MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Procalcitonin to initiate or discontinue antibiotics in acute respiratory tract infections

2012· reference-entry· en· W4238786993 on OpenAlexaff
Philipp Schüetz, Beat P. Müller‐Stich, Mirjam Christ‐Crain, Daiana Stolz, Michael Tamm, Lila Bouadma, Charles Edouard Luyt, Michel Wolff, Jean Chastre, Florence Tubach, Kristina B Kristoffersen, Olaf Burkhardt, Tobias Welte, Stefan Schröder, Vandack Nobre, Wei Long, Neera Bhatnagar, Heiner C. Bucher, Matthias Briel

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2012
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcalcitoninMedicineRespiratory tract infectionsIntensive care medicineAntibioticsMeta-analysisInternal medicineMEDLINEClinical trialRandomized controlled trialPediatricsSepsisRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) comprise a large and heterogeneous group of infections including bacterial, viral and other aetiologies. In recent years, procalcitonin - the prohormone of calcitonin - has emerged as a promising marker for the diagnosis of bacterial infections and for improving decisions about antibiotic therapy. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the feasibility of using procalcitonin for starting and stopping antibiotics in different patient populations with acute respiratory infections and different settings ranging from primary care to emergency departments (EDs), hospital wards and intensive care units (ICUs). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review based on individual patient data was to assess the safety and efficacy of using procalcitonin for starting or stopping antibiotics over a large range of patients with varying severity of ARIs and from different clinical settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2011, Issue 2) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to May 2011) to identify suitable trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of adult participants with ARIs who received an antibiotic treatment either based on a procalcitonin algorithm or usual care/guidelines. Trials were excluded if they exclusively focused on paediatric patients or if they used procalcitonin for another purpose than to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two teams of review authors independently evaluated the methodology and extracted data from primary studies. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and treatment failure at 30 days. For the primary care setting, treatment failure was defined as death, hospitalisation, ARI-specific complications, recurrent or worsening infection, and patients reporting any symptoms of an ongoing respiratory infection at follow-up. For the ED setting, treatment failure was defined as death, ICU admission, re-hospitalisation after index hospital discharge, ARI-associated complications, and recurrent or worsening infection within 30 days of follow-up. For the ICU setting, treatment failure was defined as death within 30 days of follow-up. Secondary endpoints were antibiotic use (initiation of antibiotics, duration of antibiotics and total exposure to antibiotics (total amount of antibiotic days divided by total number of patients)), length of hospital stay for hospitalised patients, length of ICU stay for critically ill patients, and number of days with restricted activities within 14 days after randomisation for primary care patients.For the two co-primary endpoints of all-cause mortality and treatment failure, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression. The hierarchical regression model was adjusted for age and clinical diagnosis as fixed-effect. The different trials were added as random-effects into the model. We fitted corresponding linear regression models for antibiotic use. We conducted sensitivity analyses stratified by clinical setting and ARI diagnosis to assess the consistency of our results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials with 4221 participants. There were 118 deaths in 2085 patients (5.7%) assigned to procalcitonin groups compared to 134 deaths in 2126 control patients (6.3%) (adjusted OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.23). Treatment failure occurred in 398 procalcitonin group patients (19.1%) and in 466 control patients (21.9%). Procalcitonin guidance was not associated with increased mortality or treatment failure in any clinical setting, or ARI diagnosis. These results proved robust in various sensitivity analyses. Total antibiotic exposure was significantly reduced overall (median (interquartile range) from 8 (5 to 12) to 4 (0 to 8) days; adjusted difference in days, -3.47, 95% CI -3.78 to -3.17, and across all the different clinical settings and diagnoses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Use of procalcitonin to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment in patients with ARI was not associated with higher mortality rates or treatment failure. Antibiotic consumption was significantly reduced across different clinical settings and ARI diagnoses. Further high-quality research is needed to confirm the safety of this approach for non-European countries and patients in intensive care. Moreover, future studies should also establish cost-effectiveness by considering country-specific costs of procalcitonin measurement and potential savings in consumption of antibiotics and other healthcare resources, as well as secondary cost savings due to lower risk of side effects and reduced antimicrobial resistance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations264
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207