Carbapenems versus other beta-lactams in the treatment of hospitalised patients with infection: a mixed treatment comparison

Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of primary oral antifungal prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients

Background

Antifungal prophylaxis is a promising strategy for reducing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients, but the optimum prophylactic agent is unknown. We used mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis to compare clinical trials examining the use of oral antifungals for prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients, with the goal of informing medical decision-making.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary antifungal prophylaxis were identified through a systematic literature review. Outcomes of interest (incidence of IFI/invasive aspergillosis/invasive candidiasis, all-cause mortality, and use of other antifungals) were extracted from eligible RCTs and incorporated into a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects MTC.

Results

Five eligible RCTs, randomizing 2147 patients in total, were included. Relative to fluconazole, prophylaxis with itraconazole (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; interquartile range [IQR]: 0.35–0.76), posaconazole (OR: 0.56; IQR: 0.32–0.99), and voriconazole (OR: 0.46; IQR: 0.28–0.73) reduced incidence of overall proven/probable IFI. Posaconazole (OR: 0.31; IQR: 0.17–0.58) and voriconazole (OR: 0.33; IQR: 0.17–0.58) prophylaxis reduced proven/probable invasive aspergillosis more than itraconazole (OR: 0.68; IQR: 0.42–1.12). All-cause mortality was similar across all mould-active agents.

Conclusion

As expected, mould-active azoles prevented IFIs, particularly invasive aspergillosis, more effectively than fluconazole in alloHCT recipients. The paucity of comparative efficacy data suggests that other factors such as long-term tolerability, availability of intravenous formulations, local IFI epidemiology, and drug costs may need to form the basis for selection among the mould-active azoles.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-015-0855-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Treating pneumonia in critical care in the United Kingdom following failure of initial antibiotic: a cost-utility analysis comparing meropenem with piperacillin/tazobactam

BACKGROUND

Treating patients admitted to critical care with severe pneumonia requires timely intervention with an effective antibiotic. This reduces the risk of dying of pneumonia and minimises complications associated with a prolonged stay in critical care.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of meropenem 1 g/8 h with piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g/8 h for treating pneumonia in UK critical care.

METHODS

A Markov model was built to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of using meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam to treat severe pneumonia. Estimates of effectiveness, utility weights and costs were obtained from published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to address uncertainty in the model results.

RESULTS

Cost of treating a patient with severe pneumonia was estimated as £19,026 with meropenem and £19,978 with piperacillin/tazobactam, respectively. QALYs gained were 4.768 with meropenem and 4.654 with piperacillin/tazobactam. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed meropenem to be consistently less costly and more effective than piperacillin/tazobactam.

CONCLUSION

The additional efficacy of meropenem translates into more patients surviving critical care and leaving this high-cost service more quickly than if they had been treated with piperacillin/tazobactam. As meropenem is more effective and less expensive than piperacillin/tazobactam at treating patients with severe pneumonia, it is the dominant treatment option.

Effectiveness of different central venous catheters for catheter-related infections: a network meta-analysis

We aimed to compare the effectiveness of various catheters for prevention of catheter-related infection and to evaluate whether specific catheters are superior to others for reducing catheter-related infections. We identified randomised, controlled trials that compared different types of central venous catheter (CVC), evaluating catheter-related infections in a systematic search of articles published from January 1996 to November 2009 via Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Network meta-analysis with a mixed treatment comparison method using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation was used to combine direct within-trial, between-treatment comparisons with indirect trial evidence. Forty-eight clinical trials (12 828 CVCs) investigating 10 intervention catheters contributed to the analyses. For prevention of CVC colonisation, adjusted silver iontophoretic catheters (odds ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.95), chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine catheters (0.49; 0.36-0.64), chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine blue plus catheters (0.37; 0.17-0.69), minocycline-rifampicin catheters (0.28; 0.17-0.43) and miconazole-rifampicin catheters (0.11; 0.02-0.33) were associated with a significantly lower rate of catheter colonisation compared with standard catheters. For prevention of CRBSI, adjusted heparin-bonded catheters (0.20; 0.06-0.44) and minocycline-rifampicin catheters (0.18; 0.08-0.34) were associated with a significantly lower rate of CRBSI with standard catheters. Rifampicin-based impregnated catheters seem to be better for prevention of catheter-related infection compared with the other catheters.

Efficacy of intranasal fentanyl spray versus other opioids for breakthrough pain in cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of intranasal fentanyl spray (INFS), oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC), fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) and oral morphine (OM) for the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP).

METHODS

A systematic literature review (Medline, EMBASE, BIOSIS; 1996-2007) identified six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of INFS, OTFC, FBT and OM for the treatment of BTCP. The endpoint of interest was pain intensity difference (PID, reported on a 0-10 numeric rating scale [NRS]) up to 60 minutes after intake. Results of all trials were analysed simultaneously with a mixed treatment comparison (extended meta-analysis). MTC can be considered a valid method when included studies are comparable regarding effect modifying baseline patient and study characteristics.

RESULTS

INFS provided the greatest reduction in pain relative to placebo: PID 1.7 points (95% CrI: 1.4; 1.9) at 15 minutes, 2.0 (1.6; 2.3) at 30 minutes, 2.0 (1.5; 2.4) at 45 minutes and 1.9 (1.5; 2.4) at 60 minutes. PID for OTFC and FBT relative to placebo were 0.4 (0.0; 0.8) and 0.5 (0.3; 0.7) at 15 minutes. Both treatments provided a reduction in pain superior to placebo at other time points. INFS displayed a more than 99% probability of providing the greatest pain reduction out of all interventions compared at 15 minutes after intake. This was maintained for any measured time point before 45 minutes when compared to FBT and for any measured time point before 60 minutes when compared to OTFC. Only from 45 minutes onwards did OM show a greater pain reduction than placebo.

CONCLUSION

Based on currently available evidence, INFS is expected to provide the greatest improvement in the treatment of BTCP. Due to its slow onset to effect OM cannot be considered an efficacious treatment for BTCP.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of pharmacotherapeutic agents for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

to compare efficacy and acceptability of different pharmacotherapeutic agents for treating anxiety disorders in children and adolescents.

METHODS

A recently conducted Cochrane Review on pharmacotherapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents was updated. A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation was used to perform the indirect comparison. We calculated relative risk ratios (RR) with 95% credible interval (CrI) using placebo as the common comparator.

RESULTS

Data were combined from 16 clinical trials that randomized children to six different treatment strategies, including placebo. Fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine were more efficacious than placebo. Venlafaxine was significantly less efficacious than fluvoxamine (RR = 0.60; 95% CrI 0.35-0.95) and paroxetine (RR = 0.65; 95% CrI 0.44-0.93). Fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, and sertraline had higher acceptability profile than placebo. Venlafaxine was less tolerated than fluvoxamine (RR = 0.16; 95% CrI 0.01-0.64), paroxetine (RR = 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05-0.59), and sertraline (RR = 0.31; 95% CrI 0.08-0.83). Fluvoxamine had a higher rate of clinical response and acceptability compared to other treatments in the network, with probability of 47.5% and 50.6% of being the most efficacious and well-tolerated treatment, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Clinically important differences exist between commonly prescribed pharmacotherapeutic agents for treating anxiety among children in terms of both efficacy and acceptability in favor of fluvoxamine. Fluvoxamine might be the best choice when starting treatment for anxiety disorders among children and adolescents because it has the most favorable balance between benefits and acceptability.