上呼吸道和下呼吸道感染最佳抗生素治疗时间的证据基础:综述。

IF 36.4 1区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Lancet Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2024-09-04 DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00456-0
Suzanne M E Kuijpers, David T P Buis, Kirsten A Ziesemer, Reinier M van Hest, Rogier P Schade, Kim C E Sigaloff, Jan M Prins
{"title":"上呼吸道和下呼吸道感染最佳抗生素治疗时间的证据基础:综述。","authors":"Suzanne M E Kuijpers, David T P Buis, Kirsten A Ziesemer, Reinier M van Hest, Rogier P Schade, Kim C E Sigaloff, Jan M Prins","doi":"10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00456-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many trials, reviews, and meta-analyses have been performed on the comparison of short versus long antibiotic treatment in respiratory tract infections, generally supporting shorter treatment. The aim of this umbrella review is to assess the soundness of the current evidence base for optimal antibiotic treatment duration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Core Collection was performed on May 1, 2024, without date and language restrictions. Systematic reviews addressing treatment durations in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), acute sinusitis, and streptococcal pharyngitis, tonsillitis, or pharyngotonsillitis were included. Studies from inpatient and outpatient settings were included; reviews in paediatric populations were excluded. Outcomes of interest were clinical and bacteriological cure, microbiological eradication, mortality, relapse rate, and adverse events. The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool, risk of bias of all included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 1), and overall quality of evidence according to GRADE.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We identified 30 systematic reviews meeting the criteria; they were generally of a low to critically low quality. 21 reviews conducted a meta-analysis. For CAP outside the intensive care unit (ICU; 14 reviews, of which eight did a meta-analysis) and AECOPD (eight reviews, of which five did a meta-analysis), there was sufficient evidence supporting a treatment duration of 5 days; evidence for shorter durations is scarce. Evidence on non-ventilator-associated HAP is absent, despite identifying three reviews (of which one did a meta-analysis), since no trials were conducted exclusively in this population. For sinusitis the evidence appears to support a shorter regimen, but more evidence is needed in the population who actually require antibiotic treatment. For pharyngotonsillitis (eight reviews, of which six did a meta-analysis), sufficient evidence exists to support short-course cephalosporin but not short-course penicillin when dosed three times a day.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>The available evidence for non-ICU CAP and AECOPD supports a short-course treatment duration of 5 days in patients who have clinically improved. Efforts of the scientific community should be directed at implementing this evidence in daily practice. High-quality RCTs are needed to underpin even shorter treatment durations for CAP and AECOPD, to establish the optimal treatment duration of HAP and acute sinusitis, and to evaluate shorter duration using an optimal penicillin dosing schedule in patients with pharyngotonsillitis.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p>","PeriodicalId":49923,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Infectious Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":36.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The evidence base for the optimal antibiotic treatment duration of upper and lower respiratory tract infections: an umbrella review.\",\"authors\":\"Suzanne M E Kuijpers, David T P Buis, Kirsten A Ziesemer, Reinier M van Hest, Rogier P Schade, Kim C E Sigaloff, Jan M Prins\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00456-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many trials, reviews, and meta-analyses have been performed on the comparison of short versus long antibiotic treatment in respiratory tract infections, generally supporting shorter treatment. The aim of this umbrella review is to assess the soundness of the current evidence base for optimal antibiotic treatment duration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Core Collection was performed on May 1, 2024, without date and language restrictions. Systematic reviews addressing treatment durations in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), acute sinusitis, and streptococcal pharyngitis, tonsillitis, or pharyngotonsillitis were included. Studies from inpatient and outpatient settings were included; reviews in paediatric populations were excluded. Outcomes of interest were clinical and bacteriological cure, microbiological eradication, mortality, relapse rate, and adverse events. The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool, risk of bias of all included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 1), and overall quality of evidence according to GRADE.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We identified 30 systematic reviews meeting the criteria; they were generally of a low to critically low quality. 21 reviews conducted a meta-analysis. For CAP outside the intensive care unit (ICU; 14 reviews, of which eight did a meta-analysis) and AECOPD (eight reviews, of which five did a meta-analysis), there was sufficient evidence supporting a treatment duration of 5 days; evidence for shorter durations is scarce. Evidence on non-ventilator-associated HAP is absent, despite identifying three reviews (of which one did a meta-analysis), since no trials were conducted exclusively in this population. For sinusitis the evidence appears to support a shorter regimen, but more evidence is needed in the population who actually require antibiotic treatment. For pharyngotonsillitis (eight reviews, of which six did a meta-analysis), sufficient evidence exists to support short-course cephalosporin but not short-course penicillin when dosed three times a day.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>The available evidence for non-ICU CAP and AECOPD supports a short-course treatment duration of 5 days in patients who have clinically improved. Efforts of the scientific community should be directed at implementing this evidence in daily practice. High-quality RCTs are needed to underpin even shorter treatment durations for CAP and AECOPD, to establish the optimal treatment duration of HAP and acute sinusitis, and to evaluate shorter duration using an optimal penicillin dosing schedule in patients with pharyngotonsillitis.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49923,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lancet Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":36.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lancet Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00456-0\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"Lancet Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00456-0","RegionNum":1,"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:许多试验、综述和荟萃分析都对呼吸道感染中短期和长期抗生素治疗进行了比较,一般都支持缩短治疗时间。本综述旨在评估最佳抗生素治疗时间的现有证据基础的合理性:方法:于 2024 年 5 月 1 日在 Ovid MEDLINE、Embase 和 Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Core Collection 中进行检索,无日期和语言限制。纳入的系统综述涉及社区获得性肺炎(CAP)、慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期(AECOPD)、医院获得性肺炎(HAP)、急性鼻窦炎以及链球菌咽炎、扁桃体炎或咽扁桃体炎的治疗持续时间。研究对象包括住院病人和门诊病人;不包括针对儿科人群的综述。研究结果包括临床和细菌学治愈率、微生物根除率、死亡率、复发率和不良反应。我们使用 AMSTAR 2 工具评估了综述的质量,使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具(版本 1)评估了所有纳入的随机对照试验(RCT)的偏倚风险,并根据 GRADE 评估了证据的总体质量:我们确定了 30 篇符合标准的系统性综述;这些综述的质量普遍较低或极低。21 篇综述进行了荟萃分析。对于重症监护室(ICU;14 篇综述,其中 8 篇进行了荟萃分析)以外的 CAP 和 AECOPD(8 篇综述,其中 5 篇进行了荟萃分析),有足够的证据支持 5 天的治疗持续时间;较短持续时间的证据很少。尽管有三篇综述(其中一篇进行了荟萃分析)确定了非呼吸机相关的 HAP,但由于没有专门针对此类人群的试验,因此缺乏这方面的证据。对于鼻窦炎,似乎有证据支持缩短疗程,但对于实际需要抗生素治疗的人群还需要更多证据。对于咽扁桃体炎(8 篇综述,其中 6 篇进行了荟萃分析),有足够的证据支持使用短程头孢菌素,但不支持每天用药 3 次的短程青霉素:非重症监护病房 CAP 和 AECOPD 的现有证据支持对临床好转的患者进行 5 天的短程治疗。科学界应努力在日常实践中应用这些证据。需要进行高质量的 RCT 研究,以支持缩短 CAP 和 AECOPD 的治疗时间,确定 HAP 和急性鼻窦炎的最佳治疗时间,并评估在咽扁桃体炎患者中使用最佳青霉素剂量表缩短治疗时间的情况:无。
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
The evidence base for the optimal antibiotic treatment duration of upper and lower respiratory tract infections: an umbrella review.

Background: Many trials, reviews, and meta-analyses have been performed on the comparison of short versus long antibiotic treatment in respiratory tract infections, generally supporting shorter treatment. The aim of this umbrella review is to assess the soundness of the current evidence base for optimal antibiotic treatment duration.

Methods: A search in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Core Collection was performed on May 1, 2024, without date and language restrictions. Systematic reviews addressing treatment durations in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), acute sinusitis, and streptococcal pharyngitis, tonsillitis, or pharyngotonsillitis were included. Studies from inpatient and outpatient settings were included; reviews in paediatric populations were excluded. Outcomes of interest were clinical and bacteriological cure, microbiological eradication, mortality, relapse rate, and adverse events. The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool, risk of bias of all included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 1), and overall quality of evidence according to GRADE.

Findings: We identified 30 systematic reviews meeting the criteria; they were generally of a low to critically low quality. 21 reviews conducted a meta-analysis. For CAP outside the intensive care unit (ICU; 14 reviews, of which eight did a meta-analysis) and AECOPD (eight reviews, of which five did a meta-analysis), there was sufficient evidence supporting a treatment duration of 5 days; evidence for shorter durations is scarce. Evidence on non-ventilator-associated HAP is absent, despite identifying three reviews (of which one did a meta-analysis), since no trials were conducted exclusively in this population. For sinusitis the evidence appears to support a shorter regimen, but more evidence is needed in the population who actually require antibiotic treatment. For pharyngotonsillitis (eight reviews, of which six did a meta-analysis), sufficient evidence exists to support short-course cephalosporin but not short-course penicillin when dosed three times a day.

Interpretation: The available evidence for non-ICU CAP and AECOPD supports a short-course treatment duration of 5 days in patients who have clinically improved. Efforts of the scientific community should be directed at implementing this evidence in daily practice. High-quality RCTs are needed to underpin even shorter treatment durations for CAP and AECOPD, to establish the optimal treatment duration of HAP and acute sinusitis, and to evaluate shorter duration using an optimal penicillin dosing schedule in patients with pharyngotonsillitis.

Funding: None.

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
Lancet Infectious Diseases
Lancet Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
60.90
自引率
0.70%
发文量
1064
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Infectious Diseases was launched in August, 2001, and is a lively monthly journal of original research, review, opinion, and news covering international issues relevant to clinical infectious diseases specialists worldwide.The infectious diseases journal aims to be a world-leading publication, featuring original research that advocates change or sheds light on clinical practices related to infectious diseases. The journal prioritizes articles with the potential to impact clinical practice or influence perspectives. Content covers a wide range of topics, including anti-infective therapy and immunization, bacterial, viral, fungal, and parasitic infections, emerging infectious diseases, HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, mycobacterial infections, infection control, infectious diseases epidemiology, neglected tropical diseases, and travel medicine. Informative reviews on any subject linked to infectious diseases and human health are also welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Virological characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 XEC variant Correction to Lancet Infect Dis 2024; published online October 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00561-9 A step closer to elimination of meningococcal disease Safety and immunogenicity of a pentavalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine versus a quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine in adults in India: an observer-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 2/3 study A case of disseminated autochthonous Cladophialophora bantiana infection in a renal transplant recipient in the UK
×
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