替加环素治疗复杂腹腔感染有效性及安全性的Meta分析

发布时间：2018-04-18 09:13

  本文选题：替加环素 + 亚胺培南/西司他汀　； 参考：《中国医院药学杂志》2017年24期

【摘要】：目的:系统评价替加环素(TGC)与亚胺培南/西司他汀(IMI/CIS)相比治疗复杂腹腔感染的有效性与安全性。方法:计算机检索PubMed、EMbase、Medline、The Cochrane Library(2017年3期)、CBM、CNKI、VIP和WanFang Data,同时检索中国临床试验注册中心(www.chictr.org.cn),检索时间均从建库至2017年3月。纳入关于替加环素对比亚胺培南西司他汀治疗复杂腹腔感染的随机对照试验(RCT)。采用RevMan 5.3统计软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入5项RCT,共计4 185例患者。Meta分析结果显示:临床治愈率:(1)ME人群:TGC与IMI/CIS组相比[RR=1.00,95%CI(0.95,1.05),P=0.92]临床治愈率差异不明显,差异无统计学意义;(2)CE人群:TGC组相比IMI/CIS组[RR=0.99,95%CI(0.96,1.02),P=0.50]临床治愈率差异不明显,差异无统计学意义;(3)c-mlTT人群:TGC组相比IMI/CIS组[RR=0.97,95%CI(0.94,1.00),P=0.05]差异有统计学意义,IMI/CIS组稍高于TGC组。不良反应发生率:TGC组相比IMI/CIS组会增加患者二次感染发生率[RR=1.75,95%CI(1.34,2.28),P≤0.000 1]、恶心发生率[RR=1.34,95%CI(1.08,1.65),P=0.008]、呕吐发生率[RR=1.39,95%CI(1.19,1.63),P≤0.000 1],其他不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义。死亡率:TGC组较IMI/CIS组死亡率稍高,但差异无统计学意义[RR=1.45,95%CI(0.94,2.22),P=0.09]。结论:TGC较IMI/CIS并不能显著提高治疗复杂腹腔感染的临床疗效,却增加主要胃肠道不良反应与二次感染的发生率。受纳入研究质量和数量限制,上述结论有待更多高质量的RCT来验证。
[Abstract]:Objective: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tigicycline in the treatment of complicated abdominal infection compared with imipenem / cilastatin IMIP / CIS.Methods: the Cochrane Library was searched by computer. The search time was from the establishment of the Cochrane Library to March 2017. The Chinese Clinical trial Registration Center was also searched at www.chictr.org.cnn.Then, the retrieval time was from the construction of the database to March 2017.To participate in a randomized controlled trial of tegacycline versus imipenem cilastatin in the treatment of complex celiac infections.Meta analysis was carried out with RevMan 5.3 statistical software.Results: a total of 4 185 RCTs were included. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the clinical cure rate between the IMI/CIS group and the IMI/CIS group.There was no significant difference in the clinical cure rate between the IMI/CIS group and the IMI/CIS group. There was no significant difference in the clinical cure rate between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the clinical cure rate between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups compared with the IMI/CIS group [RRR0.9795 CI 0.94 1.00 P0. 05] there was a significant difference in the clinical cure rate between the two groups (RRR0.9795 CI0.941.00P0. 05). There was no significant difference in the clinical cure rate between the two groups (RRRR0.9795 CI0.941.00P0. 05). The difference between the two groups was higher than that in the TGC group (P < 0.05).The incidence of adverse reactions in the IMI/CIS group was higher than that in the IMI/CIS group. The incidence of secondary infection [RRN1.75-95 CIQ 1.34 2.28], the incidence of nausea [RRR1.3495CII 1.081.65P0.008], the incidence of vomiting [RR1.3995CI1.191.63C], there was no significant difference in the incidence of other adverse reactions (P 鈮，

本文编号：1767719