Empirical Vs. Susceptibility-Guided Treatment of Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Overview
Affiliations
Background: Treating infection according to antibiotic resistance has been frequently recommended. However, information on its real effectiveness is scarce.
Aim: The aim of this study is to perform a meta-analysis comparing empirical vs. susceptibility-guided treatment of .
Methods: : Studies comparing empirical versus susceptibility-guided treatment were selected. : electronic and manual up to August 2021. : by intention-to-treat (random-effects model).
Results: Overall, 54 studies were included (6,705 patients in the susceptibility-guided group and 7,895 in the empirical group). eradication rate was 86 vs. 76%, respectively (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.08-1.17; : 83%). Similar results were found when only RCTs were evaluated (24 studies; RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.11-1.22; : 71%) and when susceptibility testing was assessed by culture (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.06-1.18) or PCR (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.05-1.23). For first-line treatments (naïve patients; 30 studies), better efficacy results were obtained with the susceptibility-guided strategy (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.11-1.20; : 79%). However, for empirical first-line quadruple regimens, in particular (both with and without bismuth, excluding the suboptimal triple therapies), not based on CYP2C19 gene polymorphism, no differences in efficacy were found compared with the susceptibility-guided group (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.99-1.09); this lack of difference was confirmed in RCTs (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.99-1.12). For rescue therapies (13 studies, most 2-line), similar results were demonstrated for both strategies, including all studies (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.97-1.22; : 82%) and when only RCTs were considered (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.97-1.36).
Conclusion: The benefit of susceptibility-guided treatment over empirical treatment of infection could not be demonstrated, either in first-line (if the most updated quadruple regimens are prescribed) or in rescue therapies.
eradication for primary prevention of gastric cancer: progresses and challenges.
Liu Z, Xu H, You W, Pan K, Li W J Natl Cancer Cent. 2024; 4(4):299-310.
PMID: 39735441 PMC: 11674435. DOI: 10.1016/j.jncc.2024.06.006.
Elbehiry A, Abalkhail A, Anajirih N, Alkhamisi F, Aldamegh M, Alramzi A Diseases. 2024; 12(12.
PMID: 39727641 PMC: 11727528. DOI: 10.3390/diseases12120311.
Aumpan N, Gamnarai P, Wongcha-Um A, Miftahussurur M, Yamaoka Y, Vilaichone R Heliyon. 2024; 10(21):e39189.
PMID: 39512463 PMC: 11539252. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39189.
Antimicrobial Resistance and the Role of Next-Generation Sequencing.
Andrews C, Herzlinger M, Moss S Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2024; 20(8):469-476.
PMID: 39205950 PMC: 11348536.
Lee J, Min B, Gong E, Kim J, Na H, Ahn J United European Gastroenterol J. 2024; 12(7):941-950.
PMID: 38887840 PMC: 11497715. DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.12609.