2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Time to abandon ampicillin plus gentamicin in favour of ampicillin plus ceftriaxone in Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis? A meta-analysis of comparative trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Current guidelines recommend either ampicillin plus ceftriaxone (AC) or amoxicillin/ampicillin plus gentamicin (AG) with an equivalent class IB recommendation in Enterococcus faecalis endocarditis. However, previous observational studies suggest that AC might be favourable in terms of adverse events.

          Objectives

          To investigate whether AC is non-inferior to AG, and if it is associated with less adverse events.

          Methods

          In June 2021, a systematic literature search using the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, CDSR, CENTRAL, CCAs, EBM Reviews, Web of Science and LILACS was conducted by two independent reviewers. Studies were considered eligible if (P) patients included were ≥ 18 years of age and had IE with E. faecalis, (I) treatment with AC was compared to (C) treatment with AG and (O) outcomes on in-hospital mortality, nephrotoxicity and adverse events requiring drug withdrawal were reported. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects models with the Mantel–Haenszel method, the Sidik–Jonkman estimator for τ 2 and the Hartung–Knapp adjustment.

          Results

          Treatment with AC was non-inferior to AG, as depicted by no significant differences in-hospital mortality, 3-month mortality, relapses or treatment failure. Furthermore, AC was associated with a lower prevalence of nephrotoxicity (OR 0.45 [0.26–0.77], p = 0.0182) and drug withdrawal due to adverse events (OR 0.11 [0.03–0.46], p = 0.0160) than AG.

          Conclusions

          Treatment with AC was non-inferior to treatment with AG, and it was associated with a reduced prevalence of nephrotoxicity and drug withdrawal due to adverse events. Thus, combination therapy with AC appears favourable over AG in patients with E. faecalis IE.

          Graphical abstract

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00392-021-01971-3.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: The Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM).

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis

              Objectives Evaluating the variation in the strength of the effect across studies is a key feature of meta-analyses. This variability is reflected by measures like τ2 or I2, but their clinical interpretation is not straightforward. A prediction interval is less complicated: it presents the expected range of true effects in similar studies. We aimed to show the advantages of having the prediction interval routinely reported in meta-analyses. Design We show how the prediction interval can help understand the uncertainty about whether an intervention works or not. To evaluate the implications of using this interval to interpret the results, we selected the first meta-analysis per intervention review of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issues 2009–2013 with a dichotomous (n=2009) or continuous (n=1254) outcome, and generated 95% prediction intervals for them. Results In 72.4% of 479 statistically significant (random-effects p 0), the 95% prediction interval suggested that the intervention effect could be null or even be in the opposite direction. In 20.3% of those 479 meta-analyses, the prediction interval showed that the effect could be completely opposite to the point estimate of the meta-analysis. We demonstrate also how the prediction interval can be used to calculate the probability that a new trial will show a negative effect and to improve the calculations of the power of a new trial. Conclusions The prediction interval reflects the variation in treatment effects over different settings, including what effect is to be expected in future patients, such as the patients that a clinician is interested to treat. Prediction intervals should be routinely reported to allow more informative inferences in meta-analyses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                m.mirna@salk.at
                Journal
                Clin Res Cardiol
                Clin Res Cardiol
                Clinical Research in Cardiology
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                1861-0684
                1861-0692
                9 November 2021
                9 November 2021
                2022
                : 111
                : 10
                : 1077-1086
                Affiliations
                GRID grid.21604.31, ISNI 0000 0004 0523 5263, Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine II, , Paracelsus Medical University of Salzburg, ; Müllner Hauptstraße 48, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5679-4872
                Article
                1971
                10.1007/s00392-021-01971-3
                9525249
                34751788
                f6e48554-7ba7-4a1b-ad5f-104ca47f3af2
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 1 August 2021
                : 3 November 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Paracelsus Medical University
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2022

                Cardiovascular Medicine
                cardiology,endocarditis,meta-analysis,enterococcus,ampicillin,ceftriaxone,gentamicin

                Comments

                Comment on this article