Search

Background: As a novel biomarker of inflammation, procalcitonin (PCT) has proven useful to guide antibiotic therapy in intensive care unit (ICU). However, there are controversial on mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of PCT-guided antibiotic therapy in critically ill adults and determine whether studies are sufficient.Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane was performed. We included only randomized controlled trials which compared the safety and efficacy between PCT-guided or standard antibiotic therapy groups in ICU adults. Trial sequential analysis and GARDE approach were performed.Results: Fifteen studies met our criteria for inclusion finally, with a cumulative number of 5486 ICU patients. There was no difference in 28-day mortality between two compared groups (P = 0.626), but significant decreases were observed in the duration of antibiotic therapy for the first episode of infection (P < 0.001) and length of hospitalization (P = 0.049). No significant deference was found in secondary endpoints except total duration of antibiotic therapy (P < 0.001). TSA revealed that the pooled sample sizes of 28-day mortality and the duration of antibiotic therapy for the first episode of infection exceeded the estimated required information size, but not the length of hospitalization.Conclusions: PCT-guided therapy is a better and safer algorithm to be applied into ICU patients, which appears no effect on 28-day mortality while performing preferable utility in reducing the duration of antibiotic therapy for the first episode of infection. More studies on these endpoints were not recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After publication of the original article [1], the authors have reported that the software developers had used a new amended version of the software called "v0.9.5.10" instead of "v0.9.5.5", which is referred to in the original article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) cause serious health risks and significant economic burdens and the preferred drugs are still controversial. Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotics used to treat inpatients with complicated skin and soft structure infections (cSSSI) or hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP). We also developed a decision tree model to assess the cost-effectiveness of antibiotics. Results: Forty-nine randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria (34 for cSSSI, 15 for HAP/VAP) and compared the efficacy and safety of 16 antibiotics. For cSSSI, NMA indicated that for clinical cure, linezolid was superior than vancomycin (odds ratio (OR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19–2.02), while tedizolid (OR 1.39, CI 0.70–2.76) was similar to vancomycin. In terms of safety, there were no significant differences between any two interventions on total adverse events. Based on drug and hospital costs in America, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-year saved for linezolid and tedizolid compared with vancomycin were US$2833 and US$5523. For HAP/VAP, there were no significant effects either for clinical cure or for safety endpoints between linezolid and vancomycin in NMA. ICERs per life-year saved for linezolid compared with vancomycin were US$2185. Conclusion: In these clinical trials, considering efficacy, safety, and cost-effectivenes, linezolid and tedizolid showed their superiority in MRSA cSSSI; while linezolid might be recommended to treat MRSA pneumonia. Although vancomycin was not cost-effective in pharmacoeconomic evaluation, it is still the first-line treatment for MRSA infection in the clinical practice. This study might provide new insights of therapeutic choices for patients with MRSA infections whilst awaiting the arrival of higher quality evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]