Revisiting the Evidence Base That Informs the Use of Adjunctive Therapy for Enterococcus faecalis Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 8.2 1区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY Clinical Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2024-11-22 DOI:10.1093/cid/ciae379
Connor Prosty, Mark Sorin, Khaled Katergi, Roy Khalaf, Clare Fogarty, Malick Turenne, Todd C Lee, Emily G McDonald
{"title":"Revisiting the Evidence Base That Informs the Use of Adjunctive Therapy for Enterococcus faecalis Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Connor Prosty, Mark Sorin, Khaled Katergi, Roy Khalaf, Clare Fogarty, Malick Turenne, Todd C Lee, Emily G McDonald","doi":"10.1093/cid/ciae379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Guidelines recommend adjunctive gentamicin for the treatment of Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis (EFIE) despite a risk of toxicity. We sought to revisit the evidence for adjunctive therapy in EFIE and to synthesize the comparative safety and effectiveness of aminoglycosides versus ceftriaxone by systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For historical context, we reviewed seminal case series and in vitro studies on the evolution from penicillin monotherapy to modern-day regimens for EFIE. Next, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 16 January 2024 for studies of EFIE that compared adjunctive aminoglycosides versus ceftriaxone or adjunctive versus monotherapy. Where possible, clinical outcomes were compared between regimens using random effects meta-analysis. Otherwise, data were narratively summarized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis was limited to 10 observational studies at high risk of bias (911 patients). Relative to adjunctive ceftriaxone, gentamicin had similar all-cause mortality (risk difference [RD], -0.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.0 to 3.5), relapse (RD, -0.1%; 95% CI, -2.4 to 2.3), and treatment failure (RD, 1.1%; 95% CI, -1.6 to 3.7) but higher discontinuation due to toxicity (RD, 26.3%; 95% CI, 19.8 to 32.7). The 3 studies that compared adjunctive therapy to monotherapy included only 30 monotherapy patients, and heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Adjunctive ceftriaxone appeared to be equally effective and less toxic than gentamicin for the treatment of EFIE. The existing evidence does not clearly establish the superiority of either adjunctive therapy or monotherapy. Pending randomized evidence, if adjunctive therapy is to be used, ceftriaxone appears to be a reasonable option.</p>","PeriodicalId":10463,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","volume":" ","pages":"1162-1171"},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae379","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Guidelines recommend adjunctive gentamicin for the treatment of Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis (EFIE) despite a risk of toxicity. We sought to revisit the evidence for adjunctive therapy in EFIE and to synthesize the comparative safety and effectiveness of aminoglycosides versus ceftriaxone by systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: For historical context, we reviewed seminal case series and in vitro studies on the evolution from penicillin monotherapy to modern-day regimens for EFIE. Next, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 16 January 2024 for studies of EFIE that compared adjunctive aminoglycosides versus ceftriaxone or adjunctive versus monotherapy. Where possible, clinical outcomes were compared between regimens using random effects meta-analysis. Otherwise, data were narratively summarized.

Results: The meta-analysis was limited to 10 observational studies at high risk of bias (911 patients). Relative to adjunctive ceftriaxone, gentamicin had similar all-cause mortality (risk difference [RD], -0.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.0 to 3.5), relapse (RD, -0.1%; 95% CI, -2.4 to 2.3), and treatment failure (RD, 1.1%; 95% CI, -1.6 to 3.7) but higher discontinuation due to toxicity (RD, 26.3%; 95% CI, 19.8 to 32.7). The 3 studies that compared adjunctive therapy to monotherapy included only 30 monotherapy patients, and heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis.

Conclusions: Adjunctive ceftriaxone appeared to be equally effective and less toxic than gentamicin for the treatment of EFIE. The existing evidence does not clearly establish the superiority of either adjunctive therapy or monotherapy. Pending randomized evidence, if adjunctive therapy is to be used, ceftriaxone appears to be a reasonable option.

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
重新审视使用粪肠球菌心内膜炎辅助疗法的证据基础:系统回顾与元分析》。
背景:尽管存在毒性风险,但现行指南仍建议在治疗粪肠球菌感染性心内膜炎(EFIE)时辅助使用庆大霉素。我们试图重新审视 EFIE 辅助治疗的证据,并通过系统回顾和荟萃分析综合比较氨基糖苷类药物与头孢曲松辅助治疗的安全性和有效性:为了了解历史背景,我们回顾了开创性的病例系列研究和体外研究,这些研究为从青霉素单药治疗到现代 EFIE 治疗方案的演变提供了信息。接下来,我们检索了从开始到2024年1月16日的MEDLINE和Embase中有关EFIE的研究,比较了1)辅助氨基糖苷类药物与头孢曲松或2)辅助疗法与单一疗法。在可能的情况下,通过随机效应荟萃分析比较不同治疗方案的临床结果。否则,对数据进行叙述性总结:系统综述和荟萃分析的结果仅限于10项观察性研究,共计911名患者。所有研究均存在高偏倚风险。相对于辅助头孢曲松,庆大霉素的全因死亡率(风险差异[RD]=-0.8%,95%置信区间[95%CI]=-5.0,3.5)、复发率(RD=-0.1%,95%CI=-2.4,2.3)和治疗失败率(RD=1.1%,95%CI=-1.6,3.7)相似,但因毒性而停药的比例更高(RD=26.3%,95%CI=19.8,32.7)。将辅助疗法与单一疗法进行比较的3项研究仅包括30名单一疗法患者,异质性排除了荟萃分析:结论:与庆大霉素相比,头孢曲松的辅助疗法似乎对治疗EFIE同样有效,且毒性较小。现有证据并未明确证实辅助疗法或单一疗法的优越性。在没有随机证据之前,如果要使用辅助疗法,头孢曲松似乎是一个合理的选择。
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
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Clinical Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
25.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
900
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID) is dedicated to publishing original research, reviews, guidelines, and perspectives with the potential to reshape clinical practice, providing clinicians with valuable insights for patient care. CID comprehensively addresses the clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of a wide spectrum of infectious diseases. The journal places a high priority on the assessment of current and innovative treatments, microbiology, immunology, and policies, ensuring relevance to patient care in its commitment to advancing the field of infectious diseases.
期刊最新文献
Behavioral Boosts, Getting More Bang for Your Buck: Financial incentives for outpatient antibiotic stewardship. Cabotegravir Maintains Protective Efficacy in the Setting of Bacterial STIs: A Secondary Analysis of HPTN 083. Higher Serologic Responses of Early Syphilis to Single-dose Benzathine Penicillin G Plus Doxycycline Versus Single-dose Benzathine Penicillin G Alone Among People With HIV. Reply to Villareal and El-Altrouni: Clarifications of the 2023 Duke-International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases Criteria for Infective Endocarditis. Questions About the 2023 Infective Endocarditis Updated Criteria.
×
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