Combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing for acute exacerbations in chronic infection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy for acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) is usually chosen based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing of individual drugs. Combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing assesses the efficacy of drug combinations including two or three antibiotics in vitro and can often demonstrate antimicrobial efficacy against bacterial isolates even when individual antibiotics have little or no effect. Therefore, choosing antibiotics based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing could potentially improve response to treatment in people with CF with acute exacerbations. OBJECTIVES: To compare antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing to antibiotic therapy based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with CF and chronic infection with P. aeruginosa. SEARCH STRATEGY: We identified relevant trials from the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register. Most recent search: November 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to antibiotic therapy based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in CF due to chronic infection with P. aeruginosa. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors independently selected trials, assessed their quality and extracted data from eligible studies. Additionally, the authors contacted the study investigators to obtain further information. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified one study eligible for inclusion in the review. This study prospectively assessed whether the use of multiple combination bactericidal antibiotic testing (MCBT) improved clinical outcomes in participants with acute pulmonary exacerbations of CF who were infected with multiresistant bacteria. 132 participants were randomised in the study. The study investigators provided data specific to the participants who were only infected with P. aeruginosa for the primary outcome: time until next pulmonary exacerbation. For "Time to next pulmonary exacerbation" in the participants specifically infected with only P. aeruginosa, the hazard ratio was 0.82, favouring the control group (95% CI 0.44 to 1.51) (P = 0.52). The data did not provide evidence that combination susceptibility testing was superior to conventional susceptibility testing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence, limited to one study, shows that there is insufficient evidence to determine effect of choosing antibiotics based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to choosing antibiotics based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with CF with chronic P. aeruginosa infection. A large international and multicentre trial is needed to further investigate this issue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".