BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) comprise of a large and heterogeneous group of infections including bacterial, viral, and other aetiologies. In recent years, procalcitonin (PCT), a blood marker for bacterial infections, has emerged as a promising tool to improve decisions about antibiotic therapy (PCT-guided antibiotic therapy). Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the feasibility of using procalcitonin for starting and stopping antibiotics in different patient populations with ARIs and different settings ranging from primary care settings to emergency departments, hospital wards, and intensive care units. However, the effect of using procalcitonin on clinical outcomes is unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review and individual participant data meta-analysis first published in 2012 designed to look at the safety of PCT-guided antibiotic stewardship.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review based on individual participant data was to assess the safety and efficacy of using procalcitonin for starting or stopping antibiotics over a large range of patients with varying severity of ARIs and from different clinical settings.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, and Embase, in February 2017, to identify suitable trials. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing trials in April 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of adult participants with ARIs who received an antibiotic treatment either based on a procalcitonin algorithm (PCT-guided antibiotic stewardship algorithm) or usual care. We excluded trials if they focused exclusively on children or used procalcitonin for a purpose other than to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two teams of review authors independently evaluated the methodology and extracted data from primary studies. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and treatment failure at 30 days, for which definitions were harmonised among trials. Secondary endpoints were antibiotic use, antibiotic-related side effects, and length of hospital stay. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression adjusted for age, gender, and clinical diagnosis using a fixed-effect model. The different trials were added as random-effects into the model. We conducted sensitivity analyses stratified by clinical setting and type of ARI. We also performed an aggregate data meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: From 32 eligible RCTs including 18 new trials for this 2017 update, we obtained individual participant data from 26 trials including 6708 participants, which we included in the main individual participant data meta-analysis. We did not obtain individual participant data for four trials, and two trials did not include people with confirmed ARIs. According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence was high for the outcomes mortality and antibiotic exposure, and quality was moderate for the outcomes treatment failure and antibiotic-related side effects.Primary endpoints: there were 286 deaths in 3336 procalcitonin-guided participants (8.6%) compared to 336 in 3372 controls (10.0%), resulting in a significantly lower mortality associated with procalcitonin-guided therapy (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99, P = 0.037). We could not estimate mortality in primary care trials because only one death was reported in a control group participant. Treatment failure was not significantly lower in procalcitonin-guided participants (23.0% versus 24.9% in the control group, adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01, P = 0.068). Results were similar among subgroups by clinical setting and type of respiratory infection, with no evidence for effect modification (P for interaction > 0.05). Secondary endpoints: procalcitonin guidance was associated with a 2.4-day reduction in antibiotic exposure (5.7 versus 8.1 days, 95% CI -2.71 to -2.15, P < 0.001) and lower risk of antibiotic-related side effects (16.3% versus 22.1%, adjusted OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.82, P < 0.001). Length of hospital stay and intensive care unit stay were similar in both groups. A sensitivity aggregate-data analysis based on all 32 eligible trials showed similar results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated meta-analysis of individual participant data from 12 countries shows that the use of procalcitonin to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment results in lower risks of mortality, lower antibiotic consumption, and lower risk for antibiotic-related side effects. Results were similar for different clinical settings and types of ARIs, thus supporting the use of procalcitonin in the context of antibiotic stewardship in people with ARIs. Future high-quality research is needed to confirm the results in immunosuppressed patients and patients with non-respiratory infections.
BACKGROUND: The difficulty to diagnose community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and the lack of scientific data regarding the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy are responsible for overprescribing antibiotics.
OBJECTIVE: The authors had for objective to perform a systematic review of the international medical literature on strategies aimed at reducing antibiotic consumption for CAP.
METHODS: We performed a Pubmed search using the keywords CAP, antibiotic use, duration of antibiotic therapy, procalcitonin, short-course treatment, and biomarkers. We then made a critical review of the selected articles.
RESULTS: Our review identified two strategies used to reduce antibiotic consumption for CAP. The first one was based on procalcitonin (PCT) use. This strategy, even though reducing the duration of antibiotic therapy, does not seem optimal since it is associated with longer antibiotic treatment than recommended by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Moreover, this strategy is associated with an increased cost in biochemical tests. The other strategy is based on a 2-step clinical reassessment: 1) during the first 24 hours of hospitalization, to confirm the diagnosis of CAP and 2) during hospitalization, to shorten the duration of antibiotic therapy according to the patient's clinical status.
CONCLUSION: Clinical reassessment, currently little studied compared to PCT guidance algorithm, seems to be promising to reduce antibiotic consumption for CAP. Especially since it was never compared to PCT guidance strategy in a randomized clinical trial.
BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) comprise a large and heterogeneous group of infections including bacterial, viral and other aetiologies. In recent years, procalcitonin - the prohormone of calcitonin - has emerged as a promising marker for the diagnosis of bacterial infections and for improving decisions about antibiotic therapy. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the feasibility of using procalcitonin for starting and stopping antibiotics in different patient populations with acute respiratory infections and different settings ranging from primary care to emergency departments (EDs), hospital wards and intensive care units (ICUs).
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review based on individual patient data was to assess the safety and efficacy of using procalcitonin for starting or stopping antibiotics over a large range of patients with varying severity of ARIs and from different clinical settings.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2011, Issue 2) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to May 2011) to identify suitable trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of adult participants with ARIs who received an antibiotic treatment either based on a procalcitonin algorithm or usual care/guidelines. Trials were excluded if they exclusively focused on paediatric patients or if they used procalcitonin for another purpose than to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two teams of review authors independently evaluated the methodology and extracted data from primary studies. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and treatment failure at 30 days. For the primary care setting, treatment failure was defined as death, hospitalisation, ARI-specific complications, recurrent or worsening infection, and patients reporting any symptoms of an ongoing respiratory infection at follow-up. For the ED setting, treatment failure was defined as death, ICU admission, re-hospitalisation after index hospital discharge, ARI-associated complications, and recurrent or worsening infection within 30 days of follow-up. For the ICU setting, treatment failure was defined as death within 30 days of follow-up. Secondary endpoints were antibiotic use (initiation of antibiotics, duration of antibiotics and total exposure to antibiotics (total amount of antibiotic days divided by total number of patients)), length of hospital stay for hospitalised patients, length of ICU stay for critically ill patients, and number of days with restricted activities within 14 days after randomisation for primary care patients. For the two co-primary endpoints of all-cause mortality and treatment failure, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression. The hierarchical regression model was adjusted for age and clinical diagnosis as fixed-effect. The different trials were added as random-effects into the model. We fitted corresponding linear regression models for antibiotic use. We conducted sensitivity analyses stratified by clinical setting and ARI diagnosis to assess the consistency of our results.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials with 4221 participants. There were 118 deaths in 2085 patients (5.7%) assigned to procalcitonin groups compared to 134 deaths in 2126 control patients (6.3%) (adjusted OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.23). Treatment failure occurred in 398 procalcitonin group patients (19.1%) and in 466 control patients (21.9%). Procalcitonin guidance was not associated with increased mortality or treatment failure in any clinical setting, or ARI diagnosis. These results proved robust in various sensitivity analyses. Total antibiotic exposure was significantly reduced overall (median (interquartile range) from 8 (5 to 12) to 4 (0 to 8) days; adjusted difference in days, -3.47, 95% CI -3.78 to -3.17, and across all the different clinical settings and diagnoses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Use of procalcitonin to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment in patients with ARI was not associated with higher mortality rates or treatment failure. Antibiotic consumption was significantly reduced across different clinical settings and ARI diagnoses. Further high-quality research is needed to confirm the safety of this approach for non-European countries and patients in intensive care. Moreover, future studies should also establish cost-effectiveness by considering country-specific costs of procalcitonin measurement and potential savings in consumption of antibiotics and other healthcare resources, as well as secondary cost savings due to lower risk of side effects and reduced antimicrobial resistance.
BACKGROUND: Procalcitonin algorithms may reduce antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infections (ARIs). We undertook an individual patient data meta-analysis to assess safety of this approach in different ARI diagnoses and different clinical settings.
METHODS: We identified clinical trials in which patients with ARI were assigned to receive antibiotics based on a procalcitonin algorithm or usual care by searching the Cochrane Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Individual patient data from 4221 adults with ARIs in 14 trials were verified and reanalyzed to assess risk of mortality and treatment failure-overall and within different clinical settings and types of ARIs.
RESULTS: Overall, there were 118 deaths in 2085 patients (5.7%) assigned to procalcitonin groups compared with 134 deaths in 2126 control patients (6.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval CI, .71-1.23)]. Treatment failure occurred in 398 procalcitonin group patients (19.1%) and in 466 control patients (21.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, .71-.97). Procalcitonin guidance was not associated with increased mortality or treatment failure in any clinical setting or ARI diagnosis. Total antibiotic exposure per patient was significantly reduced overall (median [interquartile range], from 8 [5-12] to 4 [0-8] days; adjusted difference in days, -3.47 [95% CI, -3.78 to -3.17]) and across all clinical settings and ARI diagnoses.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of procalcitonin to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment in patients with ARIs was effective in reducing antibiotic exposure across settings without an increase in the risk of mortality or treatment failure. Further high-quality trials are needed in critical-care patients.
Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) comprise of a large and heterogeneous group of infections including bacterial, viral, and other aetiologies. In recent years, procalcitonin (PCT), a blood marker for bacterial infections, has emerged as a promising tool to improve decisions about antibiotic therapy (PCT-guided antibiotic therapy). Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the feasibility of using procalcitonin for starting and stopping antibiotics in different patient populations with ARIs and different settings ranging from primary care settings to emergency departments, hospital wards, and intensive care units. However, the effect of using procalcitonin on clinical outcomes is unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review and individual participant data meta-analysis first published in 2012 designed to look at the safety of PCT-guided antibiotic stewardship.
OBJECTIVES:
The aim of this systematic review based on individual participant data was to assess the safety and efficacy of using procalcitonin for starting or stopping antibiotics over a large range of patients with varying severity of ARIs and from different clinical settings.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, and Embase, in February 2017, to identify suitable trials. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing trials in April 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included RCTs of adult participants with ARIs who received an antibiotic treatment either based on a procalcitonin algorithm (PCT-guided antibiotic stewardship algorithm) or usual care. We excluded trials if they focused exclusively on children or used procalcitonin for a purpose other than to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two teams of review authors independently evaluated the methodology and extracted data from primary studies. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and treatment failure at 30 days, for which definitions were harmonised among trials. Secondary endpoints were antibiotic use, antibiotic-related side effects, and length of hospital stay. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression adjusted for age, gender, and clinical diagnosis using a fixed-effect model. The different trials were added as random-effects into the model. We conducted sensitivity analyses stratified by clinical setting and type of ARI. We also performed an aggregate data meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS:
From 32 eligible RCTs including 18 new trials for this 2017 update, we obtained individual participant data from 26 trials including 6708 participants, which we included in the main individual participant data meta-analysis. We did not obtain individual participant data for four trials, and two trials did not include people with confirmed ARIs. According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence was high for the outcomes mortality and antibiotic exposure, and quality was moderate for the outcomes treatment failure and antibiotic-related side effects.Primary endpoints: there were 286 deaths in 3336 procalcitonin-guided participants (8.6%) compared to 336 in 3372 controls (10.0%), resulting in a significantly lower mortality associated with procalcitonin-guided therapy (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99, P = 0.037). We could not estimate mortality in primary care trials because only one death was reported in a control group participant. Treatment failure was not significantly lower in procalcitonin-guided participants (23.0% versus 24.9% in the control group, adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01, P = 0.068). Results were similar among subgroups by clinical setting and type of respiratory infection, with no evidence for effect modification (P for interaction > 0.05). Secondary endpoints: procalcitonin guidance was associated with a 2.4-day reduction in antibiotic exposure (5.7 versus 8.1 days, 95% CI -2.71 to -2.15, P < 0.001) and lower risk of antibiotic-related side effects (16.3% versus 22.1%, adjusted OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.82, P < 0.001). Length of hospital stay and intensive care unit stay were similar in both groups. A sensitivity aggregate-data analysis based on all 32 eligible trials showed similar results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
This updated meta-analysis of individual participant data from 12 countries shows that the use of procalcitonin to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment results in lower risks of mortality, lower antibiotic consumption, and lower risk for antibiotic-related side effects. Results were similar for different clinical settings and types of ARIs, thus supporting the use of procalcitonin in the context of antibiotic stewardship in people with ARIs. Future high-quality research is needed to confirm the results in immunosuppressed patients and patients with non-respiratory infections.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
