Evidence Hub

Efficacy of phage therapy in preclinical models of bacterial infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

S. Gómez-ochoa, M. Pitton, L. Valente, Cristian David Sosa Vesga, Jorge Largo, A. C. Quiroga-Centeno, J. A. Hernández Vargas, S. J. Trujillo-Cáceres et al.

The Lancet Microbe, 2022

32 participants · 58 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial resistance of bacterial pathogens is an increasing clinical problem and alternative approaches to antibiotic chemotherapy are needed. One of these approaches is the use of lytic bacterial viruses known as phage therapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy of phage therapy in preclinical animal models of bacterial infection.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE/Ovid, Embase/Ovid, CINAHL/EbscoHOST, Web of Science/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to Sept 30, 2021. Studies assessing phage efficacy in animal models were included. Only studies that assessed the efficacy of phage therapy in treating established bacterial infections in terms of survival and bacterial abundance or density were included. Studies reporting only in-vitro or ex-vivo results and those with incomplete information were excluded. Risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation tool. The main endpoints were animal survival and tissue bacterial burden, which were reported using pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences with random-effects models. The I2 measure and its 95% CI were also calculated. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022311309.

FINDINGS

Of the 5084 references screened, 124 studies fulfilled the selection criteria. Risk of bias was high for 70 (56%) of the 124…

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: 32 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