首页> 外文期刊>British Medical Journal >β lactam monotherapy versus β lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for fever with neutropenia: systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

β lactam monotherapy versus β lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for fever with neutropenia: systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:β内酰胺单一疗法与β内酰胺-氨基糖苷联合疗法治疗中性粒细胞减少症发烧:系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Objective To compare the effectiveness of β lactam monotherapy versus βlactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in the treatment of patients with fever and neutropenia. Data sources Medline, Embase, Lilacs, the Cochrane Library, and conference proceedings to 2002. References of included studies and contact with authors. No restrictions on language, year of publication, or publication status. Study selection All randomised trials of β lactam monotherapy compared with β lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy as empirical treatment for patients with fever and neutropenia. Data selection Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria, performed quality assessment, and extracted data. An intention to treat approach was used. Relative risks were pooled with the random effect model. Main outcome measure All cause fatality. Results Forty seven trials with 7807 patients met inclusion criteria. Nine trials compared the same β lactam. There was no significant difference in all cause fatality (relative risk 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.02). For success of treatment there was a significant advantage with monotherapy (0.92, 0.85 to 0.99), though there was considerable heterogeneity among trials. There was no significant difference between monotherapy and combination treatment in trials that compared the same β lactam, whereas there was major advantage with monotherapy in trials that compared different β lactams (0.87, 0.80 to 0.93). Rates of superinfection were similar. Adverse events, including those associated with severe morbidity, were significantly more common in the combination treatment group. Detected flaws in methods did not affect results. Conclusions For patients with fever and neutropenia there is no clinical advantage in treatment with β lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy. Broad spectrum β lactams as monotherapy should be regarded as the standard of care for such patients.
机译:目的比较β内酰胺单一疗法与β内酰胺-氨基糖苷联合疗法治疗发烧和中性粒细胞减少症的疗效。数据来源包括Medline,Embase,Lillacs,Cochrane图书馆以及2002年的会议记录。其中包括研究参考和与作者的联系。对语言,出版年份或出版状态没有限制。研究选择所有将β内酰胺单一疗法与β内酰胺-氨基糖苷类联合疗法相比较作为发烧和中性粒细胞减少症患者的经验治疗的随机试验。数据选择两位审阅者独立应用选择标准,进行质量评估和提取数据。使用意图治疗方法。相对风险通过随机效应模型进行汇总。主要结果指标均导致死亡。结果47项针对7807例患者的试验符合纳入标准。九项试验比较了相同的β内酰胺。所有病死率均无显着差异(相对风险0.85,95%置信区间0.72至1.02)。对于成功的治疗,单药治疗具有显着优势(0.92,0.85至0.99),尽管试验之间存在相当大的异质性。比较相同β-内酰胺的试验中,单药治疗与联合治疗之间无显着差异,而比较不同β-内酰胺的试验中,单药治疗具有主要优势(0.87,0.80至0.93)。重复感染率相似。在联合治疗组中,不良事件(包括与严重发病有关的事件)明显更为常见。检测到的方法缺陷不会影响结果。结论对于发烧和中性粒细胞减少症的患者,使用β-内酰胺-氨基糖苷联合疗法治疗没有临床优势。广谱β-内酰胺作为单一疗法应被视为此类患者的治疗标准。

著录项

  • 来源
    《British Medical Journal》 |2003年第7399期|p.1111-1115|共5页
  • 作者单位

    Rabin Medical Centre, Beilinson Campus, Infectious Diseases Unit and Department of Medicine E, Pctah-Tiqvu 49100. Israel;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 医药、卫生;
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 00:12:19

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号