Randomized comparison of ceftriaxone versus ceftriaxone plus amikacin for the empirical treatment of infections in patients with altered host defense: microbiological and clinical evaluation

Beta lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for sepsis

BACKGROUND

Optimal antibiotic treatment for sepsis is imperative. Combining a beta lactam antibiotic with an aminoglycoside antibiotic may provide certain advantages over beta lactam monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to compare beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in patients with sepsis and to estimate the rate of adverse effects with each treatment regimen, including the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

SEARCH METHODS

In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11); MEDLINE (1966 to 4 November 2013); EMBASE (1980 to November 2013); LILACS (1982 to November 2013); and conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (1995 to 2013). We scanned citations of all identified studies and contacted all corresponding authors. In our previous review, we searched the databases to July 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing any beta lactam monotherapy versus any combination of a beta lactam with an aminoglycoside for sepsis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure, superinfections and adverse events. Two review authors independently collected data. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed-effect model. We extracted outcomes by intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 69 trials that randomly assigned 7863 participants. Twenty-two trials compared the same beta lactam in both study arms, while the remaining trials compared different beta lactams using a broader-spectrum beta lactam in the monotherapy arm. In trials comparing the same beta lactam, we observed no difference between study groups with regard to all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.30) and clinical failure (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29). In studies comparing different beta lactams, we observed a trend for benefit with monotherapy for all-cause mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01) and a significant advantage for clinical failure (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84). No significant disparities emerged from subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including assessment of participants with Gram-negative infection. The subgroup of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections was underpowered to examine effects. Results for mortality were classified as low quality of evidence mainly as the result of imprecision. Results for failure were classified as very low quality of evidence because of indirectness of the outcome and possible detection bias in non-blinded trials. We detected no differences in the rate of development of resistance. Nephrotoxicity was significantly less frequent with monotherapy (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.39). We found no heterogeneity for all these comparisons.We included a small subset of studies addressing participants with Gram-positive infection, mainly endocarditis. We identified no difference between monotherapy and combination therapy in these studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of an aminoglycoside to beta lactams for sepsis should be discouraged. All-cause mortality rates are unchanged. Combination treatment carries a significant risk of nephrotoxicity.

Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Continued controversy surrounds the optimal empirical treatment for febrile neutropenia. New broad-spectrum beta-lactams have been introduced as single treatment, and classically, a combination of a beta-lactam with an aminoglycoside has been used.

OBJECTIVES

To compare beta-lactam monotherapy versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for cancer patients with fever and neutropenia.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2012), LILACS (August 2012), MEDLINE and EMBASE (August 2012) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (Issue 3, 2012). We scanned references of all included studies and pertinent reviews and contacted the first author of each included trial, as well as the pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any beta-lactam antibiotic monotherapy with any combination of a beta-lactam and an aminoglycoside antibiotic, for the initial empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients. All cause mortality was the primary outcome assessed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data concerning all cause mortality, infection related mortality, treatment failure (including treatment modifications), super-infections, adverse effects and study quality measures were extracted independently by two review authors. Risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Outcomes were extracted by intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis whenever possible. Individual domains of risk of bias were examined through sensitivity analyses. Published data were complemented by correspondence with authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-one trials published between 1983 and 2012 were included. All cause mortality was lower with monotherapy (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02, without statistical significance). Results were similar for trials comparing the same beta-lactam in both trial arms (11 trials, 1718 episodes; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.06) and for trials comparing different beta-lactams－usually a broad-spectrum beta-lactam compared with a narrower-spectrum beta-lactam combined with an aminoglycoside (33 trials, 5468 episodes; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.09). Infection related mortality was significantly lower with monotherapy (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99). Treatment failure was significantly more frequent with monotherapy in trials comparing the same beta-lactam (16 trials, 2833 episodes; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.20), and was significantly more frequent with combination therapy in trials comparing different beta-lactams (55 trials, 7736 episodes; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97). Bacterial super-infections occurred with equal frequency, and fungal super-infections were more common with combination therapy. Adverse events were more frequent with combination therapy (numbers needed to harm 4; 95% CI 4 to 5). Specifically, the difference with regard to nephrotoxicity was highly significant. Adequate trial methods were associated with a larger effect estimate for mortality and smaller effect estimates for failure. Nearly all trials were open-label. No correlation was noted between mortality and failure rates and these trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Beta-lactam monotherapy is advantageous compared with beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy with regard to survival, adverse events and fungal super-infections. Treatment failure should not be regarded as the primary outcome in open-label trials, as it reflects mainly treatment modifications.

A survival benefit of combination antibiotic therapy for serious infections associated with sepsis and septic shock is contingent only on the risk of death: a meta-analytic/meta-regression study

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether a potential benefit with combination antibiotic therapy is restricted to the most critically ill subset of patients, particularly those with septic shock.

DATA SOURCES

OVID MEDLINE (1950-October 2009), EMBASE (1980-October 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (to third quarter 2009), the ClinicalTrial.gov database, and the SCOPUS database.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized or observational studies of antimicrobial therapy of serious bacterial infections potentially associated with sepsis or septic shock. Fifty studies met entry criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study design, mortality/clinical response, and other variables were extracted independently by two reviewers. When possible, study datasets were split into mutually exclusive groups with and without shock or critical illness.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Although a pooled odds ratio indicated no overall mortality/clinical response benefit with combination therapy (odds ratio, 0.856; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.03; p = .0943; I = 45.1%), stratification of datasets by monotherapy mortality risk demonstrated substantial benefit in the most severely ill subset (monotherapy risk of death >25%; odds ratio of death, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.64; I = 8.6%). Of those datasets that could be stratified by the presence of shock/critical illness, the more severely ill group consistently demonstrated increased efficacy of a combination therapy strategy (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.70; p < .0001; I = 0%). An increased risk of death was found in low-risk patients (risk of death <or=15% in the monotherapy arm) exposed to combination therapy (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.03; p = .003; I = 8.2%). Meta-regression indicated that efficacy of combination therapy was dependent only on the risk of death in the monotherapy group.

CONCLUSION

Combination antibiotic therapy improves survival and clinical response of high-risk, life-threatening infections, particularly those associated with septic shock but may be detrimental to low-risk patients.

Beta lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for sepsis

BACKGROUND

Optimal antibiotic treatment for sepsis is imperative. Combining a beta-lactam antibiotic with an aminoglycoside antibiotic may have certain advantages over beta-lactam monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

We compared clinical outcomes for beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy versus beta lactam monotherapy for sepsis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2004); MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004); EMBASE (1980 to March 2003); LILACS (1982 to July 2004); and conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (1995 to 2003). We scanned citations of all identified studies and contacted all corresponding authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing any beta-lactam monotherapy to any combination of one beta-lactam and one aminoglycoside for sepsis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was all-cause fatality. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure, superinfections, colonization, and adverse events. Two authors independently collected data. We pooled relative risks (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed effect model. We extracted outcomes by intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 64 trials, randomizing 7586 patients. Twenty trials compared the same beta-lactam in both study arms, while the remaining compared different beta-lactams using a broader spectrum beta-lactam in the monotherapy arm. In studies comparing the same beta-lactam, we observed no difference between study groups with regard to all-cause fatality, RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.75-1.35) and clinical failure, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.95-1.29). In studies comparing different beta-lactams, we observed an advantage to monotherapy: all cause fatality RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.71-1.01), clinical failure RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.86). No significant disparities emerged from subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including the assessment of patients with Gram-negative and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. We detected no differences in the rate of resistance development. Adverse events rates did not differ significantly between the study groups overall, although nephrotoxicity was significantly more frequent with combination therapy, RR 0.30 (95% CI 0.23-0.39). We found no heterogeneity for all comparisons. We included a small subset of studies addressing patients with Gram-positive infections, mainly endocarditis. We identified no difference between monotherapy and combination therapy in these studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of an aminoglycoside to beta-lactams for sepsis should be discouraged. All-cause fatality rates are unchanged. Combination treatment carries a significant risk of nephrotoxicity.

Effect of Aminoglycoside and β‐Lactam Combination Therapy versus β‐Lactam Monotherapy on the Emergence of Antimicrobial Resistance: A Meta‐analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The addition of an aminoglycoside to a beta -lactam therapy regimen has been suggested to have a beneficial effect in delaying or preventing the development of antimicrobial resistance. We studied the effect of aminoglycoside/ beta -lactam combination therapy versus beta-lactam monotherapy on the emergence of resistance.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that compared aminoglycoside/ beta-lactam combination therapy with beta-lactam monotherapy and that reported data regarding the emergence of resistance (primary outcome) and/or development of superinfection, treatment failure, treatment failure attributable to emergence of resistance, treatment failure attributable to superinfection, all-cause mortality during treatment, and mortality due to infection. Data for this meta-analysis were identified from the PubMed database, Current Contents database, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and references in relevant articles.

RESULTS

A total of 8 RCTs were included in the analysis. Beta -lactam monotherapy was not associated with a greater emergence of resistance than was the aminoglycoside/ beta-lactam combination (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.47). Actually, beta -lactam monotherapy was associated with fewer superinfections (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.93) and fewer treatment failures (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-1.01). Rates of treatment failure attributable to emergence of resistance (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 0.75-12.82), treatment failure attributable to superinfection (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33-1.10), all-cause mortality during treatment (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.25), and mortality due to infection (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.46-1.21) did not differ significantly between the 2 regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with beta-lactam monotherapy, the aminoglycoside/ beta-lactam combination was not associated with a beneficial effect on the development of antimicrobial resistance among initially antimicrobial-susceptible isolates.

Beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for sepsis in immunocompetent patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare beta lactam monotherapy with beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for severe infections.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, and conference proceedings, to 2003; references of included studies; contact with all authors. No restrictions, such as language, year of publication, or publication status.

STUDY SELECTION

All randomised trials of beta lactam monotherapy compared with beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for patients without neutropenia who fulfilled criteria for sepsis.

DATA SELECTION

Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria, performed quality assessment, and extracted the data. The primary outcome assessed was all cause fatality by intention to treat. Relative risks were pooled with the random effect model (relative risk < 1 favours monotherapy).

RESULTS

64 trials with 7586 patients were included. There was no difference in all cause fatality (relative risk 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.06). 12 studies compared the same beta lactam (1.02, 0.76 to 1.38), and 31 studies compared different beta lactams (0.85, 0.69 to 1.05). Clinical failure was more common with combination treatment overall (0.87, 0.78 to 0.97) and among studies comparing different beta lactams (0.76, 0.68 to 0.86). There was no advantage to combination therapy among patients with Gram negative infections (1835 patients) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections (426 patients). There was no difference in the rate of development of resistance. Nephrotoxicity was significantly more common with combination therapy (0.36, 0.28 to 0.47). Heterogeneity was not significant for these comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of sepsis the addition of an aminoglycoside to beta lactams should be discouraged. Fatality remains unchanged, while the risk for adverse events is increased.

Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropaenia

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy treated cancer patients are prone to neutropaenia and life-threatening infections. Early, empirical antibiotic treatment is therefore administered routinely to febrile neutropaenic patients. Currently, either beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination treatment or beta-lactam monotherapy are recommended.

OBJECTIVES

We compared beta-lactam monotherapy versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for cancer patients with fever and neutroepaenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Cancer Network Register (searched July, 2000), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2001), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2000), LILACS (January 1982 to August 2001), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2001), and ICAAC conference proceedings (1995 to 2000). We scanned references of all included studies, pertinent reviews, and contacted the first author of each included trial and the pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any beta-lactam antibiotic monotherapy to any combination of a beta-lactam and an aminoglycoside antibiotic, for the initial, empirical treatment of febrile neutropaenic cancer patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data concerning mortality, treatment failure (including treatment modifications), superinfections, adverse effects and study quality measures were extracted independently by two reviewers. Relative risks with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated. Outcomes were extracted by intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-six trials and 7642 patients were included. All cause mortality was the primary outcome assessed. For all mortality comparisons, no significant difference between monotherapy and combination therapy was seen, relative risk 0.85 (95% CI 0.72-1.02) for all studies combined. Treatment failure was the outcome reported in all included trials. No significant difference between study groups was shown for studies comparing the same beta-lactam, relative risk 1.12 (95% CI 0.96-1.29). A significant advantage to monotherapy was observed for studies comparing different beta-lactams, relative risk 0.86 (95% CI 0.80-0.93). Bacterial and fungal superinfections developed with similar frequencies in the monotherapy and combination treatment groups. Adverse events were significantly more common in the combination treatment group, relative risk 0.83, (95% CI 0.72-0.97). These included events associated with significant morbidity, primarily renal toxicity. Results were consistent for subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

We have shown an advantage to broad-spectrum beta-lactam monotherapy over beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for febrile neutropaenia. This advantage comprises of 1) a similar, if not better, survival, 2) a significantly lower treatment failure rate, 3) comparable probability for secondary infections and, 4) most importantly, a lower rate of adverse events associated with significant morbidity. Monotherapy can be regarded, therefore, as the standard of care for febrile neutropaenic patients.

Ceftriaxone: an update of its use in the management of community-acquired and nosocomial infections

Ceftriaxone is a parenteral third-generation cephalosporin with a long elimination half-life which permits once-daily administration. It has good activity against Streptococcus pneumoniae, methicillin-susceptible staphylococci, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis and Neisseria spp. Although active against Enterobacteriaceae, the recent spread of derepressed mutants which hyperproduce chromosomal beta-lactamases and extended-spectrum beta-lactamases has diminished the activity of all third-generation cephalosporins against these pathogens necessitating careful attention to sensitivity studies. Extensive data from randomised clinical trials confirm the efficacy of ceftriaxone in serious and difficult-to-treat community-acquired infections including meningitis, pneumonia and nonresponsive acute otitis media. Ceftriaxone also has efficacy in other community-acquired infections including uncomplicated gonorrhoea, acute pyelonephritis and various infections in children. In the nosocomial setting, extensive data also confirm the efficacy of ceftriaxone with or without an aminoglycoside in serious Gram-negative infections, pneumonia, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and as surgical prophylaxis. Outpatient use of ceftriaxone, either as part of a step-down regimen or parenterally, is a distinguishing feature of the data gathered on the agent over the last decade. The review focuses on new applications of the drug and its use in infections in which the causative pathogens or their resistance patterns have changed over the past decade. Ceftriaxone has a good tolerability profile, the most common events being diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, candidiasis and rash. Ceftriaxone may cause reversible biliary pseudolithiasis, notably at higher dosages of the drug (>/=2 g/day); however, the incidence of true lithiasis is <0.1%. Injection site discomfort or phlebitis can occur after intramuscular or intravenous administration.

CONCLUSIONS

As a result of its strong activity against S. pneumoniae, ceftriaxone holds an important place, either alone or as part of a combination regimen, in the treatment of invasive pneumococcal infections, including those with reduced beta-lactam susceptibility. Its once-daily administration schedule allows simplification of otherwise complex regimens in a hospital setting and has also contributed to its popularity as a parenteral agent in an ambulatory setting. These properties, together with a well characterised tolerability profile, mean that ceftriaxone is likely to retain its place as an important third-generation cephalosporin in the treatment of serious community-acquired and nosocomial infections.