We reviewed the evidence about the effect of antibiotics in people with cystic fibrosis who were infected with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is a bacterium which is resistant to several antibiotics and over the last 10 years it has been found more and more often in the lungs of people with cystic fibrosis. Long-term infection with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia has been linked to lung infections. However, at present, it is unclear if people with cystic fibrosis should be treated for this lung infection when it is identified. The purpose of this review is to determine whether treatment with different antibiotic combinations for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia will improve lung function or decrease the frequency of hospital admission in people with cystic fibrosis. We also want to review the effect of treatment of long-term Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection so as to remove it totally from the lungs of a person with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review.
The evidence is current to: 03 March 2020.
We did not find any randomized controlled trials (trials where the people taking part are put into different treatment groups completely at random) which we could include in the review. We did find one trial of antibiotic treatment for pulmonary exacerbations (flare up of disease in the airways) which included people infected with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, but the people in the trial also had infections caused by other bacteria and we were not able to obtain separate data for the different causes of infection.
Randomized controlled trials are needed to inform clinicians as to whether they should treat Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in people with cystic fibrosis. In the meantime, clinicians should use their clinical judgement when considering this question.
This review did not identify any evidence regarding the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis. Until such evidence becomes available, clinicians need to use their clinical judgement as to whether or not to treat Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in people with cystic fibrosis. Randomized clinical trials are needed to address these unanswered clinical questions.
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is one of the most common emerging multi-drug resistant organisms found in the lungs of people with cystic fibrosis and its prevalence is increasing. Chronic infection with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia has recently been shown to be an independent predictor of pulmonary exacerbation requiring hospitalization and antibiotics. However, the role of antibiotic treatment of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in people with cystic fibrosis is still unclear. This is an update of a previously published review.
The objective of our review is to assess the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis. The primary objective is to assess this in relation to lung function and pulmonary exacerbations in the setting of acute pulmonary exacerbations. The secondary objective is to assess this in relation to the eradication of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched a registry of ongoing trials and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.
Date of latest search: 03 March 2020.
Randomized controlled trials of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia mono-infection or Stenotrophomonas maltophilia co-infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in either the setting of an acute pulmonary exacerbation or a chronic infection treated with suppressive antibiotic therapy.
Both authors independently assessed the trials identified by the search for potential inclusion in the review.
We identified only one trial of antibiotic treatment of pulmonary exacerbations that included people with cystic fibrosis with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. However, this trial had to be excluded because data was not available per pathogen.