单药与联合用药治疗嗜麦芽霉单胞菌病:一项多中心队列研究。

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy Pub Date : 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1080/14787210.2024.2353704
Thamer A Almangour, Hussain A Alali, Zakiyah Alkherb, Shuroug A Alowais, Khalid Bin Saleh, Sara Almuhisen, Abdullah Almohaizeie, Renad Alsahli, Shatha Alruwaite, Fai Alnashmi, Lolwa Fetyani, Noran Ibrahim Abouobaid, Alnajla Alghofaily, Khalifa M Binkhamis, Yazed Saleh Alsowaida
{"title":"单药与联合用药治疗嗜麦芽霉单胞菌病:一项多中心队列研究。","authors":"Thamer A Almangour, Hussain A Alali, Zakiyah Alkherb, Shuroug A Alowais, Khalid Bin Saleh, Sara Almuhisen, Abdullah Almohaizeie, Renad Alsahli, Shatha Alruwaite, Fai Alnashmi, Lolwa Fetyani, Noran Ibrahim Abouobaid, Alnajla Alghofaily, Khalifa M Binkhamis, Yazed Saleh Alsowaida","doi":"10.1080/14787210.2024.2353704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of monotherapy versus combination therapy for the treatment of infections caused by <i>S. maltophilia</i>.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, multicenter, cohort study included patients treated with either monotherapy or combination therapy for infections caused by <i>S. maltophilia</i>. Primary outcomes included overall in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and clinical cure. Safety outcomes were also evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was used as a control for confounding variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 407 patients were included, 330 patients received monotherapy and 77 patients received combination therapy. A total of 21% presented with concomitant bacteremia. After adjusting the differences between the two groups, there were no statistically significant differences between patients who received monotherapy versus combination therapy in clinical cure (55% vs 65%; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.40-1.31) and overall in-hospital mortality (52% vs 49%; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.45-1.57). However, patients who received monotherapy had a lower rate of 30-day mortality (28% vs 32%; OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.90) and acute kidney injury (9% vs 18%; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16-0.78).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinical outcomes did not significantly differ in patients who received combination therapy versus monotherapy. More data are needed to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12213,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monotherapy versus combination for the treatment of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: a multicenter cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Thamer A Almangour, Hussain A Alali, Zakiyah Alkherb, Shuroug A Alowais, Khalid Bin Saleh, Sara Almuhisen, Abdullah Almohaizeie, Renad Alsahli, Shatha Alruwaite, Fai Alnashmi, Lolwa Fetyani, Noran Ibrahim Abouobaid, Alnajla Alghofaily, Khalifa M Binkhamis, Yazed Saleh Alsowaida\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14787210.2024.2353704\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of monotherapy versus combination therapy for the treatment of infections caused by <i>S. maltophilia</i>.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, multicenter, cohort study included patients treated with either monotherapy or combination therapy for infections caused by <i>S. maltophilia</i>. Primary outcomes included overall in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and clinical cure. Safety outcomes were also evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was used as a control for confounding variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 407 patients were included, 330 patients received monotherapy and 77 patients received combination therapy. A total of 21% presented with concomitant bacteremia. After adjusting the differences between the two groups, there were no statistically significant differences between patients who received monotherapy versus combination therapy in clinical cure (55% vs 65%; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.40-1.31) and overall in-hospital mortality (52% vs 49%; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.45-1.57). However, patients who received monotherapy had a lower rate of 30-day mortality (28% vs 32%; OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.90) and acute kidney injury (9% vs 18%; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16-0.78).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinical outcomes did not significantly differ in patients who received combination therapy versus monotherapy. More data are needed to validate these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12213,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14787210.2024.2353704\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14787210.2024.2353704","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在比较单一疗法和联合疗法治疗嗜麦芽糖浆菌感染的安全性和有效性:本研究的目的是比较单一疗法与联合疗法治疗嗜麦芽糖酵母菌感染的安全性和有效性:这项回顾性、多中心、队列研究纳入了接受单一疗法或联合疗法治疗的嗜麦芽糖病菌感染患者。主要结果包括住院总死亡率、30 天死亡率和临床治愈率。同时还评估了安全性结果。多变量逻辑回归用于控制混杂变量:共纳入 407 名患者,其中 330 名患者接受了单一疗法,77 名患者接受了联合疗法。共有21%的患者同时出现菌血症。调整两组之间的差异后,接受单一疗法和联合疗法的患者在临床治愈率(55% vs 65%;OR,0.72;95% CI,0.40-1.31)和院内总死亡率(52% vs 49%;OR,0.84;95% CI,0.45-1.57)方面没有显著统计学差异。然而,接受单一疗法的患者的30天死亡率(28% vs 32%;OR,0.45;95% CI,0.22-0.90)和急性肾损伤率(9% vs 18%;OR,0.35;95% CI,0.16-0.78)较低:结论:接受联合疗法和单一疗法的患者的临床结果没有明显差异。结论:接受联合疗法和单一疗法的患者的临床结果没有明显差异,需要更多数据来验证这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Monotherapy versus combination for the treatment of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: a multicenter cohort study.

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of monotherapy versus combination therapy for the treatment of infections caused by S. maltophilia.

Methods: This retrospective, multicenter, cohort study included patients treated with either monotherapy or combination therapy for infections caused by S. maltophilia. Primary outcomes included overall in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and clinical cure. Safety outcomes were also evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was used as a control for confounding variables.

Results: A total of 407 patients were included, 330 patients received monotherapy and 77 patients received combination therapy. A total of 21% presented with concomitant bacteremia. After adjusting the differences between the two groups, there were no statistically significant differences between patients who received monotherapy versus combination therapy in clinical cure (55% vs 65%; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.40-1.31) and overall in-hospital mortality (52% vs 49%; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.45-1.57). However, patients who received monotherapy had a lower rate of 30-day mortality (28% vs 32%; OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.90) and acute kidney injury (9% vs 18%; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16-0.78).

Conclusion: Clinical outcomes did not significantly differ in patients who received combination therapy versus monotherapy. More data are needed to validate these findings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
66
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy (ISSN 1478-7210) provides expert reviews on therapeutics and diagnostics in the treatment of infectious disease. Coverage includes antibiotics, drug resistance, drug therapy, infectious disease medicine, antibacterial, antimicrobial, antifungal and antiviral approaches, and diagnostic tests.
期刊最新文献
Could the next "disease X" be a pandemic of virus-induced encephalitis? What should our first medical response be? The opportunities and challenges of epigenetic approaches to manage herpes simplex infections. Potential activity of nanomaterials to combat SARS-CoV-2 and mucormycosis ‎coinfection‎. Clinical effectiveness of oral antivirals for non-hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients aged 18-60 years. Is self-medication with antibiotics among the public a global concern: a mixed-methods systematic review.
×
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