Evidence Hub

Systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro efficacy of antibiotic combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli

Luigia Scudeller, Elda Righi, Margherita Chiamenti, Damiano Bragantini, Giulia Menchinelli, Paolo M. Cattaneo, Christian G. Giske, Thomas P. Lodise et al.

International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 2021

112 citations

Abstract

The superiority of combination therapy for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (CR-GNB) infections remains controversial. In vitro models may predict the efficacy of antibiotic regimens against CR-GNB. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed including pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) and time-kill (TK) studies examining the in vitro efficacy of antibiotic combinations against CR-GNB [PROSPERO registration no. CRD42019128104]. The primary outcome was in vitro synergy based on the effect size (ES): high, ES ≥ 0.75, moderate, 0.35 < ES < 0.75; low, ES ≤ 0.35; and absent, ES = 0). A network meta-analysis assessed the bactericidal effect and re-growth rate (secondary outcomes). An adapted version of the ToxRTool was used for risk-of-bias assessment. Over 180 combination regimens from 136 studies were included. The most frequently analysed classes were polymyxins and carbapenems. Limited data were available for ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam and imipenem/relebactam. High or moderate synergism was shown for polymyxin/rifampicin against Acinetobacter baumannii [ES = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-1.00], polymyxin/fosfomycin against Klebsiella pneumoniae (ES = 1.00, 95% CI 0.66-1.00) and imipenem/amikacin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ES = 1.00, 95% CI 0.21-1.00). Compared with monotherapy, increased bactericidal activity and lower re-growth rates were reported for colistin/fosfomycin and polymyxin/rifampicin in K. pneumoniae and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in cell cultures (in vitro), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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