Prolonged versus intermittent β-lactam infusion in sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Yang Zhao, Bin Zang, Qian Wang
Author Information
  1. Yang Zhao: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, 36 Sanhao Street, Shenyang, 110000, China.
  2. Bin Zang: Department of Critical Care Medicine, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, 36 Sanhao Street, Shenyang, 110000, China. zangbin_66@163.com.
  3. Qian Wang: Department of Emergency, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, 4 Chongshan East Road, Shenyang, 110000, China. wq0376@hotmail.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The two latest studies on prolonged versus intermittent use of β-lactam antibiotics in patients with sepsis did not reach consistent conclusions, further contributing to the controversy surrounding the effectiveness of the prolonged β-lactam antibiotics infusion strategy. We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prolonged and intermittent β-lactam infusion in adult patients with sepsis.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for original randomized controlled trials comparing prolonged and intermittent β-lactam infusion in sepsis patients. A random-effects model was used to evaluate mortality, clinical success, microbiological success, and adverse events. We also conducted subgroup analyses to explore the impact of various factors on the mortality rates. Relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate the overall effect sizes for dichotomous outcomes. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023463905).
RESULTS: We assessed 15 studies involving 2130 patients. In our comprehensive assessment, we found a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR, 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.97; P = 0.02) and a notable improvement in clinical success (RR, 1.16; 95% CI 1.03-1.31; P = 0.02) in the prolonged infusion group compared to the intermittent infusion group, whereas microbiological success did not yield statistically significant results (RR, 1.10; 95% CI 0.98-1.23; P = 0.11). No significant differences in adverse events were observed between the two groups (RR, 0.91; 95% CI 0.64-1.29; P = 0.60). Additionally, remarkable conclusions were drawn from subgroup analyses including studies with sample sizes exceeding 20 individuals per group (RR, 0.84; 95%CI 0.72-0.98; P = 0.03), research conducted post-2010 (RR, 0.84; 95%CI 0.72-0.98; P = 0.03), cases involving infections predominantly caused by Gram-negative bacteria (RR, 0.81; 95%CI 0.68-0.96; P = 0.02), as well as the administration of a loading dose (RR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.72-0.97; P = 0.02) and the use of penicillin (RR, 0.61; 95% CI 0.38-0.98; P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to intermittent infusion, prolonged infusion of β-lactam antibiotics significantly decreases all-cause mortality among patients with sepsis and enhances clinical success without increasing adverse events.

Keywords

References

  1. Intensive Care Med. 2016 Oct;42(10):1535-1545 [PMID: 26754759]
  2. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2023 Feb;21(2):149-166 [PMID: 36655779]
  3. J Infect. 2023 Sep;87(3):190-198 [PMID: 37423503]
  4. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Sep 15;194(6):681-91 [PMID: 26974879]
  5. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2016 Oct;29(4):759-72 [PMID: 27413094]
  6. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007 Feb;59(2):285-91 [PMID: 17135183]
  7. Ann Intensive Care. 2023 Jun 15;13(1):52 [PMID: 37322293]
  8. Intensive Care Med. 2021 Nov;47(11):1181-1247 [PMID: 34599691]
  9. BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928 [PMID: 22008217]
  10. Ann Intensive Care. 2012 Aug 16;2(1):37 [PMID: 22898246]
  11. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010 Feb;35(2):156-63 [PMID: 20018492]
  12. Am Fam Physician. 2020 Apr 1;101(7):409-418 [PMID: 32227831]
  13. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec;33(6):501-510 [PMID: 33009140]
  14. Pharmacotherapy. 2023 Aug;43(8):740-777 [PMID: 37615245]
  15. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Mar;98(10):e14632 [PMID: 30855448]
  16. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006 Nov;50(11):3556-61 [PMID: 16940077]
  17. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097 [PMID: 19621072]
  18. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Jan;18(1):108-120 [PMID: 29102324]
  19. JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10 [PMID: 26903338]
  20. Nature. 2018 Jul;559(7715):617-621 [PMID: 30022160]
  21. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2021 Apr;46(2):424-432 [PMID: 33135261]
  22. J Intensive Care. 2020 Oct 06;8:77 [PMID: 33042550]
  23. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71 [PMID: 33782057]
  24. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2000 Aug;50(2):184-91 [PMID: 10930972]
  25. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022 Oct 29;11(11): [PMID: 36358163]
  26. JAMA. 2023 Jul 11;330(2):141-151 [PMID: 37326473]
  27. Crit Care. 2012 Jun 28;16(3):R113 [PMID: 22742765]
  28. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2016 Jun;47(6):436-8 [PMID: 27179814]
  29. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2006 Aug;28(2):122-7 [PMID: 16815689]
  30. Biomol Ther (Seoul). 2023 Mar 1;31(2):141-147 [PMID: 36788654]
  31. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jan;56(2):236-44 [PMID: 23074313]
  32. Chin Med J (Engl). 2017 May 20;130(10):1139-1145 [PMID: 28485312]
  33. BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34 [PMID: 9310563]
  34. Drugs. 2023 Jul;83(11):967-983 [PMID: 37314633]
  35. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2014 May;43(5):403-11 [PMID: 24657044]
  36. J Crit Care. 2023 Feb;73:154170 [PMID: 36272277]
  37. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Aug;43(8):360-9 [PMID: 16119511]
  38. Crit Care Resusc. 2019 Mar;21(1):63-68 [PMID: 30857514]
  39. Crit Care Med. 2009 Mar;37(3):926-33 [PMID: 19237898]
  40. Crit Care Med. 2008 Jan;36(1):296-327 [PMID: 18158437]
  41. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009 Jul;64(1):142-50 [PMID: 19398460]
  42. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2019 Apr;24(2):53-54 [PMID: 30523135]
  43. J Clin Med. 2023 Apr 28;12(9): [PMID: 37176628]
  44. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2016 Aug 01;6(8): [PMID: 27329032]
  45. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Dec 1;192(11):1298-305 [PMID: 26200166]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.00RRP = 0infusion95%prolongedintermittentβ-lactamCIpatientssuccesssepsismortality72-002studiesantibioticsconductedmeta-analysisclinicaladverseeventssignificant1group8495%CI98twoversususeconclusionsreviewevaluaterandomizedcontrolledtrialsusedmicrobiologicalsubgroupanalysessizesinvolvingall-cause9703BACKGROUND:latestreachconsistentcontributingcontroversysurroundingeffectivenessstrategysystemicefficacysafetyadultMETHODS:systematicallysearchedPubMedEMBASECochraneLibrarydatabasesoriginalcomparingrandom-effectsmodelalsoexploreimpactvariousfactorsratesRelativeriskcorrespondingconfidenceintervalsCIscalculateoveralleffectdichotomousoutcomesregisteredPROSPEROCRD42023463905RESULTS:assessed152130comprehensiveassessmentfoundreduction83notableimprovement1603-131comparedwhereasyieldstatisticallyresults1098-12311differencesobservedgroups9164-12960Additionallyremarkabledrawnincludingsampleexceeding20individualsperresearchpost-2010casesinfectionspredominantlycausedGram-negativebacteria8168-096welladministrationloadingdosepenicillin6138-004CONCLUSIONS:ComparedsignificantlydecreasesamongenhanceswithoutincreasingProlongedsepsis:systematicAntibioticsCarbapenemsCephalosporinsPenicillinPharmacodynamicsPharmacokineticsSepsis

Similar Articles

Cited By