Carbapenems vs alternative antibiotics for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Journal
Medicine
ISSN: 1536-5964
Titre abrégé: Medicine (Baltimore)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985248R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
entrez:
9
1
2020
pubmed:
9
1
2020
medline:
30
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) are universal reasons for hospitalization, and highly likely to develop into sepsis or septic shock. Carbapenem antibiotics with potentially higher efficacy or with fewer and milder side effects have increased in popularity, but evidence is limited by a scarcity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different carbapenem antibiotics for cUTI. Network meta-analysis is a useful tool to compare multiple treatments when there is limited or no direct evidence available. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of different carbapenems with alternative antibiotics for the treatment of cUTI. Pubmed, Medline, CENTRAL, and Embase were searched in November 2018. Studies of cUTI patients receiving carbapenem were included. We performed network meta-analysis to estimate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) from both direct and indirect evidence; traditional meta-analysis was also performed. Primary outcomes were clinical and microbiological treatment success. A total of 19 studies and 7380 patients were included in the analysis. Doripenem (DOPM) was associated with lower clinical treatment success rates than other carbapenems. Although the efficacy of other carbapenems by RRs with 95% CrIs did not show statistical differences, the cumulative rank probability indicated that meropenem/vaborbactam (MV), ertapenem (ETPM), and biapenem (BAPM) had higher clinical and microbiological treatment success rates; imipenem/cilastatin (IC) and MV showed higher risk of adverse events (AEs). MV was associated with higher treatment success rates for cUTI, especially for cUTI caused by carbapenem-resistant uropathogens, but also with higher risk of AEs. Our findings suggest MV as a first-choice treatment of carbapenem-resistant cUTI. ETPM, BAPM, and meropenem (MEPM) is another reasonable choice for cUTI empiric therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) are universal reasons for hospitalization, and highly likely to develop into sepsis or septic shock. Carbapenem antibiotics with potentially higher efficacy or with fewer and milder side effects have increased in popularity, but evidence is limited by a scarcity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different carbapenem antibiotics for cUTI. Network meta-analysis is a useful tool to compare multiple treatments when there is limited or no direct evidence available.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of different carbapenems with alternative antibiotics for the treatment of cUTI.
METHODS
METHODS
Pubmed, Medline, CENTRAL, and Embase were searched in November 2018. Studies of cUTI patients receiving carbapenem were included. We performed network meta-analysis to estimate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) from both direct and indirect evidence; traditional meta-analysis was also performed. Primary outcomes were clinical and microbiological treatment success.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 19 studies and 7380 patients were included in the analysis. Doripenem (DOPM) was associated with lower clinical treatment success rates than other carbapenems. Although the efficacy of other carbapenems by RRs with 95% CrIs did not show statistical differences, the cumulative rank probability indicated that meropenem/vaborbactam (MV), ertapenem (ETPM), and biapenem (BAPM) had higher clinical and microbiological treatment success rates; imipenem/cilastatin (IC) and MV showed higher risk of adverse events (AEs).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
MV was associated with higher treatment success rates for cUTI, especially for cUTI caused by carbapenem-resistant uropathogens, but also with higher risk of AEs. Our findings suggest MV as a first-choice treatment of carbapenem-resistant cUTI. ETPM, BAPM, and meropenem (MEPM) is another reasonable choice for cUTI empiric therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31914101
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018769
pii: 00005792-202001100-00092
pmc: PMC6959894
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Carbapenems
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e18769Références
Chemotherapy. 2010;56(4):285-90
pubmed: 20714145
Urology. 2002 Jul;60(1):16-22
pubmed: 12100914
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2018 Dec;16(12):865-876
pubmed: 30372359
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009 Sep;53(9):3782-92
pubmed: 19581455
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Sep;20(9):862-72
pubmed: 24890393
BMJ. 2013 Oct 24;347:f6008
pubmed: 24157497
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015 Feb;70(2):382-95
pubmed: 25266070
J Chemother. 2010 Dec;22(6):384-91
pubmed: 21303745
Stat Med. 2010 Mar 30;29(7-8):932-44
pubmed: 20213715
Emerg Infect Dis. 2014 Jul;20(7):1170-5
pubmed: 24959688
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002 Sep;46(9):2895-900
pubmed: 12183244
Mol Neurobiol. 2017 Aug;54(6):4353-4364
pubmed: 27343182
Eur Urol. 2001 Nov;40(5):576-88
pubmed: 11752870
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Nov;34(11):1264-7
pubmed: 26226440
Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2016 Aug;12(8):959-66
pubmed: 27327964
Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Mar 1;50(5):625-63
pubmed: 20175247
J Korean Med Sci. 2012 May;27(5):476-83
pubmed: 22563210
Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2014 Mar;28(1):49-59
pubmed: 24484574
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2002 Feb;19(2):95-103
pubmed: 11850161
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013 Nov;57(11):5284-90
pubmed: 23939900
Int J Surg. 2017 Dec;48:240-246
pubmed: 28890408
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Jun 7;17(1):404
pubmed: 28592240
Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Oct 1;47(7):927-30
pubmed: 18752440
Drugs. 2018 Jan;78(1):65-98
pubmed: 29230684
Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2016 Feb;3(1):15-21
pubmed: 26862399
Value Health. 2018 Oct;21(10):1259-1268
pubmed: 30314628
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006 Apr;57(4):780-3
pubmed: 16492721
Clin Infect Dis. 1995 Jul;21(1):86-92
pubmed: 7578765
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017 Oct 12;15(11):697-703
pubmed: 29021600
Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2005 Nov;16(6):349-60
pubmed: 18159518
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017 Jun 01;4(2):ofx063
pubmed: 28584849
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Feb;64(2):163-71
pubmed: 20688472
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Oct;55(7):943-50
pubmed: 22752516
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017 Sep 1;72(9):2616-2626
pubmed: 28575389
J Cancer. 2018 Jun 5;9(13):2237-2248
pubmed: 30026819
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004 Jun;53 Suppl 2:ii67-74
pubmed: 15150185
Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(11):1123-42
pubmed: 16277548
JAMA. 2018 Feb 27;319(8):788-799
pubmed: 29486041
Curr Med Res Opin. 2012 Dec;28(12):1921-31
pubmed: 23145859
Eur J Med Chem. 2017 May 5;131:185-195
pubmed: 28324783
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2018 Feb;16(2):111-120
pubmed: 29343141
Oncotarget. 2016 Dec 13;7(50):82473-82481
pubmed: 27756883