Evidence Hub

Short-course versus long-course antibiotic treatment for ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abdi Adugna Fite, M. Farooqi, D. Kakish, Mohd Saif Uddin Ahmed, Priya Antil, Sri Dhanya Tammineedi, Nihar Gami, P. Komminni et al.

American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2025

1,519 participants

Abstract

Abstract RATIONALE Current guidelines recommend a short course of antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by nonfermenting gram-negative bacilli (NF-GNB). However, this approach has been associated with an increased risk of pneumonia recurrence. OBJECTIVE This meta-analysis aims to address inconsistencies in the literature and evaluate the efficacy of short-course versus long-course antibiotic therapy for VAP, particularly in NF-GNB cases. METHODS We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through August 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short versus long courses of antibiotic therapy in patients with VAP. MEASUREMENTS The primary outcomes were the risk of all-cause mortality and pneumonia recurrence. For all-cause mortality, an absolute noninferiority margin of 10% was chosen. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4, with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) as effect measures. RESULTS Our pooled analysis included seven RCTs (1519 patients, 583 with NF-GNB VAP). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between short- and long-course antibiotic regimens (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.88–1.18). The absolute risk difference was 1% (95% CI: −3 to 6%), indicating that noninferiority was met. A short course of antibiotics increased the incidence of pneumonia recurrence in patients with VAP due to NF-GNB (RR 1.64; 95% CI: 1.18–2.29). CONCLUSIONS Our meta-analysis…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, 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: 1,519 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