Empiric antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia in adult patients: a systematic review and a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this network meta-analysis is to identify the empiric antibiotic (Em-ATB) with the highest probability of being the best (HPBB) in terms of (1) cure rate and (2) mortality rate in hospitalised patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP) . METHOD: Inclusion criteria: (1) adult patients (>16 years old) diagnosed with CAP that required hospitalisation; (2) randomised to at least two different Em-ATBs, (3) that report cure rate and (4) are written in English or Spanish. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) ambiguous antibiotics protocol and (2) published exclusively in abstract or letter format. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane and citation reviews from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2018. Risk of bias: Cochrane's tool. Quality of the systematic review (SR): A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2. Certainity of the evidence: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: frequentist method performed with the 'netmeta' library, R package. RESULTS: 27 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the initial 41 307 screened citations were included. Regarding the risk of bias, more than one quarter of the studies presented low risk and no study presented high risk in all domains. The SR quality is moderate. For cure, two networks were constructed. Thus, two Em-ATBs have the HPBB: cetaroline 600 mg (two times a day) and piperacillin 2000 mg (two times a day). For mortality, three networks were constructed. Thus, three Em-ATBs have the HPBB: ceftriaxone 2000 mg (once a day) plus levofloxacin 500 (two times a day), ertapenem 1000 mg (two times a day) and amikacin 250 mg (two times a day) plus clarithromycin 500 mg (two times a day). The certainity of evidence for each results is moderate. CONCLUSION: For cure rate, ceftaroline and piperaciline are the options with the HPBB. However, for mortality rate, the options are ceftriaxone plus levofloxacin, ertapenem and amikacin plus clarithromycin. It seems necessary to conduct an RCT that compares treatments with the HPBB for each event (cure or mortality) (CRD42017060692).

Safety and Efficacy of Devices Delivering Inhaled Antibiotics among Adults with Non-Cystic Fibrosis Bronchiectasis: A Systematic Review and a Network Meta-Analysis.

It remains unknown whether the type of aerosol generating device is affecting efficacy and safety among non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB) adults. The proposal of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to evaluate effectiveness and safety of inhaled antibiotics administered via dry powder inhaler (DPI) and via nebulizers (SVN) among adult patients with NCFB. Inclusion criteria were randomized-controlled trials, adults (≥18 years) with NCFB, and inhaled antibiotics administered via DPI as intervention. Search strategy was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2019. Sixteen trials (2870 patients) were included. Three trials (all ciprofloxacin) used DPIs and thirteen used SVN (three ciprofloxacin). Both DPI and SVN devices achieved similar safety outcomes (adverse events, antibiotic discontinuation, severe adverse events, and bronchospasm). Administration of ciprofloxacin via DPI significantly improved time to first exacerbation (87 days, 95% CI 34.3-139.7) and quality of life (MD -7.52; 95% CI -13.06 to -1.98) when compared with via SVN. No other significant differences were documented in clinical efficacy (at least one exacerbation, FEV1% predicted) and microbiologic response (bacterial eradication, emergence of new potential pathogens, and emergence of antimicrobial resistance) when comparing devices. Our NMA documented that time to first exacerbation and quality of life, were more favorable for DPIs. Decisions on the choice of devices should incorporate these findings plus other criteria, such as simplicity, costs or maintenance requirements.