Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of antibiotics targeting Gram-negative bacteria in nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

David Luque Paz, Dara Chean, P. Tattevin, Damien Luque Paz, B. Bayeh, A. Kouatchet, D. Douillet, J. Riou

Annals of Intensive Care, 2024

4,993 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Background Multiple randomized controlled studies have compared numerous antibiotic regimens, including new, recently commercialized antibiotics in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia (NP). The objective of this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and the safety of different antibiotic treatments for NP. Methods We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases from 2000 through 2021. The study selection included studies comparing antibiotics targeting Gram-negative bacilli in the setting of NP. The primary endpoint was 28 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure and adverse events. Results Sixteen studies encompassing 4993 patients were included in this analysis comparing 13 antibiotic regimens. The level of evidence for mortality comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. No significant difference in 28 day mortality was found among all beta-lactam regimens. Only the combination of meropenem plus aerosolized colistin was associated with a significant decrease of mortality compared to using intravenous colistin alone (OR = 0.43; 95% credible interval [0.17–0.94]), based on the results of the smallest trial included. The clinical failure rate of ceftazidime was higher than meropenem with (OR = 1.97; 95% CrI [1.19–3.45]) or without aerosolized colistin (OR = 1.40; 95% CrI [1.00–2.01]), imipemen/cilastatin/relebactam (OR = 1.74; 95% CrI [1.03–2.90])…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. 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: 4,993 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