| Literature DB >> 26597507 |
Zhijin Chen1, Yu Chen2, Yaogao Fang1, Xiaotian Wang1, Yanqing Chen1, Qingsong Qi1, Fang Huang1, Xungang Xiao3.
Abstract
Multidrug resistant among Acinetobacter baumannii infection is associated with a high mortality rate and limits the therapeutic options. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of colistin monotherapy vs. other single antibiotic therapy AND colistin-based combination therapy (with other antibiotics) vs. colistin alone for the treatment of Acinetobacter baumannii infection. Online electronic database were searched for studies evaluating colistin with or without other antibiotics in treatment of patients with drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infection. Totally, twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. For colistin-based combination therapy, six articles including 668 patients were included. Our results showed that the overall clinical response did not differ significantly between colistin-based combination therapy and monotherapy (OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 0.86-2.19, P = 0.18). This insignificance was also detected in ICU mortality, length of stay and nephrotoxicity (P > 0.05). However, the colistin-based combination therapy was shown increasing the microbiological response (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.48-3.07, P < 0.0001). For colistin monotherapy, six studies involving 491 patients were analyzed. The results were in concordance with the findings of the colistin-based combination therapy group. Our results suggest that colistin may be a promising therapy as safe and efficacious as standard antibiotics for the treatment of drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infection.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26597507 PMCID: PMC4657015 DOI: 10.1038/srep17091
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Flow chart demonstrating studies that were processed for inclusion in the447 meta-analysis.
Characteristics of the included studies.
| First author | Year | Country | Type of study | Organisms isolated group | Experimental | Control group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antibiotics Sample size | Age | Antibiotics | ||||||||
| Age Sample size | ||||||||||
| Colistin monotherapy | ||||||||||
| Garnacho-Montero J | 2003 | Spain | Prospective cohort | AB | Colistin | 59.3 ± 13.1 | 21 | Imipenem-cilastain | 64.5 ± 11 | 14 |
| Betrosian AP | 2008 | Greece | Prospective cohort | MDRAB | Colistin | 67 ± 9 | 15 | Ampicillin/Sulbactam | 72 ± 5 | 13 |
| Gounden R | 2009 | South Africa | Retrospective cohort | MDRAB | Colistin | 43.5 ± 15.6 | 32 | Tigecycline | 45.6 ± 18.2 | 32 |
| Nakwan N | 2011 | Thailand | Retrospective cohort | EDRAB | Colistin | 38 (28–41) | 8 | Other antibiotics | 29 (28–34) | 7 |
| Chuang YC | 2014 | China Taiwan | Retrospective cohort | MDRAB | Colistin-based | 63.7 ± 19.5 | 119 | Tigecycline-based | 63.8 ± 17.9 | 175 |
| Kwon SH | 2014 | Korea | Retrospective cohort | EDRAB | Colistin | 59.0 ± 19.2 | 39 | Tigecycline | 60.1 ± 12.3 | 16 |
| Colistin combination therapy | ||||||||||
| J ang HJ | 2009 | Korea | Retrospective cohort | MDRAB | Colistin/synergistic antibiotics | 57.0 ± 16.5 | 19 | Colistin | 62.5 ± 17.5 | 22 |
| Simsek F | 2012 | Turkey | Retrospective cohort | AB | Colistin-based | 51.7 ± 18.8 | 21 | Colistin | 51.7 ± 18.8 | 15 |
| Aydemi H | 2013 | Turkey | RCT | CRAB | Colistin/ Rifampicin | 58 ± 23 | 21 | Colistin | 63 ± 17 | 22 |
| Durante-Mangoni E | 2013 | Italy | RCT | EDRAB | Colistin/ Rifampicin | 62 ± 15.1 | 104 | Colistin | 61 ± 15.7 | 105 |
| Batirel A | 2014 | Turkey | Retrospective cohort | EDRAB | Colistin/other antibiotics | 59.1 ± 19.6 | 214 | Colistin | 58.3 ± 20.5 | 36 |
| Kalin G | 2014 | Turkey | Retrospective cohort | MDRAB | Colistin/Sulbactam | 63 (20–89) | 37 | Colistin | 51 (19–96) | 52 |
RCT, randomized controlled trial; AB, Acinetobater baumannii; MDRAB, multi-drug resistant Acinetobater baumannii; EDRAB, extensively drug resistant Acinetobater baumannii; CRAB, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobater baumanni.
Figure 2Clinical response of colistin monotherapy compared with control antibiotics.
Figure 3Forest plot for microbiological response between colistin group and control troup.
Figure 4Forest plot for risk ratios in terms of mortality of colistin compared with control antibiotics.
Figure 5Risk of nephrotoxicity with colistin compared with control antibiotics.
Figure 6Clinical response with colistin combination therapy compared with monotherapy.
Figure 7Forest plot for microbiological response between colistin combination and monotherapy groups.
Figure 8Risk ratios of mortality between colistin combination and alone groups.
Figure 9Funnel plot analysis on the detection of publication bias in the meta-analysis.