Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Beta lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for sepsis

  1. Mical Paul1,*,
  2. Adi Lador2,
  3. Simona Grozinsky-Glasberg3,
  4. Leonard Leibovici2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Anaesthesia Group

Published Online: 7 JAN 2014

Assessed as up-to-date: 4 NOV 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003344.pub3


How to Cite

Paul M, Lador A, Grozinsky-Glasberg S, Leibovici L. Beta lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for sepsis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD003344. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003344.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Rambam Health Care Campus and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Division of Infectious Diseases, Haifa, Israel

  2. 2

    Beilinson Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Department of Medicine E, Petah Tikva, Israel

  3. 3

    Dept of Medicine, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Neuroendocrine Tumors Unit, Endocrinology & Metabolism Service, Jerusalem, Israel

*Mical Paul, Division of Infectious Diseases, Rambam Health Care Campus and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, 6 Ha'Aliya Street, Haifa, 31096, Israel. paulm@post.tau.ac.il. mica@zahav.net.il; MichalP2@clalit.org.il; paulm@post.tau.ac.il.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 7 JAN 2014

SEARCH

 

Summary of findings    [Explanations]

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms

 
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Monotherapy versus combination therapy compared for sepsis

Monotherapy versus combination therapy compared for sepsis

Patient or population: participants with sepsis
Settings:
Intervention: monotherapy versus combination therapy
Comparison:

OutcomesIllustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)Relative effect
(95% CI)
No of participants
(studies)
Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)
Comments

Assumed riskCorresponding risk

Monotherapy versus combination therapy

All-cause mortalitysame beta lactam
Survival
Follow-up: mean 30 days1
Study populationRR 0.97
(0.73 to 1.3)
1431
(13 studies)
⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,3

112 per 1000109 per 1000
(82 to 145)

High

300 per 1000291 per 1000
(219 to 390)

All-cause mortalitydifferent beta lactam
Follow-up: mean 30 days1
Study populationRR 0.85
(0.71 to 1.01)
4146
(31 studies)
⊕⊕⊝⊝
low3,4

113 per 100096 per 1000
(80 to 114)

High

300 per 1000255 per 1000
(213 to 303)

Clinical failuresame beta lactam
Antibiotic modifications
Follow-up: two to 30 days5
232 per 1000258 per 1000
(221 to 300)
RR 1.11
(0.95 to 1.29)
1870
(20 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low6,7

Clinical failuredifferent beta lactam
Antibiotic modifications
Follow-up: two to 30 days5
227 per 1000170 per 1000
(152 to 190)
RR 0.75
(0.67 to 0.84)
4933
(46 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low6,7

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio.

Same and different beta lactams refer to comparisons involving the same beta lactam with versus without aminoglycoside and comparisons between one beta lactam versus a different beta lactam combined with an aminoglycoside, respectively.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

 1Extracted preferentially at 30 days and if unavailable in-hospital or at end of follow-up.
295% confidence intervals range from 27% improved survival to 30% higher risk of death with monotherapy.
3Funnel plot asymmetrical pointing out missing studies (unpublished or published but not reporting on mortality) favouring combination therapy.
4Advantage of monotherapy accentuated in studies with unclear allocation concealment and per-protocol analysis.
5Days after treatment cessation.
6Assessment of treatment failure in open trials prone to bias.
7Although this was the primary outcome in all studies, its clinical significance is unclear, and correlation with mortality is unclear (see discussion).

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms
 

Description of the condition

Sepsis is defined as clinical evidence of infection, accompanied by a systemic inflammatory response such as fever. When associated with organ dysfunction, decreased blood flow in an organ (hypoperfusion) or abnormally low blood pressure (hypotension), sepsis is defined as severe (Bone 1992; Mandell 2004). Sepsis may be a response to direct microbial invasion or may be elicited by microbial signal molecules or toxin production. Bacterial infections may be lethal, with fatality rates ranging from less than 10% to more than 40% for those with severe sepsis (Moore 2001; Rangel-Frausto 1995; Russell 2000).

 

Description of the intervention

Antibiotic treatment for bacterial infection is usually initiated empirically, before the causative bacteria are identified and their susceptibility to antibiotic treatment is ascertained. Appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment, defined as that matching the in vitro susceptibility of subsequently identified bacteria, has been shown to halve the fatality associated with sepsis (Ibrahim 2000; Leibovici 1998; Paul 2010). Causative bacteria are identified only in about one-third of patients with sepsis overall (Paul 2006a). At this time, treatment is tailored according to the antibiotic susceptibilities of identified bacteria. Both empirically and after bacterial identification, single or combination antibiotic treatment may be given.

 

How the intervention might work

Combination antibiotic therapy offers several theoretical advantages. First, it can be used to broaden the spectrum of antibiotic coverage when used empirically to increase the chance of covering the causative bacteria. Second, the combination may possess an enhanced potential (synergism) when compared with the additive effect of each of the antibiotics assessed separately. Synergism between specific beta lactam antibiotics and aminoglycoside antibiotics has been shown in vitro for Gram-negative bacteria and specifically for Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Giamarellou 1986; Klastersky 1976; Klastersky 1982), Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus sp. and Streptococcus sp. (Bach 1980; Korzeniowski 1978; Levy 1979; Saleh-Mghir 1992; Sande 1974; Torres 1993). Third, combination therapy has been claimed to suppress the emergence of subpopulations of microorganisms resistant to antibiotics (Allan 1985; Milatovic 1987). Disadvantages of combination therapy may include additional costs, enhanced drug toxicity, possible induction of resistance caused by the broader antibiotic spectrum (Manian 1996; Weinstein 1985) and possible antagonism between specific drug combinations (Moellering 1986).

 

Why it is important to do this review

Several systematic reviews have addressed the clinical effects of beta lactam-aminoglycoside combinations for the treatment of sepsis, bacteraemia or specific types of infection. In previous versions of the current review (Paul 2003; Paul 2006), we found no advantage of combination therapy over monotherapy and an increased rate of renal toxicity with combination therapy. In a separate systematic review assessing the same intervention for cancer patients with neutropenia (excluded from the current review), similar results were found, with a small advantage of monotherapy when compared with a narrower-spectrum beta lactam combined with an aminoglycoside (Paul 2013). To fully examine the implications of in vitro synergism, we pooled all randomized controlled trials comparing one beta lactam antibiotic versus the same beta lactam with an aminoglycoside (Marcus 2011). Overall, no advantage emerged for combination therapy; the subgroup of P aeruginosa bacteraemia was too small to allow definitive conclusions. Safdar et al. focused on Gram-negative bacteraemia and compiled randomized trials and observational studies (Safdar 2004). In the subgroup of P aeruginosa bacteraemia, an advantage was reported for combination therapy, but aminoglycosides were used as monotherapy in some of the trials (Paul 2005). Kumar et al. performed a meta-regression analysis showing that an advantage of combination therapy involved mortality rates in randomized and observational studies (Kumar 2010), but how much of this was due to the inherent association between odds ratios and event rates and how much to a true clinical effect was unclear (Paul 2010a). When restricting the analysis to infective endocarditis (caused by Gram-positive bacteria), Falagas et al. found no advantage of combination therapy (Falagas 2006). The same group of authors reported no advantage of combination therapy with regard to emergence of antibiotic resistance following therapy (Bliziotis 2005).

Despite the large body of evidence pointing against a benefit for combination therapy, most recommendations and guidelines still recommend combination therapy, and combination therapy is frequently used in clinical practice. In the guidelines for the management of severe sepsis of the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign", initial combination therapy is recommended (Dellinger 2008). Narrowing the spectrum of coverage after three to five days is recommended, except for infections caused by P aeruginosa and infections among neutropenic patients, for whom continued combination treatment is advised. Beta lactam-aminoglycoside treatment is recommended for pneumonia caused by P aeruginosa (Sun 2011). Treatment of infective endocarditis has traditionally consisted of beta lactam-aminoglycoside combinations based on in vitro synergy studies and experimental studies. Although current guidelines, acknowledging the lack of evidence, recommend beta lactam monotherapy as first-line therapy for most pathogens, combination therapy is still suggested as optional treatment and is recommended for resistant bacteria, mainly Enterococcus sp. and S aureus (Baddour 2005).

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms

Our objectives were to compare beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in patients with sepsis and to estimate the rate of adverse effects with each treatment regimen, including the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

We included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials.

 

Types of participants

We included hospitalized participants with sepsis acquired in the community or in the hospital. We defined sepsis as clinical evidence of infection plus evidence of a systemic response to infection (Bone 1992). We excluded neonates and preterm babies. We also excluded studies including more than 15% neutropenic patients.

 

Types of interventions

We considered studies comparing the antibiotic regimens described below.

  1. Any intravenous beta lactam antibiotic given as monotherapy, including:
    1. penicillins;
    2. beta lactam drugs plus beta lactamase inhibitors (e.g. co-amoxiclav);
    3. cephalosporins (e.g. ceftazidime, cefotaxime); or
    4. carbapenems (e.g. imipenem, meropenem).
  2. Combination therapy of a beta lactam antibiotic (as specified) with one of the following aminoglycoside antibiotics:
    1. gentamicin;
    2. tobramycin;
    3. amikacin;
    4. netilmicin;
    5. streptomycin;
    6. isepamicin; or
    7. sisomicin.

 

Types of outcome measures

 

Primary outcomes

All-cause mortality by the end of the study follow-up.

 

Secondary outcomes

  1. Treatment failure defined as death and/or one or more serious morbid events (persistence, recurrence or worsening of clinical signs or symptoms of presenting infection; any modification of the assigned empirical antibiotic treatment; or any therapeutic invasive intervention required and not defined in the protocol). If defined differently, the study definitions were documented.
  2. Length of hospital stay.
  3. Superinfection: recurrent infections, defined as new, persistent or worsening symptoms and/or signs of infection associated with the isolation of a new pathogen (different pathogen or same pathogen with different susceptibilities) or the development of a new site of infection.
  4. Colonization by resistant bacteria: the isolation of bacteria resistant to the beta lactam antibiotic, during or following antibiotic therapy, with no signs or symptoms of infection.
  5. Adverse effects:
    1. life-threatening or associated with permanent disability (severe nephrotoxicity; ototoxicity; anaphylaxis; severe skin reactions);
    2. serious: requiring discontinuation of therapy (other nephrotoxicity; seizures; pseudomembranous colitis; other allergic reactions); or
    3. any other (other gastrointestinal; other allergic reactions).

 

Search methods for identification of studies

 

Electronic searches

We formulated a comprehensive search strategy in an attempt to identify all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press and in progress).

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register for relevant trials up to September 2011 using the following search terms: ((aminoglycoside* OR netilmicin* OR gentamicin* OR amikacin* OR tobramycin* OR streptomycin* OR isepamicin* OR sisomicin*) AND (pneumonia* OR infection OR infect* OR sepsis OR bacter* OR bacteremia OR septicemia).

In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2013, Issue 11; see Appendix 1 for a detailed search strategy), PubMed (1966 to November 2013; see Appendix 2), EMBASE (Ovid SP, 1980 to November 2013; see Appendix 3) and LILACS (via BIREME interface, 1982 to November 2013; see Appendix 4). We combined our PubMed search strategy with the Cochrane highly sensitive search strategy for identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). We modified this RCT filter for use in EMBASE and LILACS. In our previous review (Paul 2006), we searched the databases until July 2004.

 

Searching other resources

We searched the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy conference proceedings (1995 to 2012) and the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (2000 to 2013) for relevant abstracts.

We contacted the first or corresponding author of each included study and researchers active in the field for information regarding unpublished trials or for complementary information on their own trials.

We also checked the citations of major reviews and of all trials identified by the above methods for additional studies.

We did not have a language restriction.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

One review author (MP for the original review; AL for the 2013 update) inspected the abstract of each reference identified in the search and applied the inclusion criteria. When relevant articles were identified, the full article was obtained and was inspected independently by two review authors (MP, AL, IS or LL).

 

Data extraction and management

Two review authors (MP, Ishay Silbiger or SG-G) independently extracted data from included trials in the original review, and AL and MP extracted data for the 2012 update. In case of disagreement between the two review authors, a third review author (LL) independently extracted the data. A third review author (LL) also extracted the data in 10% of the studies, selected at random. We discussed data extraction, documented decisions and contacted authors of all studies for clarification. We resolved differences in the data extracted by discussion. We also documented the justification for excluding studies from the review.

We identified the trials by the name of the first author and the year in which the trial was first published, and we listed them in chronological order. We extracted, checked and recorded the following data.

 
Characteristics of trials

  1. Date, location and setting of trial.
  2. Publication status.
  3. Country of origin.
  4. Design (intention-to-treat, method of randomization).
  5. Duration of study follow-up.
  6. Performance of surveillance cultures (routine cultures for the detection of colonization).
  7. Sponsor of trial.

 
Characteristics of participants

  1. Number of participants in each group.
  2. Age (mean and standard deviation, or median and range).
  3. Number of participants with renal failure before treatment.
  4. Number of participants with shock.

 
Characteristics of infection

  1. Number of participants with infection caused by bacteria resistant to the administered beta lactam antibiotic.
  2. Number of participants with nosocomial infection.
  3. Number of participants with bacteraemia.
  4. Number of participants with bacteriologically documented infection.
  5. Number of participants with infection caused by Gram-negative bacteria.
  6. Number of participants with Gram-negative bacteraemia.
  7. Number of participants with documented Pseudomonas infection (Pseudomonas isolated in blood or specimen(s) obtained from suspected site(s) of infection).
  8. Number of participants with:
    1. urinary tract infection;
    2. pneumonia;
    3. intra-abdominal infection;
    4. skin and soft tissue infection; and
    5. infection of unknown origin.

 
Characteristics of interventions

  1. Antibiotic type and dose.
  2. Duration of therapy (mean).

 
Characteristics of outcome measures

  1. Number of deaths at the end of the follow-up period.
  2. Number of participants failing treatment (as defined).
  3. Adverse reactions (as defined) in each group.
  4. Loss of follow-up (dropouts) before the end of the study in each group.
  5. Number of participants developing superinfection.
  6. Number of participants developing colonization (as defined) with resistant bacteria.
  7. Duration of fever and hospital stay.

We collected outcome measures on an intention-to-treat basis whenever possible. When such data were not presented, we sought information from the trial authors, and, if unavailable, per-protocol results were used. For failure outcome, we performed sensitivity analyses comparing these results with a 'presumed all intention to treat', which we achieved by counting all dropouts as failures. We could not make such an assumption in studies that did not specify the number of dropouts per study arm, and we analysed these studies separately.

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

We assessed the risk of bias of the trials to be included for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, blinding and incomplete outcome data (for mortality and failure outcomes), selective reporting, intention-to-treat analysis and number of participants excluded from the outcome assessment. Two review authors (MP, AL, Ishay Silbiger and Karla Soares-Weiser ) independently performed the risk of bias assessment by classifying each item separately as low, unclear or high risk of bias according to the criteria suggested by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).

 

Measures of treatment effect

We calculated risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. For length of stay, we extracted the measure reported in the study (mean or median) along with its dispersion measure.

 

Unit of analysis issues

We expected all studies to be individually randomly assigned and to recruit each participant only once into the trial; thus no unit of analysis issues were expected for this review.

 

Dealing with missing data

We contacted the first or corresponding author of each included study and researchers active in the field to ask for information regarding unpublished trials or complementary information on their own trials.

 

Assessment of heterogeneity

We initially assessed heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots. Statistical assessment was based on the Chi2 test of heterogeneity (P < 0.1) and the I2 measure of inconsistency (substantial and considerable heterogeneity > 50%) (Higgins 2011).

 

Assessment of reporting biases

We visually examined a funnel plot of standard error (SE) (log(risk ratio)) versus risk ratio of each study to estimate small study effects, including publication bias or other. Statistical testing for funnel plot asymmetry was conducted using Egger's regression (Comprehensive Meta Analysis, version 2.2). The funnel plot was examined for the outcomes of mortality and failure.

 

Data synthesis

We used the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model to pool risk ratios. We did not plan to pool results for length of stay because this variable is not normally distributed.

 

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We explored heterogeneity by subgroup analysis of the different types of infection.

  1. Infections caused by Gram-negative bacteria and P aeruginosa.
  2. Gram-negative bacteraemia.
  3. Urinary tract infection and non–urinary tract infection, assuming that the latter might be more serious and thus might benefit more from combination therapy.
  4. Gram-positive infection and endocarditis.

For subgroup analyses, we analysed the outcomes of mortality and failure. For Gram-positive infection, we also analysed microbiological failure.

 

Sensitivity analysis

We analysed separately studies at low risk of bias with regard to allocation concealment, generation, blinding and incomplete outcome data reporting. We based conclusions regarding the effect of risk of bias on results on the evidence of a strong association between poor allocation concealment and overestimation of effect (Schulz 1995).

 

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms
 

Description of studies

 

Results of the search

The search strategy resulted in 6562 references. We filtered double references and screened 3629 different abstracts for inclusion. We did not further evaluate studies in which the comparator antibiotic regimens were clearly incompatible with inclusion criteria. We similarly excluded non-randomized and non-human studies. We retrieved 159 studies for full-text inspection, of which we excluded 72 publications. Eighty-three articles were deemed eligible for inclusion, of which 14 were secondary publications. One is ongoing (Characteristics of ongoing studies); thus we have included 69 trials in this review (Figure 1). Five trials are included in the current update that were not included in the original review (Banasal 2006; Damas 2006; Hasali 2005; Figueroa-Damian 1996; García Ramírez 1999).

 FigureFigure 1. Study flow diagram.

 

Included studies

Main study characteristics are detailed in the table Characteristics of included studies. The included studies were performed between the years 1968 and 2006. Twenty-two were multi-centred. Twenty-one were performed in the United States or Canada, 35 in Europe and 14 in other countries. The studies included 7863 participants. The median number of included participants per trial was 80 (range 20 to 580). Four trials (Banasal 2006, Cardozo 2001; Hasali 2005, Naime Libien 1992) included children, and all other trials were restricted to or included mostly adults.

The studies differed by the type of population and the type of infection targeted (see Characteristics of included studies). Forty-five trials included participants with severe sepsis, suspected Gram-negative infection or pneumonia (designated as 'sepsis'). The adjusted mean fatality rate in these studies was 8.5%.Twelve trials included participants with intra-abdominal infection, related mainly to the biliary tract (designated 'abdominal'). The mean fatality rate in these trials was 1.7%. Seven trials were restricted to participants with urinary tract infection (UTI), all hospitalized, mainly women. Five of these studies reported on mortality, and no deaths occurred in four. Finally, five of the studies included in the review targeted participants with Gram-positive infection. Four studies addressed participants with endocarditis caused by S aureus (Abrams 1979; Korzeniowski 1982; Ribera 1996) or streptococci (Sexton 1998). One study included any staphylococcal infection (Coppens 1983).

Most studies compared beta-lactam monotherapy vs. beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy as the initial, empirical antibiotic treatment administered to participants. Four studies assessed the empirical and definitive treatment of a specific infection by randomly assigning participants empirically and evaluating only those who subsequently fulfilled criteria for the specific infection. Two such studies randomly assigned participants with suspected endocarditis and evaluated only those with S aureus bacteraemia and proven endocarditis (Abrams 1979; Korzeniowski 1982). The other two randomly assigned participants with suspected biliary tract infection and evaluated only participants with a surgically proven diagnosis (Gerecht 1989; Yellin 1993). Non-evaluated participants in these studies were not counted as dropouts because the study protocol a priori defined evaluation only for participants fulfilling definitive criteria. Eight studies, focusing on participants with specific infections or pathogens (e.g. cholecystitis, staphylococcal infections), tested the effect of monotherapy versus combination therapy semi-empirically. In these studies (designated 'semi-empirical', see Characteristics of included studies), randomization occurred after the specific infection was documented and participants could have received prior antibiotic treatment for this infection. Analysis of empirical and semi-empirical studies was not separated.

The specific antibiotic regimens used are detailed in the table Characteristics of included studies. Forty-seven studies compared a single beta lactam drug versus a different, narrower-spectrum beta lactam combined with an aminoglycoside (designated 'different BL'). Sixteen 'different BL' studies reported baseline susceptibility rates of the pathogens isolated on admission to the beta lactam. The beta lactam used in the combination arm covered fewer pathogens than the monotherapy beta lactam in 13 studies, and the opposite occurred in two studies only. Twenty-two studies compared the same beta lactam in the combination and monotherapy arms (designated 'same BL'). Results obtained from studies comparing same and different beta lactams were kept separated throughout all efficacy analyses. The beta lactam monotherapies used in the studies and their dosing are detailed in  Table 1. The aminoglycoside was administered once daily in nine trials (Cardozo 2001; Damas 2006; García Ramírez 1999, Hasali 2005; Jaspers 1998; Rubinstein 1995; Sandberg 1997; Sexton 1998; Speich 1998). Other trials administered the aminoglycosides multiple times daily (49 trials) or did not specify the administration schedule (11 trials). Mean antibiotic treatment duration ranged between three and 17.5 days in the sepsis studies, between 6.8 and 11.9 days in the abdominal studies, between 4.1 and seven days in the UTI studies and between two and four weeks in the endocarditis studies.

 

Excluded studies

We excluded 72 publications, representing 69 studies (Figure 1; Characteristics of excluded studies). Several studies compared monotherapy versus combination therapy among participants with cystic fibrosis. Participants in these studies typically did not have fever or other signs of sepsis when entering the trial and thus did not fulfil inclusion criteria for this review. These studies are included in a separate review (Elphick 2005).

 

Risk of bias in included studies

See Characteristics of included studies, Risk of bias tables, Figure 2 and Figure 3.

 FigureFigure 2. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
 FigureFigure 3. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

 

Allocation

Thirty-two percent of the studies (22/69) reported adequate allocation concealment and thus considered were at low risk of bias. Four studies were graded as high risk of bias (Duff 1982; García Ramírez 1999; Hasali 2005; Landau 1990). No information was available for the other studies (37 studies), or envelopes were used but were not described as sealed or opaque (six studies).

Allocation generation was considered at low risk of bias in 51% of the studies (35/69). No information was available for 30 studies. Two studies were at high risk of bias, using participant identification numbers (Duff 1982; Landau 1990). Both allocation generation and concealment were at low risk in 29% of the studies (20/69).

 

Blinding

Most studies were open. Although these were considered at high risk of bias, for mortality assessment the lack of blinding after randomization probably did not introduce bias. Two studies, including 226 participants, were double-blinded (Sanfilippo 1989; Smith 1984). Outcome assessors were blinded in four studies (Brown 1984; Dupont 2000; Rubinstein 1995; Verzasconi 1995). Clinicians were blinded to treatment in one study (Yellin 1993).

 

Incomplete outcome data

We separated included studies into four different study types with relation to outcome reporting.

  1. Full Intention-to-treat analysis (all randomly assigned participants included in the analysis).
  2. Per-protocol analysis, in which the number of dropouts was given per study arm.
  3. Per-protocol analysis, in which the number of dropouts was known but was not given per study arm.
  4. Studies that did not distinguish between the number of randomly assigned participants and the number of evaluated participants. These studies did not refer to dropouts, but the study authors did not define the study explicitly as intention-to-treat.

The distribution of included studies by study type was as follows.

  • All-cause fatality (reported in 44 studies).
    • Type one: 20 studies (45%).
    • Types two and three: 18 studies (41%).
    • Type four: six studies (14%).
  • Treatment failure (reported In 66 studies).
    • Type one: 15 studies (23%).
    • Type two: 23 studies (375%).
    • Type three: 16 studies (254%).
    • Type four: 12 studies (18%).

 

Selective reporting

Protocols were not available for most studies because they were conducted before mandatory trial registry. In general, the primary outcome specified as planned and reported in all trials was "treatment success" ( a variously defined composite outcome including clinical response and the need for antibiotic modifications). All-cause mortality was not specifically defined as an outcome in most trials, and if reported, it was a safety measure reported in the results. Since this was uniformly observed across trials, we have not specified selective reporting for each trial in the Risk of bias tables.

 

Other potential sources of bias

No other potential sources of bias were identified.

 

Effects of interventions

See:  Summary of findings for the main comparison Monotherapy versus combination therapy compared for sepsis

 

All-cause mortality

Forty-four trials including 5577 participants were included in this comparison ( Analysis 1.1). Thirteen studies including 1431 participants compared the same beta lactam. These studies showed near equivalence (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.30), and studies comparing different beta lactams tended non-significantly in favour of monotherapy (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01). No heterogeneity was present for these comparisons (I2= 0% for the same beta lactam comparison, I2= 19% for different beta lactams). Analysis was further broken down according to the main study population, excluding Gram-positive infection studies ( Analysis 1.2). The advantage of the monotherapy was statistically significant in studies comparing different beta lactams addressing 'sepsis' (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99), but no significant differences were noted between subgroups in this analysis.

The funnel plot analysis for all-cause mortality showed that small studies favouring combination therapy may be missing (Figure 4; Egger's regression two-sided P value 0.05). Mortality outcome was unavailable from 36% of the trials.

 FigureFigure 4. Funnel mortality.

All-cause mortality.

 

Subgroup analyses

No significant difference between monotherapy and combination therapy was apparent when analysis was restricted to participants with any Gram-negative infection (eight studies) or Gram-negative bacteraemia (five studies;  Analysis 2.1;  Analysis 2.2). Only four studies permitted mortality outcome extraction among participants with P aeruginosa infection, and these did not show a difference (total of 60 evaluable participants and 15 deaths; graph not shown). Five UTI studies reported mortality, and mortality was null in three studies. Excluding participants with UTI from the analysis ('non-UTI' subgroup;  Analysis 2.3) strengthened the advantage of monotherapy in studies comparing different beta lactams (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95).

Three studies addressing Gram-positive infection reported on mortality, all comparing the same antibiotics, with a small sample size and few deaths ( Analysis 2.4). No difference was observed between monotherapy and combination therapy, with the point estimate in the direction favouring monotherapy (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.58).

 

Sensitivity analyses

Low-risk allocation concealment and generation were associated with risk ratios closer to one than studies with unclear methods for studies comparing different beta lactams but without a statistically significant difference between subgroups ( Analysis 3.1;  Analysis 3.2). Combination therapy was significantly better among studies comparing different beta lactams classified as unclear allocation concealment. Blinding was performed in too few studies to assess its effect on mortality. The combined RR for studies comparing the same beta lactam and reporting mortality by intention-to-treat was 0.57 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.19) compared with 1.09 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.51) for studies reporting mortality per-protocol ( Analysis 3.3; P value 0.11 for subgroup difference). Comparison of intention-to-treat versus per-protocol studies for different beta lactams did not reveal a difference. Reanalysis of the mortality comparison by the random-effects model was very similar for same beta lactams (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.33) and for different beta lactams (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05).

 

Treatment failure

We included 66 trials in the clinical failure analysis, comprising 6803 participants ( Analysis 1.3). We detected no difference between monotherapy and combination therapy among studies comparing the same beta lactam (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29). We found a significant advantage of monotherapy among studies comparing different beta lactams (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84). No heterogeneity was present (I2= 0% for both comparisons). Grouping studies according to study population highlighted an advantage of combination therapy among the 'sepsis' studies that compared the same beta lactam (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.55). This group of studies also accentuated the opposing advantage of monotherapy among studies comparing different beta lactams ( Analysis 1.4). Assessment of efficacy for urinary tract infection included reinfection and relapse as outcomes ( Analysis 1.5). We noted no significant difference between monotherapy and combination therapy, with six trials and 458 participants included in this comparison.

The funnel plot for treatment failure generated a nearly symmetrical 'funnel distribution' (Figure 5).

 FigureFigure 5. Funnel failure.

 

Subgroup analyses

We analysed 28 studies including 1835 participants with Gram-negative infection and 18 studies including 426 participants with P aeruginosa infection ( Analysis 2.5;  Analysis 2.6). We observed no significant differences between the study groups for studies comparing the same or different beta lactams. For studies comparing the same beta lactam, the RR was 1.23 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.68) for Gram-negative infection and 1.02 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.51) for P aeruginosa infection. We observed no difference between study groups among participants with Gram-negative bacteraemia or any bacteraemia ( Analysis 2.7;  Analysis 2.8). The latter comparison mainly comprised participants with Gram-negative bacteraemia but was available from a larger number of studies and showed a large advantage of monotherapy among studies comparing different beta lactams. Both subgroups of participants with UTIs ( Analysis 2.9) and participants without UTIs maintained the trends seen previously ( Analysis 2.10).

All five studies targeting Gram-positive infection reported on clinical failure. All compared the same beta lactam. The combined risk ratio for clinical failure was 0.69 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.19, five studies, 305 participants;  Analysis 2.11). Measures of treatment failure in these studies included persistence of bacteraemia or signs of endocarditis, relapse, need for valve replacement, need for surgery in endocarditis and death. The time of outcome determination was predefined in all trials and follow-up was long (one to six months). The need for surgery in endocarditis was reported in all four trials including participants with endocarditis, with no statistically significant difference noted between treatment groups ( Analysis 2.12).

 

Sensitivity analyses

The quality of allocation concealment and generation did not affect the risk ratios for treatment failure among studies comparing the same or different beta lactams ( Analysis 3.4;  Analysis 3.5). All studies at high risk for bias (quasi-randomized) compared different beta lactams, and their results were highly heterogenous.

Several studies comparing different beta lactams used some type of blinding. The advantage of monotherapy was non-significantly larger among these studies compared with non-blinded studies ( Analysis 3.6; P value 0.05 for subgroup difference).

Among studies comparing the same beta lactam, we observed an advantage of combination therapy in the presumed intention-to-treat analysis (type two studies), in which we imputed failure for dropouts. Among studies comparing different beta lactams, intention-to-treat, presumed intention-to-treat and per-protocol results were similar, favouring monotherapy ( Analysis 3.7). Analysis by the random-effects model did not change the results (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.27 for same beta lactams; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.87 for different beta lactams).

 

Bacteriological cure

Bacteriological cure occurred more frequently with monotherapy among studies comparing different beta lactams (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.94) but did not differ significantly in studies comparing the same beta lactam ( Analysis 1.6).

In an analysis restricted to the studies assessing Gram-positive infection, no difference in microbiological failure rates was reported ( Analysis 2.13),

 

Length of hospital stay

Eleven studies published data for the comparison of hospital stay. Significant heterogeneity precluded their combination. Duration of hospitalization was longer with monotherapy in three studies (McCormick 1997; Figueroa-Damian 1996; McCormick 1997; 331 participants), shorter in four studies (Arich 1987; Biglino 1991; Damas 2006; Sexton 1998; 186 participants) and similar in four studies (García Ramírez 1999; Mouton 1990; Wing 1998; Yellin 1993; 540 participants).

 

Development of resistance and adverse events

We merged studies comparing same and different beta lactams for assessment of development of resistance and adverse events. These outcomes are intended to assess the antibiotic class effect of aminoglycoside-beta lactam combinations versus beta lactams alone, whether same or different.

Bacterial superinfections occurred more frequently with combination therapy (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99, 28 studies, 3135 participants;  Analysis 1.7). We detected no significant difference in the rates of fungal superinfection ( Analysis 1.8). Bacterial colonization was non-significantly more common with combination therapy in all studies reporting on colonization ( Analysis 1.9) and in studies in which surveillance cultures were performed routinely ( Analysis 1.10). Few studies monitored development of resistance among pathogens isolated initially ( Analysis 1.11). We observed no significant difference between monotherapy and combination therapy.

Any adverse event occurred non-significantly more frequently with combination therapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01;  Analysis 1.12), and this analysis was slightly heterogenous. No significant difference was reported with regard to adverse events requiring treatment discontinuation, but these were reported in a minority of studies ( Analysis 1.13). We found nephrotoxicity to be more common in the combination arm in nearly all studies, with a highly significant combined risk ratio in favour of monotherapy (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.39  Analysis 1.14). A significantly increased rate of nephrotoxicity was seen in studies administering the aminoglycoside once daily and in studies with a multiple-day regimen. Vestibular symptoms and ototoxicity, other known serious side effects of aminoglycoside treatment, were not reported routinely and could not be analysed. Different definitions and detailing of specific adverse events precluded a meaningful meta-analysis of other adverse events, individually or grouped.

 

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms
 

Summary of main results

The present review compares beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combinations versus beta lactam monotherapy among non-neutropenic participants with sepsis. The primary outcome that we assessed was all-cause mortality. Twenty-two of the 69 included studies used the same beta lactam in both study arms. Most studies compared one beta lactam versus a different, narrower-spectrum beta lactam combined with an aminoglycoside. Special emphasis should be placed on studies comparing the same beta lactam. These studies directly test the hypothesis that the addition of an aminoglycoside to the beta lactam is beneficial. Among these studies, all-cause mortality did not differ between study arms (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.30). Treatment failure occurred more frequently in the monotherapy arm, reaching statistical significance only among the group of 'sepsis' studies. In studies comparing different beta lactams, both failure and mortality were more common in the combination treatment arm. Failure was highly significant, and mortality reached significance only with subgroup analyses. These studies demonstrate an advantage of broad-spectrum beta lactam monotherapy when compared with a narrower-spectrum beta lactam combined with an aminoglycoside, despite equal in vitro coverage of the culprit pathogens in both arms.

Development of resistance was assessed by the occurrence of superinfection and colonization, assuming that bacteria appearing under antibiotic treatment are resistant to the antibiotic administered. Bacterial superinfection occurred significantly more frequently with combination therapy (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99). Adverse events occurred more frequently with combination therapy. Specifically, nephrotoxicity occurred significantly more frequently in the combination treatment arm (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.39). The major adverse event associated with combination therapy was nephrotoxicity. During the past decade, once-daily administration of aminoglycosides has come into use, with similar efficacy but lower nephrotoxicity (Barza 1996). Most studies in our review used multiple-day administration schedules for the complete duration of antibiotic therapy or until modification. The RR of 0.30 for any nephrotoxicity that we observed may, therefore, be an overestimation. However, the RR among the few studies that did administer the aminoglycoside once daily was also highly significant in favour of monotherapy (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.53).

A small subset of studies in our review addressed participants with Gram-positive infection, mainly S aureus endocarditis. No study assessed enterococcal infection specifically. In these, also, no outcome was improved by the addition of an aminoglycoside.

 

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

We defined all-cause mortality as the primary outcome, and most studies assessed and reported treatment failure as a main outcome. Obviously, the most significant outcome for the patient is survival following the infectious episode, and this is the ultimate goal in the treatment of sepsis. Available evidence shows that the addition of an aminoglycoside to a beta lactam does not reduce mortality. Replacing beta lactam monotherapy with a narrower-spectrum beta lactam combined with an aminoglycoside may be associated with increased mortality. Failure was commonly defined as lack of clinical improvement, deterioration, relapse and/or modifications to the antibiotic treatment. These endpoints are highly subjective and do not necessarily translate to detriments experienced by the patient. Detection bias is a concern in open trials that compared the same beta lactam and in trials comparing a 'new' broad-spectrum monotherapy versus a conventional antibiotic regimen. Thus, the advantage of monotherapy in studies comparing different beta lactams, and the opposing advantage of combination therapy in studies comparing the same beta lactam, may be largely biased. Failure was poorly correlated with mortality, despite the fact that the clinical failure definition most commonly included infection-related deaths. In 42 trials reporting both deaths and failures, the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.36 (RR of 1.0 was assumed for studies with no events in both groups).

The rationale for administering combination therapy arose from in vitro studies showing synergistic bactericidal activity of specific beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combinations. Synergy has been observed for P aeruginosa (Giamarellou 1984), other Gram-negative bacteria (Giamarellou 1986; Klastersky 1976) and staphylococci (Sande 1975; Sande 1976). Assessment of antibiotic efficacy against specific infections in randomized trials must be limited to definitive treatment (randomization performed when infection is microbiologically documented) or must be performed as a subgroup analysis to assess empirical treatment (randomly assigning participants empirically and assessing those with documented infection). Eight studies assessed definitive treatment (semi-empirical studies), and most assessed empirical treatment. We did not find an advantage of combination therapy among participants with any Gram-negative infection, Gram-negative bacteraemia or P aeruginosa infection. Lack of data precluded the assessment of P aeruginosa bacteraemia. Why does synergy, observed in vitro, not translate into clinical benefit? Specific growth conditions in vitro, unattainable in vivo, may induce synergism. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties involving specific antibiotics, sites of infection, timing and intervals of administration may prevent synergism in vivo. Adverse events related directly to the aminoglycoside, or to the combination, may interfere with an in vivo benefit, amounting altogether to no benefit.

Combination therapy in endocarditis similarly relies on in vitro and in vivo data. Animal studies have shown that sterilization of cardiac vegetations may be achieved more rapidly with combination therapy (Sande 1975; Sande 1976). One clinical study included in our review showed that combination therapy shortened the duration of bacteraemia, but this comparison was performed according to the empirical antibiotic regimen, while randomization occurred empirically or semi-empirically (Korzeniowski 1982). We could not show an advantage of combination therapy by combining all trials in humans. On the contrary, all outcomes tended to favour monotherapy, although statistical significance was not reached.

 

Quality of the evidence

See  Summary of findings for the main comparison.

Among studies comparing the same beta lactam, the quality of evidence of mortality was graded as low, mainly because of imprecision. The 95% confidence intervals range from 27% improved survival to 30% higher risk of death with monotherapy. The quality of evidence for failure was graded as very low because of the indirectness of the outcome and the risk of detection bias associated with assessment of a subjective outcome in open trials (Wood 2008).

In studies using different beta lactams, the quality of evidence for mortality was low because the advantage of monotherapy was derived from studies at unclear risk of bias in relation to allocation concealment and due to suspected publication or reporting bias. The advantage of monotherapy with regard to treatment failure was graded as very low quality of evidence, again because of the indirectness of the failure outcome and the high risk of bias in non-blinded trials.

 

Potential biases in the review process

A major limitation of existing studies and thus of the compiled analysis is the lack of data for all-cause mortality from more than a third of included studies. This was probably not due to selective reporting bias in that all-cause mortality was not defined as an outcome in included studies. However, the funnel plot for mortality was asymmetrical. Data for subgroups most likely to benefit from combination therapy were also not available from all studies. In our analysis, we did not correct for the appropriateness of antibiotic treatment, which has been shown conclusively to correlate with survival (Ibrahim 2000; Leibovici 1998). Data were not fully available to perform such an analysis. However, among studies comparing the same beta lactam, combination therapy by definition broadened the spectrum of coverage without improving outcomes. In studies comparing different beta lactams, an inappropriate beta lactam was used more frequently in the combination arm, which may partially explain the advantage of monotherapy.

 

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

Observational studies tend to show an advantage of combination therapy for severe infection caused by Gram-negative bacteria or P aeruginosa. Combination therapy was claimed to be superior to monotherapy in a prospective observational study of participants with P aeruginosa bacteraemia, but most participants in the monotherapy group received an aminoglycoside (Hilf 1989). Kumar et al. conducted a large multi-centre retrospective study, including 4662 critically ill participants in the intensive care unit (ICU) with culture-positive, bacterial septic shock. In a propensity-matched analysis (1223 propensity-matched pairs), combination therapy was associated with lower mortality than monotherapy, with an overall hazard ratio for 28-day all-cause mortality of 0.77 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.88; Kumar 2010b). This included all infections (Gram-negative and Gram-positive), and any antibiotics of any class could be included in the combination and monotherapy arms. An analysis restricted to beta lactam-aminoglycosides as combination therapy showed an advantage of combination therapy, but an analysis of beta lactam-aminoglycoside versus beta lactam alone (same or different) is not presented. Bliziotis et al. compared combination therapy versus monotherapy for P aeruginosa bacteraemia in a retrospective cohort study and found no significant difference between the regimens, although both mortality and treatment failure were more common with monotherapy (Bliziotis 2011). In contrast, in a prospective study of bacteraemic participants with Gram-negative bacteraemia, we found no significant difference with regard to in-hospital mortality between appropriate beta lactam monotherapy and appropriate beta lactam aminoglycoside combination therapy, both empirically and semi-empirically. Appropriate single aminoglycoside monotherapy was associated with increased mortality (Leibovici 1997). Participants included in observational studies are different from those included in randomized trials. It is possible that an effect that was not observed in randomized controlled trials exists. However, observational studies to date do not provide clear enough conclusions.

 

Authors' conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms

 

Implications for practice

We conclude that the addition of an aminoglycoside to a beta lactam does not improve the clinical efficacy achieved with the beta lactam alone. Substituting a narrow-spectrum beta lactam with an aminoglycoside for a single broad-spectrum beta lactam will result in increased failure rates and may be associated with increased mortality. Adverse events occur more frequently with combination treatment. Short-term combination therapy for sepsis does not prevent the development of resistant bacteria, as assessed by superinfection or colonization rates following antibiotic treatment. Thus, the use of beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for sepsis should be discouraged.

Clinicians usually face the dilemma of selecting an antibiotic treatment on two occasions during an uncomplicated infectious episode. On the initial encounter with a patient, the clinician must prescribe empirical antibiotic treatment because the causative pathogen and its susceptibilities are generally unknown. Most studies addressed this situation, and the results show no difference in overall mortality whether monotherapy or combination therapy is used. Adverse effects, most significantly nephrotoxicity, will occur more frequently with combination therapy. If the choice is between a narrower-spectrum beta lactam combined with an aminoglycoside versus a broad-spectrum beta lactam, our results show that treatment will ultimately have to be modified more frequently if the combination is chosen. We have not identified a specific site of infection or level of disease severity for which combination treatment provides an advantage.

The second decision point occurs when the causative pathogen is identified. Here, the choice of antibiotic treatment is dictated by known susceptibility results. However, the question remains whether for specific bacteria, beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination treatment offers an advantage over single beta lactam treatment. We addressed this question through subgroup analyses of participants with documented infection caused by specific pathogens (Gram-negative pathogens, P aeruginosa, S aureus). In addition, several semi-empirical studies addressed this question specifically. We have not identified a specific pathogen, or pathogen group, for which combination therapy is advantageous. However, data for these subgroups are very limited.

Overall, appropriate beta lactam monotherapy should be used. Beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy does not offer an advantage and is associated with an increased rate of adverse events.

 
Implications for research

Innovative trial designs are needed to allow the assessment of participants with severe Gram-negative infection and P aeruginosa bacteraemia (Paul 2009). Similarly, the question is still open for endocarditis caused by Gram-positive bacteria, including mainly S aureus and Enterococcus sp. (Leibovici 2010). The pragmatic randomized trial design using electronic health records might serve as a solution for identification and recruitment of a necessary sample size in multi-centred trials (Staa 2012).

Future trials should differentiate between empirical and definitive antibiotic treatment. Appropriate antibiotic treatment has been shown to significantly reduce mortality and should therefore be reported, with results adjusted. Outcomes relevant to patients, such as survival and duration of hospitalization, should be assessed. Survival, if not assessed as a primary outcome, must at least be reported as a safety measure in all clinical trials.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms

We would like to thank all the authors who responded to our requests for additional data (see 'unpublished data' and 'unpublished data sought but not used', 'References to studies'). Dr Solomkin (Solomkin 1986) and Dr Sexton (Sexton 1984) supplied supplementary data for their studies, which were not included in the review. Dr Finer and Dr Goustas of the GlaxoSmithKline Company supplied detailed data for their study (Finer 1992). Dr Kora Huber sent completed trial results for Kljucar 1990 and supplied requested additional information. Ms Mary Forrest (Managing Editor, Journal of Chemotherapy) sent several publications that were not available to us. We would also like to warmly thank Ms Rika Fujiya, who translated the Japanese studies (Sukoh 1994; Takamoto 1994).

We thank Dr Vittoria Lutje, Dr Harriet G. MacLehose and Ms Rieve Robb (Managing Editor) of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group. We thank Dr Harald Herkner, Prof Nathan Pace, Kathie Godfrey, Janet Wale and Jane Cracknell (Managing Editor) of the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group. Both groups supported and provided helpful revisions for this review.

This review was initially developed within the Infectious Diseases Group and was supported by a grant from the Department for International Development, UK. The review was transferred to the Anaesthesia Group in May 2005.

Ishay Silbiger participated in the first version of this review: applied inclusion and exclusion criteria and performed risk of bias assessment, data extraction and analysis.

Karla Soares-Weiser participated in the first version of this review: assisted with inclusion and exclusion of studies; performed quality assessment, data extraction and analysis; and assisted with the writing and reviewed all versions of the protocol and the review. We thank Karla for her mentorship on systematic reviews and for guidance provided on the initial protocol and on initiation of this review.

 

Data and analyses

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms
Download statistical data

 
Comparison 1. Monotherapy versus combination therapy

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 All-cause mortality44Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    1.1 Same BL
131431Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.97 [0.73, 1.30]

    1.2 Different BL
314146Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.85 [0.71, 1.01]

 2 All-cause mortality by study groups41Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    2.1 Same sepsis
7839Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.08 [0.75, 1.55]

    2.2 Same abdominal
2331Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.91 [0.54, 1.55]

    2.3 Same UTI
173Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    2.4 Different sepsis
213298Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.83 [0.69, 0.99]

    2.5 Different abdominal
6550Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.09 [0.56, 2.15]

    2.6 Different UTI
4298Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.33 [0.34, 5.21]

 3 Clinical failure66Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    3.1 Same BL
201870Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.11 [0.95, 1.29]

    3.2 Different BL
464933Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.75 [0.67, 0.84]

 4 Clinical failure by study groups61Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    4.1 Same sepsis
121196Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.25 [1.01, 1.55]

    4.2 Same abdominal
2308Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.03 [0.80, 1.32]

    4.3 Same UTI
161Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.98 [0.46, 2.09]

    4.4 Different sepsis
313743Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.72 [0.64, 0.81]

    4.5 Different abdominal
10731Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.86 [0.62, 1.18]

    4.6 Different UTI
5459Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.12 [0.65, 1.91]

 5 UTI relapse or reinfection6458Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.01 [0.61, 1.67]

 6 Bacteriological failure—all44Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    6.1 Same BL
15801Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.14 [0.87, 1.48]

    6.2 Different BL
292760Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.81 [0.69, 0.94]

 7 Bacterial superinfection283135Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.75 [0.57, 0.99]

 8 Fungal superinfection111119Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.79 [0.42, 1.48]

 9 Bacterial colonization141635Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.85 [0.65, 1.10]

 10 Bacterial colonization—surveillance cultures6751Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.78 [0.60, 1.01]

 11 Development of bacterial resistance91370Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.88 [0.54, 1.45]

 12 Any adverse event405001Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.92 [0.83, 1.01]

 13 Adverse events requiring treatment discontinuation203098Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI)0.89 [0.52, 1.52]

 14 Any nephrotoxicity465269Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.30 [0.23, 0.39]

    14.1 Once-daily aminoglycoside
5865Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.17 [0.06, 0.53]

    14.2 Twice-daily aminoglycoside
71127Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.43 [0.24, 0.77]

    14.3 Thrice-daily aminoglycoside
242138Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.28 [0.20, 0.39]

    14.4 Non-specified aminoglycoside regimen
101139Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.34 [0.19, 0.58]

 
Comparison 2. Monotherapy versus combination therapy (subgroup analyses)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 All-cause mortality (Gram-negative infection)8Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    1.1 Same BL
3117Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.56 [0.08, 4.07]

    1.2 Different BL
5313Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.25 [0.80, 1.95]

 2 All-cause mortality (Gram-negative bacteraemia)5Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    2.1 Same BL
385Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.62 [0.30, 8.75]

    2.2 Different BL
2125Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.31 [0.63, 2.70]

 3 All-cause mortality (non–urinary tract infection)17Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    3.1 Same BL
4401Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.81 [0.50, 1.31]

    3.2 Different BL
131458Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.70 [0.52, 0.95]

 4 All-cause mortality (Gram-positive infection)3188Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.44 [0.12, 1.58]

 5 Clinical failure (Gram-negative infection)28Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    5.1 Same BL
10432Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.23 [0.90, 1.68]

    5.2 Different BL
181403Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.85 [0.66, 1.09]

 6 Clinical failure (Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection)18Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    6.1 Same BL
6124Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.02 [0.68, 1.51]

    6.2 Different BL
12302Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.20 [0.80, 1.82]

 7 Clinical failure (Gram-negative bacteraemia)11Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    7.1 Same BL
4101Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.07 [0.45, 2.56]

    7.2 Different BL
7198Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.75 [0.38, 1.48]

 8 Clinical failure (bacteraemia)22Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    8.1 Same BL
5141Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.43 [0.77, 2.66]

    8.2 Different BL
17624Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.64 [0.46, 0.89]

 9 Clinical failure (urinary tract infection)17Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    9.1 Same BL
484Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.12 [0.59, 2.13]

    9.2 Different BL
13708Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.22 [0.80, 1.87]

 10 Clinical failure (non–urinary tract infection)44Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    10.1 Same BL
101248Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.18 [0.99, 1.42]

    10.2 Different BL
343132Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.68 [0.59, 0.78]

 11 Clinical failure (Gram-positive infection)5305Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.69 [0.40, 1.19]

 12 Need for operation (endocarditis)4243Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.76 [0.41, 1.39]

 13 Bacteriological failure (Gram-positive infection)5300Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.89 [0.47, 1.69]

 
Comparison 3. Monotherapy versus combination therapy (sensitivity analyses)

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 All-cause mortality by allocation concealment44Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    1.1 A same BL
61068Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.96 [0.71, 1.31]

    1.2 B same BL
7363Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.04 [0.47, 2.30]

    1.3 A different BL
122154Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.95 [0.75, 1.19]

    1.4 B different BL
171878Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.70 [0.53, 0.93]

    1.5 C different BL
2114Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.33 [0.34, 5.21]

 2 All-cause mortality by allocation generation44Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    2.1 A same BL
61068Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.96 [0.71, 1.31]

    2.2 B same BL
7363Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.04 [0.47, 2.30]

    2.3 A different BL
192957Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.89 [0.72, 1.09]

    2.4 B different BL
101075Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.72 [0.50, 1.04]

    2.5 C different BL
2114Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.33 [0.34, 5.21]

 3 All-cause mortality by ITT versus per-protocol analysis44Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    3.1 ITT—same BL (type one studies)
5519Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.57 [0.28, 1.19]

    3.2 Per-protocol—same BL (type two and three studies)
6761Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.09 [0.80, 1.51]

    3.3 Unknown—same BL (type four studies)
2151Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.88 [0.06, 13.25]

    3.4 ITT—different BL (type one studies)
152989Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.87 [0.71, 1.07]

    3.5 Per-protocol—different BL (type two and three studies)
121037Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.76 [0.54, 1.07]

    3.6 Unknown—different BL (type four studies)
4120Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.33 [0.34, 5.21]

 4 Clinical failure by allocation concealment66Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    4.1 A same BL
81138Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.11 [0.93, 1.32]

    4.2 B same BL
12732Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.09 [0.79, 1.50]

    4.3 A different BL
142099Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.72 [0.60, 0.86]

    4.4 B different BL
292660Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.80 [0.69, 0.93]

    4.5 C different BL
3174Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.60 [0.39, 0.92]

 5 Clinical failure by allocation generation66Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    5.1 A same BL
91319Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.09 [0.91, 1.29]

    5.2 B same BL
11551Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.18 [0.83, 1.69]

    5.3 A different BL
263288Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.76 [0.66, 0.88]

    5.4 B different BL
171471Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.77 [0.63, 0.94]

    5.5 C different BL
3174Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.60 [0.39, 0.92]

 6 Clinical failure by blinding66Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    6.1 Non-blinded—same BL
191666Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.12 [0.93, 1.35]

    6.2 Any blinding—same BL
1204Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.06 [0.82, 1.37]

    6.3 Non-blinded—different BL
403996Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.80 [0.70, 0.91]

    6.4 Any blinding—different BL
6937Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.62 [0.50, 0.77]

 7 Clinical failure by ITT versus per-protocol analysis66Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    7.1 ITT—same BL (type one)
2110Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.78 [0.43, 1.40]

    7.2 ITT assuming failure for dropouts—same BL (type two)
9902Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.32 [1.09, 1.60]

    7.3 Per-protocol—same BL (type three studies)
4580Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.10 [0.91, 1.33]

    7.4 Type four studies—same BL
5278Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.95 [0.56, 1.61]

    7.5 ITT—different BL (type one)
131589Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.71 [0.60, 0.85]

    7.6 ITT assuming failure for dropouts—different BL (type two)
142065Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.83 [0.73, 0.94]

    7.7 Per-protocol—different BL (type three studies)
121031Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.76 [0.62, 0.95]

    7.8 Type four studies—different BL
7248Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.94 [0.52, 1.69]

 

Appendices

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms
 

Appendix 1. Search strategy for CENTRAL, T he Cochrane Library

#1 MeSH descriptor beta-Lactams, this term only
#2 MeSH descriptor Penicillins, this term only
#3 MeSH descriptor Cephalosporins, this term only
#4 MeSH descriptor Carbapenems, this term only
#5 MeSH descriptor Imipenem, this term only
#6 MeSH descriptor Ceftazidime, this term only
#7 MeSH descriptor Cefotaxime, this term only
#8 MeSH descriptor Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination, this term only
#9 beta-lactam*:ti,ab
#10 co?amoxiclav* or cephalosporin* or ceftazidim* or cefotaxim* or carbapenem* or imipenem* or meropenem*
#11 beta-lactam* near (combin* or mono*)
#12 (#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11)
#13 MeSH descriptor Aminoglycosides, this term only
#14 (aminoglycoside* or netilmicin* or gentamicin* or amikacin* or tobramycin* or streptomycin* or isepamicin* or sisomicin* or combinat*):ti,ab
#15 (#13 OR #14)
#16 (#12 OR ( #12 AND #15 ))
#17 MeSH descriptor Pneumonia, this term only
#18 MeSH descriptor Sepsis, this term only
#19 MeSH descriptor Shock, Septic, this term only
#20 MeSH descriptor Bacteremia explode all trees
#21 MeSH descriptor Infection, this term only
#22 MeSH descriptor Endocarditis, Bacterial explode all trees
#23 MeSH descriptor Endocarditis, this term only
#24 MeSH descriptor Staphylococcus, this term only
#25 MeSH descriptor Streptococcus, this term only
#26 (pneumonia* or infect* or sepsis* or septic* or bacter*):ti,ab
#27 (#17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26)
#28 (#16 AND #27)

 

Appendix 2. Search strategy for MEDLINE (Ovid SP)

1. Beta-Lactams/ or Penicillins/ or Cephalosporins/ or Carbapenems/ or Imipenem/ or Ceftazidime/ or Cefotaxime/ or Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination/ or beta-lactam*.ti,ab. or (co?amoxiclav* or cephalosporin* or ceftazidim* or cefotaxim* or carbapenem* or imipenem* or meropenem*).mp. or (beta-lactam* adj5 (combin* or mono*)).mp.
2. Aminoglycosides/ or (aminoglycoside* or netilmicin* or gentamicin* or amikacin* or tobramycin* or streptomycin* or isepamicin* or sisomicin* or combinat*).ti,ab. or Drug-Therapy-Combination/
3. 1 or (1 and 2)
4. pneumonia/ or exp Sepsis/ or Shock, Septic/ or exp Bacteremia/ or Infection/ or exp Endocarditis, Bacterial/ or Endocarditis/ or exp Endocarditis, Subacute Bacterial/ or Staphylococcus/ or Streptococcus/ or (pneumonia* or infect* or sepsis* or septic* or bacter*).ti,ab.
5. 3 and 4
6. ((randomized controlled trial or controlled clinical trial).pt. or randomized.ab. or placebo.ab. or clinical trials as topic.sh. or randomly.ab. or trial.ti.) not (animals not (humans and animals)).sh.
7. 6 and 5

 

Appendix 3. Search strategy for EMBASE (Ovid SP)

1. beta lactam/ or penicillin derivative/ or cephalosporin derivative/ or carbapenem derivative/ or imipenem/ or ceftazidime/ or cefotaxime/ or amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid/ or beta-lactam*.ti,ab. or (co?amoxiclav* or cephalosporin* or ceftazidim* or cefotaxim* or carbapenem* or imipenem* or meropenem*).mp. or (beta-lactam* adj5 (combin* or mono*)).mp.
2. aminoglycoside/ or (aminoglycoside* or netilmicin* or gentamicin* or amikacin* or tobramycin* or streptomycin* or isepamicin* or sisomicin* or combinat*).ti,ab. or drug combination/
3. 1 or (1 and 2)
4. pneumonia/ or exp sepsis/ or septicemia/ or bacteremia/ or infection/ or exp bacterial endocarditis/ or endocarditis/ or Staphylococcus/ or Staphylococcus/ or (pneumonia* or infect* or sepsis* or septic* or bacter*).ti,ab.
5. 4 and 3
6. (placebo.sh. or controlled study.ab. or random*.ti,ab. or trial*.ti,ab.) not (animals not (humans and animals)).sh.
7. 5 and 6

 

Appendix 4. Search strategy for LILACS (via BIREME)

(co?amoxiclav$ or cephalosporin$ or ceftazidim$ or cefotaxim$ or carbapenem$ or imipenem$ or meropenem$ or beta-lactam$) and (aminoglycoside$ or netilmicin$ or gentamicin$ or amikacin$ or tobramycin$ or streptomycin$ or isepamicin$ or sisomicin$ or combinat$ or pneumonia$ or infect$ or sepsis$ or septic$ or bacter$ or endocardit$ or Staphylococ$ or Streptococ$) and (trial$ or Random$ or placebo$ or ((single or double or triple) and (blind$ or mask$)) or (ensayo controlado) or (experimentação controlada) or multicenter or multicentre or prospective or (estudio anticipado) or (estudo em perspectiva))

 

Feedback

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms
 

Obtaining data on all-cause mortality, 16 June 2013

 

Summary

Thank you for taking on the large amount of data surrounding topic of aminoglycoside and beta-lactam combination therapy in the treatment of sepsis. With the large volume of studies spanning such a long time period this was no small task. With this in mind we still have some one question regarding the primary outcome analysis of all cause mortality between the two treatment arms.

The primary mortality analysis contained 43 of the total 64 studies included in the review and they were split into two separate subgroups, using either the same or a different beta-lactam agent as monotherapy as in combination therapy. Our concern is centered on the outstanding 21 studies not included in this analysis. We were wondering what attempts were made to collect mortality data from these remaining trials questioning whether the inclusion of those results would statistically alter the outcomes. We understand that a number of these studies were completed over 40 years ago and the data may be very difficult to obtain.

In the subgroup where a different beta-lactam was used the risk of mortality was non-significantly lowered in the monotherapy arm RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.71, 1.01). With the results being close to statistical significance we were wondering if the addition of data from the outstanding studies would actually make a statistical difference. If this were truly the case then your conclusion of “The addition of an aminoglycoside to beta-lactams for sepsis should be discouraged. All-cause fatality rates are unchanged. Combination treatment carries a significant risk of nephrotoxicity” would change and the call to avoid the use of these antibiotics would be much stronger.

We also pooled all of the data from both subgroups (same and different beta-lactams) and found that it did not change the results of the different beta-lactam group but greatly narrowed the confidence interval of the same beta-lactam group with a RR of 1.13 (0.97, 1.31) - increased risk of mortality in the combination group versus monotherapy. With this analysis we also found very little heterogeneity between same and different beta-lactam studies (I2 = 8%).

We understand the beta-lactam agent selected, specifically in regards the spectrum of activity, greatly impacts the effects of empirical therapy but with this potentially increased risk of mortality that is consistent across this large number of studies leads us to believe that although statistically non-significant it seems plausible that the risk of mortality with combination therapy over beta-lactam monotherapy is real.

We also believe that the possibility of “emotional based medicine” is real in this patient population. As the majority of these studies were open-label despite being randomized, it is not unlikely that “sicker” patients would receive more drugs (i.e. combination therapy). If this were true then it is plausible that patients who were more likely to die received more antibiotics and were in the combination groups but with the effect remaining relatively consistent across this large number of studies, we feel that a true risk may actually exist.

After this long discussion, our question returns to whether or not mortality data are available from the remaining 21 studies and what attempts have been made to retrieve this information. A statistically significant increase in mortality, along with the increase in adverse events see with combination therapy would likely facilitate a rapid change in practice and removal of this therapeutic option. Just as an exercise we inserted the data provided by your review into Review Manager to test how many events it would take to make the difference in mortality. We understand this is not a truly scientific exercise but one based on curiosity.

What we found was that when we added two events (deaths) to the combination group in the most heavily weighted study (Felisart 1985) the outcome of mortality became statistically significantly higher in the combination group. We also combined all of the data between the same different beta-lactam subgroups and found that only eight more deaths in the combination group made the entire analysis (all 43 studies) statistically significant for an increase in mortality in the combination group. On the flip side, it took 80 events in the monotherapy group to swing the analysis the other way and statistically favour combination therapy in the outcome of mortality.

Thank you for your time

 

Reply

Dear Dr Amadio,

Thank you for your kind attention to our work and your input for the data analysis.

In response to your question regarding obtaining data on all-cause mortality, we mailed all authors of trials that did not report on this outcome asking for the data, as is routine in Cochrane reviews. We agree with you on the importance of the missing data on mortality and for this reason we made extra efforts to obtain the data. If we did not establish contact with the corresponding author, we tried to contact a second and third author. The data presented in our review are the result of this process and still we miss mortality data from a third of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were conducted.

Selection bias should not occur in adequately conducted RCTs, those using appropriate allocation concealment. Allocation concealment is the procedure ensuring that no one is aware of the treatment assignment when the patient is recruited into the trial and before the patient is allocated to an intervention. We observed in our review that the advantage to combination therapy was larger in trials with unclear methods for allocation concealment (studies not reporting the methods for this procedure) compared to trials that used methods ensuring adequate allocation concealment. Therefore, it is possible that results were affected by selection of sicker patients to the combination therapy group. However the difference between trials with low and unclear risk of bias was not statistically significant and we have no actual data on whether bias could occur in the trials with unclear risk of bias. Most importantly to our view, the trials comparing different beta-lactams usually compared a new, broad-spectrum beta-lactam to an old, classical regimen; we believe that if selection bias crept in to some trials it would have worked in the opposite direction of recruiting the sicker patients to the novel monotherapy arm. The fact that most of the trials were open, might have led to a different type of bias, and dilution of effects, because physicians could add an aminoglycoside to failing patients in the monotherapy arm, while this could not occur in the combination therapy arm.

Methods exist to formally examine the possible effects of missing data in meta-analysis. We will consider adding such an analysis to an update of our review. More importantly, we will highlight the issue of missing data on all-cause mortality. Should your important correspondence result in any authors sending further data from their trials on mortality, these will be added to our review.

 

Contributors

Anthony Amadio, BSc. Pharm, ACPR, RPh

Doctor of Pharmacy Student

Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences

University of British Columbia

Vancouver BC

Canada

Aaron M Tejani, BSc Pharm, PharmD
Researcher
Therapeutics Initiative, University of British Columbia
2176 Health Sciences Mall
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Canada

Reply

Mical Paul, corresponding author

 

What's new

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms

Last assessed as up-to-date: 4 November 2013.


DateEventDescription

20 December 2013New search has been performedThis review is an update of the previous Cochrane systematic review (Paul 2006), which included 64 RCTs.

Five new trials were added in the current update; three were published after the previous review (Banasal 2006; Damas 2006; Hasali 2005), one was awaiting assessment in the previous review (Figueroa-Damian 1996) and one was newly identified (García Ramírez 1999).

20 December 2013New citation required but conclusions have not changedOur updated review reached the same conclusions as Paul 2006. The added trials did not change the direction or the magnitude of results. We have added Summary of finding tables to the current update and have graded the quality of evidence for the main outcomes.

Karla Soares-Weiser has left and Adi Lador has joined the review author team.



 

History

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms

Protocol first published: Issue 4, 2001
Review first published: Issue 1, 2006


DateEventDescription

13 August 2013Feedback has been incorporatedFeedback submitted and responded to.

Two Cochrane references updated and typos corrected.

2 September 2008New citation required but conclusions have not changedConverted to new review format.



 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms

Mical Paul (MP): performed the search and scanned abstracts; retrieved full-text articles and applied inclusion and exclusion criteria; performed risk of bias assessment, data extraction and analysis. MP communicated with authors and wrote the protocol and the review.

Adi Lador (AL): performed an update search (2011) and scanned the new abstracts; retrieved full-text articles and applied inclusion and exclusion criteria; performed risk of bias assessment, data extraction and analysis for the updated search; and wrote the updated review.

Simona Grozinsky-Glasberg (SG-G): extracted the data for the first version of this review; and reviewed and approved the final version of the updated review.

Leonard Leibovici (LL): assisted with inclusion and exclusion of studies; performed quality assessment, data extraction and analysis; assisted with communication with authors; and assisted with the writing and review of all versions of the protocol and the review.

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms

Mical Paul: none known.

Adi Lador: none known.

Simona Grozinsky-Glasberg: none known.

Leonard Leibovici: none known.

We certify that we have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter of this review (e.g. employment, consultancy, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony).

 

Sources of support

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary of findings    [Explanations]
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Index terms
 

Internal sources

  • Rabin Medical Center - Beilison Campus, Israel.

 

External sources

  • EU 5th Framework - TREAT project (grant number: 1999-11459), Not specified.
  • Department for International Development, UK.

* Indicates the major publication for the study

References

References to studies included in this review

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Summary of findings
  4. Background
  5. Objectives
  6. Methods
  7. Results
  8. Discussion
  9. Authors' conclusions
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. Data and analyses
  12. Appendices
  13. Feedback
  14. What's new
  15. History
  16. Contributions of authors
  17. Declarations of interest
  18. Sources of support
  19. Characteristics of studies
  20. References to studies included in this review
  21. References to studies excluded from this review
  22. References to ongoing studies
  23. Additional references
  24. References to other published versions of this review
Abrams 1979 {published data only}
  • Abrams B, Sklaver A, Hoffman T, Greenman R. Single or combination therapy of staphylococcal endocarditis in intravenous drug abusers. Annals of Internal Medicine 1979;90(5):789-91.
Aguilar 1992 {published data only}
  • Ramirez de Aguilar R. Clinical trial on efficacy and safety of ceftizoxime compared with penicillin-gentamicin of managing of adult severe infections [Estudio clinico para determinar la eficacia y seguridad de ceftizoxima en comparacion con penicilina-gentamicina en el manejo de las infecciones graves del adulto]. Compend Invest Clin Latinoam 1992;12(3):75-8.
Alvarez-Lerma 2001a {published and unpublished data}
  • Alvarez Lerma F on behalf of the Serious Infection Study Group. Efficacy of meropenem as monotherapy in the treatment of ventilator- associated pneumonia. Journal of Chemotherapy 2001;13(1):70-81.
  • Alvarez-Lerma F. [Efficacy of monotherapy by meropenem in ventilator-associated pneumonia]. Antibiotiki i khimioterapiia 2001;46(12):42-52.
Arich 1987 {published and unpublished data}
  • Arich C, Gouby A, Bengler C, Ardilouze JL, Dubois A, Joubert P, et al. [Comparison of the efficacy of cefotaxime alone and the combination cefazolin-tobramycin in the treatment of enterobacterial septicemia] In French. Pathologie Biologie (Paris) 1987;35(5):613-5.
Banasal 2006 {published data only}
  • Bansal A, Singhi SC, Jayashree M. Penicillin and gentamicin therapy vs amoxicillin/clavulanate in severe hypoxemic pneumonia. Indian Journal of Pediatrics April 2006;73(4):305-9.
Bergeron 1988 {published data only}
  • Bergeron MG, Mendelson J, Harding GK, Mandell L, Fong IW, Rachlis A, et al. Cefoperazone compared with ampicillin plus tobramycin for severe biliary tract infections. 13th International Congress of Chemotherapy. 1983.
  • Bergeron MG, Mendelson J, Harding GK, Mandell L, Fong IW, Rachlis A, et al. Cefoperazone compared with ampicillin plus tobramycin for severe biliary tract infections. Antimicrobials Agents and Chemotherapy 1988;32(8):1231-6.
Biglino 1991 {published data only}
  • Biglino A, Bonasso M, Gioannini P. Imipenem/cilastatin as empirical treatment of severe infections in compromised patients. Journal of Chemotherapy 1991;3 Suppl 1:208-12.
Brown 1984 {published data only}
  • Brown RB, Lemeshow S, Teres D. Moxalactam vs carbenicillin plus tobramycin: treatment of nosocomial gram-negative bacillary pneumonias in non-neutropenic patients. Current Therapeutic Research, Clinical and Experimental 1984;36(3):557-64.
Carbon 1987 {published data only}
  • Carbon C, Auboyer C, Becq Giraudon B, Bertrand P, Gallais H, Mouton Y, et al. Cefotaxime (C) vs cefotaxime + amikacin (C + A) in the treatment of septicemia due to enterobacteria: a multicenter study. Chemioterapia 1987;6(2 Suppl):367-8.
Cardozo 2001 {published and unpublished data}
  • Cardozo M, Basualdo W, Martinez R, Matsumura K, Gonzalez-Cabello M, Navarro D, et al. Evolution of the association amoxicillin/sulbactam to a amoxicillin/sulbactam more gentamicins in children with peritonitis of appendicular origin [Evaluacion de la asociacion amoxicilina/sulbactam frente a amoxicilina/sulbactam mas gentamicina en ninos con peritonitis de origen apendicular]. Pediatría (Asunción) 2001;28(2):15-9.
Cometta 1994 {published and unpublished data}
  • Cometta A, Baumgartner JD, Lew D, Zimmerli W, Pittet D, Chopart P, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of imipenem monotherapy with imipenem plus netilmicin for treatment of severe infections in nonneutropenic patients. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1994;38(6):1309-13.
  • Iten A, Cometta A, Eggimann P, Siegrist H, Francioli P. The addition of netilmicin (NET) to imipenem (IMIP) does not prevent the emergence of bacteria resistant (R) to IMIP during treatment (ttt) of severe infections. 32nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1992; Vol. Abstract no. 522:198.
Cone 1985 {published data only}
  • Cone LA, Woodard DR, Stoltzman DS, Byrd RG. Ceftazidime versus tobramycin-ticarcillin in the treatment of pneumonia and bacteremia. 23rd Interscience Conference Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1983; Vol. Abstract no. 843.
  • Cone LA, Woodard DR, Stoltzman DS, Byrd RG. Ceftazidime versus tobramycin-ticarcillin in the treatment of pneumonia and bacteremia. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1985;28(1):33-6.
Coppens 1983 {published data only}
  • Coppens L, Hanson B, Klastersky J. Therapy of staphylococcal infections with cefamandole or vancomycin alone or with a combination of cefamandole and tobramycin. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1983;23(1):36-41.
D'Antonio 1992 {published and unpublished data}
  • D'Antonio D, Fioritoni G, Iacone A, Dell'Isola M, Natale D, D'Arcangelo L, et al. Randomized comparison of ceftriaxone versus ceftriaxone plus amikacin for the empirical treatment of infections in patients with altered host defense: microbiological and clinical evaluation. Chemotherapy 1992;38(6):420-7.
Damas 2006 {published data only}
  • Damas P, Garweg C, Monchi M, Nys M, Canivet JL, Ledoux D, et al. Combination therapy versus monotherapy: a randomised pilot study on the evolution of inflammatory parameters after ventilator associated pneumonia. Critical Care 2006;10(2):R52.
Duff 1982 {published and unpublished data}
  • Duff P, Keiser JF. A comparative study of two antibiotic regimens for the treatment of operative site infections. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1982;142(8):996-1003.
Dupont 2000 {published data only}
  • Dupont H, Carbon C, Carlet J, and the Severe Generalized Peritonitis Study Group. Monotherapy with a broad-spectrum beta-lactam is as effective as its combination with an aminoglycoside in treatment of severe generalized peritonitis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1998; Vol. Abstract MN-48:602.
  • Dupont H, Carbon C, Carlet J, for The Severe Generalized Peritonitis Study Group. Monotherapy with a broad-spectrum beta-lactam is as effective as its combination with an aminoglycoside in treatment of severe generalized peritonitis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 2000;44(8):2028-33.
Felisart 1985 {published data only}
Figueroa-Damian 1996 {published data only}
  • Figueroa-Damian R, Villagrana-Zesati R, San Martin-Herrasti JM, Arredondo-Garcia JL. Comparison of the therapeutic efficacy of the piperacillin/tazobactam combination vs. ampicillin and gentamycin in the management of post-cesarean endometritis [Comparación de la eficacia terapéutica de piperacilina\tazobactam vs ampicilina más gentamicina en el tratamiento de endometritis poscesárea]. Ginecologia y Obstetricia de Mexico 1996;64(5):214-8.
Finer 1992 {published and unpublished data}
  • Finer N, Goustas P. Ceftazidime versus aminoglycoside and (ureido)penicillin combination in the empirical treatment of serious infection. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1992;85(9):530-3.
García Ramírez 1999 {published data only}
  • Luis Alberto GR, Enrique RJ, Manuel de Jesus UV, Ana Patricia MB, Jose Javier LN, Jaime MM. Ceftazidime vs crystalline sodium penicillin and amikacin in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia [Ceftazidima vs penicilina sodica cristalina y amikacina en el manejo de la neumonia nosocomial]. Medicina interna Mexico 1999;15(4):135-7.
Gerecht 1989 {published data only}
  • Gerecht WB, Henry NK, Hoffman WW, Muller SM, LaRusso NF, Rosenblatt JE, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of mezlocillin therapy alone with combined ampicillin and gentamicin therapy for patients with cholangitis. Archives of Internal Medicine 1989;149(6):1279-84.
Gomez 1990a {published and unpublished data}
  • Gomez J, Moldenauer F, Ruiz G, Canteras M, Redondo C, Molina B, et al. [Monotherapy (ceftazidime) versus combination therapy (cefradine + amikacin) in gram-negative bacteremia. A prospective, randomized study, 1987] In Spanish. Revista Espanola de Quimioterapia 1990;3(1):35-40.
Hasali 2005 {published data only}
  • Hasali M, Ibrahim M, Sulaiman S, Ahmad Z, Hasali J. A clinical and economic study of community-acquired pneumonia between single versus combination therapy. Pharmacy World and Science 2005;27(3):249-53.
Havig 1973 {published data only}
  • Havig O, Hertzberg J. Effect of ampicillin, chloramphenicol, and penicillin-streptomycin in acute cholecystitis. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 1973;8(1):55-8.
  • Havig O, Hertzberg J. [Effect of ampicillin, chloramphenicol and penicillin + streptomycin in the treatment of acute cholecystitis]. Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening 1975;95(5):298-300.
Hoepelman 1988 {published and unpublished data}
  • Hoepelman IM, Rozenberg-Arska M, Verhoef J. Comparative study of ceftriaxone monotherapy versus a combination regimen of cefuroxime plus gentamicin for treatment of serious bacterial infections: the efficacy, safety and effect on fecal flora. Chemotherapy 1988;34(Suppl 1):21-9.
  • Hoepelman IM, Rozenberg-Arska M, Verhoef J. Comparison of once daily ceftriaxone with gentamicin plus cefuroxime for treatment of serious bacterial infections. 27th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobials Agents and Chemotherapy. 1987; Vol. Abstract no. 89.
  • Hoepelman IM, Rozenberg-Arska M, Verhoef J. Comparison of once daily ceftriaxone with gentamicin plus cefuroxime for treatment of serious bacterial infections. Lancet 1988;1(8598):1305-9.
Holloway 1985 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
Iakovlev 1998 {published data only}
  • Iakovlev SV, Iakovlev VP, Derevianko, II, Kira EF, and the Meropenem Study Group. [Multicenter open randomized trial of meropenem in comparison to ceftazidime and amikacin used in combination in severe hospital infections]. In Russian. Antibiotiki i Khimioterapiia 1998;43(1):15-23.
Jaspers 1998 {published and unpublished data}
  • Jaspers CA, Kieft H, Speelberg B, Buiting A, van Marwijk Kooij M, Ruys GJ, et al. Meropenem versus cefuroxime plus gentamicin for treatment of serious infections in elderly patients. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1998;42(5):1233-8.
Klastersky 1973 {published data only}
Kljucar 1990 {published and unpublished data}
  • Kljucar S, Heimesaat M, von Pritzbuer E, Bauernfeind A. Comparative clinical trial with ceftazidime (CAZ) versus ceftazidime plus tobramycin (TOB) versus azlocillin (AZL) plus tobramycin in ventilated patients with nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). 30th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990:Abtract no. 953.
  • Kljucar S, Heimesaat M, von Pritzbuer E, Olms K. [Ceftazidime with and without tobramycin versus azlocillin plus tobramycin in the therapy of bronchopulmonary infections in intensive care patients]. In German. Infection 1987;15(Suppl 4):S185-S191.
Koehler 1990 {published data only}
  • Koehler CO, Arnold H. Controlled clinical study of ceftazidime (3 x 1 g daily) versus piperacillin + tobramycin in patients with nosocomial pneumonia. International Journal of Experimental and Clinical Chemotherapy 1990;3(4):211-8.
Korzeniowski 1982 {published data only}
  • Korzeniowski O, Sande MA. Combination antimicrobial therapy for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in patients addicted to parenteral drugs and in nonaddicts: a prospective study. Annals of Internal Medicine 1982;97(4):496-503.
Landau 1990 {published data only}
  • Landau Z, Feld S, Krupsky M. [Ceftriaxone or combined cefazolin-gentamicin for complicated urinary tract infections]. In Hebrew. Harefuah 1990;118(3):152-3.
Limson 1988 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
  • Limson BM, Navarro Almario E, Litam P, Que E, Kua LT. Ceftazidime monotherapy compared with amikacin/ticarcillin combination therapy in severe infections. Journal of the Philippines Medical Association 1988;64(1):33-5.
  • Limson BM, Navarro Almario E, Litam P, Que E, Kua LT. Ceftazidime versus a combination of amikacin and ticarcillin in the treatment of severe infections. Clinical Therapeutics 1988;10(5):589-93.
Mandell 1987 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
  • Mandell LA, Nicolle LE, Ronald AR, Duperval R, Robson HG, Feld R, et al. A multicentre prospective randomized trial comparing ceftazidime with cefazolin/tobramycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with non-pneumococcal pneumonia. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1983;12(Suppl A):9-20.
  • Mandell LA, Nicolle LE, Ronald AR, Landis SJ, Duperval R, Harding GK, et al. A prospective randomized trial of ceftazidime versus cefazolin/tobramycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with pneumonia. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1987;20(1):95-107.
Martin 1991 {published data only}
  • Martin PY, Unger PF, Auckenthaler R, Waldvogel FA. Efficacy and costs of treatment with ceftriaxone compared to ampicillin-gentamycin in acute pyelonephritis. In French [Efficacite et cout d'un traitement de ceftriaxone compare a l'ampicilline-gentamicine dans les pyelonehrites aigues]. Reveu Medicale Suisse Romande 1991;111(7):609-17.
McCormick 1997 {published and unpublished data}
Mergoni 1987 {published and unpublished data}
  • Mergoni M, Stocchetti N, De Cristofaro A, Antonioni M, Zuccoli P. Azlocillin versus azlocillin plus amikacin in the treatment of severe infections in intensive care unit patients. Chemioterapia 1987;6(4):286-9.
Moreno 1997 {published data only}
  • Moreno A, Vilardell J, Ricart MJ, Claramonte X, Campistol JM, Oppenheimer F. Efficacy of several empirical antibacterial treatment regimens in renal transplant patients with fever [Eficacia de varias pautas de tratamiento empirico antibacteriano en pacientes receptores de trasplante renal con fiebre]. Revista Espanola De Quimioterapia 1997;10(2):138-45.
Mouton 1990 {published data only}
  • Mouton Y, Deboscker Y, Bazin C, Fourrier F, Moulront S, Philippon A, et al. [Prospective, randomized, controlled study of imipenem-cilastatin versus cefotaxime-amikacin in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infection and septicemia at intensive care units], in French. Presse Medicale 1990;19(13):607-12.
Mouton 1995 {published data only}
  • Mouton YJ, Beuscart C, and the Meropenem Study Group. Empirical monotherapy with meropenem in serious bacterial infections. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1995;36(Suppl A):145-56.
Muller 1987 {published data only}
  • Muller EL, Pitt HA, Thompson JE Jr, Doty JE, Mann LL, Manchester B. Antibiotics in infections of the biliary tract. Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics 1987;165(4):285-92.
Naime Libien 1992 {published data only}
  • Naime LJ, Vigueras RA, Sanchez DG, Abraham JA. Clinical study to evaluate efficacy and safety of ceftizoxime compared vs penicillin-gentamicin fixed combination in the treatment of severe respiratory infections [Estudio clinico para determinar la eficacia y seguridad de ceftizoxima en comparacion con la asociacion penicilina gentamicina en el tratamiento de las infecciones respiratorias graves]. Compend Invest Clin Latinoam 1992;12(2):42-8.
Piccart 1984 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
  • Piccart M, Klastersky J, Meunier F, Lagast H, Van Laethem Y, Weerts D. Single-drug versus combination empirical therapy for gram-negative bacillary infections in febrile cancer patients with and without granulocytopenia. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1984;26(6):870-5.
Rapp 1984 {published data only}
  • Rapp RP, Young B, Foster TS, Tibbs PA, O'Neal W. Ceftazidime versus tobramycin/ticarcillin in treating hospital acquired pneumonia and bacteremia. International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1983.
  • Rapp RP, Young B, Foster TS, Tibbs PA, O'Neal W. Ceftazidime versus tobramycin/ticarcillin in treating hospital acquired pneumonia and bacteremia. Pharmacotherapy 1984;4(4):211-5.
Rasmussen 1986 {published and unpublished data}
  • Rasmussen D, Bremmelgaard A, Rasmussen F, Thorup J. Treatment of serious urological infections with cefotaxime compared to ampicillin plus netilmicin. Danish Medical Bulletin 1986;33(1):49-51.
Ribera 1996 {published and unpublished data}
  • Ribera E, Gomez-Jimenez J, Cortes E, del Valle O, Planes A, Gonzalez-Alujas T, et al. Effectiveness of cloxacillin with and without gentamicin in short-term therapy for right-sided Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. A randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 1996;125(12):969-74.
Rubinstein 1995 {published and unpublished data}
  • Rubinstein E, Lode H, Grassi C, Castelo A, Ward K, Alanko K, et al (Antibiotic Study Group). Ceftazidime monotherapy vs. Ceftriaxone/tobramycin for serious hospital- acquired gram-negative infections.. Clinical Infectious Diseases 1995;20(5):1217-28.
Sage 1987 {published data only}
  • Sage R, Nazareth B, Noone P. A prospective randomised comparison of cefotaxime vs. netilmicin vs. cefotaxime plus netilmicin in the treatment of hospitalised patients with serious sepsis. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 1987;19(3):331-7.
Sandberg 1997 {published and unpublished data}
  • Sandberg T, Alestig K, Eilard T, Ek E, Hebelka M, Johansson E, et al. Aminoglycosides do not improve the efficacy of cephalosporins for treatment of acute pyelonephritis in women. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 1997;29(2):175-9.
Sanfilippo 1989 {published data only}
  • Sanfilippo JS, Schikler KN. Mezlocillin versus penicillin and tobramycin in adolescent pelvic inflammatory disease: A prospective study. International Pediatrics 1989;4(1):53-6.
Sculier 1982 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
  • Sculier JP, Coppens L, Klastersky J. Effectiveness of mezlocillin and endotracheally administered sisomicin with or without parenteral sisomicin in the treatment of Gram-negative bronchopneumonia. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1982;9(1):63-8.
Sexton 1998 {published data only}
  • Sexton DJ, Tenenbaum MJ, Wilson WR, Steckelberg JM, Tice AD, Gilbert D, et al. Ceftriaxone once daily for four weeks compared with ceftriaxone plus gentamicin once daily for two weeks for treatment of endocarditis due to penicillin-susceptible streptococci. Endocarditis Treatment Consortium Group. Clinical Infectious Diseases 1998;27(6):1470-4.
Sieger 1997 {published data only}
  • Sieger B, Berman SJ, Geckler RW, Farkas SA, for the Meropenem Lower Respiratory Infection Group. Empiric treatment of hospital-acquired lower respiratory tract infections with meropenem or ceftazidime with tobramycin: a randomized study. Critical Care Medicine 1997;25(10):1663-70.
  • Sieger B, Geckler RW. A comparison of meropenem and ceftazidime plus tobramycin in the treatment of hospital-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. 33rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobials Agents and Chemotherapy. 1993; Vol. Abstract no. 640:236.
Smith 1984 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
  • Moore RD, Smith CR, Holloway JJ, Lietman PS. Cefotaxime vs nafcillin and tobramycin for the treatment of serious infection. Comparative cost-effectiveness. Archives of Internal Medicine 1986;146(6):1153-7.
  • Moore RD, Smith CR, Lietman PS. Increased risk of renal dysfunction due to interaction of liver disease and aminoglycosides. American Journal of Medicine 1986;80(6):1093-7.
  • Smith CR, Ambinder R, Lipsky JJ, Petty BG, Israel E, Levitt R, et al. Cefotaxime compared with nafcillin plus tobramycin for serious bacterial infections. A randomized, double-blind trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 1984;101(4):469-77.
Speich 1998 {published and unpublished data}
  • Speich R, Imhof E, Vogt M, Grossenbacher M, Zimmerli W. Efficacy, safety, and tolerance of piperacillin/tazobactam compared to co-amoxiclav plus an aminoglycoside in the treatment of severe pneumonia. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 1998;17(5):313-7.
Stille 1992 {published data only}
  • Stille W, Shah PM, Ullmann U, Hoffstedt B, Kreisl C, Bommersbach B, et al. For the German and Austrian Imipenem/Cilastatin Study Group. Randomized multicenter clinical trial with imipenem/cilastatin versus cefotaxime/gentamicin in the treatment of patients with non-life-threatening infections. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 1992;11(8):683-92.
Sukoh 1994 {published and unpublished data}
  • Sukoh M, Inoue T, Morita Y, Ito K, Togano Y, Yamanaka K, et al. [Clinical evaluation of combination therapy of sulbactam/cefoperazone and aminoglycoside in respiratory tract infections]. In Japanese. Japanese Journal of Antibiotics 1994;47(2):170-80.
Takamoto 1994 {published data only}
  • Takamoto M, Ishibashi T, Toyoshima H, Tanaka H, Tamaru N, Watanabe K, et al. [Imipenem/cilastatin sodium alone or combined with amikacin sulfate in respiratory infections]. In Japanese. Japanese Journal of Antibiotics 1994;47(9):1131-44.
Thompson 1990 {published data only}
  • Thompson JE Jr, Pitt HA, Doty JE, Coleman J, Irving C. Broad spectrum penicillin as an adequate therapy for acute cholangitis. Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics 1990;171(4):275-82.
Thompson 1993 {published data only}
  • Thompson JE Jr, Bennion RS, Roettger R, Lally KP, Hopkins JA, Wilson SE. Cefepime for infections of the biliary tract. Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics 1993;177(Suppl):30-4.
Trujillo 1992 {published data only}
  • Zavala Trujillo I. Research on efficacy and safety of ceftizoxime in treating lower respiratory tract and skin and soft tissues infections [Busqueda de la eficacia y seguridad de ceftizoxima en el tratamiento de infecciones del tracto respiratorio inferior y de la piel y de los tejidos blandos]. Compend Invest Clin Latinoam 1992;12(2):31-41.
Vergnon 1985 {published data only}
  • Vergnon JM, Vincent M, Ros A, Brun Y, Brune J. [Comparative clinical trial of cefoperazone versus ampicillin + tobramycin in severe bronchopulmonary and pleural infectious pathology]. In French. Revue de Pneumologie Clinique 1985;41(3):205-11.
Verzasconi 1995 {published data only}
  • Verzasconi R, Rodoni P, Monotti R, Marone C, Mombelli G. [Amoxicillin and clavulanic acid versus amoxicillin plus gentamicin in the empirical initial treatment of urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients] [In German]. Schweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift 1995;125(33):1533-9.
Warren 1983 {published data only}
  • Warren JW, Miller EH Jr, Fitzpatrick B, DiFranco DE, Caplan ES, Tenney JH, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of cefoperazone vs. cefamandole- tobramycin in the treatment of putative, severe infections with gram- negative bacilli. Reviews in Infectious Diseases 1983;5(Suppl 1):S173-80.
Wiecek 1986 {published data only}
  • Wiecek A, Kokot F, Andrzejowska H, Grzeszczak W. [Clinical evaluation of ceftazidime and the combined administration of cefotaxime and tobramycin in the treatment of urinary tract infections. Prospective and randomized studies] In Polish. Polski Tygodnik Lekarski 1986;41(39):1242-6.
Wing 1998 {published and unpublished data}
Yellin 1993 {published and unpublished data}
  • Yellin AE, Berne TV, Appleman MD, Heseltine PN, Gill MA, Okamoto MP, et al. A randomized study of cefepime versus the combination of gentamicin and mezlocillin as an adjunct to surgical treatment in patients with acute cholecystitis. Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics 1993;177(Suppl):23-9.

References to studies excluded from this review

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Summary of findings
  4. Background
  5. Objectives
  6. Methods
  7. Results
  8. Discussion
  9. Authors' conclusions
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. Data and analyses
  12. Appendices
  13. Feedback
  14. What's new
  15. History
  16. Contributions of authors
  17. Declarations of interest
  18. Sources of support
  19. Characteristics of studies
  20. References to studies included in this review
  21. References to studies excluded from this review
  22. References to ongoing studies
  23. Additional references
  24. References to other published versions of this review
Alvarez-Lerma 2001b {published data only}
  • Alvarez-Lerma F, Insausti-Ordenana J, Jorda-Marcos R, Maravi-Poma E, Torres-Marti A, Nava J, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of piperacillin/tazobactam versus ceftazidime in association with amikacin for treating nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care patients: a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Intensive Care Medicine 2001;27(3):493-502.
Badaro 2002 {published data only}
  • Badaro R, Molinar F, Seas C, Stamboulian D, Mendonca J, Massud J, et al. A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections. Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases 2002;6(5):206-18.
Benlloch 1995 {published data only}
  • Benlloch C, Costa E, Segarra V, Velazquez JA, Ruiz CS. Systemic antibiotherapy in acute appendicitis. Comparison of three antibiotic regimes [Antibioterapia sistemica en apendicitis aguda. Comparacion entre tres pautas antibioticas]. Acta Pediatrica Espanola 1995;53(6):367-9.
Blumer 2003 {published data only}
  • Blumer JL, Minkwitz M, Saiman L, San Gabriel P, Iaconis J, Melnick D. Meropenem (MEM) compared with ceftazidime (CAZ) in combination with tobramycin (TOB) for treatment of actue pulmonary exacerbations (APE) in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) or Burkholderia cepacia (BC). Pediatric Pulmonology. 2003; Vol. Suppl 25:294.
Bodey 1976 {published data only}
  • Bodey GP, Feld R, Burgess MA. Beta-lactam antibiotics alone or in combination with gentamicin for therapy of gram-negative bacillary infections in neutropenic patients. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences 1976;271(2):179-86.
Cetto 1983 {published data only}
  • Cetto GL, Todeschini G, Caramaschi G, Vinante F, Benini F, Perona G. Empiric therapy of infections in hematologic malignancies: a prospective, randomized trial. Tumori 1983;69(2):155-60.
Chaudhary 2008 {published data only}
  • Chaudhary M, Shrivastava SM, Varughese L, Sehgal R. Efficacy and safety evaluation of fixed dose combination of cefepime and amikacin in comparison with cefepime alone in treatment of nosocomial pneumonia patients. Current Clinical Pharmacology 2008;3(2):118-22. [: ISRCTN65171867]
Chaudhary 2009 {published data only}
  • Chaudhary M, Shrivastava SM, Sehgal R. Evaluation of efficacy and safety of fixed dose combination of ceftazidime-tobramycin in comparison with ceftazidime in lower respiratory tract infections. Current Clinical Pharmacology 2009;4(1):62-6. [: ISTCRN69844323]
Ciftci 1997 {published data only}
  • Ciftci AO, Tanyel FC, Buyukpamukcu N, Hicsonmez A. Comparative trial of four antibiotic combinations for perforated appendicitis in children. European Journal of Surgery 1997;163(8):591-6.
Crenshaw 1983 {published data only}
  • Crenshaw C, Glanges E, Webber C, McReynolds DB. A prospective random study of a single agent versus combination antibiotics as therapy in penetrating injuries of the abdomen. Surgery Gynecology & Obstetrics 1983;156(3):289-94.
Croce 1993 {published data only}
  • Croce M, Fabian TC, Stewart RM, Pritchard FE, Minard G, Trenthem L, et al. Empiric monotherapy versus combination therapy of nosocomial pneumonia in trauma patients. The Journal of Trauma 1993;35(2):303-9.
De Louvois 1992 {published data only}
  • De Louvois J, Dagan R, Tessin I. A comparison of ceftazidime and aminoglycoside based regimens as empirical treatment in 1316 cases of suspected sepsis in the newborn. European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases--Neonatal Sepsis Study Group. European Journal of Pediatrics 1992;151(12):876-84.
Extermann 1995 {published data only}
  • Extermann M, Regamey C, Humair L, Murisier F, Rhyner K, Vonwiller HM. Initial treatment of sepsis in non-neutropenic patients - ceftazidime alone versus best guess combined antibiotic therapy. Chemotherapy 1995;41:306-15.
Fainstein 1983 {published data only}
  • Fainstein V, Bodey GP, Elting L, Bolivar R, Keating MJ, McCredie KB, et al. A randomized study of ceftazidime compared to ceftazidime and tobramycin for the treatment of infections in cancer patients. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1983;12 Suppl A:101-10.
Fernandez 1991 {published data only}
  • Fernandez GM, Gudiol F, Rodriguez TA, Arnau C, Valdes L, Vallve C. Nosocomial pneumonia: comparative multicentre trial between monotherapy with cefotaxime and treatment with antibiotic combinations. Infection 1991;19(Suppl 6):S320-5.
Foord 1985 {published data only}
Gentry 1980 {published data only}
  • Gentry LO, Wood BA, Martin MD, Smythe J. Cefamandole alone and combined with gentamicin or tobramycin in the treatment of acute pyelonephritis. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 1980;suppl(25):96-100.
Gentry 1984 {published data only}
Gentry 1985 {published data only}
Gerber 1989 {published data only}
  • Gerber B, Retzke F, Wilken H. [Effectiveness of perioperative preventive use of antibiotics with ampicillin/gentamycin or cefotiam in abdominal cesarean section]. Zentralblatt für Gynäkologie 1989;111(10):658-63.
Gilbert 1998 {published data only}
  • Gilbert DN, Lee BL, Dworkin RJ, Leggett JL, Chambers HF, Modin G, et al. A randomized comparison of the safety and efficacy of once-daily gentamicin or thrice-daily gentamicin in combination with ticarcillin-clavulanate. American Journal of Medicine 1998;105(3):182-91.
Giraud 1989 {published data only}
  • Giraud JR, Chartier M, Ciraru Vigneron N, Becue J, Landes P, Leng JJ, et al. [A comparison of the efficacy of and tolerance to Augmentin used alone and as one of three drugs used to treat acute upper genital tract infections. Results of a multicentre trial 152 cases] [Comparaison de l'efficacite et de la tolerance de l'Augmentine en monotherapie versus triple association dans le traitment des infections genitales hautes aigues. Resultats d'une etude multicentrique portant sur 152 cas]. Contraception, Fertilité, Sexualité 1989;17(10):941-8.
Gold 1985 {published data only}
  • Gold R, Overmeyer A, Knie B, Fleming PC, Levison H. Controlled trial of ceftazidime vs. ticarcillin and tobramycin in the treatment of acute respiratory exacerbations in patients with cystic fibrosis. Pediatric Infectious Disease 1985;4(2):172-7.
Gomez 1990b {published data only}
  • Gomez J, Moldenhauer F, Ruiz Gomez J, Ros CM, Martinez Hernandez J, Canteras M, et al. Monotherapy versus antibiotic combinations in bacteremias in an internal medicine department. A prospective study in 1987 [Monoterapia frente a combinaciones antibioticas en las bacteriemias de un departamento de medicina interna. estudio prospectivo durante 1987]. Revista Espanola de Microbiologia Clinica 1990;5(2):89-93.
Greco 1989 {published data only}
  • Greco T. Treatment of nosocomial pneumonia: monotherapy versus combination therapy. Geriatrics 1989;44 Suppl A:28-31.
Gribble 1983 {published data only}
  • Gribble MJ, Chow AW, Naiman SC, Smith JA, Bowie WR, Sacks SL, et al. Prospective randomized trial of piperacillin monotherapy versus carboxypenicillin-aminoglycoside combination regimens in the empirical treatment of serious bacterial infections. 21st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1981.
  • Gribble MJ, Chow AW, Naiman SC, Smith JA, Bowie WR, Sacks SL, et al. Prospective randomized trial of piperacillin monotherapy versus carboxypenicillin-aminoglycoside combination regimens in the empirical treatment of serious bacterial infections. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1983;24(3):388-93.
Haffejee 1984 {published data only}
  • Haffejee IE. A therapeutic trial of cefotaxime versus penicillin-gentamicin for severe infections in children. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1984;14 Suppl B:147-52.
Hall 1988 {published data only}
  • Hall MA, Ducker DA, Lowes JA, McMichael J, Clarke P, Rowe D, et al. A randomised prospective comparison of cefotaxime versus netilmicin/penicillin for treatment of suspected neonatal sepsis. Drugs 1988;35(Suppl 2):169-77.
Hammerberg 1989 {published data only}
  • Hammerberg O, Kurnitzki C, Watts J, Rosenbloom D. Randomized trial using piperacillin versus ampicillin and amikacin for treatment of premature neonates with risk factors for sepsis. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 1989;8(3):241-4.
Hanson 1982 {published data only}
  • Hanson B, Coppens L, Klastersky J. Comparative studies of ticarcillin and mezlocillin plus sisomicin in Gram-negative bacillary bacteraemia and bronchopneumonia. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1982;10(4):335-41.
Hoogkamp 1983 {published data only}
  • Hoogkamp-Korstanje JA, van der Laag J. Piperacillin and tobramycin in the treatment of Pseudomonas lung infections in cystic fibrosis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1983;12(2):175-83.
Iakovlev 1997 {published data only}
  • Iakovlev SV, Shakhova TV, Dvoretskii LI, Romanovskii I, Eremina LV, Koroleva TA, et al. [Use of piperacillin/tazobactam as empirical monotherapy in the treatment of bacterial infections in a resuscitation department]. Antibiotiki i Khimioterapia 1997;42(2):33-7.
Iakovlev 2000 {published data only}
  • Iakovlev SV, Dvoretskii LI, Shakhova TV. [The clinical efficacy of ticarcillin/clavulanate in severe pneumonia]. Antibiotiki i Khimioterapia 2000;45(3):30-4.
Iakovlev 2006 {published data only}
  • Iakovlev SV, Beloborodov VB, Sidorenko SV, Iakovlev VP, Grigor'ev KB, Eliseeva EV, et al. Multicentre study of comparative efficacy of meropenem and combined regimens for empirical antibacterial therapy of severe nosocomial infections: results of clinical and pharmacoeconomic analysis. Antibiotiki i khimioterapii︠a︡ 2006;51(7):15-27.
Ker 1989 {published data only}
  • Ker CG, Hou MF, Chen JS, Lee KT, Sheen PC, Akbary MA. A comparative study of cefotaxime sodium versus a combination of cefapirin and gentamicin in the prophylactic treatment of patients undergoing cholecystectomy. Methods and Findings in Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology 1989;11(11):711-5.
Krumpe 1999 {published data only}
  • Krumpe PE, Cohn S, Garreltes J, Ramirez J, Coulter H, Haverstock D, et al. Intravenous and oral mono- or combination-therapy in the treatment of severe infections: ciprofloxacin versus standard antibiotic therapy. Ciprofloxacin Study Group. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1999;43(Suppl A):117-28.
Ludwig 1980 {published data only}
  • Ludwig G, Knebel L. Cefotaxime in urinary tract infections--comparative clinical studies with gentamicin and with cefoxitin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1980;6 Suppl A:207-11.
Maller 1991 {published data only}
  • Maller R, Ahrne H, Eilard T, Eriksson I, Lausen I. Efficacy and safety of amikacin in systemic infections when given as a single daily dose or in two divided doses. Scandinavian Amikacin Once Daily Study Group. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1991;27(Suppl C):121-8.
Mangi 1988 {published data only}
McArdle 1987 {published data only}
  • McArdle C, Morran C, Greig J, Mason B, Haddock G, Sleigh J, et al. Comparison of cefotetan and gentamicin/ampicillin in high-risk biliary tract surgery. Chemioterapia 1987;6(2 Suppl):593-4.
McCarty 1988 {published data only}
McLaughlin 1983 {published data only}
  • McLaughlin FJ, Matthews WJ Jr, Strieder DJ, Sullivan B, Taneja A, Murphy P, et al. Clinical and bacteriological responses to three antibiotic regimens for acute exacerbations of cystic fibrosis: ticarcillin-tobramycin, azlocillin-tobramycin, and azlocillin-placebo. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1983;147(3):559-67.
  • McLaughlin FJ, Matthews WJ, Jr, Strieder DJ, Sullivan B, Goldmann DA. Randomized, double-blind evaluation of azlocillin for the treatment of pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1983;11(Suppl B):195-203.
Mondorf 1987 {published data only}
  • Mondorf A, Mondorf W, Banzer S. A multiple-center comparative study of the kidney tolerance of ceftazidime versus cefotaxime and tobramycin. Chemioterapia 1987;6(2 Suppl):331-2.
Mondorf 1989 {published data only}
  • Mondorf AW, Bonsiepe C, Mondorf W. Randomized multi center study comparing nephrotoxicity of ceftazidime versus the combination of piperacillin and netilmicin with and without furosemide. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 1989;252:307-12.
Moreno-Martinez 1998 {published data only}
  • Moreno Martinez A, Mensa J, Martinez JA, Marco F, Vila J, Almela M, et al. Cefixime versus amoxicillin plus netilmicin in the treatment of community-acquired non-complicated acute pyelonephritis. Medicina Clinica 1998;111(14):521-4.
Mouton 1985 {published data only}
  • Mouton Y, Deboscker Y, Beuscart C, Beaucaire G, Fourrier A. Third generation cephalosporins in combination with aminoglycosides or in monotherapy for life-threatening infections in an intensive care unit. 25th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1985:Abstract no. 958.
Oblinger 1982 {published data only}
  • Oblinger MJ, Bowers JT, Sande MA, Mandell GL. Moxalactam therapy vs. standard antimicrobial therapy for selected serious infections. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1982;4(Suppl):S639-49.
Odio 1987 {published data only}
  • Odio CM, Umana MA, Saenz A, Salas JL, McCracken GH. Comparative efficacy of ceftazidime vs. carbenicillin and amikacin for treatment of neonatal septicemia. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal 1987;6(4):371-7.
Padoan 1987 {published data only}
  • Padoan R, Cambisano W, Costantini D, Crossignani RM, Danza ML, Trezzi G, et al. Ceftazidime monotherapy vs. combined therapy in Pseudomonas pulmonary infections in cystic fibrosis. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal 1987;6(7):648-53.
Paoletti 1989 {published data only}
  • Paoletti V, Mammarella A, Mariani A, Filippello CP, Franchino L, Barlattani M. Netilmicin in the treatment of infections of the lower urinary tract [La netilimicina nel trattamento delle infeziono delle basse vie urinarie]. Clinical Therapeutics 1989;128(6):405-9.
Pereira 2009 {published data only}
  • Pereira CA, Petrilli AS, Carlesse FA, Luisi FA, da Silva KV, de Martino Lee ML. Cefepime monotherapy is as effective as ceftriaxone plus amikacin in pediatric patients with cancer and high-risk febrile neutropenia in a randomized comparison. Journal of Microbiology, Immunology, and Infection 2009;42(2):141-7.
Rodloff 1998 {published data only}
  • Rodloff AC, Kujath P, Lunstedt B, Gaus W. Comparative study of the cost-effectiveness of initial therapy with imipenem/cilastatin in secondary peritonitis. Chirurgia 1998;69(10):1093-100.
Romanelli 2002 {published data only}
  • Romanelli G, Cravarezza P, Pozzi A, Franchino L, Ravizzola G, Zulli R, et al. Carbapenems in the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized elderly patients: a comparative study against standard therapy. Journal of Chemotherapy 2002;14(6):609-17.
Schoengut 1983 {published data only}
  • Schoengut H, Jelinek R. Comparative study of the effects of ceftazidime compared with tobramycin plus cefamandole in the treatment of gall bladder empyema. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1983;12 Suppl A:219-22.
Schuler 1995 {published data only}
  • Schuler D, and the Meropenem Paediatric Study Group. Safety and efficacy of meropenem in hospitalised children: randomised comparison with cefotaxime, alone and combined with metronidazole or amikacin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1995;36(Suppl A):99-108.
Scott 1987 {published data only}
  • Scott SD, Saddler B, Lowes JA, Karran SJ. Comparison of cefotetan versus combination therapy in peritonitis and serious intra-abdominal sepsis. Chemioterapia 1987;6(2 Suppl):475-6.
Sexton 1984 {published data only}
  • Sexton DJ, Wlodaver CG, Tobey LE, Finn LA, Chubb JM. Ceftazidime therapy for Gram-negative bone and joint infections. 24th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1984; Vol. Abstract no. 1213:305.
Sheftel 1986 {published data only}
  • Sheftel TG, Mader JT. Randomized evaluation of ceftazidime or ticarcillin and tobramycin for the treatment of osteomyelitis caused by gram-negative bacilli. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1986;29(1):112-5.
Smith 1999 {published data only}
  • Smith AL, Doershuk C, Goldmann D, Gore E, Hilman B, Marks M, et al. Comparison of a beta-lactam alone versus beta-lactam and an aminoglycoside for pulmonary exacerbation in cystic fibrosis. Journal of Pediatrica 1999;134(4):413-21.
Solberg 1995 {published data only}
  • Solberg CO, Sjursen H. Safety and efficacy of meropenem in patients with septicaemia: a randomised comparison with ceftazidime, alone or combined with amikacin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1995;36(Suppl A):157-66.
Solomkin 1986 {published data only}
  • Solomkin JS, Cocchetto DM. Ceftazidime versus tobramycin plus ticarcillin in the treatment of soft-tissue infections. Clinical Therapeutics 1986;9(1):123-34.
Stack 1985 {published data only}
  • Stack BHR, Geddes DM, Williams KJ, Dinwiddie R, Selkon JB, Godfrey RC, for the British Thoracic Society Research Committee. Ceftazidime compared with gentamicin and carbenicillin in patients with cystic fibrosis, pulmonary pseudomonas infection, and an exacerbation of respiratory symptoms. Thorax 1985;40(5):358-63.
Tally 1986 {published data only}
  • Tally FP, Kellum JM, Ho JL, O'Donnell TF, Barza M, Gorbach SL. Randomized prospective study comparing moxalactam and cefoxitin with or without tobramycin for the treatment of serious surgical infections. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1986;29(2):244-9.
Thompson 1980 {published data only}
  • Thompson SE, Hager WD, Wong KH, Lopez B, Ramsey C, Allen SD, et al. The microbiology and therapy of acute pelvic inflammatory disease in hospitalized patients. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 1980;136(2):179-86.
Vazquez 1994 {published data only}
  • Vazquez Vela Sanchez G, De Leon Zavala J, Ochoa Cozares M. Comparative study of two preventive antibiotic programs for treatment of open fractures [Estudio comparativo de dos esquemas de antibioticos para la prevencion de la infeccion en las fracturas expuestas]. Revista Mexicana de Trastornos Alimentarios 1994;8(5):263-4.
Vetter 1987 {published data only}
  • Vetter N, Feist H, Armbruster C, Drlicek M. Comparison of the effectiveness of ceftazidime and cefazolin/tobramycin in patients with inflammatory diseases of the lower respiratory tract. In German [Efficacy of ceftazidime and cefazolin/tobramycin in lower respiratory tract infections]. Infection 1987;15(Suppl 4):S192-4.
  • Vetter N, Feist H, Muhar F, Williams KJ. A comparative study of the efficacy of ceftazidime versus cefazolin and tobramycin in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1983;12(Suppl A):35-9.
Vetter 1992 {published data only}
  • Vetter N. Efficacy of meropenem in the treatment of respiratory tract infection: a comparative evaluation. Journal of Chemotherapy. 1993; Vol. 5 Suppl 1.
  • Vetter N. Efficacy of meropenem in the treatment of respiratory tract infection:a comparative evaluation. Proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Congress of Chemotherapy. 1992:175.
Watanakunakorn 1997 {published data only}
  • Watanakunakorn C, Baird IM. Prognostic factors in Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis and results of therapy with a penicillin and gentamicin. The American Journal of Medical Sciences 1977;273(2):133-9.
Yildirim 2008 {published data only}
  • Yildirim I, Aytac S, Ceyhan M, Cetin M, Tuncer M, Cengiz AB, et al. Piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin versus carbapenem monotherapy as empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in childhood hematological malignancies. International Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 2008;25(4):291-9.

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Summary of findings
  4. Background
  5. Objectives
  6. Methods
  7. Results
  8. Discussion
  9. Authors' conclusions
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. Data and analyses
  12. Appendices
  13. Feedback
  14. What's new
  15. History
  16. Contributions of authors
  17. Declarations of interest
  18. Sources of support
  19. Characteristics of studies
  20. References to studies included in this review
  21. References to studies excluded from this review
  22. References to ongoing studies
  23. Additional references
  24. References to other published versions of this review
Allan 1985
  • Allan JD, Moellering RC. Management of infections caused by gram-negative bacilli: the role of antimicrobial combinations. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1985;7 Suppl 4:559-71.
Bach 1980
  • Bach VT, Webb DW, Thadepalli H. Antimicrobial synergism of piperacillin and gentamicin against P seudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus faecalis. Chemotherapy 1980;26(1):21-7. [PUBMED: 6766372]
Baddour 2005
  • Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, Fowler VG Jr, Bolger AF, Levison ME, et al. Infective endocarditis: diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of complications: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology, Stroke, and Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, American Heart Association: endorsed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Circulation 2005;111(23):e394-434. [PUBMED: 15956145]
Barza 1996
  • Barza M, Ioannidis JP, Cappelleri JC, Lau J. Single or multiple daily doses of aminoglycosides: a meta-analysis. BMJ 1996;312(7027):338-45.
Bliziotis 2005
  • Bliziotis IA, Samonis G, Vardakas KZ, Chrysanthopoulou S, Falagas ME. Effect of aminoglycoside and beta-lactam combination therapy versus beta-lactam monotherapy on the emergence of antimicrobial resistance: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2005;41(2):149-58. [PUBMED: 15983909]
Bliziotis 2011
  • Bliziotis IA, Petrosillo N, Michalopoulos A, Samonis G, Falagas ME. Impact of definitive therapy with beta-lactam monotherapy or combination with an aminoglycoside or a quinolone for Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia. PloS one 2011;6(10):e26470. [PUBMED: 22046290]
Bone 1992
Dellinger 2008
  • Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Critical Care Medicine 2008;36(1):296-327. [PUBMED: 18158437]
Elphick 2005
Falagas 2006
  • Falagas ME, Matthaiou DK, Bliziotis IA. The role of aminoglycosides in combination with a beta-lactam for the treatment of bacterial endocarditis: a meta-analysis of comparative trials. The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2006;57(4):639-47. [PUBMED: 16501057]
Giamarellou 1984
  • Giamarellou H, Zissis NP, Tagari G, Bouzos J. In vitro synergistic activities of aminoglycosides and new beta-lactams against multiresistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1984;25(4):534-6.
Giamarellou 1986
Higgins 2011
  • Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org..
Hilf 1989
  • Hilf M, Yu VL, Sharp J, Zuravleff JJ, Korvick JA, Muder RR. Antibiotic therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia: outcome correlations in a prospective study of 200 patients. American Journal of Medicine 1989;87(5):540-6.
Ibrahim 2000
  • Ibrahim EH, Sherman G, Ward S, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. The influence of inadequate antimicrobial treatment of bloodstream infections on patient outcomes in the ICU setting. Chest 2000;118(1):146-55.
Klastersky 1976
  • Klastersky J, Meunier-Carpentier F, Prevost JM, Staquet M. Synergism between amikacin and cefazolin against Klebsiella: in vitro studies and effect on the bactericidal activity of serum. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1976;134(3):271-6.
Klastersky 1982
  • Klastersky J, Zinner SH. Synergistic combinations of antibiotics in gram-negative bacillary infections. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1982;4(2):294-301.
Korzeniowski 1978
  • Korzeniowski OM, Wennersten C, Moellering RC Jr, Sande MA. Penicillin-netilmicin synergism against Streptococcus faecalis. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1978;13(3):430-4. [PUBMED: 122522]
Kumar 2010
  • Kumar A, Safdar N, Kethireddy S, Chateau D. A survival benefit of combination antibiotic therapy for serious infections associated with sepsis and septic shock is contingent only on the risk of death: a meta-analytic/meta-regression study. Critical Care Medicine 2010;38(8):1651-64. [PUBMED: 20562695]
Kumar 2010b
  • Kumar A, Zarychanski R, Light B, Parrillo J, Maki D, Simon D, et al. Early combination antibiotic therapy yields improved survival compared with monotherapy in septic shock: a propensity-matched analysis. Critical Care Medicine 2010;38(9):1773-85.
Leibovici 1997
  • Leibovici L, Paul M, Poznanski O, Drucker M, Samra Z, Konigsberger H, et al. Monotherapy versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination treatment for gram-negative bacteremia: a prospective, observational study. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1997;41(5):1127-33.
Leibovici 1998
  • Leibovici L, Shraga I, Drucker M, Konigsberger H, Samra Z, Pitlik SD. The benefit of appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment in patients with bloodstream infection. Journal of Internal Medicine 1998;244(5):379-86.
Leibovici 2010
  • Leibovici L. Aminoglycoside-containing antibiotic combinations for the treatment of bacterial endocarditis: an evidence-based approach. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 2010;36 Suppl 2:S46-9. [PUBMED: 21130606]
Levy 1979
  • Levy J, Klastersky J. Synergism between amikacin and cefazolin against Staphylococcus aureus: a comparative study of oxacillin-sensitive and oxacillin-resistant strains. The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1979;5(4):365-73. [PUBMED: 489490]
Mandell 2004
  • Mandell GL, Bennet JE, Dolin R, editors. Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 6th Edition. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone, 2004.
Manian 1996
  • Manian FA, Meyer L, Jenne J, Owen A, Taff T. Loss of antimicrobial susceptibility in aerobic gram-negative bacilli repeatedly isolated from patients in intensive-care units. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 1996;17(4):222-6.
Marcus 2011
  • Marcus R, Paul M, Elphick H, Leibovici L. Clinical implications of beta-lactam-aminoglycoside synergism: systematic review of randomised trials. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 2011;37(6):491-503. [PUBMED: 21292449]
Milatovic 1987
Moellering 1986
  • Moellering RC, Jr, Eliopoulos GM, Allan JD. Beta-lactam/aminoglycoside combinations: interactions and their mechanisms. American Journal of Medicine 1986;80(5C):30-4.
Moore 2001
  • Moore RB, Shapiro NI, Wolfe RE, Smith ES, Bermudez S, Bates D. The value of sirs criteria in ed patients with presumed infection in predicting mortality. Academic Emergency Medicine 2001;8(5):477.
Paul 2005
  • Paul M, Leibovici L. Combination antibiotic therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteraemia. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2005; Vol. 5, issue 4:192-3; discussion 193-4. [PUBMED: 15792730]
Paul 2006a
  • Paul M, Andreassen S, Tacconelli E, Nielsen AD, Almanasreh N, Frank U, et al. on behalf of the TREAT Study Group. Improving empirical antibiotic treatment using TREAT, a computerized decision support system: cluster randomised trial. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2006;58(6):1238-45.
Paul 2009
  • Paul M, Leibovici L. Combination antimicrobial treatment versus monotherapy: the contribution of meta-analyses. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America 2009;23(2):277-93. [PUBMED: 19393909]
Paul 2010
  • Paul M, Shani V, Muchtar E, Kariv G, Robenshtok E, Leibovici L. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of appropriate empiric antibiotic therapy for sepsis. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 2010;54(11):4851-63. [PUBMED: 20733044]
Paul 2010a
  • Paul M, Leibovici L. Odds ratios are contingent on event rates. Critical Care Medicine 2010; Vol. 38, issue 12:2425-6; author reply 2426-7. [PUBMED: 21088518]
Paul 2013
Rangel-Frausto 1995
  • Rangel-Frausto MS, Pittet D, Costigan M, Hwang T, Davis CS, Wenzel RP. The natural history of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). A prospective study. Journal of the American Medical Association 1995;273(2):117-23.
Russell 2000
  • Russell JA, Singer J, Bernard GR, Wheeler A, Fulkerson W, Hudson L, et al. Changing pattern of organ dysfunction in early human sepsis is related to mortality. Critical Care Medicine 2000;28(10):3405-11.
Safdar 2004
Saleh-Mghir 1992
  • Saleh-Mghir A, Cremieux AC, Vallois JM, Muffat-Joly M, Devine C, Carbon C. Optimal aminoglycoside dosing regimen for penicillin-tobramycin synergism in experimental Streptococcus adjacens endocarditis. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1992;36(11):2403-7. [PUBMED: 1489184]
Sande 1974
  • Sande MA, Irvin RG. Penicillin-aminoglycoside synergy in experimental Streptococcus viridans endocarditis. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 1974;129(5):572-6. [PUBMED: 4823583]
Sande 1975
  • Sande MA, Johnson ML. Antimicrobial therapy of experimental endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1975;131(4):367-75.
Sande 1976
Schulz 1995
  • Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273(5):408-12.
Staa 2012
  • Staa TP, Goldacre B, Gulliford M, Cassell J, Pirmohamed M, Taweel A, et al. Pragmatic randomised trials using routine electronic health records: putting them to the test. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2012;344:e55. [PUBMED: 22315246]
Sun 2011
  • Sun HY, Fujitani S, Quintiliani R, Yu VL. Pneumonia due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa: part II: antimicrobial resistance, pharmacodynamic concepts, and antibiotic therapy. Chest 2011;139(5):1172-85. [PUBMED: 21540216]
Torres 1993
  • Torres C, Tenorio C, Lantero M, Gastanares MJ, Baquero F. High-level penicillin resistance and penicillin-gentamicin synergy in Enterococcus faecium. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1993;37(11):2427-31. [PUBMED: 8285628]
Weinstein 1985
  • Weinstein L. Gram-negative bacterial infections: a look at the past, a view of the present, and a glance at the future. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1985;7 Suppl 4:538-44.
Wood 2008

References to other published versions of this review

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Summary of findings
  4. Background
  5. Objectives
  6. Methods
  7. Results
  8. Discussion
  9. Authors' conclusions
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. Data and analyses
  12. Appendices
  13. Feedback
  14. What's new
  15. History
  16. Contributions of authors
  17. Declarations of interest
  18. Sources of support
  19. Characteristics of studies
  20. References to studies included in this review
  21. References to studies excluded from this review
  22. References to ongoing studies
  23. Additional references
  24. References to other published versions of this review
Paul 2003
  • Paul M, Schlesinger A, Grozinsky-Glasberg S, Soares-Weiser K, Leibovici L. Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropenia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003038]
Paul 2004
  • Paul M, Benuri-Silbiger I, Soares-Weiser K, Leibovici L. Beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for sepsis in immunocompetent patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 2004;328(7441):668-72.
Paul 2006
  • Paul M, Silbiger I, Grozinsky S, Soares-Weiser K, Leibovici L. Beta lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for sepsis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003344.pub2]