Dataset Information

Monotherapy versus combination therapy for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Infections caused by carbapenemase-producing, multidrug-resistant (MDR), or extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Gram-negative bacteria constitute a major therapeutic challenge. Whether combination antibiotic therapy is superior to monotherapy remains unknown. In this systematic review and meta-analysis OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published by December 2016 comparing mono- with combination antibiotic therapy for infections with carbapenemase-producing, MDR, or XDR Gram-negative bacteria. Mortality and clinical cure rates served as primary and secondary outcome measures, respectively. Of 8847 initially identified studies, 53 studies - covering pneumonia (n?=?10 studies), blood stream (n?=?15), osteoarticular (n?=?1), and mixed infections (n?=?27) - were included. 41% (n?=?1848) of patients underwent monotherapy, and 59% (n?=?2666) combination therapy. In case series/cohort studies (n?=?45) mortality was lower with combination- vs. monotherapy (RR 0.83, CI 0.73-0.93, p?=?0.002, I²?=?24%). Subgroup analysis revealed lower mortality with combination therapy with at least two in-vitro active antibiotics, in blood stream infections, and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. No mortality difference was seen in case-control studies (n?=?6) and RCTs (n?=?2). Cure rates did not differ regardless of study type. The two included RCTs had a high and unknown risk of bias, respectively. 16.7% (1/6) of case-control studies and 37.8% (17/45) of cases series/cohort studies were of good quality, whereas quality was poor in the remaining studies. In conclusion, combination antimicrobial therapy of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria appears to be superior to monotherapy with regard to mortality.

SUBMITTER: Schmid A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6821042 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Monotherapy versus combination therapy for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Schmid Adrian A Wolfensberger Aline A Nemeth Johannes J Schreiber Peter W PW Sax Hugo H Kuster Stefan P SP

Scientific reports 20191029 1

Infections caused by carbapenemase-producing, multidrug-resistant (MDR), or extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Gram-negative bacteria constitute a major therapeutic challenge. Whether combination antibiotic therapy is superior to monotherapy remains unknown. In this systematic review and meta-analysis OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published by December 2016 comparing mono- wit ...[more]

PMID: 31664064

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: To systematically review and compare the efficacy and posttreatment resistance of ceftazidime-avibactam therapy and ceftazidime-avibactam-based combination therapy in patients with Gram-negative pathogens. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang Data databases were searched from their inception up to March 31, 2021, to obtain studies on ceftazidime-avibactam therapy versus ceftazidime-avibactam-based combination therapy in patients with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. The primary outcome was mortality rate, and the second outcomes were microbiologically negative, clinical success, and the development of resistance after ceftazidime-avibactam treatment. Results: Seventeen studies representing 1,435 patients (837 received ceftazidime-avibactam-based combination therapy and 598 received ceftazidime-avibactam therapy) were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that no statistically significant difference was found on mortality rate (Petos odds ratio (OR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.34), microbiologically negative (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.54-1.81), and clinical success (OR =0.95, 95% CI 0.64-1.39) between ceftazidime-avibactam-based combination therapy and ceftazidime-avibactam therapy. Although there was no difference in posttreatment resistance of ceftazidime-avibactam (OR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.34-1.26) in all included studies, a trend favoring the combination therapy was found (according to the pooled three studies, OR = 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.78). Conclusions: The current evidence suggests that ceftazidime-avibactam-based combination therapy may not have beneficial effects on mortality, microbiologically negative, and clinical success to patients with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. A trend of posttreatment resistance occurred more likely in ceftazidime-avibactam therapy than the combination therapy. Due to the limited number of studies that can be included, additional high-quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Rates of colonization and infection with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens are on the rise, particularly in southeastern European countries, and this is increasingly true in Germany as well. The organisms in question include enterobacteriaceae such as Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli and non-fermenting bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. As the carbapenems have been the gold standard to date for the systemic treatment of serious infections with Gram-negative bacteria, carbapenem resistance presents new and difficult challenges in therapeutic decision-making, particularly because of the high frequency of coresistance. METHODS:This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed and on other applicable literature. RESULTS:Multiresistant Gram-negative (MRGN) pathogens are classified in Germany according to their resistance to four different classes of antibiotics; fluoroquinolones, piperacillin, third-generation cephalosporins, and carbapenems. Quadruple MRGN pathogens are resistant to all four groups, triple MRGN pathogens to three of them. There are a number of therapeutic alternatives to carbapenems that can be applied with the aid of sensitive microbiological and/or molecular genetic testing. The following antibiotics are often the only ones that can be used to treat quadruple MRGN pathogens: colistin, aminoglycosides, tigecycline, fosfomycin, ceftazidime/avibactam, and ceftolozan/tazobactam. Carbapenems, too, may still be an option in certain situations. There is also evidence that combinations of antibiotics against which the pathogen is resistant individually can some- times be a valid treatment option; these include combinations of colistin with one or two carbapenems. CONCLUSION:The treatment of severe infection with carbapenem-resistant pathogens should be individualized and carried out in an interdisciplinary framework, in consideration of antibiotic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in each case. The treat- ment options are based on evidence from in vitro studies, retrospective studies, and case series, which must be interpreted with caution. Randomized clinical trials are needed to test each of the various combined approaches.

Dataset Information

Monotherapy versus combination therapy for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Monotherapy versus combination therapy for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets