Objective. The aim of this study was to perform an indirect comparison to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole, ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole and meropenem in monotherapy in hospitalized adult patients diagnosed of complicated intra-abdominal infection.
Method. Databases consulted were MEDLINE, Institute of Science Information Web of Science, EMBASE, Índice Médico Español and . Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed risk of bias. Pairwise treatment effects were estimated using a random effects meta-analysis and reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI).
Results. Five publications were included. Three studies compared ceftazidime/ avibactam plus metronidazole vs. meropenem, and the other two, ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole vs. meropenem. The trials showed a high methodological quality. Ceftazidime/avibactam was statistically inferior to meropenem in the microbiologically intention to treat population (OR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.53-0.97) but achieved no clinical relevance. All other pairwise comparisons showed no differences in the efficacy or safety. Indirect comparison between ceftazidime/avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam showed no difference in efficacy (OR = 1.05; 95% CI:
0.64-1.69) or safety (OR =1.29; 95% CI: 0.77-2.32). No heterogeneity was found in the whole network. Publication bias was not statistically significant.
Conclusion. Efficacy and safety of the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adult patients with ceftazidime/avibactam or ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole is not better than meropenem in monotherapy. The choice between ceftazidime/avibactam or ceftolozane/tazobactam should be made according to other criteria than efficacy or safety
© 2001-2024 Fundación Dialnet · Todos los derechos reservados