Evidence Hub

Carbapenems vs alternative antibiotics for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Xin-Mei Tan, Qi-Wen Pan, C. Mo, Xian-Shu Li, Xue-Yan Liang, Yan Li, Ying-Nian Lan, Ling-Yuan Chen

Medicine, 2020

7,380 participants · 1,144 citations

Abstract

Background: Complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) are universal reasons for hospitalization, and highly likely to develop into sepsis or septic shock. Carbapenem antibiotics with potentially higher efficacy or with fewer and milder side effects have increased in popularity, but evidence is limited by a scarcity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different carbapenem antibiotics for cUTI. Network meta-analysis is a useful tool to compare multiple treatments when there is limited or no direct evidence available. Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of different carbapenems with alternative antibiotics for the treatment of cUTI. Methods: Pubmed, Medline, CENTRAL, and Embase were searched in November 2018. Studies of cUTI patients receiving carbapenem were included. We performed network meta-analysis to estimate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) from both direct and indirect evidence; traditional meta-analysis was also performed. Primary outcomes were clinical and microbiological treatment success. Results:A total of 19 studies and 7380 patients were included in the analysis. Doripenem (DOPM) was associated with lower clinical treatment success rates than other carbapenems. Although the efficacy of other carbapenems by RRs with 95% CrIs did not show statistical differences, the cumulative rank probability indicated that meropenem/vaborbactam (MV), ertapenem (ETPM), and biapenem (BAPM) had higher clinical and…

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: 7,380 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