-
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jan 2019Background and o: Oral mucositis is one of the main adverse events of cancer treatment with chemotherapy or radiation therapy. It presents as erythema, atrophy or/and...
Background and o: Oral mucositis is one of the main adverse events of cancer treatment with chemotherapy or radiation therapy. It presents as erythema, atrophy or/and ulceration of oral mucosa. It occurs in almost all patients, who receive radiation therapy of the head and neck area and from 20% to 80% of patients who receive chemotherapy. There are few clinical trials in the literature proving any kind of treatment or prevention methods to be effective. Therefore, the aim of this study is to perform systematic review of literature and examine the most effective treatment and prevention methods for chemotherapy or/and radiotherapy induced oral mucositis. : Clinical human trials, published from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2017 in English, were included in this systematic review of literature. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocol was followed while planning, providing objectives, selecting studies and analyzing data for this systematic review. "MEDLINE" and "PubMed Central" databases were used to search eligible clinical trials. Clinical trials researching medication, oral hygiene, cryotherapy or laser therapy efficiency in treatment or/and prevention of oral mucositis were included in this systematic review. : Results of the studies used in this systematic review of literature showed that laser therapy, cryotherapy, professional oral hygiene, antimicrobial agents, Royal jelly, L. brevis lozenges, Zync supplementation and Benzydamine are the best treatment or/and prevention methods for oral mucositis. : Palifermin, Chlorhexidine, Smecta, Actovegin, Kangfuxin, L. brevis lozenges, Royal jelly, Zync supplement, Benzydamine, cryotherapy, laser therapy and professional oral hygiene may be used in oral mucositis treatment and prevention.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cryotherapy; Fatty Acids; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Laser Therapy; Oral Hygiene; Radiotherapy; Stomatitis
PubMed: 30678228
DOI: 10.3390/medicina55020025 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2021After insertion into the bone, implants osseointegrate, which is required for their long-term success. However, inflammation and infection around the implants may lead... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
After insertion into the bone, implants osseointegrate, which is required for their long-term success. However, inflammation and infection around the implants may lead to implant failure leading to peri-implantitis and loss of supporting bone, which may eventually lead to failure of implant. Surface chemistry of the implant and lack of cleanliness on the part of the patient are related to peri-implantitis. The only way to get rid of this infection is decontamination of dental implants.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review intended to study decontamination of microbial biofilm methods on titanium implant surfaces used in dentistry.
METHODS
The electronic databases Springer Link, Science Direct, and PubMed were explored from their inception until December 2020 to identify relevant studies. Studies included had to evaluate the efficiency of new strategies either to prevent formation of biofilm or to treat matured biofilm on dental implant surfaces.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this systematic review, 17 different groups of decontamination methods were summarized from 116 studies. The decontamination methods included coating materials, mechanical cleaning, laser treatment, photodynamic therapy, air polishing, anodizing treatment, radiation, sonication, thermal treatment, ultrasound treatment, chemical treatment, electrochemical treatment, antimicrobial drugs, argon treatment, and probiotics.
CONCLUSION
The findings suggest that most of the decontamination methods were effective in preventing the formation of biofilm and in decontaminating established biofilm on dental implants. This narrative review provides a summary of methods for future research in the development of new dental implants and decontamination techniques.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Biofilms; Decontamination; Dental Implants; Humans; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 34692562
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.736186 -
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy May 2024The prevalence of obesity has increased considerably in the last few decades. Pathophysiological changes in obese patients lead to pharmacokinetic (PK) and...
The prevalence of obesity has increased considerably in the last few decades. Pathophysiological changes in obese patients lead to pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) alterations that can condition the correct exposure to antimicrobials if standard dosages are used. Inadequate dosing in obese patients can lead to toxicity or therapeutic failure. In recent years, additional antimicrobial PK/PD data, extended infusion strategies, and studies in critically ill patients have made it possible to obtain data to provide a better dosage in obese patients. Despite this, it is usually difficult to find information on drug dosing in this population, which is sometimes contradictory. This is a comprehensive review of the dosing of different types of antimicrobials (antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals, and antituberculosis drugs) in obese patients, where the literature on PK and possible dosing strategies in obese adults was critically assessed.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Antifungal Agents; Antitubercular Agents; Antiviral Agents; Critical Illness; Obesity
PubMed: 38526051
DOI: 10.1128/aac.01719-23 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Burn wounds cause high levels of morbidity and mortality worldwide. People with burns are particularly vulnerable to infections; over 75% of all burn deaths (after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Burn wounds cause high levels of morbidity and mortality worldwide. People with burns are particularly vulnerable to infections; over 75% of all burn deaths (after initial resuscitation) result from infection. Antiseptics are topical agents that act to prevent growth of micro-organisms. A wide range are used with the intention of preventing infection and promoting healing of burn wounds.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects and safety of antiseptics for the treatment of burns in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched three clinical trials registries and references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with any burn wound and assessed the use of a topical treatment with antiseptic properties.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 56 RCTs with 5807 randomised participants. Almost all trials had poorly reported methodology, meaning that it is unclear whether they were at high risk of bias. In many cases the primary review outcomes, wound healing and infection, were not reported, or were reported incompletely.Most trials enrolled people with recent burns, described as second-degree and less than 40% of total body surface area; most participants were adults. Antiseptic agents assessed were: silver-based, honey, Aloe Vera, iodine-based, chlorhexidine or polyhexanide (biguanides), sodium hypochlorite, merbromin, ethacridine lactate, cerium nitrate and Arnebia euchroma. Most studies compared antiseptic with a topical antibiotic, primarily silver sulfadiazine (SSD); others compared antiseptic with a non-antibacterial treatment or another antiseptic. Most evidence was assessed as low or very low certainty, often because of imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates, or both, often in single studies. Antiseptics versus topical antibioticsCompared with the topical antibiotic, SSD, there is low certainty evidence that, on average, there is no clear difference in the hazard of healing (chance of healing over time), between silver-based antiseptics and SSD (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.67; I = 0%; 3 studies; 259 participants); silver-based antiseptics may, on average, increase the number of healing events over 21 or 28 days' follow-up (RR 1.17 95% CI 1.00 to 1.37; I = 45%; 5 studies; 408 participants) and may, on average, reduce mean time to healing (difference in means -3.33 days; 95% CI -4.96 to -1.70; I = 87%; 10 studies; 979 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with honey are probably more likely to heal over time compared with topical antibiotics (HR 2.45, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.52; I = 66%; 5 studies; 140 participants).There is low certainty evidence from single trials that sodium hypochlorite may, on average, slightly reduce mean time to healing compared with SSD (difference in means -2.10 days, 95% CI -3.87 to -0.33, 10 participants (20 burns)) as may merbromin compared with zinc sulfadiazine (difference in means -3.48 days, 95% CI -6.85 to -0.11, 50 relevant participants). Other comparisons with low or very low certainty evidence did not find clear differences between groups.Most comparisons did not report data on infection. Based on the available data we cannot be certain if antiseptic treatments increase or reduce the risk of infection compared with topical antibiotics (very low certainty evidence). Antiseptics versus alternative antisepticsThere may be some reduction in mean time to healing for wounds treated with povidone iodine compared with chlorhexidine (MD -2.21 days, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.08). Other evidence showed no clear differences and is of low or very low certainty. Antiseptics versus non-antibacterial comparatorsWe found high certainty evidence that treating burns with honey, on average, reduced mean times to healing in comparison with non-antibacterial treatments (difference in means -5.3 days, 95% CI -6.30 to -4.34; I = 71%; 4 studies; 1156 participants) but this comparison included some unconventional treatments such as amniotic membrane and potato peel. There is moderate certainty evidence that honey probably also increases the likelihood of wounds healing over time compared to unconventional anti-bacterial treatments (HR 2.86, 95% C 1.60 to 5.11; I = 50%; 2 studies; 154 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with nanocrystalline silver dressings probably have a slightly shorter mean time to healing than those treated with Vaseline gauze (difference in means -3.49 days, 95% CI -4.46 to -2.52; I = 0%; 2 studies, 204 participants), but low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference in numbers of healing events at 14 days between burns treated with silver xenograft or paraffin gauze (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.16 1 study; 32 participants). Other comparisons represented low or very low certainty evidence.It is uncertain whether infection rates in burns treated with either silver-based antiseptics or honey differ compared with non-antimicrobial treatments (very low certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in infection rates between an iodine-based treatment compared with moist exposed burn ointment (moderate certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether infection rates differ for SSD plus cerium nitrate, compared with SSD alone (low certainty evidence).Mortality was low where reported. Most comparisons provided low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between many treatments. There may be fewer deaths in groups treated with cerium nitrate plus SSD compared with SSD alone (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; I = 0%, 2 studies, 214 participants) (low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It was often uncertain whether antiseptics were associated with any difference in healing, infections, or other outcomes. Where there is moderate or high certainty evidence, decision makers need to consider the applicability of the evidence from the comparison to their patients. Reporting was poor, to the extent that we are not confident that most trials are free from risk of bias.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Apitherapy; Bacterial Infections; Bandages; Burns; Chlorhexidine; Disinfectants; Honey; Humans; Merbromin; Plant Preparations; Povidone-Iodine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silver Sulfadiazine; Sodium Hypochlorite; Sulfadiazine; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28700086
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011821.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Oct 2018To provide an updated joint ASCO/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guideline on antimicrobial prophylaxis for adult patients with immunosuppression...
PURPOSE
To provide an updated joint ASCO/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guideline on antimicrobial prophylaxis for adult patients with immunosuppression associated with cancer and its treatment.
METHODS
ASCO and IDSA convened an update Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of relevant studies from May 2011 to November 2016. The guideline recommendations were based on the review of evidence by the Expert Panel.
RESULTS
Six new or updated meta-analyses and six new primary studies were added to the updated systematic review.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Antibacterial and antifungal prophylaxis is recommended for patients who are at high risk of infection, including patients who are expected to have profound, protracted neutropenia, which is defined as < 100 neutrophils/µL for > 7 days or other risk factors. Herpes simplex virus-seropositive patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation or leukemia induction therapy should receive nucleoside analog-based antiviral prophylaxis, such as acyclovir. prophylaxis is recommended for patients receiving chemotherapy regimens that are associated with a > 3.5% risk for pneumonia as a result of this organism (eg, those with ≥ 20 mg prednisone equivalents daily for ≥ 1 month or on the basis of purine analog usage). Treatment with a nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor (eg, entecavir or tenofovir) is recommended for patients at high risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation. Recommendations for vaccination and avoidance of prolonged contact with environments that have high concentrations of airborne fungal spores are also provided within the updated guideline. Additional information is available at .
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Infection Control; Infections; Neoplasms
PubMed: 30179565
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.18.00374 -
Journal of Periodontology Jul 2018This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), as an adjunct to non-surgical or surgical therapy, on clinical and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), as an adjunct to non-surgical or surgical therapy, on clinical and patient-centered outcomes in patients with periodontitis or peri-implantitis.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up duration ≥ 3 months that evaluated mechanical root/implant surface debridement (i.e., scaling and root planing [SRP] or implant surface scaling [ISS]) versus SRP or ISS plus aPDT for the treatment of adult patients (≥ 18 years old) with moderate-to-severe chronic (CP)/aggressive periodontitis (AgP) or peri-implantitis, respectively, were considered eligible for inclusion. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for articles published up to and including March 2017. Random-effects meta-analyses were used throughout the review using continuous data (i.e., mean changes from baseline), and pooled estimates were expressed as weighted mean differences with their associated 95% confidence intervals. Additionally, summaries are presented of the included RCTs, critical remarks of the literature, and evidence quality rating/strength of recommendation of laser procedures.
RESULTS
Of 729 potentially eligible articles, 28 papers (26 studies) were included in the review. Individual study outcomes and four sets of meta-analysis showed potential statistical significant benefit of aPDT in improving clinical attachment level (CAL) (non-surgical treatment of AgP) and probing depth (PD) (non-surgical treatment of AgP and CP). However, the comparative differences in clinical outcomes were modest (< 1 mm), and the level of certainty for different therapies was considered low-to-moderate (i.e., more information would be necessary to allow for a reliable and definitive estimation of effect/magnitude of therapies on health outcomes). Overall, most of the strengths of clinical recommendations of aPDT were guided by the expert opinion.
CONCLUSIONS
aPDT may provide similar clinical improvements in PD and CAL when compared with conventional periodontal therapy for both periodontitis and peri-implantitis patients. The restricted base of evidence for some treatment approaches and conditions precludes additional conclusions.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Infective Agents; Dental Scaling; Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Photochemotherapy; Root Planing; United States
PubMed: 30133749
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2017.170172 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Jul 2016Antimicrobial stewardship is advocated to improve the quality of antimicrobial use. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether antimicrobial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antimicrobial stewardship is advocated to improve the quality of antimicrobial use. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether antimicrobial stewardship objectives had any effects in hospitals and long-term care facilities on four predefined patients' outcomes: clinical outcomes, adverse events, costs, and bacterial resistance rates.
METHODS
We identified 14 stewardship objectives and did a separate systematic search for articles relating to each one in Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed. Studies were included if they reported data on any of the four predefined outcomes in patients in whom the specific antimicrobial stewardship objective was assessed and compared the findings in patients in whom the objective was or was not met. We used a random-effects model to calculate relative risk reductions with relative risks and 95% CIs.
FINDINGS
We identified 145 unique studies with data on nine stewardship objectives. Overall, the quality of evidence was generally low and heterogeneity between studies was mostly moderate to high. For the objectives empirical therapy according to guidelines, de-escalation of therapy, switch from intravenous to oral treatment, therapeutic drug monitoring, use of a list of restricted antibiotics, and bedside consultation the overall evidence showed significant benefits for one or more of the four outcomes. Guideline-adherent empirical therapy was associated with a relative risk reduction for mortality of 35% (relative risk 0·65, 95% CI 0·54-0·80, p<0·0001) and for de-escalation of 56% (0·44, 0·30-0·66, p<0·0001). Evidence of effects was less clear for adjusting therapy according to renal function, discontinuing therapy based on lack of clinical or microbiological evidence of infection, and having a local antibiotic guide. We found no reports for the remaining five stewardship objectives or for long-term care facilities.
INTERPRETATION
Our findings of beneficial effects on outcomes with nine antimicrobial stewardship objectives suggest they can guide stewardship teams in their efforts to improve the quality of antibiotic use in hospitals.
FUNDING
Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy and Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Bacterial Infections; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Drug Utilization; Hospitals; Humans; Netherlands; Patient Safety
PubMed: 26947617
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00065-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) is a disease affecting immunocompromised patients. PCP among these patients is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) is a disease affecting immunocompromised patients. PCP among these patients is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of PCP prophylaxis among non-HIV immunocompromised patients; and to define the type of immunocompromised patient for whom evidence suggests a benefit for PCP prophylaxis.
SEARCH METHODS
Electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE and EMBASE (to March 2014), LILACS (to March 2014), relevant conference proceedings; and references of identified trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing prophylaxis with an antibiotic effective against PCP versus placebo, no intervention, or antibiotic(s) with no activity against PCP; and trials comparing different antibiotics effective against PCP among immunocompromised non-HIV patients. We only included trials in which Pneumocystis infections were available as an outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias in each trial and extracted data from the included trials. We contacted authors of the included trials to obtain missing data. The primary outcome was documented PCP infections. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated and pooled using the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen trials performed between the years 1974 and 2008 were included, involving 1412 patients. Four trials included 520 children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and the remaining trials included adults with acute leukemia, solid organ transplantation or autologous bone marrow transplantation. Compared to no treatment or treatment with fluoroquinolones (inactive against Pneumocystis), there was an 85% reduction in the occurrence of PCP in patients receiving prophylaxis with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, RR of 0.15 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.62; 10 trials, 1000 patients). The evidence was graded as moderate due to possible risk of bias. PCP-related mortality was also significantly reduced, RR of 0.17 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.94; nine trials, 886 patients) (low quality of evidence due to possible risk of bias and imprecision), but in trials comparing PCP prophylaxis against placebo or no treatment there was no significant effect on all-cause mortality (low quality of evidence due to imprecision). Occurrence of leukopenia or neutropenia and their duration were not reported consistently. No significant differences in overall adverse events or events requiring discontinuation were seen comparing trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole to no treatment or placebo (four trials, 470 patients, moderate quality evidence). No differences between once daily versus thrice weekly trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole were seen (two trials, 207 patients).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Given an event rate of 6.2% in the control groups of the included trials, prophylaxis for PCP using trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is highly effective among non-HIV immunocompromised patients, with a number needed to treat to prevent PCP of 19 patients (95% CI 17 to 42). Prophylaxis should be considered for patients with a similar baseline risk of PCP.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents; Child; HIV Seronegativity; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Pneumonia, Pneumocystis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination
PubMed: 25269391
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005590.pub3 -
Annals of Surgery Dec 2021There is uncertainty around preoperative skin antisepsis in clean surgery. Network meta-analysis provides more precise estimates than standard pairwise meta-analysis and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
The Comparative Efficacy of Chlorhexidine Gluconate and Povidone-iodine Antiseptics for the Prevention of Infection in Clean Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
There is uncertainty around preoperative skin antisepsis in clean surgery. Network meta-analysis provides more precise estimates than standard pairwise meta-analysis and can rank interventions by efficacy, to better inform clinical decisions.
BACKGROUND
Infection is the most common and costly complication of surgery. The relative efficacy of CHG and PVI based skin antiseptics in clean surgery remains unclear.
METHODS
We searched for randomized or nonrandomized studies comparing the effect of different preparations of CHG and PVI on the dichotomous outcome of surgical site infection. We included studies of adults undergoing clean surgery. We excluded studies concerning indwelling vascular catheters, blood sampling, combination antiseptics or sequential applications of different antiseptics. We performed a network meta-analysis to estimate the relative efficacy of interventions using relative risks (RR).
RESULTS
We included 17 studies comparing 5 antiseptics in 14,593 individuals. The overall rate of surgical site infection was 3%. Alcoholic CHG 4%-5% was ranked as the most effective antiseptic as it halved the risk of surgical site infection when compared to aqueous PVI [RR 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.24, 1.02)] and also to alcoholic PVI, although uncertainty was larger [RR 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.21, 1.27)]. Adverse events related to antiseptic application were only observed with patients exposed to PVI.
CONCLUSIONS
Alcoholic formulations of 4%-5% CHG seem to be safe and twice as effective as PVI (alcoholic or aqueous solutions) in preventing infection after clean surgery in adults. Our findings concur with the literature on contaminated and clean-contaminated surgery, and endorse guidelines worldwide which advocate the use of alcoholic CHG for preoperative skin antisepsis.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO ID CRD42018113001.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Povidone-Iodine; Preoperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 32773627
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004076 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jun 2017Nitrofurantoin has been used for the prevention of urinary tract infection (UTI) for over 60 years. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Nitrofurantoin has been used for the prevention of urinary tract infection (UTI) for over 60 years. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess its efficacy and safety in the prophylaxis of UTI.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of all controlled trials in humans assessing nitrofurantoin for UTI prophylaxis published from 1946 to 2015. We further reviewed population-level cohort studies evaluating nitrofurantoin's toxicity. Meta-analyses assessing efficacy and adverse events were conducted on controlled trials.
RESULTS
Twenty-six controlled trials including 3052 patients fulfilled entry criteria for the systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and toxicity, and 16 population-level cohort studies were identified for review of toxicity. Overall quality was poor, with all studies at increased risk for various biases. When compared with no prophylaxis, nitrofurantoin is effective in the prevention of UTI (risk ratio 0.38 in favour of nitrofurantoin, 95% CI 0.30-0.48). Its prophylactic efficacy is superior to that of methenamine hippurate and comparable to that of other antibacterials. Compared with patients receiving other antibacterials, those receiving nitrofurantoin had an increased risk of 2.24 (95% CI 1.77-2.83) for a non-severe adverse effect. In all controlled trials, only one patient experienced a severe adverse effect (interstitial pneumonia). Cohort studies reported severe adverse effect frequencies of 0.02-1.5 per 1000 nitrofurantoin users.
CONCLUSIONS
Nitrofurantoin is effective in the prevention of UTI. Its use may be associated with increased non-severe adverse effects; severe adverse effects occur infrequently. The risk of severe toxicity seems to increase with the duration of nitrofurantoin prophylaxis.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Urinary; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; Nitrofurantoin; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 27542332
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2016.08.003