Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Empirical antibiotic treatment strategies for community-acquired pneumonia: a network meta-analysis.
Xu, Lu-Yan; Wang, Can-Can; Peng, Xiao-Xiao; Jiao, Ying; Zhao, Cui-Zhu; Zhang, Li; Ma, Li.
Afiliación
  • Xu LY; Department of General Medicine, Daxing District People's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. Electronic address: xly1007@163.com.
  • Wang CC; Department of General Medicine, Daxing District People's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
  • Peng XX; Department of General Medicine, Daxing District People's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
  • Jiao Y; Department of General Medicine, Daxing District People's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
  • Zhao CZ; Department of General Medicine, Daxing District People's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
  • Zhang L; Department of General Medicine, Daxing District People's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
  • Ma L; Department of General Medicine, Daxing District People's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
J Glob Antimicrob Resist ; 30: 1-9, 2022 09.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35643393
OBJECTIVES: This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of fluoroquinolone (FQ) monotherapy, ß-lactam (BL) monotherapy and ß-lactam/macrolide (BL-M) combination therapy in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FQ monotherapy, BL monotherapy and BL-M combination therapy up to July 2021. The outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, clinical success, microbiological success and drug-related adverse events. The summary relative risks (RRs) were estimated using pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 12 RCTs involving 5009 patients were included. In pairwise meta-analysis, no significant differences were found among FQ monotherapy, BL monotherapy and BL-M dual therapy for all-cause mortality, clinical success or microbiological success. FQ monotherapy was associated with fewer adverse events compared with BL-M therapy (RR 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.98). The network meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference observed among FQ monotherapy, BL monotherapy and BL-M dual therapy regarding all the outcomes. CONCLUSION: FQ monotherapy, BL monotherapy and BL-M combination therapy demonstrated similar efficacy and safety for hospitalized patients with CAP in this network meta-analysis. Due to the limitations of quality and quantity of the included studies, it is difficult to make a definitive recommendation before more large-scale and high-quality RCTs are conducted.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neumonía / Infecciones Comunitarias Adquiridas Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: J Glob Antimicrob Resist Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neumonía / Infecciones Comunitarias Adquiridas Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: J Glob Antimicrob Resist Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article