SynthesisBMC cancer2024
Procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment in patients with cancer: a patient-level meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUse of serum procalcitonin (PCT), an inflammatory biomarker for bacterial infections, has shown promising results for early stopping antibiotic treatment among patients with respiratory infections and sepsis. There is need for additional data regarding effectiveness and safety of this concept among patients with cancer.
methodsIndividual data of patients with a documented diagnosis of cancer and proven or suspected respiratory infection and/or sepsis were extracted from previous trials where adult patients were randomized to receive antibiotic treatment based on a PCT protocol or usual care (control group). The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were antibiotic exposure and 28-day all-cause mortality.
resultsThis individual-patient data meta-analysis included 777 patients with a diagnosis of cancer from 15 randomized-controlled trials. Regarding efficacy, there was a 18% reduction in antibiotic exposure in patients randomized to PCT-guided care compared to usual care ([days] 8.2 ± 6.6 vs. 9.8 ± 7.3; adjusted difference, - 1.77 [95% CI, - 2.74 to - 0.80]; p < 0.001). Regarding safety, there were 72 deaths in 379 patients in the PCT-guided group (19.0%) compared to 91 deaths in 398 participants in the usual care group (22.9%) resulting in an adjusted OR of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.02). A subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in mortality in patients younger than 70 years (adjusted OR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.86]).
conclusionResult of this individual patient meta-analysis from 15 previous trials suggests that among patients with cancer and suspected or proven respiratory infection or sepsis, use of PCT to guide antibiotic treatment decisions results in reduced antibiotic exposure with a possible reduction in mortality, particularly among younger patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.