Abstract
Background Efficacy for prolonged infusion beta-lactam dosing schemes has been previously described, but there has been less focus on the safety of standard vs prolonged infusion protocols of beta-lactams. This study explored differences in adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported for beta-lactams between each of these infusion protocols.
Methods A systematic review of MEDLINE literature databases via PubMed was conducted and references were compiled. Articles were compiled and assessed with specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included randomized and nonrandomized, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies that reported adverse effects due to either standard (30-60 mins) or prolonged (≥3 hours) infusions of beta-lactam infusions. Total ADRs between strategies were analyzed by infusion methodology. The most consistently reported ADRs were subject to meta-analysis across studies.
Results 13 studies met inclusion/exclusion criteria with data for 4184 patients. There was insufficient data to systematically analyze neurotoxicity or cytopenias. Eight studies reported on nephrotoxicity outcomes with no significant difference in event rates between standard (n=440/2117, 20.8%) vs prolonged infusion (n=264/1284, 20.6%) of beta-lactams (OR=1.09, 95% CI [0.91, 1.30]). Six studies reported on rates of diarrhea with no significant difference in event rates between standard (n=21/359, 5.8%) vs prolonged infusion (n=25/330, 7.6%) of beta-lactams (OR=1.33, 95% CI [0.71,2.47).
Conclusion Prolonged and standard infusion schemes for beta-lactams demonstrated adverse effects at similar rates for both infusion schemes. Future research should focus on improved standardization of adverse effect definitions and a priori aim to study neurotoxicity and cytopenias. Consistent recording of ADRs and standardized definitions of these reactions will be paramount to further study of this subject.
Competing Interest Statement
MHS declares a consultancy with DoseMe
Funding Statement
No funding was received for the work from this manuscript
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Only publicly available manuscripts were used in this meta-analysis as described in the methods section.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Author attribution and order was corrected so that the electronic version matches the submitted (and correct) word document.
Data Availability
Data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Data sharing will be subject to standard Data Use Agreements from Midwestern University.
