ANTIBIOTICS FOR TREATING INFECTED BURN WOUNDS

Author(s)

Lu J
West China Hospital of S.U, Chengdu, China

OBJECTIVES: To assess effectiveness and harm of antibiotics for treating people with infected burn wounds. METHODS: In February 2017 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL Plus; Wan Fang Database;CBM; CNKI. We also searched clinical trial registries to identify unpublished and ongoing studies, and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify relevant studies. Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Data was analysed by Revman 5.3. RESULTS: We included five RCTs with a total of 202 participants. For clincal cure, there was no clear evidence of a difference when teicoplanin compared with flucloxacillin (RR 1.15, 95%CI 0.81-1.63), vancomycin (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.91-1.09) and vancomycin plus aztreonam (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.82-1.22), as well as when ceftaroline compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam (RR 1.18, 95%CI 0.95-1.45); ceftazidime compared with aminoglycoside (RR 1.39, 95%CI 0.86-2.25). For bacteriological cure, there was no clear evidence of a difference when teicoplanin compared with flucloxacillin (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.65-1.85), or vancomycin (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.91-1.09) , as well as when ceftazidime compared with aminoglycoside (RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.35-2.48). For development of resistant organisms, there was no clear evidence of a difference when teicoplanin compared with flucloxacillin (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.16-7.32) or when ceftazidime compared with aminoglycoside (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09-1.59).For adverse events, there was no clear difference when compared teicoplanin to flucloxacillin (RR 1.18, 95%CI 0.68-2.02), or vancomycin (RR 0.09, 95%CI 0.01-1.55). CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear which type of antibiotic is superior to treat infected burn. Despite the absence of the evidence, antibiotic therapy is common when burn wounds infection is suspected or determined. Further large, adequately powered and robust RCTs examining the active comparator and outcomes relating to cure, healing, infection-related mortality, superinfection are needed.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2018-09, ISPOR Asia Pacific 2018, Tokyo, Japan

Value in Health, Vol. 21, S2 (September 2018)

Code

PIN6

Topic

Clinical Outcomes

Topic Subcategory

Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy

Disease

Infectious Disease (non-vaccine)

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×