MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4408921841 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd016039

Antibiotic treatment for non-tuberculous mycobacteria lung infection in people with cystic fibrosis

2025· review· en· W4408921841 sur OpenAlexaff
Nikki Jahnke, Valerie Waters, Félix Ratjen, Sherie Smith, Ian Hambleton, Naomi Scharf

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMycobacterium research and diagnosis
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineCystic fibrosisInternal medicineIntensive care medicineAntibioticsClinical trialRandomized controlled trialRegimen

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a common genetic condition in which progressive lung disease leads to morbidity and mortality. Non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are mycobacteria, other than those in the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex, and are commonly found in the environment. NTM pulmonary infections affect a significant proportion of people with CF worldwide, which may be associated with a more rapid decline in lung function and even death in certain circumstances. Although there are guidelines for the antimicrobial treatment of NTM lung disease, there is no specific evidence from studies of people with CF to inform recommendations for their treatment. It is not clear which antibiotic regimen may be the most effective in the treatment of people with CF. This is an update of a previous review. OBJECTIVES: To compare antibiotic treatment to no antibiotic treatment, or to compare different combinations of antibiotic treatment, for suppressing or eradicating non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) lung infections in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, online databases (MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed) and online trials registries (www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry). We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. The date of the last search was 14 October 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs with a parallel design; non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) with the following designs: instrumental variables; regression discontinuity; interrupted time series; difference-in-differences and fixed-effect designs. These should have compared antibiotic treatment to no antibiotic treatment, or different combinations of antibiotic treatment, in people with CF of any age with NTM pulmonary infection. OUTCOMES: We aimed to assess the critical outcomes of microbiological clearance of NTM in sputum, quality of life, adverse events, lung function and pulmonary exacerbations. Further, we planned to assess important outcomes of mortality, nutritional parameters, hospitalisations and use of additional oral antibiotics. RISK OF BIAS: We planned to use the recommended Cochrane tools for RCTs or NRSIs. These were not suitable for the included study, so we assessed the risk of bias using a tool for case series developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We were only able to report the limited results from the single included study narratively. We assessed the certainty of the results using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: Due to a lack of studies of the types planned, we were only able to include a single retrospective case review, which presented data as the change from baseline for some outcomes. It was conducted in Sweden in 2003 and included 11 participants with CF and NTM infection (three males) aged between 10 and 36 years. The study identified the specific cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) mutation for 10 participants. All participants were chronically colonised with Pseudomonas aeruginosa; 10 participants had been vaccinated with the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine. Antibiotic selection differed amongst participants and was determined according to in vitro susceptibility testing. Antibiotics included isoniazid, ethambutol, rifampicin (or rifabutin), amikacin, clarithromycin, ciprofloxacin, streptomycin and clofazimine. Of note, at the start of the study, isoniazid was the standard treatment for NTM, and three participants received this drug; however, investigators stated that following severe adverse effects, the drug was excluded in the latter part of the 1980s. Investigators reported data for lung function, weight and adverse events one year before NTM diagnosis, at baseline, at completion of therapy and at the latest follow-up (ranging from one to 14 years). Treatment was considered effective if NTM was cleared and cultures remained negative throughout treatment; it was considered to have failed if there were continued or sporadic positive cultures. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: We graded all the evidence as very low and are very uncertain of the effects of the different antibiotic regimens on any of the outcomes reported. The study reported that in 10/11 participants, microbiological cultures turned negative. They also stated that five participants reported adverse events; three reported photosensitivity to ciprofloxacin, while each of the following events was reported by one of the five participants: impaired hearing, convulsions, neuropathy and lupus erythematous. There was no consistent effect on lung function. Investigators reported that forced expiratory volume in one second increased by between 1% predicted and 46% predicted in six participants, decreased between 2% predicted and 31% predicted in four participants and remained the same in one participant. They also reported that forced vital capacity increased in eight participants by between 3% predicted and 53% predicted, and decreased in three participants by between 4% predicted and 21% predicted. Two participants died as a result of progression of CF respiratory disease two years after completion of therapy. A further participant died of gastrointestinal bleeding and renal insufficiency eight years after lung transplant which followed clearance of NTM infection (negative NTM cultures were maintained until death). Eight participants gained weight (range 3.30 kg to 14.00 kg), while three participants lost weight (range -0.90 kg to -6.00 kg). Investigators additionally reported body mass index values in three participants, which decreased minimally in two participants and increased slightly in the third participant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The very low-certainty evidence identified in this review suggests that antimicrobial treatment may lead to sputum clearance of NTM in people with CF, but may result in variable clinical response in terms of lung function. Very low-certainty evidence also suggests that adverse events may be common, necessitating close monitoring. This review highlights the need for larger, more standardised studies in order to make meaningful comparisons between treatment regimens. Although microbiological clearance seems feasible, studies should be powered to detect relevant clinical outcomes as well. FUNDING: Cochrane CF received funding from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation for a series of reviews on NTM, of which the update of this review is one. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this updated version of the review was registered at PROSPERO in November 2023.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,013
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,042

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,038
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,004
Bibliométrie0,0060,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0130,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,055
Tête enseignante GPT0,385
Écart entre enseignants0,330 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetMycobacterium research and diagnosisTravaux en français237 207