Efficacy and safety of extended or continuous intravenous infusion of carbapenemes against severe infection: a systematic review

Can CHEN,Ying-qiu YING,Ying-ying YAN,Suo-di ZHAI
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13286/j.cnki.chinhosppharmacyj.2017.16.17
2017-01-01
Abstract:OBJECTIVE To systematically review the efficacy and safety of extended or continuous intravenous infusion (EI/ CI) versus short-term intravenous infusion (STI) of carbapenemes in adult patients with severe infection.METHODS Databases were electronically searched,including the Cochrane Library,PubMed,EMbase,VIP,CNKI and Wanfang Data,to collect random controlled trials (RCTs) about EI/CI versus STI of carbapenemes against severe infection.Two reviewers independently screened literature,extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.Then,meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.RESULTS A total of 20 RCTs involving 1 695 patients were included.The results of Meta-analysis showed that,compared with the STI group,the EI/CI could significantly improve the clinical effective rate [RR =1.27,95 % CI (1.18,1.36),P<0.000 01] and bacterial eradication rate [RR=1.28,95%CI (1.18,1.39),P<0.000 01],and the CI was superior to the EI in bacterial eradication;compared with STI,emergence of drug resistant strains was significantly reduced [RR =0.30,95% CI (0.14,0.65),P =0.002];subgroup analysis revealed that both CI [MD =-6.08,95% CI (-6.68,-5.48),P<0.000 01] and EI [MD=-3.06,95%CI (-3.56,-2.56),P<0.000 01] can significantly shorten ICU stay time;the carbapenemes' treatment course of EI/CI was significantly shorter than STI [MD =-0.76,95% CI (-1.29,-0.22),P-0.005];there were no significant differences in incidence of adverse reactions [RR =0.98,95%CI (0.70,1.36),P =0.89];for respiratory infection,compared with CI/EI,the STI had better clinical curative effect,and did not increase the incidence of adverse reactions.CONCLUSION Compared with STI of carbapenemes,EI/CI can improve efficacy in the treatment of severe infections with similar safety.The conclusion still need to be further verified by more high quality studies.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?