Elective versus symptomatic intravenous antibiotic therapy for cystic fibrosis.

Abstract

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the commonest micro-organism associated with respiratory infections in cystic fibrosis. Retrospective studies have suggested that survival is increased by using an aggressive policy of intravenous antipseudomonal antibiotics at regular intervals, irrespective of symptoms. To determine whether there is evidence that an elective (regular) versus symptomatic intravenous antibiotic regime is associated with an improvement in clinical status and survival rates in patients with cystic fibrosis. To identify any adverse effects associated with the use of elective intravenous antibiotics, including an increase in the development of resistant organisms. The Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetics Disorders Group Specialist Trials Register was used. This comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, hand searching relevant journals and abstracts from conference proceedings. Date of the most recent search of the Group's specialised register: October 2000. All randomised or pseudo-randomised controlled trials describing the use of elective compared with symptomatic intravenous antibiotic policies for any duration or dose regimen. Elective versus symptomatic intravenous antibiotic regimes against any organisms were considered. Patients with cystic fibrosis were of any age or disease severity. Trials were independently assessed for inclusion criteria, methodological quality and data extraction by the two reviewers. Three trials were identified by the initial search. Two trials reporting results from a total of 79 patients were included in the review. Differences in study design and objectives meant that data could not be pooled for meta-analysis. Neither trial demonstrated significant differences in outcome measures between intervention and comparison groups. Studies are insufficient to identify conclusive evidence favouring a policy of elective intravenous antibiotic administration, despite its widespread use. Neither are the potential risks adequately evaluated. The results should be viewed with caution as patient numbers are small. Clearly there is a need for a well-designed, adequately powered, multi-centred randomised controlled trial to evaluate these issues.