Gram-negative bacteremia remains a major health problem around the world. The optimal duration of antibiotic treatment has been poorly defined, and there are significant differences of opinion between clinicians. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of short-course and long-course treatments in patients with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia.

We searched public databases (PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) to identify eligible studies. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the incidence of recurrent bacteremia through day 30. We used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool to evaluate the risk of bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-RCTs.

Six studies involving 2689 patients were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. No significant difference was found between short-course and long-course antibiotic treatments in 30-day mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.13; P = .26), 30-day recurrent bacteremia (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.68-1.67; P = .78), 90-day mortality (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.57-1.24; P = .38), 90-day recurrent bacteremia (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.50-1.89; P = .94), adverse events (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.89-1.45; P = .30), Clostridium difficile infection (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.40-1.86; P = .71) or resistance development (RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.66-2.14; P = .57).

Short-course was non-inferior to long-course antibiotic treatments for patients with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia. Considering the drug-related side effects and cost-effectiveness, a shorter duration of antibiotic treatment may be preferable for this particular population. However, additional high-quality RCTs are needed to further assess whether a shorter course of antibiotic treatment is of greater benefit for patients with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia.