Evidence Hub

The Effect of Combination Therapy on Mortality and Adverse Events in Patients with Staphylococcus aureus Bacteraemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Chao Ye, Chunjiang Wang, Zuojun Li, Xin Li, Juan Pan, Liang Liu, Zhaohui Wang

Infectious Diseases and Therapy, 2021

2,367 participants · 17 citations

Abstract

The findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and meta-analyses vary regarding the effectiveness and safety of combination therapy for patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB). We aimed to identify the effectiveness and safety of combination therapy in patients with SAB compared with those of monotherapy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare combination therapy versus monotherapy in patients with SAB. Two authors independently searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library of clinical trials until 17 February 2021. Any RCT comparing mortality or adverse events (AEs) of combination therapy versus monotherapy for patients with SAB was eligible. Summary risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were evaluated using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at any time point. This meta-analysis is registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42020188176) and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. In total, 1906 articles were identified and screened, and 14 studies (2367 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality between the two groups (RR = 1.00; 95% CI 0.83–1.20; P = 0.99; I 2 = 0%). Similar results were obtained by subgroup analysis of mortality recording time, endocarditis, pathogen resistance, article publication time, number of patients, and adjuvant antibiotics. Notably, combination treatment…

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: 2,367 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