-
BMC Geriatrics Jul 2022Antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) is diarrhea associated with consuming antibiotics that cannot be explained by other causes. AAD prolongs admission time and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) is diarrhea associated with consuming antibiotics that cannot be explained by other causes. AAD prolongs admission time and increases mortality and financial costs. Elderly individuals are more prone to receive antibiotic treatment and develop AAD. The finding that living probiotic microorganisms decrease AAD incidence in adults (<65 years) has been clarified. However, it is controversial among elderly individuals.
METHODS
We aimed to explore whether probiotics could prevent AAD in elderly individuals. We searched three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library), and two reviewers independently screened and assessed the studies. RevMan5.4 software was used to perform a meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs of 4691 participants were included. We excluded two large studies because probiotics were used 48 hours after the first dose of antibiotics, and there was no effect. Subgroup analysis of 6 RCTs showed that probiotics given within two days of antibiotic treatment produced a lower AAD prevalence rate in elderly individuals.
CONCLUSION
We recommend that elderly individuals could be routinely distributed probiotics to prevent AAD development when receiving antibiotic treatment.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The review was not registered.
Topics: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Diarrhea; Humans; Probiotics; Software
PubMed: 35794520
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-022-03257-3 -
The Journal of Antimicrobial... Feb 2015Antibiotics are commonly classified into bactericidal and bacteriostatic agents based on their antimicrobial action. We aimed to assess whether this distinction is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Antibiotics are commonly classified into bactericidal and bacteriostatic agents based on their antimicrobial action. We aimed to assess whether this distinction is clinically relevant.
METHODS
OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and relevant references and conference proceedings using the Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing bactericidal with bacteriostatic antibiotics for treatment of severe infections. Main outcome measures were clinical cure rates and overall mortality. Abstracts of studies selected in the database search were screened by one reviewer; full-text screening and data extraction were performed by three independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies were included. Approximately half of patients were treated with bacteriostatic monotherapy. Infections covered were pneumonia (n=13), skin and soft tissue infections (n=8), intra-abdominal infections (n=4) and others (n=8). Neither clinical cure rates [risk ratio (RR), 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.01; P=0.11] nor mortality rates (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.08; P=0.28) were different between patients treated with bactericidal drugs and those treated with bacteriostatic drugs. Subgroup analyses showed a benefit for clinical cure rates associated with linezolid and increased mortality associated with tigecycline. In meta-regression, clinical cure rates remained higher in patients treated with linezolid (P=0.01); tigecycline displayed a close to significant association with increased mortality (P=0.05) if compared with other bacteriostatic agents.
CONCLUSIONS
The categorization of antibiotics into bacteriostatic and bactericidal is unlikely to be relevant in clinical practice if used for abdominal infections, skin and soft tissue infections and pneumonia. Because we were not able to include studies on meningitis, endocarditis or neutropenia, no conclusion regarding these diseases can be drawn.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Humans; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25266070
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dku379 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jan 2024Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials was conducted to compare the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of lower third molars with different prophylactic antibiotics. The occurrence of any antibiotic-related adverse event was also analysed. A pairwise and network meta-analysis was performed to establish direct and indirect comparisons of each outcome variable. Sixteen articles involving 2158 patients (2428 lower third molars) were included, and the following antibiotics were analysed: amoxicillin (with and without clavulanic acid), metronidazole, azithromycin, and clindamycin. Pooled results favoured the use of antibiotics to reduce dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of a lower third molar, with a number needed to treat of 25 and 18, respectively. Although antibiotic prophylaxis was found to significantly reduce the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection in patients undergoing lower third molar extraction, the number of patients needed to treat was high. Thus, clinicians should evaluate the need to prescribe antibiotics taking into consideration the patient's systemic status and the individual risk of developing a postoperative infection.
Topics: Humans; Dry Socket; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Surgical Wound Infection; Molar, Third; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 37612199
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2023.08.001 -
Clinical Interventions in Aging 2018Aspiration pneumonia is a common problem in older people with high mortality and increasing prevalence.
BACKGROUND
Aspiration pneumonia is a common problem in older people with high mortality and increasing prevalence.
OBJECTIVE
The aims of this paper were to systematically review the literature on the antibacterial treatment of aspiration pneumonia in elderly patients and identify the microbiology of aspiration pneumonia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies that examined the clinical efficacy of antibiotic treatment in elderly patients with aspiration pneumonia. Information on study design, antibiotic treatment, study population, participants, microbiology, clinical outcomes, adverse events, and mortality was recorded.
RESULTS
There were no definitive clinical trials, placebo-controlled trials, or meta-analyses. Of the eight studies selected for inclusion in the review, the majority utilized and/or compared broad-spectrum antibiotics. No specific antibacterial agent had evidence of superior efficacy. Broad-spectrum antibiotics resulted in the emergence of multiresistant organisms. Anaerobic bacteria were infrequently isolated, suggesting a less important role in the pathogenesis of aspiration pneumonia.
CONCLUSION
There is limited evidence with regard to the use of antibiotics in older patients with aspiration pneumonia. Research providing an evidence base for the treatment of aspiration pneumonia in older people is required.
Topics: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Humans; Pneumonia, Aspiration; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30464429
DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S183344 -
The Journal of Infection Dec 2019Antibiotics change the composition of the intestinal microbiota. The magnitude of the effect of antibiotics on the microbiota and whether the effects are short-term or...
OBJECTIVE
Antibiotics change the composition of the intestinal microbiota. The magnitude of the effect of antibiotics on the microbiota and whether the effects are short-term or persist long-term remain uncertain. In this review, we summarise studies that have investigated the effect of antibiotics on the composition of the human intestinal microbiota.
METHODS
A systematic search was done to identify original studies that have investigated the effect of systemic antibiotics on the intestinal microbiota in humans.
RESULTS
We identified 129 studies investigating 2076 participants and 301 controls. Many studies reported a decrease in bacterial diversity with antibiotic treatment. Penicillin only had minor effects on the intestinal microbiota. Amoxicillin, amoxcillin/clavulanate, cephalosporins, lipopolyglycopeptides, macrolides, ketolides, clindamycin, tigecycline, quinolones and fosfomycin all increased abundance of Enterobacteriaea other than E. coli (mainly Citrobacter spp., Enterobacter spp. and Klebsiella spp.). Amoxcillin, cephalosporins, macrolides, clindamycin, quinolones and sulphonamides decreased abundance of E. coli, while amoxcillin/clavulante, in contrast to other penicillins, increased abundance of E. coli. Amoxicllin, piperacillin and ticarcillin, cephalosporins (except fifth generation cephalosporins), carbapenems and lipoglycopeptides were associated with increased abundance of Enterococcus spp., while macrolides and doxycycline decreased its abundance. Piperacillin and ticarcillin, carbapenems, macrolides, clindamycin and quinolones strongly decreased the abundance of anaerobic bacteria. In the studies that investigated persistence, the longest duration of changes was reported after treatment with ciprofloxacin (one year), clindamycin (two years) and clarithromycin plus metronidazole (four years). Many antibiotics were associated with a decrease in butyrate or butryrate-producing bacteria.
CONCLUSION
Antibiotics have profound and sometimes persisting effects on the intestinal microbiota, characterised by diminished abundance of beneficial commensals and increased abundance of potentially detrimental microorganisms. Understanding these effects will help tailor antibiotic treatment and the use of probiotics to minimise this 'collateral damage'.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Gram-Positive Bacteria; Humans; Microbiota
PubMed: 31629863
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2019.10.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more than one micro-organism) of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Topical antibiotics, the most common treatment for CSOM, act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antiseptics or ear cleaning (aural toileting).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical antibiotics (without steroids) for people with CSOM.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 April 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving participants (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The interventions were any single, or combination of, topical antibiotic agent(s) of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. The two main comparisons were topical antibiotic compared to a) placebo or no intervention and b) another topical antibiotic (e.g. topical antibiotic A versus topical antibiotic B). Within each comparison we separated studies where both groups of participants had received topical antibiotic a) alone or with aural toileting and b) on top of background treatment (such as systemic antibiotics).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies with a total of 2198 participants. Twelve studies reported the sample size in terms of participants (not ears); these had a total of 1797 participants. The remaining five studies reported both the number of participants and ears, representing 401 participants, or 510 ears. A: Topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment (with aural toilet in both arms and no other background treatment) One small study compared a topical antibiotic (ciprofloxacin) with placebo (saline). All participants received aural toilet. Although ciprofloxacin was better than saline in terms of resolution of discharge at one to two weeks: 84% versus 12% (risk ratio (RR) 6.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.82 to 24.99; 35 participants, very low-certainty evidence), the very low certainty of the evidence means that it is very uncertain whether or not one intervention is better or worse than the other. The study authors reported that "no medical side-effects and worsening of audiological measurements related to this topical medication were detected" (very low-certainty evidence). B: Topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment (with use of oral antibiotics in both arms) Four studies compared topical ciprofloxacin to no treatment (three studies; 190 participants) or topical ceftizoxime to no treatment (one study; 248 participants). In each study all participants received the same antibiotic systemically (oral ciprofloxacin, injected ceftizoxime). In at least one study all participants received aural toilet. Useable data were only available from the first three studies; ciprofloxacin was better than no treatment, resolution of discharge occurring in 88.2% versus 60% at one to two weeks (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.80; 2 studies, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported ear pain or discomfort/local irritation. C: Comparisons of different topical antibiotics The certainty of evidence for all outcomes in these comparisons is very low. Quinolones versus aminoglycosides Seven studies compared an aminoglycoside (gentamicin, neomycin or tobramycin) with ciprofloxacin (734 participants) or ofloxacin (214 participants). Whilst resolution of discharge at one to two weeks was higher in the quinolones group the very low certainty of the evidence means that it is very uncertain whether or not one intervention is better or worse than the other (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.29; 6 studies, 694 participants). One study measured ear pain and reported no difference between the groups. Quinolones versus aminoglycosides/polymyxin B combination ±gramicidin We identified three studies but data on our primary outcome were only available in one study. Comparing ciprofloxacin to a neomycin/polymyxin B/gramicidin combination, for an unknown treatment duration (likely four weeks), ciprofloxacin was better (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.22, 186 participants). A "few" patients experienced local irritation upon the first instillation of topical treatment (numbers/groups not stated). Others Other studies examined topical gentamicin versus a trimethoprim/sulphacetamide/polymixin B combination (91 participants) and rifampicin versus chloramphenicol (160 participants). Limited data were available and the findings were very uncertain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain about the effectiveness of topical antibiotics in improving resolution of ear discharge in patients with CSOM because of the limited amount of low-quality evidence available. However, amongst this uncertainty there is some evidence to suggest that the use of topical antibiotics may be effective when compared to placebo, or when used in addition to a systemic antibiotic. There is also uncertainty about the relative effectiveness of different types of antibiotics; it is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not quinolones are better or worse than aminoglycosides. These two groups of compounds have different adverse effect profiles, but there is insufficient evidence from the included studies to make any comment about these. In general, adverse effects were poorly reported.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chronic Disease; Humans; Otitis Media, Suppurative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31896168
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013051.pub2 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Oct 2019Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the more common infections encountered in everyday clinical practice. They account for 10-20% of all infections treated in...
PURPOSE
Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the more common infections encountered in everyday clinical practice. They account for 10-20% of all infections treated in primary care units and 30-40% of those treated in hospitals. The risk of UTI in the female population is considered to be 14 times higher than in the male population. The prevalence of bacterial etiology results in a large consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which in turn leads to increased rates of resistant uropathogens. Therefore, non-antibiotic prevention and treatment options are now of great importance.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed for the last 20 years (1999-2019) and the efficiencies of these eight different non-antibiotic interventions were analysed and discussed.
RESULTS
This article provides an overview on non-antibiotic options for management of UTI, including the application of cranberry products, the phytodrug Canephron N, probiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), D-mannose, estrogens, vitamins, and immunotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
The last 20 years of research on non-antibiotic approaches in UTI have not brought conclusive evidence that antibiotic usage can be replaced completely by non-antibiotic options. Hence, antibiotics still remain a gold standard for UTI treatment and prevention. However, changing the therapeutic strategy by including non-antibiotic measures in the management of UTI could be successful in avoiding antimicrobial resistance at least to some extent.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Female; Humans; Male; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 31350663
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05256-z -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Apr 2023: This project was developed from anecdotal evidence of varied practices around antibiotic prescribing in dental procedures. The aim of the study was to ascertain if... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: This project was developed from anecdotal evidence of varied practices around antibiotic prescribing in dental procedures. The aim of the study was to ascertain if there is evidence to support whether antibiotic (AB) use can effectively reduce postoperative infections after dental implant placements (DIPs). : Following PRISMA-P© methodology, a systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials was designed and registered on the PROSPERO© database. Searches were performed using PubMed, Science Direct and the Cochrane© Database, plus the bibliographies of studies identified. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics, independent of the regimen used, versus a placebo, control or no therapy based on implant failure due to infection was the primary measured outcome. Secondary outcomes were other post-surgical complications due to infection and AB adverse events. : Twelve RCTs were identified and analysed. Antibiotic use was reported to be statistically significant in preventing infection ( < 001). The prevention of complications was not statistically significant ( = 0.96), and the NNT was >5 (14 and 2523 respectively), which indicates that the intervention was not sufficiently effective to justify its use. The occurrence of side effects was not statistically significant ( = 0.63). NNH was 528 indicating that possible harm caused by the use of ABs is very small and does not negate the AB use when indicated. : The routine use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection in dental implant placement was found to be not sufficiently effective to justify routine use. Clear clinical assessment pathways, such as those used for medical conditions, based on the patients' age, dental risk factors, such as oral health and bone health, physical risk factors, such as chronic or long-term conditions and modifiable health determinants, such as smoking, are required to prevent the unnecessary use of antibiotics.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Dental Implants
PubMed: 37109671
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59040713 -
BMJ Open Gastroenterology Jun 2021Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer for women and men and the second leading cause of cancer death in the USA. There is emerging evidence that the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer for women and men and the second leading cause of cancer death in the USA. There is emerging evidence that the gut microbiome plays a role in CRC development, and antibiotics are one of the most common exposures that can alter the gut microbiome. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to characterise the association between antibiotic use and colorectal neoplasia.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science for articles that examined the association between antibiotic exposure and colorectal neoplasia (cancer or adenoma) through 15 December 2019. A total of 6031 citations were identified and 6 papers were included in the final analysis. We assessed the association between the level of antibiotic use (defined as number of courses or duration of therapy) and colorectal neoplasia using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Six studies provided 16 estimates of the association between level of antibiotic use and colorectal neoplasia. Individuals with the highest levels of antibiotic exposure had a 10% higher risk of colorectal neoplasia than those with the lowest exposure (effect size: 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.18). We found evidence of high heterogeneity (I=79%, p=0.0001) but not of publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Higher levels of antibiotic exposure is associated with an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. Given the widespread use of antibiotics in childhood and early adulthood, additional research to further characterise this relationship is needed.
Topics: Adenoma; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Colorectal Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Male
PubMed: 34083227
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2021-000601 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1996, WHO launched the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the...
BACKGROUND
Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1996, WHO launched the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the 'SAFE' strategy (surgery, antibiotics, facial cleanliness, and environmental improvement).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence supporting the antibiotic arm of the SAFE strategy by assessing the effects of antibiotics on both active trachoma (primary objective), Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the conjunctiva, antibiotic resistance, and adverse effects (secondary objectives).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched relevant electronic databases and trials registers. The date of the last search was 4 January 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that satisfied either of two criteria: (a) trials in which topical or oral administration of an antibiotic was compared to placebo or no treatment in people or communities with trachoma, (b) trials in which a topical antibiotic was compared with an oral antibiotic in people or communities with trachoma. We also included studies addressing different dosing strategies in the population. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies where individuals with trachoma were randomised and 12 cluster-randomised studies. Any antibiotic versus control (individuals)Nine studies (1961 participants) randomised individuals with trachoma to antibiotic or control (no treatment or placebo). All of these studies enrolled children and young people with active trachoma. The antibiotics used in these studies included topical (oxy)tetracycline (5 studies), doxycycline (2 studies), and sulfonamides (4 studies). Four studies had more than two study arms. In general these studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.These studies provided low-certainty evidence that people with active trachoma treated with antibiotics experienced a reduction in active trachoma at three months (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.89; 1961 people; 9 RCTs; I = 73%) and 12 months (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; 1035 people; 4 RCTs; I = 90%). Low-certainty evidence was available for ocular infection at three months (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04; 297 people; 4 RCTs; I = 0%) and 12 months (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78; 129 people; 1 RCT). None of these studies assessed antimicrobial resistance. In those studies that reported harms, no serious adverse effects were reported (low-certainty evidence).Oral versus topical antibiotics (individuals)Eight studies (1583 participants) compared oral and topical antibiotics. Only one study included people older than 21 years of age. Oral antibiotics included azithromycin (5 studies), sulfonamides (2 studies), and doxycycline (1 study). Topical antibiotics included (oxy)tetracycline (6 studies), azithromycin (1 study), and sulfonamide (1 study). These studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in effect between oral and topical antibiotics on active trachoma at three months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; 953 people; 6 RCTs; I = 63%) and 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15; 886 people; 5 RCTs; I = 56%). There was very low-certainty evidence for ocular infection at three or 12 months. Antimicrobial resistance was not assessed. In those studies that reported adverse effects, no serious adverse effects were reported; one study reported abdominal pain with azithromycin; one study reported a couple of cases of nausea with azithromycin; and one study reported three cases of reaction to sulfonamides (low-certainty evidence).Oral azithromycin versus control (communities)Four cluster-randomised studies compared antibiotic with no or delayed treatment. Data were available on active trachoma at 12 months from two studies but could not be pooled because of reporting differences. One study at low risk of bias found a reduced prevalence of active trachoma 12 months after a single dose of azithromycin in communities with a high prevalence of infection (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.65; 1247 people). The other, lower quality, study in low-prevalence communities reported similar median prevalences of infection at 12 months: 9.3% in communities treated with azithromycin and 8.2% in untreated communities. We judged this moderate-certainty evidence for a reduction in active trachoma with treatment, downgrading one level for inconsistency between the two studies. Two studies reported ocular infection at 12 months and data could be pooled. There was a reduction in ocular infection (RR 0.36, 0.31 to 0.43; 2139 people) 12 months after mass treatment with a single dose compared with no treatment (moderate-certainty evidence). There was high-certainty evidence of an increased risk of resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli to azithromycin, tetracycline, and clindamycin in communities treated with azithromycin, with approximately 5-fold risk ratios at 12 months. The evidence did not support increased resistance to penicillin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. None of the studies measured resistance to C trachomatis. No serious adverse events were reported. The main adverse effect noted for azithromycin (˜10%) was abdominal pain, vomiting, and nausea.Oral azithromycin versus topical tetracycline (communities)Three cluster-randomised studies compared oral azithromycin with topical tetracycline. The evidence was inconsistent for active trachoma and ocular infection at three and 12 months (low-certainty evidence) and was not pooled due to considerable heterogeneity. Antimicrobial resistance and adverse effects were not reported.Different dosing strategiesSix studies compared different strategies for dosing. There were: mass treatment at different dosing intervals; applying cessation or stopping rules to mass treatment; strategies to increase mass treatment coverage. There was no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended annual mass treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic treatment may reduce the risk of active trachoma and ocular infection in people infected with C trachomatis, compared to no treatment/placebo, but the size of the treatment effect in individuals is uncertain. Mass antibiotic treatment with single dose oral azithromycin reduces the prevalence of active trachoma and ocular infection in communities. There is no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended periodicity of annual mass treatment. There is evidence of an increased risk of antibiotic resistance at 12 months in communities treated with antibiotics.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlamydia trachomatis; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trachoma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31554017
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001860.pub4