Different classes of antibiotics given to women routinely for preventing infection at caesarean section.

Abstract

BACKGROUND\nCaesarean section increases the risk of postpartum infection for women and prophylactic antibiotics have been shown to reduce the incidence; however, there are adverse effects. It is important to identify the most effective class of antibiotics to use and those with the least adverse effects.\xa0 OBJECTIVES: To determine, from the best available evidence, the balance of benefits and harms between different classes of antibiotic given prophylactically to women undergoing caesarean section, considering their effectiveness in reducing infectious complications for women and adverse effects on both mother and infant.\n\n\nSEARCH METHODS\nFor this 2020 update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (2 December 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\n\n\nSELECTION CRITERIA\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different classes of prophylactic antibiotics given to women undergoing caesarean section.\xa0 RCTs published in abstract form were also included. We excluded trials that compared drugs with placebo or drugs within a specific class; these are assessed in other Cochrane Reviews. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.\n\n\nDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\nTwo review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\n\n\nMAIN RESULTS\nWe included 39 studies, with 33 providing data (8073 women). Thirty-two studies (7690 women) contributing data administered antibiotics systemically, while one study (383 women) used lavage and was analysed separately. We identified three main comparisons that addressed clinically important questions on antibiotics at caesarean section (all systemic administration), but we only found studies for one comparison, antistaphylococcal cephalosporins\xa0(1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors . \xa0 We found no studies for the following comparisons: antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus lincosamides and antistaphylococcal cephalosporins\xa0(1st and 2nd generation) versus lincosamides plus aminoglycosides . Twenty-seven studies (22 provided data) included comparisons of cephalosporins (only) versus penicillins (only). However for this update, we only pooled data relating to different sub-classes of penicillins and cephalosporins where they are known to have similar spectra of action against agents likely to cause infection at caesarean section. Eight trials, providing data on 1540 women, reported on our main comparison, antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors . We found data on four other comparisons of cephalosporins (only) versus penicillins (only) using systemic administration: antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus non-antistaphylococcal penicillins (natural and broad spectrum) (9 studies, 3093 women); minimally antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (3rd generation) versus non-antistaphylococcal penicillins\xa0(natural and broad spectrum) (4 studies, 854 women); minimally antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (3rd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors (2 studies, 865 women); and minimally antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (3rd generation) versus broad spectrum and antistaphylococcal penicillins (1 study, 200 women). For other comparisons of different classes of antibiotics, only a small number of trials provided data for each comparison, and in all but one case data were not pooled. For all comparisons, there was a lack of good quality data and important outcomes often included few women. Three of the studies that contributed data were undertaken with drug company funding, one was funded by the hospital, and for all other studies the funding source was not reported. Most of the studies were at unclear risk of selection bias, reporting bias and other biases, partly due to the inclusion of many older trials where trial reports did not provide sufficient methodological information. We undertook GRADE assessment on the only main comparison reported by the included studies, antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors, and the certainty ranged from low to very low, mostly due to concerns about risk of bias, wide confidence intervals (CI), and few events. In terms of the primary outcomes for our main comparison of antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors : only one small study reported sepsis, and there were too few events to identify clear differences between the drugs (risk ratio (RR) 2.37, 95% CI 0.10 to 56.41, 1 study, 75 women, very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between these antibiotics in preventing endometritis\xa0(RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.60, 7 studies, 1161 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on infant sepsis or infant oral thrush. For our secondary outcomes, we found there may be little or no difference between interventions for maternal fever (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.75, 3 studies, 678 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects on maternal: wound infection (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.90, 4 studies, 543 women), urinary tract infection (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.73, 4 studies, 496 women), composite adverse effects (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.09 to 10.50, 2 studies, 468 women), and skin rash (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.1, 3 studies, 591 women) (all very low certainty evidence).\xa0Although maternal allergic reactions were reported by two studies, there were no events. There were no infant outcomes reported in the included studies. For the other comparisons, the results for most outcomes had wide CIs, few studies and few women included. None of the included trials reported on longer-term maternal outcomes, or on any infant outcomes.\n\n\nAUTHORS CONCLUSIONS\nBased on the best currently available evidence, antistaphylococcal cephalosporins and broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors may have similar efficacy at caesarean section when considering immediate postoperative infection, although we did not have clear evidence for several important outcomes. Most trials administered antibiotics at or after cord clamping, or post-operatively, so results may have limited applicability to current practice which generally\xa0favours administration prior to skin incision.\xa0We have no data on any\xa0infant\xa0outcomes, nor on late infections (up to 30 days) in the mother;\xa0these are important gaps in the evidence that warrant\xa0further research. Antimicrobial resistance is very important but more appropriately investigated by other trial designs.