Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Systematic Review
21 October 2021

Antibacterial data synthesis challenges: a systematic review of treatments for complicated Gram-negative urinary tract infections

Authors: Ryan Dillon https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6817-327X [email protected], Jennifer Uyei https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4397-8554, Rajpal Singh https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9760-2152, and Eilish McCann https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7156-9390Author Info & Affiliations
Volume 10, Number 18
https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2021-0138
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: To determine the suitability of network meta-analysis (NMA) using antibacterial treatment evidence in complicated urinary tract infection. Materials & methods: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify published clinical trial data for complicated urinary tract infection treatments. We performed a feasibility assessment to determine whether the available evidence would support the creation of a robust NMA, considering key assumptions of homogeneity, similarity and consistency. Results: Twenty-five trials met eligibility criteria. Risk of bias was low, and individual studies met their primary end point(s). Assumptions central to the conduct of a robust NMA were not met. Heterogeneity was ubiquitous, including baseline pathogen, treatment and patient characteristics. Conclusion: Limited and heterogeneous data identified make the use of NMA to compare novel antibacterial agents impractical and likely unreliable.

Supplementary Material

File (supplemental material.docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest
1.
Medina M, Castillo-Pino E. An introduction to the epidemiology and burden of urinary tract infections. Ther. Adv. Urol. 11, 1756287219832172 (2019).
Google Scholar
3.
Merchant S, Sarpong EM, Magee G, Lapointe N, Gundrum J, Zilberberg M. Epidemiology, microbiology and outcomes of catheter-associated urinary tract infection and complicated urinary tract infection in the USA. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 4(Suppl. 1), S348–S348 (2017).
Google Scholar
4.
Zimlichman E, Henderson D, Tamir O et al. Health care–associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern. Med. 173(22), 2039–2046 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Kalra OP, Raizada A. Approach to a patient with urosepsis. J. Glob. Infect. Dis. 1(1), 57–63 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Sievert DM, Ricks P, Edwards JR et al. Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with healthcare-associated infections: summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009–2010. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 34(1), 1–14 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
Peleg AY, Hooper DC. Hospital-acquired infections due to Gram-negative bacteria. N. Engl. J. Med. 362(19), 1804–1813 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Hooton TM, Bradley SF, Cardenas DD et al. Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of catheter-associated urinary tract infection in adults: 2009 International Clinical Practice Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 50(5), 625–663 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Hsueh P-R, Hoban DJ, Carmeli Y et al. Consensus review of the epidemiology and appropriate antimicrobial therapy of complicated urinary tract infections in Asia-Pacific region. J. Infect. 63(2), 114–123 (2011).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Nicolle L. Complicated urinary tract infection in adults. Can. J. Infect. Dis. Med. Microbiol. 16(6), 349–360 (2005).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Urological Infections. Presented at: The EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen 2018. European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands (2018).
Google Scholar
12.
Hooton TM, Bradley SF, Cardenas DD et al. Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of catheter-associated urinary tract infection in adults: 2009 International Clinical Practice Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 50(5), 625–663 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Raman G, Avendano E, Berger S, Menon V. Appropriate initial antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients with Gram-negative infections: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect. Dis. 15, 395–395 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
Centers for Disease Control. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2019. (2019). https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/82532
Crossref
Google Scholar
15.
Food and Drug Administration. Complicated urinary tract infections: developing drugs for treatment guidance for industry (2018). https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/complicated-urinary-tract-infections-developing-drugs-treatment
Google Scholar
16.
Cope S, Zhang J, Saletan S, Smiechowski B, Jansen JP, Schmid P. A process for assessing the feasibility of a network meta-analysis: a case study of everolimus in combination with hormonal therapy versus chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. BMC Med. 12(1), 93 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
Dias S, Sutton AJ, Welton NJ, Ades AE. NICE decision support unit technical support documents. In: Heterogeneity: Subgroups, Meta-Regression, Bias and Bias-Adjustment. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London (2012). Copyright © 2012 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved.
Google Scholar
18.
Dias S, Welton N, Sutton A, Caldwell D, Lu G, Ades A. NICE DSU technical support document 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomised controlled trials. Tech. Supp. Doc. Ser. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London (2014). http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TSD4-Inconsistency.final_.15April2014.pdf
Google Scholar
19.
Patel D, Ektare V, Alemayehu B, Snedecor SJ. A practical approach to concepts and methods used to assess heterogeneity in NMA, Workshop. ISPOR, PA, USA, (2015). https://www.ispor.org/docs/default-source/presentations/342.pdf?sfvrsn=50a36301_1
Google Scholar
20.
Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health 14(4), 429–437 (2011).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M et al. AHRQ methods for effective health care. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health care program. In: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, USA (2008).
Google Scholar
22.
Higgins JGS. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011) (2011). https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/
Google Scholar
23.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339, b2700 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
24.
Carmeli Y, Armstrong J, Laud PJ et al. Ceftazidime-avibactam or best available therapy in patients with ceftazidime-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa complicated urinary tract infections or complicated intra-abdominal infections (REPRISE): a randomised, pathogen-directed, Phase III study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 16(6), 661–673 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
25.
Chaudhary M, Ayub SG, Mir MA, Group MOS. CSE-1034 versus ceftriaxone: efficacy and safety analysis from a randomized, open-labeled Phase III study in complicated urinary tract infections. J. Glob. Infect. Dis. 10(4), 188 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
26.
Hou F, Li J, Wu G et al. A randomized, controlled clinical trial on meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of bacterial infections. Chin. Med. J. 115(12), 1849–1854 (2002).
PubMed
Google Scholar
27.
Wunderink RG, Giamarellos-Bourboulis EJ, Rahav G et al. Effect and safety of meropenem-vaborbactam versus best-available therapy in patients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections: the TANGO II randomized clinical trial. Infect. Dis. Ther. 7(4), 439–455 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
28.
Motsch J, Murta De Oliveira C, Stus V et al. RESTORE-IMI 1: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing efficacy and safety of imipenem/relebactam vs colistin plus imipenem in patients with imipenem-nonsusceptible Bacterial infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 70(9), 1799–1808 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
29.
Carmignani G, De Rose AF, Olivieri L, Salvatori E, Rosignoli MT, Dionisio P. Prulifloxacin versus ciprofloxacin in the treatment of adults with complicated urinary tract infections. Urologia Int. 74(4), 326–331 (2005).
Google Scholar
30.
Connolly LE, Riddle V, Cebrik D, Armstrong ES, Miller LG. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, Phase II study of the efficacy and safety of plazomicin compared with levofloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection and acute pyelonephritis. Antimicrob. Aagents Chemother. 62(4), e01989–17 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
31.
Kaye KS, Bhowmick T, Metallidis S et al. Effect of meropenem-vaborbactam vs piperacillin-tazobactam on clinical cure or improvement and microbial eradication in complicated urinary tract infection: the TANGO I randomized clinical trial. JAMA 319(8), 788–799 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
32.
Kaye KS, Rice LB, Dane AL et al. Fosfomycin for injection (ZTI-01) versus piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection including acute pyelonephritis: ZEUS, a Phase II/III randomized trial. Clin. Infect. Dis. 69(12), 2045–2056 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
33.
Naber KG, Llorens L, Kaniga K, Kotey P, Hedrich D, Redman R. Intravenous doripenem at 500 milligrams versus levofloxacin at 250 milligrams, with an option to switch to oral therapy, for treatment of complicated lower urinary tract infection and pyelonephritis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53(9), 3782–3792 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
34.
Portsmouth S, Van Veenhuyzen D, Echols R et al. Cefiderocol versus imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections caused by Gram-negative uropathogens: a Phase II, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect. Dis. 18(12), 1319–1328 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
35.
Sims M, Mariyanovski V, Mcleroth P et al. Prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase II dose-ranging study comparing efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin plus relebactam with imipenem/cilastatin alone in patients with complicated urinary tract infections. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 72(9), 2616–2626 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
36.
Vazquez JA, Gonzalez Patzan LD, Stricklin D et al. Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam versus imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, including acute pyelonephritis, in hospitalized adults: results of a prospective, investigator-blinded, randomized study. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 28(12), 1921–1931 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
37.
Wagenlehner F, Nowicki M, Bentley C et al. Explorative randomized Phase II clinical study of the efficacy and safety of finafloxacin versus ciprofloxacin for treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 62(4), e02317–17 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
38.
Wagenlehner FM, Cloutier DJ, Komirenko AS et al. Once-daily plazomicin for complicated urinary tract infections. N. Engl. J. Med. 380(8), 729–740 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
39.
Wagenlehner FM, Sobel JD, Newell P et al. Ceftazidime-avibactam versus doripenem for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, including acute pyelonephritis: RECAPTURE, a Phase III randomized trial program. Clin. Infect. Dis. 63(6), 754–762 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
40.
Wagenlehner FM, Umeh O, Steenbergen J, Yuan G, Darouiche RO. Ceftolozane-tazobactam compared with levofloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary-tract infections, including pyelonephritis: a randomised, double-blind, Phase III trial (ASPECT-cUTI). Lancet 385(9981), 1949–1956 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
41.
Mir MA, Chaudhary S, Mammen KJ et al. Ceftriaxone-sulbactam-EDTA (CSE) vs. meropenem (MR) in PLEA (a Phase III, randomized, double-blind trial): outcomes in patients infected with ceftriaxone non-susceptible, extended-spectrum β-lactamase and multi-rrug-resistant pathogens at baseline. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 5(Suppl. 1), S567–S568 (2018).
Google Scholar
42.
Peterson J, Kaul S, Khashab M, Fisher AC, Kahn JB. A double-blind, randomized comparison of levofloxacin 750 mg once-daily for five days with ciprofloxacin 400/500 mg twice-daily for 10 days for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections and acute pyelonephritis. Urology 71(1), 17–22 (2008).
PubMed
Google Scholar
43.
Klausner HA, Brown P, Peterson J et al. A trial of levofloxacin 750 mg once daily for 5 days versus ciprofloxacin 400 mg and/or 500 mg twice daily for 10 days in the treatment of acute pyelonephritis. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 23(11), 2637–2645 (2007).
PubMed
Google Scholar
44.
Sandberg T, Skoog G, Hermansson AB et al. Ciprofloxacin for 7 days versus 14 days in women with acute pyelonephritis: a randomised, open-label and double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 380(9840), 484–490 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
45.
Naber KG, Savov O, Salmen HC. Piperacillin 2 g/tazobactam 0.5 g is as effective as imipenem 0.5 g/cilastatin 0.5 g for the treatment of acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis and complicated urinary tract infections. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 19(2), 95–103 (2002).
PubMed
Google Scholar
46.
Tonin FS, Rotta I, Mendes AM, Pontarolo R. Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Pharm. Pract. (Granada) 15(1), 943–943 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
47.
Xu F, He L-L, Che L-Q et al. Aerosolized antibiotics for ventilator-associated pneumonia: a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Critical Care 22(1), 301 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
48.
Li B-Z, Threapleton DE, Wang J-Y et al. Comparative effectiveness and tolerance of treatments for Helicobacter pylori: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 351, h4052 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
49.
O'donnell JN, Rhodes NJ, Lopez J, Jett R, Scheetz MH. Carbapenems vs. alternative β-lactams for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 52(4), 451–458 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• The authors of this publication aimed to discuss/determine the value of carbapenems versus β-lactam antibacterials (both are a type of antibiotic class) by comparing patient outcomes. They completed their research through the identification of evidence by means of a systematic search and a fixed effect meta-analysis (the data synthesis method). As can be seen from their results, data comparisons were nonsignificant or subject to wide confidence intervals. The authors also commented on important limitations including, but not limited to changes in resistance break points based on publication dates, varied infection resistance profiles and pooled efficacy of antibacterials within a class. The reason this article is of interest, it highlights the shortcomings and lack of interpretation/context surrounding the results of data synthesis methods with multiple sources of variability that are known to effect treatment and patient outcomes.
50.
Mavros MN, Theochari NA, Kyriakidou M, Economopoulos KP, Sava JA, Falagas ME. Fluoroquinolone-based versus β-lactam-based regimens for complicated intra-abdominal infections: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 53(6), 746–754 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
51.
Chen L, Liang X, Jiang J, Li X, Li Y. Carbapenems vs tigecycline for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 98(40), e17436–e17436 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
52.
Thom H, Thompson JC, Scott DA, Halfpenny N, Sulham K, Corey GR. Comparative efficacy of antibiotics for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI): a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 31(8), 1539–1551 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
53.
Singh KP, Li G, Mitrani-Gold FS et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of antimicrobial treatment effect estimation in complicated urinary tract infection. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 57(11), 5284–5290 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
54.
Reason T, Gill K, Longshaw C, Mccool R, Wilson K, Lopes S. Treatments for complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) caused by multidrug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative (GN) pathogens—a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Open Forum Infect Dis. ID Week 7(Suppl. 1), S787 (2020).
Google Scholar
55.
Tafuri G, Pagnini M, Moseley J et al. How aligned are the perspectives of EU regulators and HTA bodies? A comparative analysis of regulatory-HTA parallel scientific advice. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 82(4), 965–973 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• The authors of this publication provide insight into the value of parallel scientific advice when considering the evidentiary needs of both health technology assessment bodies (HTAB) and the European Union regulators. There is a clear distinction of the role and remit of these two bodies, with recognition that HTAB requirements not only vary from regulators but also between countries (different HTAB), with a specific interest including, but not limited to relative effectiveness and cost–effectiveness. The reason this article is of interest, it frames the need for evidence that may not have been captured and/or is not in the correct format. Designing a study suitable for regulatory approval might not always translate into data suitable for reimbursement decisions.
56.
Bramley T, Spackman E, Hebborn A, Ho LK, Parcher B, Mclaughlin T. To seek or not to seek parallel European Medicine Agency and health technology assessment scientific advice? Health. Pol. (2017). https://www.ispor.org/docs/default-source/publications/value-outcomes-spotlight/march-april-2017/vos-hta-sci-advice.pdf?sfvrsn=f1fa83b1_2
Google Scholar
|