Evidence Hub

Impact of attaining aggressive vs. conservative PK/PD target on the clinical efficacy of beta-lactams for the treatment of Gram-negative infections in the critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

M. Gatti, P. Cojutti, F. Pea

Critical Care, 2024

4,833 participants · 71 citations

Abstract

To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis with the dual intent of assessing the impact of attaining aggressive vs. conservative beta-lactams PK/PD target on the clinical efficacy for treating Gram-negative infections in critical patients, and of identifying predictive factors of failure in attaining aggressive PK/PD targets. Two authors independently searched PubMed-MEDLINE and Scopus database from inception to 23rd December 2023, to retrieve studies comparing the impact of attaining aggressive vs. conservative PK/PD targets on clinical efficacy of beta-lactams. Independent predictive factors of failure in attaining aggressive PK/PD targets were also assessed. Aggressive PK/PD target was considered a100%fT>4xMIC, and clinical cure rate was selected as primary outcome. Meta-analysis was performed by pooling odds ratios (ORs) extrapolated from studies providing adjustment for confounders using a random-effects model with inverse variance method. A total of 20,364 articles were screened, and 21 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis (N = 4833; 2193 aggressive vs. 2640 conservative PK/PD target). Attaining aggressive PK/PD target was significantly associated with higher clinical cure rate (OR 1.69; 95% CI 1.15–2.49) and lower risk of beta-lactam resistance development (OR 0.06; 95% CI 0.01–0.29). Male gender, body mass index > 30 kg/m2, augmented renal clearance and MIC above the clinical breakpoint emerged as significant independent predictors of…

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: 4,833 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