-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) range from acute bronchitis and acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis to pneumonia. Approximately five million people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) range from acute bronchitis and acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis to pneumonia. Approximately five million people die from acute respiratory tract infections annually. Among these, pneumonia represents the most frequent cause of mortality, hospitalisation and medical consultation. Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic, structurally modified from erythromycin and noted for its activity against some gram-negative organisms associated with respiratory tract infections, particularly Haemophilus influenzae (H. influenzae).
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness of azithromycin to amoxycillin or amoxycillin/clavulanic acid (amoxyclav) in the treatment of LRTI, in terms of clinical failure, incidence of adverse events and microbial eradication.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October week 4, 2014) and EMBASE (January 1974 to November 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, comparing azithromycin to amoxycillin or amoxycillin/clavulanic acid in participants with clinical evidence of an acute LRTI, such as acute bronchitis, pneumonia and acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The review authors independently assessed all potential studies identified from the searches for methodological quality. We extracted and analysed relevant data separately. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. We initially pooled all types of acute LRTI in the meta-analyses. We investigated the heterogeneity of results using the forest plot and Chi(2) test. We also used the index of the I(2) statistic to measure inconsistent results among trials. We conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 trials involving 2648 participants. We were able to analyse 15 of the trials with 2496 participants. The pooled analysis of all the trials showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of clinical failure on about days 10 to 14 between the two groups (risk ratio (RR), random-effects 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.85). A subgroup analysis in trials with acute bronchitis participants showed significantly lower clinical failure in the azithromycin group compared to amoxycillin or amoxyclav (RR random-effects 0.63; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88). A sensitivity analysis showed a non-significant reduction in clinical failure in azithromycin-treated participants (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.21) in three adequately concealed studies, compared to RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.70 to 2.49 in 12 studies with inadequate concealment. Twelve trials reported the incidence of microbial eradication and there was no significant difference between the two groups (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03). The reduction of adverse events in the azithromycin group was RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.00).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is unclear evidence that azithromycin is superior to amoxycillin or amoxyclav in treating acute LRTI. In patients with acute bronchitis of a suspected bacterial cause, azithromycin tends to be more effective in terms of lower incidence of treatment failure and adverse events than amoxycillin or amoxyclav. However, most studies were of unclear methodological quality and had small sample sizes; future trials of high methodological quality and adequate sizes are needed.
Topics: Acute Disease; Amoxicillin; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Bronchitis; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Infections; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 25749735
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001954.pub4 -
European Journal of Gastroenterology &... Feb 2018The gold-standard treatment for autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a prednisone/azathioprine combination. However, subgroups of patients may be unresponsive to this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The gold-standard treatment for autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a prednisone/azathioprine combination. However, subgroups of patients may be unresponsive to this treatment. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of second-line immunosuppressive therapies for AIH through a systematic review and meta-analysis in adult patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
The systematic review was registered at the PROSPERO platform under number 42015019831. Databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Lilacs, Cochrane, and Scielo were searched. The keywords used were 'Hepatitis, Autoimmune' and descriptors terms (MeSH and DeCS). These terms were linked with each immunosuppressant of interest.
RESULTS
A total of 1532 studies were identified. Of these, 1492 were excluded on the basis of title and abstract reading. Among the 40 studies retrieved for detailed full-text analysis, a total of 15 fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the analysis. The most studied second-line immunosuppressive was mycophenolate mofetil (MM). The mean reduction of aminotransferases was observed in 94.3% with tacrolimus/prednisone, 91.3% for cyclosporine/prednisone, 85.5% for budesonide, and 78.7% MM/prednisone. For MM/prednisone, the mean rate of histological remission was 88.6%, liver transplantation was indicated in 11.4%, and the mortality rate was 7.2%. Limitations were also present, such as the lack of randomized-controlled trials and prospective studies, the small number of patients, and the heterogeneity between remission criteria.
CONCLUSION
This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the second-line imunossupressant therapy for AIH. The most studied second-line immunosuppressive is the MM, with a reasonable histological remission. The use of combined tacrolimus/prednisone was the most effective for the normalization of aminotransferases.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Budesonide; Cyclophosphamide; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hepatitis, Autoimmune; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Mycophenolic Acid; Prednisone; Retreatment; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 29227329
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001019 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jan 2023Due to increasing resistance rates of () to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and...
BACKGROUND
Due to increasing resistance rates of () to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and treatment algorithms for first-line and second-line therapy against infection are well-established, there is no clear recommendation for third-line and rescue therapy in refractory infection.
AIM
To perform a systematic review evaluating the efficacy and safety of rescue therapies against refractory infection.
METHODS
A systematic search of available rescue treatments for refractory infection was conducted on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed search platform based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of infection rescue therapies were included.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies were included in the analysis of mean eradication rates as rescue therapy, and 21 of these were selected for analysis of mean eradication rate as third-line treatment. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple-therapy as third-line treatment, mean eradication rates of 81.6% and 84.4%, 79.4% and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. For third-line quadruple therapy, mean eradication rates of 69.2% and 72.1% were found for bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT), 88.9% and 90.9% for bismuth quadruple therapy, three-in-one, Pylera (BQT-Pylera), and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT) in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple therapy as rescue therapy, mean eradication rates of 75.4% and 78.8%, 79.4 and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For quadruple therapy as rescue treatment, mean eradication rates of 76.7% and 79.2% for BQT, 84.9% and 87.8% for BQT-Pylera, and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For susceptibility-guided therapy, mean eradication rates as third-line and rescue treatment were 75.0% in ITT and 79.2% in PP analysis.
CONCLUSION
We recommend sitafloxacin-based triple therapy containing vonoprazan in regions with low macrolide resistance profile. In regions with known resistance to macrolides or unavailability of bismuth, rifabutin-based triple therapy is recommended.
Topics: Humans; Helicobacter Infections; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Metronidazole; Helicobacter pylori; Bismuth; Levofloxacin; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Macrolides; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Tetracycline; Rifabutin
PubMed: 36687120
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i2.390 -
Pharmacogenomics Jul 2023Sirolimus is an antiproliferative and immunosuppressive compound inhibiting the mTOR pathway, which is often activated in congenital low-flow vascular malformations.... (Review)
Review
Sirolimus is an antiproliferative and immunosuppressive compound inhibiting the mTOR pathway, which is often activated in congenital low-flow vascular malformations. Studies have demonstrated the efficacy of sirolimus for this disease. Studies in kidney transplant patients suggest that genetic variants can influence these pharmacokinetic parameters. Therefore, a systematic literature search was performed to gain insight into pharmacogenetic studies with sirolimus. Most studies investigated and , with inconsistent results. No pharmacogenetic studies focusing on sirolimus have been performed for low-flow vascular malformations. We analyzed two common variants of and ( and , respectively) in patients (n = 59) with congenital low-flow vascular malformations treated with sirolimus. No association with treatment outcome was identified in this small cohort of patients.
Topics: Humans; Sirolimus; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Transplantation; Tacrolimus; Genotype
PubMed: 37551646
DOI: 10.2217/pgs-2022-0147 -
A systematic review and meta-analysis of macrolides in the management of adult patients with asthma.Allergology International : Official... Jul 2024The efficacy of macrolides in the management of asthma has been studied but remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of macrolides in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of macrolides in the management of asthma has been studied but remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of macrolides in the management of adult patients with asthma.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials of macrolides used in adult patients with asthma were searched for in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases to evaluate the efficacy and safety of macrolides.
RESULTS
Seventeen reports with macrolide treatment durations ranging from 6 to 48 weeks were included. Macrolides did not reduce exacerbations requiring hospitalization, severe exacerbations, or rescue use of short-acting beta-2 agonist inhalers; improve lung function; decrease peripheral blood or sputum neutrophil counts; or decrease fractional exhaled nitric oxide compared to placebo. Macrolides statistically improved asthma control and quality of life but by less than the minimal clinically important difference. Peripheral blood eosinophil counts as well as serum and sputum eosinophilic cationic protein concentrations were significantly decreased with macrolides compared to placebo. The improvement of asthma symptoms and airway hyperresponsiveness varied by study. The safety profile of macrolides was comparable to that of placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Although macrolides have some useful clinical aspects, there is not sufficient evidence to recommend their use in the management of adult patients with asthma.
Topics: Humans; Asthma; Macrolides; Adult; Treatment Outcome; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38296770
DOI: 10.1016/j.alit.2024.01.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2024Leptospirosis is a global zoonotic and waterborne disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are used as a strategy for prevention of leptospirosis, in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Leptospirosis is a global zoonotic and waterborne disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are used as a strategy for prevention of leptospirosis, in particular in travellers and high-risk groups. However, the clinical benefits are unknown, especially when considering possible treatment-associated adverse effects. This review assesses the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in leptospirosis and is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Library (2009, Issue 3).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis for human leptospirosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised clinical trials through electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and other resources. We searched online clinical trial registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. We checked reference lists of the retrieved studies for further trials. The last date of search was 17 April 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials of any trial design, assessing antibiotics for prevention of leptospirosis, and with no restrictions on age, sex, occupation, or comorbidity of trial participants. We looked for trials assessing antibiotics irrespective of route of administration, dosage, and schedule versus placebo or no intervention. We also included trials assessing antibiotics versus other antibiotics using these criteria, or the same antibiotic but with another dose or schedule.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed Cochrane methodology. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (inclusive of asymptomatic cases), clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation, clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (exclusive of asymptomatic cases), and serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were quality of life and the proportion of people with non-serious adverse events. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using the RoB 2 tool and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a random-effects model for our main analyses and the fixed-effect model for sensitivity analyses. Our primary outcome analyses included trial data at the longest follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five randomised clinical trials comprising 2593 participants that compared antibiotics (doxycycline, azithromycin, or penicillin) with placebo, or one antibiotic compared with another. Four trials assessed doxycycline with different durations, one trial assessed azithromycin, and one trial assessed penicillin. One trial had three intervention groups: doxycycline, azithromycin, and placebo. Three trials assessed pre-exposure prophylaxis, one trial assessed postexposure prophylaxis, and one did not report this clearly. Four trials recruited residents in endemic areas, and one trial recruited soldiers who experienced limited time exposure. The participants' ages in the included trials were 10 to 80 years. Follow-up ranged from one to three months. Antibiotics versus placebo Doxycycline compared with placebo may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.83; 1 trial, 782 participants; low-certainty evidence). Prophylactic antibiotics may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.26; 5 trials, 2593 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics may result in little to no difference in the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of laboratory confirmation (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.08; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis with laboratory confirmation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.26; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics compared with placebo may increase non-serious adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 10.13, 95% CI 2.40 to 42.71; 3 trials, 1909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One antibiotic versus another antibiotic One trial assessed doxycycline versus azithromycin but did not report mortality. Compared to azithromycin, doxycycline may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.32; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), and on non-serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.48; 1 trial, 137 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. None of the five included trials reported serious adverse events or assessed quality of life. One study is awaiting classification. Funding Four of the five trials included statements disclosing their funding/supporting sources, and the remaining trial did not include this. Three of the four trials that disclosed their supporting sources received the supply of trial drugs directly from the same pharmaceutical company, and the remaining trial received financial support from a governmental source.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo or another antibiotic has little or have no effect on all-cause mortality or leptospirosis infection because the certainty of evidence is low or very low. We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo may increase the overall risk of non-serious adverse events because of very low-certainty evidence. We lack definitive rigorous data from randomised trials to support the use of antibiotics for the prophylaxis of leptospirosis infection. We lack trials reporting data on clinically relevant outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Doxycycline; Azithromycin; Quality of Life; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Penicillins; Leptospirosis
PubMed: 38483067
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014959.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Asthma is a chronic respiratory condition that affects over 300 million adults and children worldwide. It is characterised by wheeze, cough, chest tightness, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Asthma is a chronic respiratory condition that affects over 300 million adults and children worldwide. It is characterised by wheeze, cough, chest tightness, and shortness of breath. Symptoms typically are intermittent and may worsen over a short time, leading to an exacerbation. Asthma exacerbations can be serious, leading to hospitalisation or even death in rare cases. Exacerbations may be treated by increasing an individual's usual medication and providing additional medication, such as oral steroids. Although antibiotics are sometimes included in the treatment regimen, bacterial infections are thought to be responsible for only a minority of exacerbations, and current guidance states that antibiotics should be reserved for cases in which clear signs, symptoms, or laboratory test results are suggestive of bacterial infection.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of antibiotics in the treatment of asthma exacerbations.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains records compiled from multiple electronic and handsearched resources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent search in October 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies comparing antibiotic therapy for asthma exacerbations in adults or children versus placebo or usual care not involving an antibiotic. We allowed studies including any type of antibiotic, any dose, and any duration, providing the aim was to treat the exacerbation. We included parallel studies of any duration conducted in any setting and planned to include cluster trials. We excluded cross-over trials. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors screened the search results for eligible studies. We extracted outcome data, assessed risk of bias in duplicate, and resolved discrepancies by involving another review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs), and continuous data as mean differences (MDs), all with a fixed-effect model. We described skewed data narratively. We graded the results and presented evidence in 'Summary of findings' tables for each comparison. Primary outcomes were intensive care unit/high dependence unit (ICU/HDU) admission, duration of symptoms/exacerbations, and all adverse events. Seconday outcomes were mortality, length of hospital admission, relapse after index presentation, and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR).
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies met our inclusion criteria and included a total of 681 adults and children with exacerbations of asthma. Mean age in the three studies in adults ranged from 36.2 to 41.2 years. The three studies in children applied varied inclusion criteria, ranging from one to 18 years of age. Five studies explicitly excluded participants with obvious signs and symptoms of bacterial infection (i.e. those clearly meeting current guidance to receive antibiotics). Four studies investigated macrolide antibiotics, and two studies investigated penicillin (amoxicillin and ampicillin) antibiotics; both studies using penicillin were conducted over 35 years ago. Five studies compared antibiotics versus placebo, and one was open-label. Study follow-up ranged from one to twelve weeks. Trials were of varied methodological quality, and we were able to perform only limited meta-analysis.None of the included trials reported ICU/HDU admission, although one participant in the placebo group of a study including children with status asthmaticus experienced a respiratory arrest and was ventilated. Four studies reported asthma symptoms, but we were able to combine results for only two macrolide studies of 416 participants; the MD in diary card symptom score was -0.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60 to -0.08), with lower scores (on a 7 point scale) denoting improved symptoms. Two macrolide studies reported symptom-free days. One study of 255 adults authors reported the percentage of symptom-free days at 10 days as 16% in the antibiotic group and 8% in the placebo group. In a further study of 40 children study authors reported significantly more symptom-free days at all time points in the antibiotic group compared with the usual care group. The same study reported the duration in days of the index asthma exacerbation, again favouring the antibiotic group. One study of a penicillin including 69 participants reported asthma symptoms at hospital discharge; the between-group difference for both studies was reported as non-significant.We combined data for serious adverse events from three studies involving 502 participants, but events were rare; the three trials reported only 10 events: five in the antibiotic group and five in the placebo group. We combined data for all adverse events (AEs) from three studies, but the effect estimate is imprecise (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.43). No deaths were reported in any of the included studies.Two studies investigating penicillins reported admission duration; neither study reported a between-group difference. In one study (263 participants) of macrolides, two participants in each arm were reported as experiencing a relapse, defined as a further exacerbation, by the six-week time points. We combined PEFR endpoint results at 10 days for two macrolide studies; the result favoured antibiotics over placebo (MD 23.42 L/min, 95% CI 5.23 to 41.60). One study in children reported the maximum peak flow recorded during the follow-up period, favouring the clarithromycin group, but the confidence interval includes no difference (MD 38.80, 95% CI -11.19 to 88.79).Grading of outcomes ranged from moderate to very low quality, with quality of outcomes downgraded for suspicion of publication bias, indirectness, imprecision, and poor methodological quality of studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found limited evidence that antibiotics given at the time of an asthma exacerbation may improve symptoms and PEFR at follow-up compared with standard care or placebo. However, findings were inconsistent across the six heterogeneous studies included, two of the studies were conducted over 30 years ago and most of the participants included in this review were recruited from emergency departments, limiting the applicability of findings to this population. Therefore we have limited confidence in the results. We found insufficient evidence about several patient-important outcomes (e.g. hospital admission) to form conclusions. We were unable to rule out a difference between groups in terms of all adverse events, but serious adverse events were rare.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Age Factors; Amoxicillin; Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Asthma; Child; Disease Progression; Humans; Length of Stay; Macrolides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29938789
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002741.pub2 -
Helicobacter Jun 2023Empiric therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection results in significantly increased antibiotic resistance and decreased eradication efficacy. The genotypic testing of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Individualized diagnosis and eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection based on gene detection of clarithromycin resistance in stool specimens: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Empiric therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection results in significantly increased antibiotic resistance and decreased eradication efficacy. The genotypic testing of clarithromycin resistance from stool specimens is a promising method for individualized diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to determine the status of research and application on this method through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and WAN FANG database were searched for relevant literature. The quality of included diagnostic articles was evaluated using the quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. A bivariate random-effect model was conducted to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of genotypic testing of clarithromycin resistance.
RESULTS
A total of 16 diagnostic-related were included and analyzed after exclusions. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic meta-analysis were 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-0.96) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.93-1.00), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristic was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.98). The genotypic testing in stool samples had heterogeneous sensitivity (Q = 37.82, p < .01, I = 37.82) and specificity (Q = 60.34, p < .01, I = 93.72) in detecting clarithromycin resistance. Purification method, stool sample weight, real-time PCR, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing as reference accounted for the heterogeneity of pooled sensitivity, while patient age, purification method, stool sample weight, and real-time PCR for the heterogeneity of pooled specificity.
CONCLUSION
The genotypic testing of clarithromycin resistance from stool specimens is an accurate, convenient, noninvasive, and rapid detection technology, providing a definitive diagnosis of clarithromycin resistance and guiding the rational antibiotic selection.
Topics: Humans; Clarithromycin; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 36828668
DOI: 10.1111/hel.12958 -
Breast Cancer (Tokyo, Japan) Mar 2017Ixabepilone is now a Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutic option for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) whose disease has progressed despite prior... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ixabepilone is now a Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutic option for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) whose disease has progressed despite prior anthracycline and taxane therapy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of ixabepilone for treating metastatic breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Randomized controlled studies applying ixabepilone for treating MBC were included. The primary outcome was Overall Survival (OS). The authors of primary articles were contacted and methodological quality was evaluated. Subgroups were drawn based on intervention measures; heterogeneity and bias were discussed.
RESULTS
Eight studies with 5247 patients were included. Compared with a weekly schedule, a triweekly schedule of ixabepilone was better at improving overall response rate (ORR), while there were no differences in improving OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Ixabepilone plus capecitabine was superior to capecitabine monotherapy in improving OS, PFS and ORR. Paclitaxel was more effective than ixabepilone in terms of OS and PFS. There was no difference in the improvement of ORR, clinical benefit rate (CBR) and disease control rate (DCR) between ixabepilone and eribulin.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests that a triweekly schedule of ixabepilone is more effective than weekly dosing in improving ORR. Use of ixabepilone in combination with capecitabine possesses superior clinical efficacy to the use of capecitabine alone. Paclitaxel was more effective than ixabepilone in terms of OS and PFS. The efficacy and safety between ixabepilone and eribulin were identical.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Capecitabine; Drug Administration Schedule; Epothilones; Female; Furans; Humans; Ketones; Paclitaxel; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27491426
DOI: 10.1007/s12282-016-0717-0 -
Journal of Reproductive Immunology Dec 2023Recurrent miscarriage (RM) affects up to 2.5% of couples of reproductive age. Up to 10% of couples using assisted reproductive technology experience recurrent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Recurrent miscarriage (RM) affects up to 2.5% of couples of reproductive age. Up to 10% of couples using assisted reproductive technology experience recurrent implantation failure (RIF). Immunosuppressive drugs, such as calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs), has been proposed for RM and RIF management. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CNIs in RM and RIF treatment. We searched in the three databases. Review Manager 5.4.1 was used for statistical analysis. This review included 8 studies involving 1042 women (485 women in the CNIs group and 557 women in the control group). CNI treatment (cyclosporine [CsA] and tacrolimus [TAC]) increases live birth rate (LBR, odds ratio [OR]: 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.93-3.28, p < 0.00001) and clinical pregnancy rate (OR: 2.25; 95% CI: 1.54-4.40, p < 0.0001) and decreases miscarriage rate (OR: 0.45 95% CI: 0.32-0.63, p < 0.00001) when compared to the control. Side effects and obstetric and neonatal complications was similar in both groups. In conclusion, CNIs increased LBR in women with RM and RIF but there is a moderate risk of bias. Subgroup analysis revealed that CNIs improved LBR in women with RM with a low risk of bias. However, in women with RIF, with moderate to high risk of bias. The use of CsA and TAC, in low doses and for a short period, for managing reproductive failures in women seems to be safe, not causing serious side effects nor increasing the risk of obstetric and neonatal complications.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Abortion, Habitual; Pregnancy Rate; Immunosuppressive Agents; Birth Rate; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 37813069
DOI: 10.1016/j.jri.2023.104157