Network meta-analysis of success rate and safety in antibiotic treatments of bronchitis

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the relative efficacy and safety of different antibiotic drugs and recommend superior regimens in the treatment of bronchitis. With respect to the antibiotic comparisons against quinolones in terms of intention-to-treat patients, we concluded that quinolones had advantages over placebo, β-lactams, sulfonamides, and double β-lactams. Concerning treatment methods for clinically evaluable patients, quinolones demonstrated better performance than β-lactams and sulfonamides. The secondary effects of macrolides, quinolones, and double β-lactams were significantly more adverse than β-lactams with odds ratios (ORs) of 1.5 (95% credible interval [CrI] =1.1–2.0), 1.7 (95% CrI =1.2–2.3), and 2.7 (95% CrI =1.8–4.1), respectively. Significant differences in the prevalence of diarrhea as a secondary effect were only identified among the comparisons of double β-lactams against β-lactams and macrolides (OR =5.0, 95% CrI =2.1–12.0; OR =3.0, 95% CrI =1.7–5.4, respectively). Quinolones can be recommended as the superior treatment for bronchitis, in accordance with our cluster analysis with surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The primary outcomes of network meta-analysis indicated that quinolones showed the best performance among the 8 treatments studied, although β-lactams showed the lowest risk of adverse side effects. Quinolones are recommended as the primary treatment option for bronchitis patients, having taking into account the success rates and safety profiles of the eight drugs studied here.

Keywords:

• bronchitis
• antibiotic treatments
• success rate
• safety
• network meta-analysis

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the reviewers for their helpful comments on this paper. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author contributions

All authors contributed toward data analysis, drafting and critically revising the paper and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.