4.7 Review

Systematic review with meta-analysis: rifaximin for the prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 46, 期 11-12, 页码 1029-1036

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.14361

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The primary and secondary prevention of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is recommended in high-risk patients with cirrhosis. Several studies evaluating the efficacy of rifaximin for SBP prophylaxis have yielded conflicting results. Rifaximin has the potential advantage of preventing bacterial overgrowth and translocation without the systemic side effects of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of rifaximin in the primary and secondary prevention of SBP. Methods: A literature search using five databases was performed to identify studies on the association between rifaximin and SBP. We performed two meta-analyses: (1) rifaximin compared to systemic antibiotics and (2) rifaximin compared to no antibiotics. Random-effect modelling was conducted to determine overall pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Five studies with 555 patients (295 rifaximin, 260 systemic antibiotics) compared rifaximin with systemic antibiotics. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for SBP was 0.45 (95% CI 0.16-1.27; P = .13) in patients receiving rifaximin and strengthened on sensitivity analysis (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.76, P = .01). In the analysis comparing rifaximin with no antibiotics, there were five studies with 784 patients (186 rifaximin, 598 no antibiotics). The OR for SBP was 0.34 (95% CI 0.11-0.99; P < .05) in patients receiving rifaximin. In subgroup analysis, rifaximin reduced the risk of SBP by 47% compared to no antibiotics for primary prophylaxis and by 74% compared to systemic antibiotics for secondary prophylaxis. Conclusion: Rifaximin may be effective in preventing SBP in patients with cirrhosis and ascites compared to systemically absorbed antibiotics and compared to placebo.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据