Evidence Hub

Transition to oral beta‐lactam therapy in uncomplicated gram‐negative bacteremia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Michael M. Dore, Ryan Duffy, Laura Caputo, Lily Huang, S A Sidoti, Sarah E. Cantrell, Blair Glasgo, Christa Kerbow

Journal of Hospital Medicine, 2025

7,500 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Gram-negative bacteremia (GNB) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Transition to oral therapy has traditionally utilized fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole rather than beta-lactams due to concerns about pharmacokinetics and bioavailability despite a dearth of clinical data. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of transition to oral beta-lactam therapy in uncomplicated GNB. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of published articles in MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception to September 2024. Inclusion criteria included any study with adults (age >18 years of age) with uncomplicated GNB from any source. Primary outcomes included 30-day all-cause mortality and 30-day antibiotic failure rate. RESULTS: Eight retrospective cohort studies were reviewed comprising 7500 patients. Twice as many patients were in the fluoroquinolones/trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group compared with the beta-lactams group (4998 vs. 2482). Patients in each group had similar average age (70 vs. 71), percent male (54% vs. 56%), percent urinary source (78% vs. 80%), duration of IV antibiotics (4.2 vs. 4.5), Pitt bacteremia score (1.1 vs. 1.4) and Charleston comorbid index (2 vs. 2). There was no statistically significant difference in the 30-day all-cause mortality rate between the fluoroquinolones/trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and the beta-lactams group: 2.06% versus 1.89% with a weighted relative risk…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 7,500 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free