Efficacy and safety of clarithromycin for patients with sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Pengyue Zhao, Renqi Yao, Jiaqi Yang, Wei Wen, Yongming Yao, Xiaohui Du
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of clarithromycin for patients with sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Pengyue Zhao, Renqi Yao, Jiaqi Yang, Wei Wen, Yongming Yao, Xiaohui Du","doi":"10.1097/ec9.0000000000000106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Clarithromycin exerts an immunomodulatory role in several human diseases. However, whether this effect improves the prognosis in patients with sepsis remains controversial, and higher levels of clinical evidence are urgently needed. To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis to date has reported the clinical efficacy and safety of clarithromycin in sepsis. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to December 31, 2022. Only randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of clarithromycin with controls among patients with sepsis or septic shock were included. Data were pooled by applying a fixed-effects model and a relative risk (RR) estimate with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Review Manager (version 5.3; Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Three randomized controlled trials involving a total of 910 patients were included. The pooled results confirmed that clarithromycin had no beneficial effect on progression to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (RR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.02–2.25; P = 0.04; I 2 = 0%), 28-day mortality (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.87–1.36; P = 0.46; I 2 = 0%), and 90-day mortality (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.71–1.03; P = 0.10; I 2 = 81%) in patients with sepsis or septic shock. Moreover, there was no difference in other serious adverse events between patients who received clarithromycin and those in the control group (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.87–1.19; P = 0.83; I 2 = 18%). Our meta-analysis did not reveal an improvement to short-term outcomes in patients with sepsis treated with clarithromycin. However, administration of clarithromycin did not increase the risk of adverse events.","PeriodicalId":72895,"journal":{"name":"Emergency and critical care medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency and critical care medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ec9.0000000000000106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clarithromycin exerts an immunomodulatory role in several human diseases. However, whether this effect improves the prognosis in patients with sepsis remains controversial, and higher levels of clinical evidence are urgently needed. To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis to date has reported the clinical efficacy and safety of clarithromycin in sepsis. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to December 31, 2022. Only randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of clarithromycin with controls among patients with sepsis or septic shock were included. Data were pooled by applying a fixed-effects model and a relative risk (RR) estimate with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Review Manager (version 5.3; Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Three randomized controlled trials involving a total of 910 patients were included. The pooled results confirmed that clarithromycin had no beneficial effect on progression to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (RR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.02–2.25; P = 0.04; I 2 = 0%), 28-day mortality (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.87–1.36; P = 0.46; I 2 = 0%), and 90-day mortality (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.71–1.03; P = 0.10; I 2 = 81%) in patients with sepsis or septic shock. Moreover, there was no difference in other serious adverse events between patients who received clarithromycin and those in the control group (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.87–1.19; P = 0.83; I 2 = 18%). Our meta-analysis did not reveal an improvement to short-term outcomes in patients with sepsis treated with clarithromycin. However, administration of clarithromycin did not increase the risk of adverse events.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
克拉霉素对败血症或脓毒性休克患者的疗效和安全性:系统综述和荟萃分析
克拉霉素对多种人类疾病具有免疫调节作用。然而,这种作用是否能改善败血症患者的预后仍存在争议,迫切需要更高水平的临床证据。据我们所知,迄今为止还没有荟萃分析报告克拉霉素对败血症的临床疗效和安全性。 截至 2022 年 12 月 31 日,我们对 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了全面的文献检索。仅纳入了在脓毒症或脓毒性休克患者中比较克拉霉素与对照组临床疗效和安全性的随机对照试验。数据汇总采用固定效应模型,并使用Review Manager(5.3版;Cochrane Collaboration,丹麦哥本哈根)得出相对风险(RR)估计值及95%置信区间(CI)。 共纳入了三项随机对照试验,涉及 910 名患者。汇总结果证实,克拉霉素对进展为多器官功能障碍综合征无益处(RR:1.51;95% CI:1.02-2.25;P = 0.04;I 2 = 0%)、脓毒症或脓毒性休克患者的 28 天死亡率(RR:1.09;95% CI:0.87-1.36;P = 0.46;I 2 = 0%)和 90 天死亡率(RR:0.86;95% CI:0.71-1.03;P = 0.10;I 2 = 81%)。此外,接受克拉霉素治疗的患者与对照组患者在其他严重不良事件方面没有差异(RR:1.02;95% CI:0.87-1.19;P = 0.83;I 2 = 18%)。 我们的荟萃分析结果显示,接受克拉霉素治疗的败血症患者的短期疗效并没有改善。然而,使用克拉霉素并不会增加不良事件的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Clinical analysis of patients with deep sternal wound infection-induced sepsis: a retrospective cohort study Exploring the effects of coronary artery disease as a preexisting comorbidity on mortality in hospitalized septic patients: a retrospective observation study An unusual anterior mitral leaflet perforation in a patient with no infective endocarditis: a case report Non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia in critically ill patients: does bedside laparoscopy offer any real benefit? Congestive heart failure and sepsis a retrospective study of hospitalization outcomes from a rural hospital in Southwest Missouri: Erratum
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1