菌血症和败血症患者口服切换vs持续静脉注射抗生素治疗:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 8.5 1区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Clinical Microbiology and Infection Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-04 DOI:10.1016/j.cmi.2024.11.035
Qinyuan Li , Qi Zhou , Jiangbo Fan , Siyuan Huang , Yaolong Chen , Fujian Song , Zhou Fu , Enmei Liu , Daolin Tang , Ling Zeng , Zhengxiu Luo
{"title":"菌血症和败血症患者口服切换vs持续静脉注射抗生素治疗:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Qinyuan Li ,&nbsp;Qi Zhou ,&nbsp;Jiangbo Fan ,&nbsp;Siyuan Huang ,&nbsp;Yaolong Chen ,&nbsp;Fujian Song ,&nbsp;Zhou Fu ,&nbsp;Enmei Liu ,&nbsp;Daolin Tang ,&nbsp;Ling Zeng ,&nbsp;Zhengxiu Luo","doi":"10.1016/j.cmi.2024.11.035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Bacteraemia and sepsis have traditionally required continued intravenous (IV) antibiotics.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This study aims to evaluate if early transition to oral antibiotics is non-inferior to continued IV antibiotic therapy in treating patients with bacteraemia and sepsis.</div></div><div><h3>Data sources</h3><div>Data sources include MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Wanfang databases from inception to 13 July 2024, along with clinical trial registries and <span><span>Google.com</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>.</div></div><div><h3>Study eligibility criteria</h3><div>Study eligibility criteria include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>Participants include patients with bacteraemia and sepsis.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>Interventions include early transition to oral antibiotics vs. continued IV antibiotics. Early oral switch was defined as 5–9 days for uncomplicated <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> bacteraemia, &lt;4 weeks for complicated <em>S. aureus</em> bacteraemia, 3–7 days for uncomplicated <em>Streptococcus</em> bacteraemia, and 3–5 days for uncomplicated <em>Enterobacterales</em> bacteraemia.</div></div><div><h3>Assessment of risk of bias</h3><div>Assessment of risk of bias includes Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.</div></div><div><h3>Methods of data synthesis</h3><div>Random-effect models were used to pool the data. The primary outcome was treatment failure. The non-inferiority margin for treatment failure was 10%. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of the evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In total, 38 studies (6 RCTs, 10 adjusted cohorts, and 22 unadjusted cohorts) involving 11 566 patients were included. A primary analysis of 6 RCTs and 10 adjusted cohorts comprised 7102 patients. High-certainty evidence from six RCTs showed that early transition to oral antibiotics was non-inferior to continued IV therapy for treatment failure (<em>n</em> = 529; OR 0.89; 95% CI: 0.54–1.48). Low-certainty evidence from five adjusted cohorts also found no significant difference in treatment failure between the two groups (<em>n</em> = 929; OR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.29–1.72). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that oral switch therapy significantly reduced hospital stay (<em>n</em> = 2041; mean difference: –5.19 days; 95% CI: –8.16 to –2.22).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Early transition to oral antibiotics was non-inferior to continued IV antibiotic treatment for bacteraemia and sepsis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10444,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Microbiology and Infection","volume":"31 4","pages":"Pages 551-559"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Oral switch vs. continued intravenous antibiotic therapy in patients with bacteraemia and sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Qinyuan Li ,&nbsp;Qi Zhou ,&nbsp;Jiangbo Fan ,&nbsp;Siyuan Huang ,&nbsp;Yaolong Chen ,&nbsp;Fujian Song ,&nbsp;Zhou Fu ,&nbsp;Enmei Liu ,&nbsp;Daolin Tang ,&nbsp;Ling Zeng ,&nbsp;Zhengxiu Luo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cmi.2024.11.035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Bacteraemia and sepsis have traditionally required continued intravenous (IV) antibiotics.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This study aims to evaluate if early transition to oral antibiotics is non-inferior to continued IV antibiotic therapy in treating patients with bacteraemia and sepsis.</div></div><div><h3>Data sources</h3><div>Data sources include MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Wanfang databases from inception to 13 July 2024, along with clinical trial registries and <span><span>Google.com</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>.</div></div><div><h3>Study eligibility criteria</h3><div>Study eligibility criteria include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>Participants include patients with bacteraemia and sepsis.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>Interventions include early transition to oral antibiotics vs. continued IV antibiotics. Early oral switch was defined as 5–9 days for uncomplicated <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> bacteraemia, &lt;4 weeks for complicated <em>S. aureus</em> bacteraemia, 3–7 days for uncomplicated <em>Streptococcus</em> bacteraemia, and 3–5 days for uncomplicated <em>Enterobacterales</em> bacteraemia.</div></div><div><h3>Assessment of risk of bias</h3><div>Assessment of risk of bias includes Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.</div></div><div><h3>Methods of data synthesis</h3><div>Random-effect models were used to pool the data. The primary outcome was treatment failure. The non-inferiority margin for treatment failure was 10%. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of the evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In total, 38 studies (6 RCTs, 10 adjusted cohorts, and 22 unadjusted cohorts) involving 11 566 patients were included. A primary analysis of 6 RCTs and 10 adjusted cohorts comprised 7102 patients. High-certainty evidence from six RCTs showed that early transition to oral antibiotics was non-inferior to continued IV therapy for treatment failure (<em>n</em> = 529; OR 0.89; 95% CI: 0.54–1.48). Low-certainty evidence from five adjusted cohorts also found no significant difference in treatment failure between the two groups (<em>n</em> = 929; OR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.29–1.72). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that oral switch therapy significantly reduced hospital stay (<em>n</em> = 2041; mean difference: –5.19 days; 95% CI: –8.16 to –2.22).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Early transition to oral antibiotics was non-inferior to continued IV antibiotic treatment for bacteraemia and sepsis.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10444,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Microbiology and Infection\",\"volume\":\"31 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 551-559\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Microbiology and Infection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1198743X24005846\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Microbiology and Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1198743X24005846","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:传统上,菌血症和败血症需要持续静脉注射抗生素。目的:评价在治疗菌血症和败血症患者时,早期过渡到口服抗生素是否优于继续静脉注射抗生素治疗。数据来源:MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane图书馆和万方数据库,时间从开始到2024年7月13日,以及临床试验注册和google.com。研究资格标准:随机对照试验(RCTs)和队列研究。研究对象:菌血症和败血症患者。干预措施:早期过渡到口服抗生素和持续静脉注射抗生素。对于无并发症的金黄色葡萄球菌菌血症,早期口服切换定义为5-9天。数据综合方法:采用随机效应模型汇总数据。主要结局是治疗失败。治疗失败的非劣效裕度为10%。GRADE方法用于评价证据的确定性。结果:共纳入38项研究(6项随机对照试验,10个调整队列,22个未调整队列),涉及11566例患者。初步分析了6项随机对照试验和10个调整后的队列,包括7,102例患者。来自6个随机对照试验的高确定性证据显示,早期过渡到口服抗生素治疗失败并不亚于继续静脉注射治疗(n=529;或0.89;95% CI: 0.54 ~ 1.48)。来自5个校正队列的低确定性证据也发现两组治疗失败无显著差异(n=929;或0.60;95% CI: 0.29 ~ 1.72)。中等确定性证据显示,口服转换疗法显著减少住院时间(n= 2041;平均差值:-5.19天;95% CI: -8.16至-2.22)。结论:早期过渡到口服抗生素治疗菌血症和败血症的效果不逊于继续静脉注射抗生素治疗。
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
Oral switch vs. continued intravenous antibiotic therapy in patients with bacteraemia and sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Bacteraemia and sepsis have traditionally required continued intravenous (IV) antibiotics.

Objectives

This study aims to evaluate if early transition to oral antibiotics is non-inferior to continued IV antibiotic therapy in treating patients with bacteraemia and sepsis.

Data sources

Data sources include MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Wanfang databases from inception to 13 July 2024, along with clinical trial registries and Google.com.

Study eligibility criteria

Study eligibility criteria include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies.

Participants

Participants include patients with bacteraemia and sepsis.

Interventions

Interventions include early transition to oral antibiotics vs. continued IV antibiotics. Early oral switch was defined as 5–9 days for uncomplicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia, <4 weeks for complicated S. aureus bacteraemia, 3–7 days for uncomplicated Streptococcus bacteraemia, and 3–5 days for uncomplicated Enterobacterales bacteraemia.

Assessment of risk of bias

Assessment of risk of bias includes Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Methods of data synthesis

Random-effect models were used to pool the data. The primary outcome was treatment failure. The non-inferiority margin for treatment failure was 10%. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of the evidence.

Results

In total, 38 studies (6 RCTs, 10 adjusted cohorts, and 22 unadjusted cohorts) involving 11 566 patients were included. A primary analysis of 6 RCTs and 10 adjusted cohorts comprised 7102 patients. High-certainty evidence from six RCTs showed that early transition to oral antibiotics was non-inferior to continued IV therapy for treatment failure (n = 529; OR 0.89; 95% CI: 0.54–1.48). Low-certainty evidence from five adjusted cohorts also found no significant difference in treatment failure between the two groups (n = 929; OR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.29–1.72). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that oral switch therapy significantly reduced hospital stay (n = 2041; mean difference: –5.19 days; 95% CI: –8.16 to –2.22).

Conclusions

Early transition to oral antibiotics was non-inferior to continued IV antibiotic treatment for bacteraemia and sepsis.
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
25.30
自引率
2.10%
发文量
441
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Microbiology and Infection (CMI) is a monthly journal published by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. It focuses on peer-reviewed papers covering basic and applied research in microbiology, infectious diseases, virology, parasitology, immunology, and epidemiology as they relate to therapy and diagnostics.
期刊最新文献
A European Perspective on Antibiotic Use in Viral Respiratory Infections: New Paradigm Integrating Pathogens with Host Factors. The Impact of Colistin MIC on Clinical Failure and Mortality: Insights from the OVERCOME Trial. The human cost of resistance: Ethical implications of coping with isolation for multi-drug resistant organisms. Invasive Fungal Infections after CD19 CAR T-cell Therapy for B-Cell Lymphoma' - Author's reply. Antifungal prophylaxis in IAPA : addressing persistent challenges.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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