-
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Aug 2022Precise estimates of mortality in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) are important to convey prognosis and guide the design of interventional studies. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Precise estimates of mortality in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) are important to convey prognosis and guide the design of interventional studies.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate all-cause mortality in SAB and explore mortality change over time.
DATA SOURCES
The MEDLINE and Embase databases, as well as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were searched from January 1, 1991 to May 7, 2021.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Human observational studies on patients with S. aureus bloodstream infection were included.
PARTICIPANTS
The study analyzed data of patients with a positive blood culture for S. aureus.
METHODS
Two independent reviewers extracted study data and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A generalized, linear, mixed random effects model was used to pool estimates.
RESULTS
A total of 341 studies were included, describing a total of 536,791 patients. From 2011 onward, the estimated mortality was 10.4% (95% CI, 9.0%-12.1%) at 7 days, 13.3% (95% CI, 11.1%-15.8%) at 2 weeks, 18.1% (95% CI, 16.3%-20.0%) at 1 month, 27.0% (95% CI, 21.5%-33.3%) at 3 months, and 30.2% (95% CI, 22.4%-39.3%) at 1 year. In a meta-regression model of 1-month mortality, methicillin-resistant S. aureus had a higher mortality rate (adjusted OR (aOR): 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06 per 10% increase in methicillin-resistant S. aureus proportion). Compared with prior to 2001, more recent time periods had a lower mortality rate (aOR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.03 for 2001-2010; aOR: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97 for 2011 onward).
CONCLUSIONS
SAB mortality has decreased over the last 3 decades. However, more than one in four patients will die within 3 months, and continuous improvement in care remains necessary.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteremia; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Sepsis; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 35339678
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.03.015 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Mar 2020Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most common pathogens causing nosocomial and community-acquired infections associated with high morbidity and mortality. Mupirocin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most common pathogens causing nosocomial and community-acquired infections associated with high morbidity and mortality. Mupirocin has been increasingly used for treatment of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infections. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of mupirocin-resistant S. aureus (MuRSA), mupirocin-resistant MRSA (MuRMRSA), high-level MuRSA (HLMuRSA) and high-level MuRMRSA (HLMuRMRSA) worldwide.
METHODS
Online databases including Medline, Embase and Web of Science were searched (2000-2018) to identify studies addressing the prevalence of MuRSA, MuRMRSA, HLMuRSA and HLMuRMRSA. STATA v. software was used to interpret the data.
RESULTS
Of the 2243 records identified from the databases, 30 and 63 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria for MuRSA and MuRMRSA, respectively. Finally, 27 and 60 studies were included separately for HLMuRSA and HLMuRMRSA, respectively. The analyses revealed pooled and averaged prevalences of MuRSA, MuRMRSA, HLMuRSA and HLMuRMRSA of 7.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.2-9.0%], 13.8% (95% CI 12.0-15.6%), 8.5% (95% CI 6.3-10.7%) and 8.1% (95% CI 6.8-9.4%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Overall, these results show a global increase in the prevalence of HLMuRSA and HLMuRMRSA among clinical S. aureus isolates over time. However, there was only a significant increase in the prevalence of MuRMRSA compared with the other categories, especially MuRSA. Since mupirocin remains the most effective antibiotic for MSSA and MRSA decolonisation both in patients and healthcare personnel, a reduction of its effectiveness presents a risk for invasive infection. Monitoring of mupirocin resistance development remains critical.
Topics: Community-Acquired Infections; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Mupirocin; Population Surveillance; Prevalence; Staphylococcal Infections
PubMed: 31442624
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2019.07.032 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2023Vancomycin (VCM) and daptomycin (DAP) are standard therapies for methicillin-resistant (MRSA) bacteremia, despite concerns regarding clinical utility and growing... (Review)
Review
Vancomycin (VCM) and daptomycin (DAP) are standard therapies for methicillin-resistant (MRSA) bacteremia, despite concerns regarding clinical utility and growing resistance. Linezolid (LZD) affords superior tissue penetration to VCM or DAP and has been successfully used as salvage therapy for persistent MRSA bacteremia, indicating its utility as a first-choice drug against MRSA bacteremia. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the effectiveness and safety of LZD with VCM, teicoplanin (TEIC), or DAP in patients with MRSA bacteremia. We evaluated all-cause mortality as the primary effectiveness outcome, clinical and microbiological cure, hospital length of stay, recurrence, and 90-day readmission rates as secondary effectiveness outcomes, and drug-related adverse effects as primary safety outcomes. We identified 5328 patients across 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 pooled analysis of 5 RCTs, 1 subgroup analysis (1 RCT), and 5 case-control and cohort studies (CSs). Primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes were comparable between patients treated with LZD versus VCM, TEIC, or DAP in RCT-based studies and CSs. There was no difference in adverse event incidence between LZD and comparators. These findings suggest that LZD could be a potential first-line drug against MRSA bacteremia as well as VCM or DAP.
PubMed: 37107059
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12040697 -
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection... Feb 2022Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are one of the gravest threats to patient safety worldwide. The importance of the hospital environment has recently been revalued... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are one of the gravest threats to patient safety worldwide. The importance of the hospital environment has recently been revalued in infection prevention and control. Though the literature is evolving rapidly, many institutions still do not consider healthcare environmental hygiene (HEH) very important for patient safety. The evidence for interventions in the healthcare environment on patient colonization and HAI with multidrug-resistant microorganisms (MDROs) or other epidemiologically relevant pathogens was reviewed.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines using the PubMed and Web of Science databases. All original studies were eligible if published before December 31, 2019, and if the effect of an HEH intervention on HAI or patient colonization was measured. Studies were not eligible if they were conducted in vitro, did not include patient colonization or HAI as an outcome, were bundled with hand hygiene interventions, included a complete structural rebuild of the healthcare facility or were implemented during an outbreak. The primary outcome was the comparison of the intervention on patient colonization or HAI compared to baseline or control. Interventions were categorized by mechanical, chemical, human factors, or bundles. Study quality was assessed using a specifically-designed tool that considered study design, sample size, control, confounders, and issues with reporting. The effect of HEH interventions on environmental bioburden was studied as a secondary outcome.
FINDINGS
After deduplication, 952 records were scrutinized, of which 44 were included for full text assessment. A total of 26 articles were included in the review and analyzed. Most studies demonstrated a reduction of patient colonization or HAI, and all that analyzed bioburden demonstrated a reduction following the HEH intervention. Studies tested mechanical interventions (n = 8), chemical interventions (n = 7), human factors interventions (n = 3), and bundled interventions (n = 8). The majority of studies (21/26, 81%) analyzed either S. aureus, C. difficile, and/or vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Most studies (23/26, 88%) reported a decrease of MDRO-colonization or HAI for at least one of the tested organisms, while 58% reported a significant decrease of MDRO-colonization or HAI for all tested microorganisms. Forty-two percent were of good quality according to the scoring system. The majority (21/26, 81%) of study interventions were recommended for application by the authors. Studies were often not powered adequately to measure statistically significant reductions.
INTERPRETATION
Improving HEH helps keep patients safe. Most studies demonstrated that interventions in the hospital environment were related with lower HAI and/or patient colonization. Most of the studies were not of high quality; additional adequately-powered, high-quality studies are needed. Systematic registration number: CRD42020204909.
Topics: Clostridioides difficile; Cross Infection; Delivery of Health Care; Humans; Hygiene; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 35183259
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-022-01075-1 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Mar 2023COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two intersecting global public health crises. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two intersecting global public health crises.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AMR across health care settings.
DATA SOURCE
A search was conducted in December 2021 in WHO COVID-19 Research Database with forward citation searching up to June 2022.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY
Studies evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on AMR in any population were included and influencing factors were extracted. Reporting of enhanced infection prevention and control and/or antimicrobial stewardship programs was noted.
METHODS
Pooling was done separately for Gram-negative and Gram-positive organisms. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
Of 6036 studies screened, 28 were included and 23 provided sufficient data for meta-analysis. The majority of studies focused on hospital settings (n = 25, 89%). The COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with a change in the incidence density (incidence rate ratio 0.99, 95% CI: 0.67-1.47) or proportion (risk ratio 0.91, 95% CI: 0.55-1.49) of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci cases. A non-statistically significant increase was noted for resistant Gram-negative organisms (i.e. extended-spectrum beta-lactamase, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem or multi-drug resistant or carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Acinetobacter baumannii, incidence rate ratio 1.64, 95% CI: 0.92-2.92; risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI: 0.91-1.29). The absence of reported enhanced infection prevention and control and/or antimicrobial stewardship programs initiatives was associated with an increase in gram-negative AMR (risk ratio 1.11, 95% CI: 1.03-1.20). However, a test for subgroup differences showed no statistically significant difference between the presence and absence of these initiatives (p 0.40).
CONCLUSION
The COVID-19 pandemic may have hastened the emergence and transmission of AMR, particularly for Gram-negative organisms in hospital settings. But there is considerable heterogeneity in both the AMR metrics used and the rate of resistance reported across studies. These findings reinforce the need for strengthened infection prevention, antimicrobial stewardship, and AMR surveillance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; COVID-19; Carbapenems
PubMed: 36509377
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.12.006 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Mar 2021American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines suggest that linezolid (LZD) is preferred over vancomycin (VCM) for treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines suggest that linezolid (LZD) is preferred over vancomycin (VCM) for treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia. We conducted a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis to compare VCM and LZD efficacy against proven MRSA pneumonia.
METHODS
We searched EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed up to November 2019. The outcomes of the meta-analysis were mortality, clinical cure, microbiological evaluation, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1239 patients and eight retrospective cohort or case-control studies (CSs) with a total 6125 patients were identified. Clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates were significantly increased in patients treated with LZD in RCTs (clinical cure: risk ratio (RR) = 0.81, 95% confidential interval (CI) = 0.71-0.92; microbiological eradication: RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.62-0.81) and CSs (clinical cure: odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.18-0.69). However, mortality was comparable between patients treated with VCM and LZD in RCTs (RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.88-1.32) and CSs (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.94-1.53). Likewise, there was no significant difference in adverse events between VCM and LZD in CSs (thrombocytopenia: OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.50-1.82; nephrotoxicity: OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 0.85-3.45).
CONCLUSIONS
According to our meta-analysis of RCTs and CSs conducted worldwide, we found robust evidence to corroborate the IDSA guidelines for the treatment of proven MRSA pneumonia.
Topics: Acetamides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Linezolid; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Oxazolidinones; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 33401013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2020.12.009 -
Cureus Nov 2022Since the last century, methicillin-resistant (MRSA) bacteremia has become a major global and public health concern not only in terms of morbidity and mortality but... (Review)
Review
Since the last century, methicillin-resistant (MRSA) bacteremia has become a major global and public health concern not only in terms of morbidity and mortality but also the duration of hospital stay, healthcare cost, and antimicrobial choices. Especially alarming is the growing antimicrobial resistance due to their misuse and overuse, which has led the world to be exhausted of its effective antibiotic resources. In this review article, we sought to figure out the most efficacious antimicrobial agents to treat MRSA-related bloodstream infections. We compared the data from reviewing reports from 2017 to 2022 and summarized their comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Although we focused on vancomycin and daptomycin, which are the current Infectious Disease Society Of America (IDSA)-recommended antibiotics for MRSA bacteremia treatment, a deep dive into the newer agents revealed better efficacy and treatment outcome in the combination of ceftaroline (β-lactam) with daptomycin compared to traditional standard monotherapy (vancomycin/daptomycin monotherapy). Also, the IDSA recommended high-dose daptomycin (8-10 mg/kg) therapy for MRSA bacteremia treatment to be more effective in cases with vancomycin-reduced susceptibility. Moreover, we did not find any trial or study describing the use of ceftaroline as a monotherapy to compare its efficacy in MRSA bacteremia with the current standard therapy. The upshot is that we need more large-scale clinical trials exploring in-depth effectiveness and adverse effects to decide on newer agents like β-lactams to use as routine therapy for MRSA bacteremia.
PubMed: 36523711
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.31486 -
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Sep 2016Coinfecting bacterial pathogens are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in influenza. However, there remains a paucity of literature on the magnitude of coinfection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Coinfecting bacterial pathogens are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in influenza. However, there remains a paucity of literature on the magnitude of coinfection in influenza patients.
METHOD
A systematic search of MeSH, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and PubMed was performed. Studies of humans in which all individuals had laboratory confirmed influenza, and all individuals were tested for an array of common bacterial species, met inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies including 3215 participants met all inclusion criteria. Common etiologies were defined from a subset of eight articles. There was high heterogeneity in the results (I(2) = 95%), with reported coinfection rates ranging from 2% to 65%. Although only a subset of papers were responsible for observed heterogeneity, subanalyses and meta-regression analysis found no study characteristic that was significantly associated with coinfection. The most common coinfecting species were Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus, which accounted for 35% (95% CI, 14%-56%) and 28% (95% CI, 16%-40%) of infections, respectively; a wide range of other pathogens caused the remaining infections. An assessment of bias suggested that lack of small-study publications may have biased the results.
CONCLUSIONS
The frequency of coinfection in the published studies included in this review suggests that although providers should consider possible bacterial coinfection in all patients hospitalized with influenza, they should not assume all patients are coinfected and be sure to properly treat underlying viral processes. Further, high heterogeneity suggests additional large-scale studies are needed to better understand the etiology of influenza bacterial coinfection.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Coinfection; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Influenza, Human; Male; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Middle Aged; Pneumococcal Infections; Staphylococcal Infections; Streptococcus pneumoniae; Young Adult
PubMed: 27232677
DOI: 10.1111/irv.12398 -
Pediatrics Sep 2020is a common cause of community and health care-associated bacteremia, with authors of recent studies estimating the incidence of bacteremia (SAB) in high-income...
is a common cause of community and health care-associated bacteremia, with authors of recent studies estimating the incidence of bacteremia (SAB) in high-income countries between 8 and 26 per 100 000 children per year. Despite this, <300 children worldwide have ever been randomly assigned into clinical trials to assess the efficacy of treatment of SAB. A panel of infectious diseases physicians with clinical and research interests in pediatric SAB identified 7 key clinical questions. The available literature is systematically appraised, summarizing SAB management in children in relation to these priority clinical questions. The management of neonates, children, and adolescents with SAB is predominantly based on clinical experience and trial data extrapolated from adult studies, with limited high-quality evidence available to guide management. The optimal, comprehensive management strategies for SAB in children will remain unknown until the questions outlined are answered through prospective observational cohorts and inclusion of children with SAB in clinical trials.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Algorithms; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteremia; Case-Control Studies; Catheter-Related Infections; Cephalosporins; Child; Child, Preschool; Delphi Technique; Drug Administration Schedule; Echocardiography; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Glycopeptides; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Injections, Intravenous; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Observational Studies as Topic; Penicillins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Referral and Consultation; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus; Vancomycin; beta-Lactams
PubMed: 32759380
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2020-0134 -
European Journal of Integrative Medicine Oct 2016The therapeutic use of animals has been debated for decades, and its use explored in a variety of settings and populations. However, there is no uniformity on naming... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The therapeutic use of animals has been debated for decades, and its use explored in a variety of settings and populations. However, there is no uniformity on naming these interventions. Evidence based knowledge is essential to implement effective strategies in hospital. This review focused on the use of animal programs for hospitalized patients, and considered the potential risks.
METHODS
The following databases were searched: PubMed, Scopus, PsychInfo, Ebsco Animals, PROQUEST, Web of Science, CINAHL, and MEDLINE, and PRISMA guidelines were adhered to.
RESULTS
Out of 432 articles were identified 36 articles suitable for inclusion into the review. Data was heterogeneous in terms of age of patient, health issue, animals used and the length of interactions, which made comparison problematic. Studies on children, psychiatric and elderly patients were the most common. The animal-intervention programs suggested various benefits such as reducing stress, pain and anxiety. Other outcomes considered were changes in vital signs, and nutritional intake. Most studies used dogs, but other animals were effectively employed. The major risks outlined were allergies, infections and animal-related accidents. Zoonosis was a possible risk, as well as common infections as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus. The implementation of simple hygiene protocols was effective at minimizing risk. The literature suggested that the benefits outweighed by far the risks.
CONCLUSION
The human relationship with animals can be useful and relatively safe for inpatients with various problems. Moreover, the implementation of security precautions and the careful selection of patients should minimize the risks, particularly those infection-related. Many aspects remain unclear, further studies are required.
PubMed: 32362955
DOI: 10.1016/j.eujim.2016.05.005