This meta-analysis aims to compare intravenous colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (GNB) infections. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to July 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating colistin alone and colistin-based combination therapy in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant GNB infections were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Five RCTs including 791 patients were included. Overall, colistin monotherapy was associated with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.03 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89–1.20, I2 = 0%) for all-cause mortality compared with colistin-based combination therapy. The non-significant difference was also detected in infection-related mortality (RR, 1.23, 95% CI, 0.91–1.67, I2 = 0%) and microbiologic response (RR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.72–1.04, I2 = 62%). In addition, no significant difference was observed in the subgroup analysis—high or low dose, with or without a loading dose, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections, and in combination with rifampicin. Finally, colistin monotherapy was not associated with lower nephrotoxicity than colistin combination therapy (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84–1.21, I2 = 0%). Based on the analysis of the five RCTs, no differences were found between colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant GNB infections, especially for A. baumannii infections.

No abstract

No abstract

This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of doripenem on treating patients with acute bacterial infections. The Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to April 2019. Only randomized clinical trials comparing doripenem and other comparators for the treatment of acute bacterial infection were included. The primary outcome was the clinical success rate and the secondary outcomes were microbiological eradication rate and risk of adverse events. Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Overall, doripenem had a similar clinical success rate with comparators (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% CI, 0.79–1.66, I2 = 58%). Similar clinical success rates were noted between doripenem and comparators for pneumonia (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.46–1.53, I2 = 72%) and for intra-abdominal infections (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.57–1.72). For complicated urinary tract infection, doripenem was associated with higher success rate than comparators (OR, 1.89, 95% CI, 1.13–3.17, I2 = 0%). The pool analysis comparing doripenem and other carbapenems showed no significant differences between each other (OR, 0.96, 95% CI, 0.59–1.58, I2 = 63%). Doripenem also had a similar microbiological eradication rate with comparators (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.86–1.36, I2 = 0%). Finally, doripenem had a similar risk of treatment-emergent adverse events as comparators (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83–1.17, I2 = 33%). In conclusion, the clinical efficacy of doripenem is as high as that of the comparator drugs in the treatment of acute bacterial infection; furthermore, this antibiotic is as well tolerated as the comparators.

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sitafloxacin in treating acute bacterial infection. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to August 13, 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating sitafloxacin and comparators in the treatment of acute bacterial infections were included. The outcomes were clinical and microbiological responses and the risk of adverse event (AE). Five RCTs were enrolled, including 375 and 381 patients who received sitafloxacin and the comparator, respectively. Overall, the clinical response rate of sitafloxacin in the treatment of acute bacterial infections was 94.6%, which was noninferior to that of the comparator (92.5%) (odds ratio (OR), 1.01; 95% CI, 0.24–4.32; I2 = 66%). For patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI)/acute pyelonephritis (APN), the clinical response rate of sitafloxacin and the comparator was 96.9% and 91.3%, respectively (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.35–12.44; I2 = 54%). For patients with pneumonia, the clinical response rate of sitafloxacin was 88.6%, which was comparable to that of the comparator (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.11–1.21; I2 = 0%). The microbiological response of sitafloxacin was 82.0%, which was noninferior to that of the comparator (77.8%) (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.77–3.28; I2 = 47%). The risk of treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), drug-related TEAE, and all-cause mortality were similar between sitafloxacin and the comparators (TEAE, OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.64–2.01, drug-related TEAE, OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.48–2.69, mortality, OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.09–9.44). In conclusion, sitafloxacin is noninferior to other commonly used antibiotics with respect to both clinical and microbiological response rates in patients with an acute bacterial infection, including cUTI/APN and pneumonia. In addition, sitafloxacin is also as safe as the comparators.