Search

Objectives: Limited data are available to guide colistin use in older adults (>65 years old). We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of colistin in this population., Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of original data from randomized control trials, cohort studies and case-control studies assessing colistin regimens with various comparisons for any infection. Original data were obtained from corresponding authors of original studies. The primary outcome was all-cause 1 month mortality; secondary outcomes included clinical and microbiological outcomes and adverse events, including acute kidney injury. Two independent reviewers screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. ORs with 95% CIs were pooled., Results: We included 38 publications (41 comparisons) reporting 2857 elderly individuals: 29 studies compared a colistin-based regimen versus another regimen (comparison 1) and 10 compared colistin monotherapy versus colistin combination (comparison 2). No significant difference in 1 month mortality was demonstrated between colistin and comparator (comparison 1, OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80-1.60; comparison 2, OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78-1.27). Clinical failure was significantly more likely with colistin-based therapy versus comparator (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.13-2.06). Acute kidney injury was also significantly more common with colistin-based combinations versus other drugs (OR 3.81, 95% CI 2.14-6.77)., Conclusions: For older adults, colistin-based therapy resulted in no mortality difference, compared with other regimens, for any infection. Clinical failure and acute kidney injury were significantly more common with colistin-based regimens. Close renal function monitoring is needed while using colistin in older adults., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Ceftazidime/avibactam is approved for complicated intra-abdominal and urinary tract infections (UTIs) based on results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data regarding its effectiveness in treating hospital-acquired infections or resistant pathogens have not been systematically compiled., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis including RCTs evaluating ceftazidime/avibactam versus comparator for the treatment of any infection. Primary outcome was 30 day all-cause mortality. Subgroups of hospital-acquired infections and specific resistance phenotypes were planned., Results: Seven publications (eight trials, 4093 patients) were included, reporting a baseline ∼25% of ESBL-carrying Enterobacteriaceae. No significant difference between ceftazidime/avibactam and comparator (mostly carbapenem) was demonstrated for 30 day all-cause mortality, late follow-up mortality and clinical response [relative risk (RR) 1.10, 95% CI 0.70-1.72, P = 0.69; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87-1.76, P = 0.25; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-1.01, P = 0.21, respectively, without significant heterogeneity]. Higher microbiological response rate was demonstrated with ceftazidime/avibactam in patients with UTI (RR 1.14, 1.0-1.29, P = 0.05, I2 = 51%). No significant difference in clinical response was demonstrated for patients with ceftazidime-resistant pathogens (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94-1.10, P = 0.66, I2 = 0%). Results for other subgroups of resistant pathogens or hospital-acquired infection were not available. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were significantly more common with ceftazidime/avibactam (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.00-1.54, P = 0.05, I2 = 0%)., Conclusions: Ceftazidime/avibactam is clinically and microbiologically as effective as carbapenems for treatment of infections in a setting of ∼25% ESBL-carrying Enterobacteriaceae. Safety of the drug should be further evaluated owing to a higher rate of SAEs compared with carbapenems. Further studies should assess the drug's effectiveness in the treatment of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae.