Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31487382›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019

Duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy in people with cystic fibrosis.

Linsey Abbott, Amanda Plummer, Zhe Hui Hoo, Martin Wildman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Amikacin Liposome Inhalation Suspension forAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2021
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Nitric oxide-releasing prodrug for the treatment of complexAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Current and Future Treatments in Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Linsey AbbottPharmacy Department, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, UK, S5 7AU.
Amanda Plummer
Zhe Hui Hoo
Martin Wildman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProgressive lung damage from recurrent exacerbations is the major cause of mortality and morbidity in cystic fibrosis. Life expectancy of people with cystic fibrosis has increased dramatically in the last 40 years. One of the major reasons for this increase is the mounting use of antibiotics to treat chest exacerbations caused by bacterial infections. The optimal duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy is not clearly defined. Individuals usually receive intravenous antibiotics for 14 days, but treatment may range from 10 to 21 days. A shorter duration of antibiotic treatment risks inadequate clearance of infection which could lead to further lung damage. Prolonged courses of intravenous antibiotics are expensive and inconvenient. The risk of systemic side effects such as allergic reactions to antibiotics also increases with prolonged courses and the use of aminoglycosides requires frequent monitoring to minimise some of their side effects. However, some organisms which infect people with cystic fibrosis are known to be multi-resistant to antibiotics, and may require a longer course of treatment. This is an update of previously published reviews.

objectivesTo assess the optimal duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy for treating chest exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals, abstract books and conference proceedings. Most recent search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 30 May 2019.We also searched online trials registries. Most recent search of the ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal: 06 January 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing different durations of intravenous antibiotic courses for acute respiratory exacerbations in people with CF, either with the same drugs at the same dosage, the same drugs at a different dosage or frequency or different antibiotics altogether, including studies with additional therapeutic agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No eligible trials were identified for inclusion. A trial looking at the standardised treatment of pulmonary exacerbations is currently ongoing and will be included when the results are published.  MAIN

resultsNo eligible trials were included. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere are no clear guidelines on the optimum duration of intravenous antibiotic treatment. Duration of treatment is currently based on unit policies and response to treatment. Shorter duration of treatment should improve quality of life and adherence, result in a reduced incidence of drug reactions and be less costly. However, the shorter duration may not be sufficient to clear a chest infection and may result in an early recurrence of an exacerbation. This systematic review identifies the need for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing different durations of intravenous antibiotic treatment as it has important clinical and financial implications. The currently ongoing STOP2 trial is expected to provide some guidance on these questions when published.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial InfectionsCystic FibrosisHumansInjections, IntravenousQuality of LifeRespiratory Tract InfectionsAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID31487382
PMCPMC6728060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.