Dataset Information

Prolonged versus intermittent ?-lactam antibiotics intravenous infusion strategy in sepsis or septic shock patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials

ABSTRACT: Background The prolonged ?-lactam infusion strategy has emerged as the standard treatment for sepsis or septic shock despite its unknown efficacy. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of prolonged versus intermittent ?-lactam antibiotics infusion on outcomes in sepsis or septic shock patients by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods A thorough search was conducted on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mortality between prolonged and intermittent infusion in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock were included. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were the attainment of the target plasma concentration, clinical cure, adverse events, and occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. We performed a subgroup analysis stratified according to the year of publication before or after 2015 and a trial sequential analysis (TSA). The Der Simonian–Laird random-effects models were subsequently used to report the pooled risk ratios (RR) with confidence intervals (CI). Results We identified 2869 studies from the 3 databases, and 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Hospital mortality did not decrease (RR 0.69 [95%CI 0.47–1.02]) in the prolonged infusion group. The attainment of the target plasma concentration and clinical cure significantly improved (RR 0.40 [95%CI 0.21–0.75] and RR 0.84 [95%CI 0.73–0.97], respectively) in the prolonged infusion group. There were, however, no significant differences in the adverse events and the occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria between the groups (RR 1.01 (95%CI 0.95–1.06) and RR 0.53 [95%CI 0.10–2.83], respectively). For the subgroup analysis, a significant improvement in hospital mortality or clinical cure was reported in studies published in or after 2015 (RR 0.66 [95%CI 0.44–0.98] and RR 0.67 [95%CI 0.50–0.90], respectively). The results of the TSA indicated an insufficient number of studies for a definitive analysis. Conclusions The prolonged infusion of ?-lactam antibiotics significantly improved upon attaining the target plasma concentration and clinical cure without increasing the adverse event or the occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Prolonged infusion could not improve hospital mortality although an improvement was shown for studies published in or after 2015. Further studies are warranted as suggested by our TSA results.

SUBMITTER: Kondo Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7541232 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Altered pharmacokinetics (PK) in critically ill patients can result in insufficient serum ?-lactam concentrations when standard dosages are administered. Previous studies on ?-lactam PK have generally excluded the most severely ill patients, or were conducted during the steady-state period of treatment. The aim of our study was to determine whether the first dose of piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftazidime, cefepime, and meropenem would result in adequate serum drug concentrations in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. METHODS: Open, prospective, multicenter study in four Belgian intensive care units. All consecutive patients with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock, in whom treatment with the study drugs was indicated, were included. Serum concentrations of the antibiotics were determined by high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) before and 1, 1.5, 4.5 and 6 or 8 hours after administration. RESULTS: 80 patients were treated with piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 27), ceftazidime (n = 18), cefepime (n = 19) or meropenem (n = 16). Serum concentrations remained above 4 times the minimal inhibitory concentration (T > 4 × MIC), corresponding to the clinical breakpoint for Pseudomonas aeruginosa defined by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST), for 57% of the dosage interval for meropenem (target MIC = 8 ?g/mL), 45% for ceftazidime (MIC = 32 ?g/mL), 34% for cefepime (MIC = 32 ?g/mL), and 33% for piperacillin-tazobactam (MIC = 64 ?g/mL). The number of patients who attained the target PK profile was 12/16 for meropenem (75%), 5/18 for ceftazidime (28%), 3/19 (16%) for cefepime, and 12/27 (44%) for piperacillin-tazobactam. CONCLUSIONS: Serum concentrations of the antibiotic after the first dose were acceptable only for meropenem. Standard dosage regimens for piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftazidime and cefepime may, therefore, be insufficient to empirically cover less susceptible pathogens in the early phase of severe sepsis and septic shock.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Both intermittent intravenous (IIV) infusion and continuous intravenous (CIV) infusion of Endostar are widely used for NSCLC in China. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CIV of Endostar versus IIV in combination with first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS:RCTs, NRCTs and cohort studies which compared CIV of Endostar with IIV in advanced NSCLC patients and reported efficacy or safety outcomes were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis for short-term efficacy and safety outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) for survival outcomes. RESULTS:Finally nine studies involving 597 patients were included, containing two RCTs, three NRCTs and four cohort studies. For short-term efficacy, moderate quality of evidence showed that there were no significant differences between CIV of Endostar and IIV in objective response rate (ORR; RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.91-1.98, P?=?0.14) and disease control rate (DCR; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.94-1.30, P?=?0.21). Very low quality of evidence indicated that CIV of Endostar significantly improved both overall survival (OS; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48-0.99, P?=?0.046) and progression-free survival (PFS; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.93, P?=?0.01) compared with IIV. As for safety outcomes, moderate quality of evidence found that CIV of Endostar significantly reduced the risk of myelosuppression (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96, P?=?0.03) and cardiovascular toxicity (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.78, P?=?0.02) compared with IIV. CONCLUSIONS:In advanced NSCLC, compared with IIV, CIV of Endostar had similar short-term efficacy, and substantially lower risk of myelosuppression and cardiovascular toxicity. Although very low quality of evidence supported the survival benefit of CIV compared with IIV, large RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate survival benefits. Caution should be given for off-label use of CIV of Endostar.

Dataset Information

Prolonged versus intermittent ?-lactam antibiotics intravenous infusion strategy in sepsis or septic shock patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets