-
European Archives of... Aug 2022Children with extensive lymphatic malformations of the head and neck often suffer from functional impairment and aesthetic deformity which significantly affect the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Children with extensive lymphatic malformations of the head and neck often suffer from functional impairment and aesthetic deformity which significantly affect the quality of life and may be life-threatening. Treatment with sirolimus has the potential to improve symptoms and downsize lymphatic malformations. This systematic review summarizes the current information about sirolimus treatment of lymphatic malformations of the head and neck in children, its efficacy and side effects.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature regarding studies on sirolimus treatment of children with lymphatic malformations of the head and neck was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar up to July 2021 with the search terms "lymphatic malformation", "lymphangioma", "cystic hygroma", "low-flow malformation", "sirolimus", "rapamycin", "mTOR inhibitor" and "children".
RESULTS
In all, 28 studies including 105 children from newborn to 17 years treated with sirolimus for lymphatic malformations of the head and neck were analyzed. The most frequent initial dose was 0.8 mg/m per dose, twice daily at 12-h interval. The target blood level differed between studies, 10-15 ng/mL and 5-15 ng/mL were most often used. More than 91% of the children responded to sirolimus treatment which lasts from 6 months to 4 years. Typical side effects were hyperlipidemia, neutropenia and infections.
METHODS
Sirolimus could be an effective treatment for children with large complicated lymphatic malformations of the head and neck. As not all patients will benefit from treatment, the decision to treat sirolimus should be made by a multidisciplinary team.
Topics: Head; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Lymphatic Abnormalities; Neck; Quality of Life; Sirolimus; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Malformations
PubMed: 35526176
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-022-07378-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although their effectiveness increases in people with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although their effectiveness increases in people with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. This is an update of a review first published in 2010, and updated in 2013, 2016, and 2020.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing clinical relapse (i.e. recurrence of symptoms after initial resolution); and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 3 September 2020: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), Embase Elsevier (from 1974), and Web of Science Thomson Reuters (from 2010). We also searched clinical trial registers on 3 September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics, and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications and/or adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes. We have reported the intention-to-treat analysis, and also performed an analysis of evaluable participants to explore the robustness of the intention-to-treat results.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 trials reported in 18 publications (5839 randomised participants): six trials compared penicillin with cephalosporins; six compared penicillin with macrolides; three compared penicillin with carbacephem; one compared penicillin with sulphonamides; one compared clindamycin with ampicillin; and one compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All participants had confirmed acute GABHS tonsillopharyngitis, and ages ranged from one month to 80 years. Nine trials included only, or predominantly, children. Most trials were conducted in an outpatient setting. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both; heterogeneity; and wide confidence intervals. Cephalosporins versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference in symptom resolution (at 2 to 15 days) for cephalosporins versus penicillin (odds ratio (OR) for absence of symptom resolution 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12; 5 trials; 2018 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results of the sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants differed (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 5 trials; 1660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; 4 trials; 1386 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence showed no difference in reported adverse events. Macrolides versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference between macrolides and penicillin for resolution of symptoms (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; 6 trials; 1728 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants resulted in an OR of 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.09; 6 trials; 1159 participants). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be different (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.03; 6 trials; 802 participants; low-certainty evidence). Azithromycin versus amoxicillin Based on one unpublished trial in children, we are uncertain if resolution of symptoms is better with azithromycin in a single dose versus amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; 1 trial; 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis for per-protocol analysis resulted in an OR of 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; 1 trial; 482 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain if there was a difference in relapse between groups (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; 1 trial; 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were more common with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; 1 trial; 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Carbacephem versus penicillin There is low-certainty evidence that compared with penicillin, carbacephem may provide better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14.3; 3 trials; 795 participants). Studies did not report on long-term complications, so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better in preventing serious but rare complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if there are clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Low-certainty evidence in children suggests that carbacephem may be more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the other comparisons in this review. Data on complications were too scarce to draw conclusions. These results do not demonstrate that other antibiotics are more effective than penicillin in the treatment of GABHS pharyngitis. All studies were conducted in high-income countries with a low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is a need for trials in low-income countries and Aboriginal communities, where the risk of complications remains high.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Amoxicillin; Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Cephalosporins; Child; Child, Preschool; Clindamycin; Humans; Infant; Macrolides; Middle Aged; Penicillins; Pharyngitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Streptococcal Infections; Streptococcus pyogenes; Sulfonamides; Young Adult
PubMed: 33728634
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004406.pub5 -
Critical Care (London, England) Aug 2016Intolerance to enteral nutrition is common in critically ill adults, and may result in significant morbidity including ileus, abdominal distension, vomiting and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intolerance to enteral nutrition is common in critically ill adults, and may result in significant morbidity including ileus, abdominal distension, vomiting and potential aspiration events. Prokinetic agents are prescribed to improve gastric emptying. However, the efficacy and safety of these agents in critically ill patients is not well-defined. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of prokinetic agents in critically ill patients.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception up to January 2016. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults assigned to receive a prokinetic agent or placebo, and that reported relevant clinical outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened potentially eligible articles, selected eligible studies, and abstracted pertinent data. We calculated pooled relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes, with the corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI). We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the quality of evidence using grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs (enrolling 1341 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Prokinetic agents significantly reduced feeding intolerance (RR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.55, 0.97; P = 0.03; moderate certainty), which translated to 17.3 % (95 % CI 5, 26.8 %) absolute reduction in feeding intolerance. Prokinetics also reduced the risk of developing high gastric residual volumes (RR 0.69; 95 % CI 0.52, 0.91; P = 0.009; moderate quality) and increased the success of post-pyloric feeding tube placement (RR 1.60, 95 % CI 1.17, 2.21; P = 0.004; moderate quality). There was no significant improvement in the risk of vomiting, diarrhea, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay or mortality. Prokinetic agents also did not significantly increase the rate of diarrhea.
CONCLUSION
There is moderate-quality evidence that prokinetic agents reduce feeding intolerance in critically ill patients compared to placebo or no intervention. However, the impact on other clinical outcomes such as pneumonia, mortality, and ICU length of stay is unclear.
Topics: Chi-Square Distribution; Critical Illness; Diarrhea; Domperidone; Dopamine Antagonists; Enteral Nutrition; Erythromycin; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Metoclopramide; Residual Volume; Vomiting
PubMed: 27527069
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1441-z -
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2016To systematically review and assess the efficacy, different treatment protocols (formulation, dosage, and duration), and safety of nystatin for treating oral candidiasis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and assess the efficacy, different treatment protocols (formulation, dosage, and duration), and safety of nystatin for treating oral candidiasis.
METHODS
Four electronic databases were searched for trials published in English till July 1, 2015. Randomized controlled trials comparing nystatin with other antifungal therapies or a placebo were included. Clinical and/or mycological cure was the outcome evaluation. A meta-analysis or descriptive study on the efficacy, treatment protocols, and safety of nystatin was conducted.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis showed that nystatin pastille was significantly superior to placebo in treating denture stomatitis. Nystatin suspension was not superior to fluconazole in treating oral candidiasis in infants, children, or HIV/AIDS patients. The descriptive investigations showed that administration of nystatin suspension and pastilles in combination for 2 weeks might achieve a higher clinical and mycological cure rate, and using the nystatin pastilles alone might have a higher mycological cure rate, when compared with using nystatin suspensions alone. Nystatin pastilles at a dose of 400,000 IU resulted in a significantly higher mycological cure rate than that administrated at a dose of 200,000 IU. Furthermore, treatment with nystatin pastilles for 4 weeks seemed to have better clinical efficacy than treatment for 2 weeks. Descriptive safety assessment showed that poor taste and gastrointestinal adverse reaction are the most common adverse effects of nystatin.
CONCLUSION
Nystatin pastille was significantly superior to placebo in treating denture stomatitis, while nystatin suspension was not superior to fluconazole in treating oral candidiasis in infants, children, or HIV/AIDS patients. Indirect evidence from a descriptive study demonstrated that administration of nystatin pastille alone or pastille and suspension in combination is more effective than that of suspension alone; prolonged treatment duration for up to 4 weeks can increase the efficacy of nystatin. More well designed and high quality randomized control studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Candidiasis, Oral; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Nystatin
PubMed: 27042008
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S100795 -
Pharmacological Research Jan 2021Ivermectin is a macrolide antiparasitic drug with a 16-membered ring that is widely used for the treatment of many parasitic diseases such as river blindness,...
Ivermectin is a macrolide antiparasitic drug with a 16-membered ring that is widely used for the treatment of many parasitic diseases such as river blindness, elephantiasis and scabies. Satoshi ōmura and William C. Campbell won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of the excellent efficacy of ivermectin against parasitic diseases. Recently, ivermectin has been reported to inhibit the proliferation of several tumor cells by regulating multiple signaling pathways. This suggests that ivermectin may be an anticancer drug with great potential. Here, we reviewed the related mechanisms by which ivermectin inhibited the development of different cancers and promoted programmed cell death and discussed the prospects for the clinical application of ivermectin as an anticancer drug for neoplasm therapy.
Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Antiparasitic Agents; Cell Death; Humans; Ivermectin; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Neoplasms; Signal Transduction
PubMed: 32971268
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2020.105207 -
American Journal of Obstetrics &... Jul 2023Various prophylactic antibiotic regimens are used in the management of preterm premature rupture of membranes. We investigated the efficacy and safety of these regimens... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Various prophylactic antibiotic regimens are used in the management of preterm premature rupture of membranes. We investigated the efficacy and safety of these regimens in terms of maternal and neonatal outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to July 20, 2021.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials involving pregnant women with preterm premature rupture of membranes before 37 weeks of gestation and a comparison of ≥2 of the following 10 antibiotic regimens: control/placebo, erythromycin, clindamycin, clindamycin plus gentamicin, penicillins, cephalosporins, co-amoxiclav, co-amoxiclav plus erythromycin, aminopenicillins plus macrolides, and cephalosporins plus macrolides.
METHODS
Two investigators independently extracted published data and assessed the risk of bias with a standard procedure following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Network meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies that recruited a total of 7671 pregnant women were included. Only penicillins (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.77) had significantly superior effectiveness for maternal chorioamnionitis. Clindamycin plus gentamicin reduced the risk of clinical chorioamnionitis, with borderline significance (odds ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.00). By contrast, clindamycin alone increased the risk of maternal infection. For cesarean delivery, no significant differences were noted among these regimens.
CONCLUSION
Penicillins remain the recommended antibiotic regimen for reducing maternal clinical chorioamnionitis. The alternative regimen includes clindamycin plus gentamicin. Clindamycin should not be used alone.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Clindamycin; Chorioamnionitis; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Premature Birth; Erythromycin; Macrolides; Gentamicins; Cephalosporins
PubMed: 37094635
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.100978 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Jun 2022This study aimed to estimate the effect of erythromycin vs azithromycin on the duration of latency and the rate of clinical chorioamnionitis in women with preterm... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to estimate the effect of erythromycin vs azithromycin on the duration of latency and the rate of clinical chorioamnionitis in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature.
DATA SOURCES
From inception to October 2021, we explored MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Studies comparing the duration of latency and the rate of clinical chorioamnionitis between women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes who were treated with erythromycin and those who were treated with azithromycin at the time of diagnosis were included.
METHODS
Here, 2 reviewers separately ascertained studies, obtained data, and gauged study quality. The mean length of latency and the rate of clinical chorioamnionitis were compared and mean differences and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated.
RESULTS
A total of 5 studies with 1289 women were identified. The mean length of latency in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes was similar between individuals treated with erythromycin and those treated with azithromycin: 6.6 days vs 6.7 days (mean difference, 0.07 days; 95% confidence interval, -0.45 to 0.60; I, 0%). The median point prevalence rates of clinical chorioamnionitis were 25% (95% confidence interval, 12-32) in women treated with erythromycin and 14% (95% confidence interval, 9-24) in women treated with azithromycin. The overall clinical chorioamnionitis rate in women treated with azithromycin was lower than women treated with erythromycin (pooled odds ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.71; I, 0%).
CONCLUSION
The administration of azithromycin in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes was associated with a similar latency period but a lower rate of clinical chorioamnionitis than the administration of erythromycin.
Topics: Azithromycin; Chorioamnionitis; Erythromycin; Female; Fetal Membranes, Premature Rupture; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy
PubMed: 34973176
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.12.262 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Jun 2021The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends either a fluoroquinolone or a macrolide as a first-line antibiotic treatment for Legionella pneumonia, but it is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends either a fluoroquinolone or a macrolide as a first-line antibiotic treatment for Legionella pneumonia, but it is unclear which antibiotic leads to optimal clinical outcomes. We compared the effectiveness of fluoroquinolone versus macrolide monotherapy in Legionella pneumonia using a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of literature in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to 1 June 2019. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing macrolide with fluoroquinolone monotherapy using clinical outcomes in patients with Legionella pneumonia were included. Twenty-one publications out of an initial 2073 unique records met the selection criteria. Following PRISMA guidelines, 2 reviewers participated in data extraction. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included clinical cure, time to apyrexia, length of hospital stay (LOS), and the occurrence of complications. The review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019132901).
RESULTS
Twenty-one publications with 3525 patients met inclusion criteria. The mean age of the population was 60.9 years and 67.2% were men. The mortality rate for patients treated with fluoroquinolones was 6.9% (104/1512) compared with 7.4% (133/1790) among those treated with macrolides. The pooled odds ratio assessing risk of mortality for patients treated with fluoroquinolones versus macrolides was 0.94 (95% confidence interval, .71-1.25, I2 = 0%, P = .661). Clinical cure, time to apyrexia, LOS, and the occurrence of complications did not differ for patients treated with fluoroquinolones versus macrolides.
CONCLUSIONS
We found no difference in the effectiveness of fluoroquinolones versus macrolides in reducing mortality among patients with Legionella pneumonia.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Community-Acquired Infections; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Legionella; Macrolides; Male; Middle Aged; Pneumonia
PubMed: 32296816
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciaa441 -
The Journal of Antibiotics Sep 2020Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly...
Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses. In this comprehensive systematic review, antiviral effects of ivermectin are summarized including in vitro and in vivo studies over the past 50 years. Several studies reported antiviral effects of ivermectin on RNA viruses such as Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, Hendra, Newcastle, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, chikungunya, Semliki Forest, Sindbis, Avian influenza A, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, Human immunodeficiency virus type 1, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Furthermore, there are some studies showing antiviral effects of ivermectin against DNA viruses such as Equine herpes type 1, BK polyomavirus, pseudorabies, porcine circovirus 2, and bovine herpesvirus 1. Ivermectin plays a role in several biological mechanisms, therefore it could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses. In vivo studies of animal models revealed a broad range of antiviral effects of ivermectin, however, clinical trials are necessary to appraise the potential efficacy of ivermectin in clinical setting.
Topics: Animals; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; Cell Line; DNA Viruses; Disease Models, Animal; Global Health; Humans; Ivermectin; Molecular Structure; RNA Viruses; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32533071
DOI: 10.1038/s41429-020-0336-z -
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) 2023Demodex mites are related to some inflammatory diseases such as rosacea and blepharitis and could be harmful in patients with immunodeficiency or immunosuppression,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Demodex mites are related to some inflammatory diseases such as rosacea and blepharitis and could be harmful in patients with immunodeficiency or immunosuppression, especially notable in patients using biologic like dupilumab. In order to have an objective observation of different anti-Demodex strategies, we conducted this study, based on interventional clinical evidence with quantified Demodex mite data.
METHODS
We used the PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Medline, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) as databases. To assess the risk of bias, the RoB2 and ROBINS-I tools were used. The certainty of evidence was assessed following the GRADE guideline. Furthermore, the effect sizes (ESs) of different strategies were compared in different time periods (0-1, 1-2, 2-3, >3 months), as well as Demodex decrease rates.
RESULTS
1,618 studies were identified in the databases, with 21 of which included in the final quantitative synthesis. Interventions in these studies included ivermectin, tea tree oil (TTO), permethrin, crotamiton, metronidazole, light therapies, combined therapies, and other therapies. During 0-1 month, the ES varied from 0.07 (cleanser) to 1.95 (systemic ivermectin-metronidazole). During 1-2 months, the ES varied from 0.88 (topical permethrin) to 4.40 (topical ivermectin). During 2-3 months, the ES varied from 0.79 (topical permethrin) to 8.37 (topical ivermectin). During the time of 3 months, the ES varied from 0.59 (topical permethrin) to 2.25 (intense pulsed light [IPL]). In terms of Demodex decrease rates, topical ivermectin, TTO, permethrin, IPL, and baby shampoo had achieved a nearly 100% decrease. The reported adverse events were mostly mild, without severe adverse events reported in any of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
We found ivermectin (topical and systemic), ivermectin-metronidazole (topical), and TTO (topical) are promising anti-Demodex interventions. In addition to traditional pharmacotherapy, light therapies, especially IPL and skin cleansing, could also be considered as effective methods to control Demodex mite infestation.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Ivermectin; Mite Infestations; Metronidazole; Permethrin; Skin; Mites
PubMed: 36310014
DOI: 10.1159/000526296