Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39004760›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2024

Efficacy and safety of different polymyxin-containing regimens for the treatment of pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Yi Zhou, Guizhong Wang, Ying Zhao, Weijia Chen, Xuyan Chen, Yuqi Qiu, Yuanyu Liu, Shuqi Wu, Jianbin Guan, Ping Chang and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Yi Zhou *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, 253 Gongye Rd, Guangzhou, 510282, China.
Guizhong Wang *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, 253 Gongye Rd, Guangzhou, 510282, China.
Ying Zhao *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, 253 Gongye Rd, Guangzhou, 510282, China.
Weijia Chen *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, 253 Gongye Rd, Guangzhou, 510282, China.
Xuyan ChenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, 253 Gongye Rd, Guangzhou, 510282, China.
Yuqi QiuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, 253 Gongye Rd, Guangzhou, 510282, China.
Yuanyu LiuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, 253 Gongye Rd, Guangzhou, 510282, China.
Shuqi WuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, 253 Gongye Rd, Guangzhou, 510282, China.
Jianbin GuanDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, 253 Gongye Rd, Guangzhou, 510282, China.
Ping ChangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, 253 Gongye Rd, Guangzhou, 510282, China.
Yong LiuDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, Shenzhen Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China. liuyongjoy@outlook.com.
Zhanguo LiuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, 253 Gongye Rd, Guangzhou, 510282, China. zhguoliu@163.com.

Funding

the National Natural Science Foundation of China 81971859the National Natural Science Foundation of China 81971883
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal administration of polymyxins for treating multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacterial (MDR-GNB) pneumonia remains unclear. This study aimed to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of three polymyxin-containing regimens by conducting a comprehensive network meta-analysis.

methodsWe comprehensively searched nine databases. Overall mortality was the primary outcome, whereas the secondary outcomes encompassed microbial eradication rate, clinical success, acute kidney injury, and incidence of bronchospasm. Extracted study data were analyzed by pairwise and network meta-analyses. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool were used to assess the risk of bias in randomized trials and cohort studies, respectively.

resultsThis study included 19 observational studies and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), encompassing 3318 patients. Six studies with high risk of bias were excluded from the primary analysis. In the pairwise meta-analysis, compared to the intravenous (IV) polymyxin-containing regimen, the intravenous plus inhaled (IV + IH) polymyxin-containing regimen showed a significant decrease in overall mortality, while no statistically significant difference was found in the inhaled (IH) polymyxin-containing regimen. The network meta-analysis indicated that the IV + IH polymyxin-containing regimen had significantly lower overall mortality (OR 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.88), higher clinical success rate (OR 1.90; 95% CI 1.20-3.00), better microbial eradication rate (OR 2.70; 95% CI 1.90-3.90) than the IV polymyxin-containing regimen, and significantly better microbial eradication rate when compared with the IH polymyxin-containing regimen (OR 2.30; 95% CI 1.30-4.20). Furthermore, compared with IV + IH and IV polymyxin-containing regimens, the IH polymyxin-containing regimen showed a significant reduction in acute kidney injury.

conclusionsOur study indicates that among the three administration regimens, the IV + IH polymyxin-containing regimen may be the most effective for treating MDR-GNB pneumonia, with a significantly lower overall mortality compared to the IV regimen and a considerably higher microbial eradication rate compared to the IH regimen. The IH regimen may be considered superior to the IV regimen due to its substantially lower incidence of acute kidney injury, even though the reduction in overall mortality was not significant.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsPolymyxinsGram-Negative BacteriaHumansAnti-Bacterial AgentsPolymyxinsMultidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteriaNetwork meta-analysisPneumoniaPolymyxins

Identifiers

PMID39004760
PMCPMC11247855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.