Table 16.1GRADE evidence profile, Switching from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy

Quality assessmentSummary of findings
No of patientsEffectQuality
No of studiesDesignLimitationsInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionOther considerationsIV-to-oral antibiotics at any timeIV antibioticsRelative
(95% CI)
Absolute
Death
6randomised trialsserious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious2none11/442 (2.5%)8/422 (1.9%)RR 1.14 (0.48 to 2.73)3 more per 1000 (from 10 fewer to 33 more)VERY LOW
Treatment failure (composite measure3)
6randomised trialsserious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessSerious4none158/482 (32.8%)137/464
(29.5%)
RR 1.07 (0.9 to 1.27)21 more per 1000 (from 30 fewer to 80 more)LOW
1

Two of the trials observed a number of deaths whereas no deaths were observed in the remaining 4 trials.

2

The number of events was very low, with no events observed in 4/6 trials. This clearly suggests that the trials were not powered to detect this outcome.

3

Treatment failure defined as a composite end-point comprising one or more of the following: death; persistence, recurrence or worsening of clinical signs or symptoms of presenting infection; any addition to or modification of the assigned intervention.

4

Relatively low number of events.

Quality assessmentSummary of findings
No of patientsEffectQuality
No of studiesDesignLimitationsInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionOther considerationsIV-to-oral antibiotics after 72 hours of IV antibiotics and response to IV antibioticsIV antibioticsRelative
(95% CI)
Absolute
Death
2randomised trialsserious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious2none11/173 (6.4%)8/152
(5.3%)
RR 1.14
(0.48 to 2.73)
7 more per 1000
(from 27 fewer to 91 more)
VERY LOW
Treatment failure (Composite outcome3)
2randomised trialsserious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessSerious4none98/180 (54.4%)87/162
(53.7%)
RR 1.01
(0.83 to 1.23)
5 more per 1000
(from 91 fewer to 124 more)
LOW
1

The designs of the included trials were both compromised either by providing no information about the method of randomisation and about whether allocation concealment or blinding was used or by not using intention to treat analysis.

2

The number of events was very low. This clearly suggests that the trials were not powered to detect this outcome.

3

Treatment failure defined as a composite end-point comprising one or more of the following: death; persistence, recurrence or worsening of clinical signs or symptoms of presenting infection; any addition to or modification of the assigned intervention.

4

The number of events was < 300

Quality assessmentSummary of findings
No of patientsEffectQuality
No of studiesDesignLimitationsInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionOther considerationsIV-to-oral antibiotics after 48-72 hours of IV antibioticsIV antibioticsRelative
(95% CI)
Absolute
Death
2randomised trialsserious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious2none0/174 (0%)0/180 (0%)Not estimable-VERY LOW
Treatment failure (Composite outcome3)
2randomised trialsserious1no serious inconsistencyno serious indirectnessvery serious5none29/174 (16.7%)29/180
(16.1%)
RR 1 (0.64 to 1.56)0 fewer per 1000 (from 58 fewer to 90 more)VERY LOW
1

The design of one of the included trials was compromised by providing no or inadequate information about whether allocation concealment or blinding was used and by not using intention to treat analysis.

2

There were no events in either trial which indicates that these trials were not powered for this outcome.

3

Treatment failure defined as a composite end-point comprising one or more of the following: death; persistence, recurrence or worsening of clinical signs or symptoms of presenting infection; any addition to or modification of the assigned intervention.

5

The number of events was very low.

From: Subsequent Treatment: guideline chapter seven

Cover of Neutropenic Sepsis: Prevention and Management of Neutropenic Sepsis in Cancer Patients
Neutropenic Sepsis: Prevention and Management of Neutropenic Sepsis in Cancer Patients.
NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 151.
National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK).
Copyright © National Collaborating Centre for Cancer, 2012.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.