
Topics: Adult; Humans; beta-Lactams; Fluoroquinolones; Macrolides; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Drug Therapy, Combination; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Community-Acquired Infections
PubMed: 37385561
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2023.106905