Comparison of cefiderocol and colistin-based regimens for the treatment of severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES BMC Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1186/s12879-024-09899-5
Yangyang Zhan, Wenchao Mao, Changyun Zhao, Difan Lu, Changqin Chen, Weihang Hu, Qi Yang
{"title":"Comparison of cefiderocol and colistin-based regimens for the treatment of severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis","authors":"Yangyang Zhan, Wenchao Mao, Changyun Zhao, Difan Lu, Changqin Chen, Weihang Hu, Qi Yang","doi":"10.1186/s12879-024-09899-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are multiple antibiotic regimens for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) in clinical practice. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol-based regimens and colistin-based regimens in the treatment of CRAB infections. Two authors independently searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases from their establishment to April 15, 2024, to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies, and compared the clinical efficacy and safety of cefiderocol-based regimens and colistin-based regimens in the treatment of CRAB infections. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and subgroup analysis was conducted on the basis of the site of infection and the risk of bias in the studies. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was then conducted. Six observational studies were included, with 251 cases in the cefiderocol-based group and 372 cases in the colistin-based group. Compared to the colistin-based group, the cefiderocol-based group had lower all-cause mortality (RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54–0.92, P = 0.01) and 30-day mortality (RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43–0.95, P = 0.03). However, for the 14-day and 28-day mortality rates, there was no statistically significant difference between two groups. According to the subgroup analysis, among patients with bloodstream infection (BSI), the cefiderocol-based group had lower all-cause mortality, but it did not reduce the mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) patients. The result of TSA showed that our conclusions are reliable. There was no significant statistical difference in the microbiological cure rate, clinical cure rate, or duration of hospitalization. In addition, the cefiderocol-based group did not have an increased incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). Compared with the colistin-based regimens, the cefiderocol-based regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality in CRAB-infected patients, especially for patients with BSI. However, they did not show any advantages in terms of the clinical cure rate or microbiological cure rate, nor did they reduce the incidence of AKI. CRD42023487213.","PeriodicalId":8981,"journal":{"name":"BMC Infectious Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-024-09899-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are multiple antibiotic regimens for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) in clinical practice. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol-based regimens and colistin-based regimens in the treatment of CRAB infections. Two authors independently searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases from their establishment to April 15, 2024, to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies, and compared the clinical efficacy and safety of cefiderocol-based regimens and colistin-based regimens in the treatment of CRAB infections. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and subgroup analysis was conducted on the basis of the site of infection and the risk of bias in the studies. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was then conducted. Six observational studies were included, with 251 cases in the cefiderocol-based group and 372 cases in the colistin-based group. Compared to the colistin-based group, the cefiderocol-based group had lower all-cause mortality (RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54–0.92, P = 0.01) and 30-day mortality (RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43–0.95, P = 0.03). However, for the 14-day and 28-day mortality rates, there was no statistically significant difference between two groups. According to the subgroup analysis, among patients with bloodstream infection (BSI), the cefiderocol-based group had lower all-cause mortality, but it did not reduce the mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) patients. The result of TSA showed that our conclusions are reliable. There was no significant statistical difference in the microbiological cure rate, clinical cure rate, or duration of hospitalization. In addition, the cefiderocol-based group did not have an increased incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). Compared with the colistin-based regimens, the cefiderocol-based regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality in CRAB-infected patients, especially for patients with BSI. However, they did not show any advantages in terms of the clinical cure rate or microbiological cure rate, nor did they reduce the incidence of AKI. CRD42023487213.
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
耐碳青霉烯类鲍曼不动杆菌引起的严重感染的治疗方案中头孢克肟方案和可乐定方案的比较:荟萃分析和试验序列分析的系统综述
在临床实践中,有多种抗生素方案可用于治疗耐碳青霉烯类鲍曼不动杆菌(CRAB)。我们进行了这项荟萃分析,以比较以头孢克肟为基础的治疗方案和以可乐定为基础的治疗方案在治疗 CRAB 感染中的有效性和安全性。两位作者独立检索了 PubMed、Web of Science、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库中从建立到 2024 年 4 月 15 日的随机对照试验 (RCT) 或队列研究,并比较了以头孢球蛋白为基础的治疗方案和以可乐定为基础的治疗方案在治疗 CRAB 感染中的临床疗效和安全性。纽卡斯尔渥太华量表(Newcastle Ottawa Scale,NOS)核对表用于评估纳入研究的质量。主要结果为全因死亡率,并根据感染部位和研究的偏倚风险进行了亚组分析。然后进行了试验序列分析(TSA)。共纳入六项观察性研究,其中以头孢氨苄为基础的研究组有 251 例,以秋水仙碱为基础的研究组有 372 例。与以秋水仙碱为基础的组别相比,以头孢球蛋白为基础的组别全因死亡率(RR = 0.71,95% CI:0.54-0.92,P = 0.01)和 30 天死亡率(RR = 0.64,95% CI:0.43-0.95,P = 0.03)更低。然而,在 14 天和 28 天死亡率方面,两组之间没有显著的统计学差异。根据亚组分析,在血流感染(BSI)患者中,以头孢球蛋白为基础的组别全因死亡率较低,但并没有降低呼吸机相关肺炎(VAP)患者的死亡率。TSA结果表明,我们的结论是可靠的。在微生物治愈率、临床治愈率和住院时间方面没有明显的统计学差异。此外,以头孢氨苄为基础的治疗组也没有增加急性肾损伤(AKI)的发生率。与以可乐定为基础的治疗方案相比,以头孢球蛋白为基础的治疗方案显著降低了 CRAB 感染者的死亡风险,尤其是 BSI 感染者。但是,这些方案在临床治愈率或微生物治愈率方面没有显示出任何优势,也没有降低 AKI 的发生率。CRD42023487213。
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
BMC Infectious Diseases
BMC Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
860
审稿时长
3.3 months
期刊介绍: BMC Infectious Diseases is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of infectious and sexually transmitted diseases in humans, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Neuro-leishmaniasis with cauda equina syndrome and cranial nerve palsy: a rare manifestation of recurrent atypical visceral leishmaniasis. Antimicrobial stewardship programs in a Mexican private healthcare system: a self-assessment of core elements. Description of clinical cases and available diagnostic tools of oropharyngeal syphilis: a systematic review of the literature. Long COVID and recovery from Long COVID: quality of life impairments and subjective cognitive decline at a median of 2 years after initial infection. Antimicrobial susceptibility of enterobacterales causing bloodstream infection in United States medical centres: comparison of aztreonam-avibactam with beta-lactams active against carbapenem-resistant enterobacterales.
×
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