Safety and efficacy of colistin monotherapy versus combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
H. Meng, Ailing Zhang, Jingli Lu, Xiaoli Guo, Xiaojian Zhang
{"title":"Safety and efficacy of colistin monotherapy versus combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"H. Meng, Ailing Zhang, Jingli Lu, Xiaoli Guo, Xiaojian Zhang","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1000-6680.2019.07.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo study the safety and efficacy of colistin monotherapy versus combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria infection. \n \n \nMethods \nCNKI, Wanfang database, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials about colistin monotherapy versus combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria infection were enrolled. The Cochrane Reviewers′ Handbook 5.2 was employed to evaluate the quality of the enrolled studies.The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.The secondary outcomes included infection-related mortality, clinical response, bacterial clearance, nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity.Meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. \n \n \nResults \nSeven articles containing 859 patients were finally included.There were no significantly statistical differences in all-cause mortality rate (relative risk [RR]=1.07, 95%CI: 0.93-1.24, P>0.05), infection-related mortality rate (RR=1.35, 95%CI: 0.98-1.87, P>0.05), bacterial clearance rate (RR=0.85, 95%CI: 0.71-1.02, P=0.08), hepatotoxicity development rate (RR=0.68, 95%CI: 0.41-1.13, P=0.14), and nephrotoxicity development rate (RR=1.01, 95%CI: 0.85-1.22, P>0.05) between colistin monotherapy and combination therapy. The clinical response rate was higher in combination therapy than that in colistin monotherapy (RR=0.81, 95%CI: 0.66-0.98, P=0.03). In the subgroup analysis, no statistical differences were found in all-cause mortality rate between colistin monotherapy and combination therapy for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infection (RR=1.00, 95%CI: 0.86-1.12, P>0.05). The dosage of colistin with or without loading dose was not associated with the treatment response. \n \n \nConclusions \nAlthough colistin-based combination therapy has a better clinical response against carbapenem-resistant bacteria infection, especially for Acinetobacter baumannii infection, the mortality rate dose not decline compared to colistin monotherapy.Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effect in the future. \n \n \nKey words: \nColistin; Meta-analysis; Carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria; Systematic review","PeriodicalId":10127,"journal":{"name":"中华传染病杂志","volume":"37 1","pages":"414-419"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华传染病杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1000-6680.2019.07.006","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
Objective
To study the safety and efficacy of colistin monotherapy versus combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria infection.
Methods
CNKI, Wanfang database, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials about colistin monotherapy versus combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria infection were enrolled. The Cochrane Reviewers′ Handbook 5.2 was employed to evaluate the quality of the enrolled studies.The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.The secondary outcomes included infection-related mortality, clinical response, bacterial clearance, nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity.Meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software.
Results
Seven articles containing 859 patients were finally included.There were no significantly statistical differences in all-cause mortality rate (relative risk [RR]=1.07, 95%CI: 0.93-1.24, P>0.05), infection-related mortality rate (RR=1.35, 95%CI: 0.98-1.87, P>0.05), bacterial clearance rate (RR=0.85, 95%CI: 0.71-1.02, P=0.08), hepatotoxicity development rate (RR=0.68, 95%CI: 0.41-1.13, P=0.14), and nephrotoxicity development rate (RR=1.01, 95%CI: 0.85-1.22, P>0.05) between colistin monotherapy and combination therapy. The clinical response rate was higher in combination therapy than that in colistin monotherapy (RR=0.81, 95%CI: 0.66-0.98, P=0.03). In the subgroup analysis, no statistical differences were found in all-cause mortality rate between colistin monotherapy and combination therapy for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infection (RR=1.00, 95%CI: 0.86-1.12, P>0.05). The dosage of colistin with or without loading dose was not associated with the treatment response.
Conclusions
Although colistin-based combination therapy has a better clinical response against carbapenem-resistant bacteria infection, especially for Acinetobacter baumannii infection, the mortality rate dose not decline compared to colistin monotherapy.Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effect in the future.
Key words:
Colistin; Meta-analysis; Carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria; Systematic review
期刊介绍:
The Chinese Journal of Infectious Diseases was founded in February 1983. It is an academic journal on infectious diseases supervised by the China Association for Science and Technology, sponsored by the Chinese Medical Association, and hosted by the Shanghai Medical Association. The journal targets infectious disease physicians as its main readers, taking into account physicians of other interdisciplinary disciplines, and timely reports on leading scientific research results and clinical diagnosis and treatment experience in the field of infectious diseases, as well as basic theoretical research that has a guiding role in the clinical practice of infectious diseases and is closely integrated with the actual clinical practice of infectious diseases. Columns include reviews (including editor-in-chief reviews), expert lectures, consensus and guidelines (including interpretations), monographs, short monographs, academic debates, epidemic news, international dynamics, case reports, reviews, lectures, meeting minutes, etc.