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).

[Use of an empirical antiretroviral treatment depends on the primary resistance rate of the human immunodeficiency virus]. / La práctica de un tratamiento antirretroviral empírico es dependiente del porcentaje de resistencias primarias del virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was the analysis of the prevalence and type of primary resistance to antiretroviral drugs in patients diagnosed with HIV infection, and to determine the most appropriate empirical treatment to obtain a virological and immunological response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An observational analysis of patients with a de novo diagnosis of HIV infection during the period 2008-2010. Clinical, immunological and virological characteristics, including genotype analysis of resistance to antiretrovirals, were considered as independent variables. The dependent variable was an undetectable HIV viral load after six months of treatment. Data are provided as median (interquartile range) and absolute number (percentage). RESULTS: Seventy-three patients with a de novo diagnosis of HIV infection were included [53 males (73%); 36 (30-46) years-old; prior use of intravenous drugs: 5 patients (7%); hepatitis C virus co-infection: 13 individuals (18%)]. Ten patients (14%) showed symptoms attributable to acute HIV infection. A CD4+ T cell count lower than 350 mm(3) was detected in a 37% (n=27) of all patients. The initiation of antiretroviral therapy followed the GESIDA recommendations (no therapy: 20 patients; tenofovir+emtricitabine+efavirenz: 28 patients; abacavir+lamivudine+efavirenz: 1 patient; tenofovir+emtricitabine+protease inhibitors: 5 patients; abacavir+lamivudine+protease inhibitors: 1 patient; 18 patients were lost in the follow-up). After starting antiretroviral therapy, the resistance analyses detected the existence of primary resistance to antiretrovirals in 12.7% (confidence interval 95%: 3-22) of the patients, distributed as follows: isolated resistance to, nucleosides was detected in 2% (M184V), to nevirapine/efavirenz in 9% (K103N), and combined resistance to nucleosides and non-nucleosides in 2%; there were no cases of resistance to protease inhibitors. Consequently, antiretroviral therapy was changed in 5 (14%) out of 35 patients, attaining an undetectable HIV viral load at 6 months in all of them. The primary resistance to antiretrovirals was not related with epidemiological, virological (including infection by non B subtype) or immunological variables. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, a change in the epidemiological pattern of de novo diagnosis of HIV infection in our area has been observed. The existence of resistance mutations in more than 5% of the new cases is noteworthy. This finding must be considered in order to establish the rules of empirical treatment in our area.