• Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2004

    Review Meta Analysis

    Third generation cephalosporins versus conventional antibiotics for treating acute bacterial meningitis.

    • K Prasad, T Singhal, N Jain, and P K Gupta.
    • Department of Medicine, College of Medicine & Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, P.O Box 22979, Manama, Bahrain.
    • Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2004 Jan 1 (2): CD001832.

    BackgroundAntibiotic therapy for suspected acute bacterial meningitis (ABM) needs to be started immediately, even before the results of cerebrospinal fluid culture and antibiotic sensitivity are available. It is not clear whether the available evidence supports the choice of third generation cephalosporins over the conventional antibiotic combination of ampicillin and chloramphenicol. Immediate institution of effective treatment through intravenous route may reduce death and disability in survivors.ObjectivesThe objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness and safety of the third generation cephalosporins and conventional treatment with penicillin/ampicillin-chloramphenicol in patients with community-acquired acute bacterial meningitis.Search StrategyWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2003) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group trials register, MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2003), and EMBASE (January 1990 to November 2003). We also searched the reference list of review articles and textbook chapters and contacted experts for any unpublished trials.Selection CriteriaRandomised controlled trials comparing ceftriaxone or cefotaxime with conventional antibiotics as empirical therapy of acute bacterial meningitis.Data Collection And AnalysisTwo independent reviewers applied the study selection criteria, assessed methodological quality and extracted data.Main ResultsEighteen trials included 993 patients in the analysis. The kappa (chance-corrected agreement) between the observers in study selection and data extraction was substantial. There was no heterogeneity of results among the studies in any outcome except diarrhoea. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the risk of death (risk difference -1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -4% to +3%), risk of deafness (risk difference -4%; 95% CI -9% to +1%), risk of treatment failure (risk difference -2%; 95% CI -5% to +2%). However, there were significantly decreased risk of culture positivity of CSF after 10-48 hours (risk difference -6%; 95% CI -11% to 0%) and statistically significant increased in the risk of diarrhoea between the groups (risk difference +8%; 95% CI +3% to +13%) with the third generation cephalosporins. The risk of neutropenia and skin rash were not significantly different between the two groups. However, all the studies have been conducted in the eighties except two, which have been conducted in 1993 and 1996.Reviewers' ConclusionsAlthough the review shows no clinically important difference between ceftriaxone or cefotaxime and conventional antibiotics, the studies are done decades ago and may not apply to current routine practice. However, in situations where ceftriaxone or cefotaxime are not available or affordable, ampicillin-chloramphenicol combination may be used as an alternative. The antimicrobial resistance pattern against various antibiotics needs to be closely monitored in developing as well as developed countries. The factors determining overuse of antibiotics in developing countries and educational interventions to limit such practice are priority area for research in developing countries.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.