Author
Listed:
- Matthew E Falagas
- Apostolos K A Karagiannis
- Theodora Nakouti
- Giannoula S Tansarli
Abstract
Objective: To investigate whether compliance of patients to antibiotic treatment is better when antibiotics are administered once than multiple times daily. Methods: We performed a systematic search in PubMed and Scopus databases. Only randomized controlled trials were considered eligible for inclusion. Compliance to antibiotic treatment was the outcome of the meta-analysis. Results: Twenty-six studies including 8246 patients with upper respiratory tract infections in the vast majority met the inclusion criteria. In total, higher compliance was found among patients treated with once-daily treatment than those receiving treatment twice, thrice or four times daily [5011 patients, RR=1.22 (95% CI, 1.11, 1.34]. Adults receiving an antibiotic once-daily were more compliant than those receiving the same antibiotic multiple times daily [380 patients, RR=1.09 (95% CI, 1.02, 1.16)]. Likewise, children that received an antibiotic twice-daily were more compliant than those receiving the same antibiotic thrice-daily [2118 patients, RR=1.10 (95% CI, 1.02, 1.19)]. Higher compliance was also found among patients receiving an antibiotic once compared to those receiving an antibiotic of different class thrice or four times daily [395 patients, RR=1.20 (95% CI, 1.12, 1.28)]. The finding of better compliance with lower frequency daily was consistent regardless of the study design, and treatment duration. Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that compliance to antibiotic treatment might be associated with higher when an antibiotic is administered once than multiple times daily for the treatment of specific infections and for specific classes of antibiotics.
Suggested Citation
Matthew E Falagas & Apostolos K A Karagiannis & Theodora Nakouti & Giannoula S Tansarli, 2015.
"Compliance with Once-Daily versus Twice or Thrice-Daily Administration of Antibiotic Regimens: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, January.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0116207
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116207
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0116207. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.