-
Pharmacotherapy Sep 2022Vancomycin is commonly used to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections and is known to cause nephrotoxicity. Previous Vancomycin Consensus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Vancomycin is commonly used to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections and is known to cause nephrotoxicity. Previous Vancomycin Consensus Guidelines recommended targeting trough concentrations but the 2020 Guidelines suggest monitoring vancomycin area under the curve (AUC) given the reduced risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) at similar levels of efficacy. This meta-analysis compares vancomycin-induced AKI incidence using AUC-guided dosing strategies versus trough-based monitoring. Literature was queried from Medline (Ovid), Web of Science, and Google Scholar from database inception through November 5, 2021. Interventional or observational studies reporting the incidence of vancomycin-induced AKI between AUC- and trough-guided dosing strategies were included. In the primary analysis, the Vancomycin Consensus Guidelines definition for AKI was used if reported; otherwise, the Risk, Injury, and Failure; and Loss, and End-stage kidney disease (RIFLE) or Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) definitions were used. The incidence of nephrotoxicity was evaluated between the two strategies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model, and odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Subgroup analyses for adjusted ORs and AKI definitions were performed. Heterogeneity was identified using Cochrane's Q test and I statistics. A total of 10 studies with 4231 patients were included. AUC-guided dosing strategies were associated with significantly less vancomycin-induced AKI than trough-guided strategies [OR 0.625, 95% CI (0.469-0.834), p = 0.001; I = 25.476]. A subgroup analysis of three studies reporting adjusted ORs yielded similar results [OR 0.475, 95% CI (0.261-0.863), p = 0.015]. Stratification by AKI definition showed a significant reduction in AKI with the Vancomycin Consensus Guidelines definition [OR 0.552, 95% CI (0.341-0.894), p = 0.016] but failed to find significance in the alternative definitions. Area under the curve-guided dosing strategies are associated with a lower incidence of vancomycin-induced AKI versus trough-guided dosing strategies (GRADE, low). Limitations included the variety of AKI definitions and the potential for confounding bias.
Topics: Humans; Acute Kidney Injury; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Area Under Curve; Electrolytes; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Retrospective Studies; Vancomycin
PubMed: 35869689
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2722 -
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection... Sep 2020Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile is an important pathogen of healthcare- associated diarrhea, however, an increase in the occurrence of C. difficile infection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile is an important pathogen of healthcare- associated diarrhea, however, an increase in the occurrence of C. difficile infection (CDI) outside hospital settings has been reported. The accumulation of antimicrobial resistance in C. difficile can increase the risk of CDI development and/or its spread. The limited number of antimicrobials for the treatment of CDI is matter of some concern.
OBJECTIVES
In order to summarize the data on antimicrobial resistance to C. difficile derived from humans, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed.
METHODS
We searched five bibliographic databases: (MEDLINE [PubMed], Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) for studies that focused on antimicrobial susceptibility testing in C. difficile and were published between 1992 and 2019. The weighted pooled resistance (WPR) for each antimicrobial agent was calculated using a random- effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 111 studies were included. The WPR for metronidazole and vancomycin was 1.0% (95% CI 0-3%) and 1% (95% CI 0-2%) for the breakpoint > 2 mg/L and 0% (95% CI 0%) for breakpoint ≥32 μg/ml. Rifampin and tigecycline had a WPRs of 37.0% (95% CI 18-58%) and 1% (95% CI 0-3%), respectively. The WPRs for the other antimicrobials were as follows: ciprofloxacin 95% (95% CI 85-100%), moxifloxacin 32% (95% CI 25-40%), clindamycin 59% (95% CI 53-65%), amoxicillin/clavulanate 0% (0-0%), piperacillin/tazobactam 0% (0-0%) and ceftriaxone 47% (95% CI 29-65%). Tetracycline had a WPR 20% (95% CI 14-27%) and meropenem showed 0% (95% CI 0-1%); resistance to fidaxomicin was reported in one isolate (0.08%).
CONCLUSION
Resistance to metronidazole, vancomycin, fidaxomicin, meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam is reported rarely. From the alternative CDI drug treatments, tigecycline had a lower resistance rate than rifampin. The high-risk antimicrobials for CDI development showed a high level of resistance, the highest was seen in the second generation of fluoroquinolones and clindamycin; amoxicillin/clavulanate showed almost no resistance. Tetracycline resistance was present in one fifth of human clinical C. difficile isolates.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clindamycin; Clostridioides difficile; Clostridium Infections; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 32977835
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-020-00815-5 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Sep 2017Antibiotic stewardship programmes have been shown to reduce antibiotic use and hospital costs. We aimed to evaluate evidence of the effect of antibiotic stewardship on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effect of antibiotic stewardship on the incidence of infection and colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Antibiotic stewardship programmes have been shown to reduce antibiotic use and hospital costs. We aimed to evaluate evidence of the effect of antibiotic stewardship on the incidence of infections and colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
METHODS
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for studies published from Jan 1, 1960, to May 31, 2016, that analysed the effect of antibiotic stewardship programmes on the incidence of infection and colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and Clostridium difficile infections in hospital inpatients. Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials and extracted data. Studies involving long-term care facilities were excluded. The main outcomes were incidence ratios (IRs) of target infections and colonisation per 1000 patient-days before and after implementation of antibiotic stewardship. Meta-analyses were done with random-effect models and heterogeneity was calculated with the I method.
FINDINGS
We included 32 studies in the meta-analysis, comprising 9 056 241 patient-days and 159 estimates of IRs. Antibiotic stewardship programmes reduced the incidence of infections and colonisation with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (51% reduction; IR 0·49, 95% CI 0·35-0·68; p<0·0001), extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacteria (48%; 0·52, 0·27-0·98; p=0·0428), and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (37%; 0·63, 0·45-0·88; p=0·0065), as well as the incidence of C difficile infections (32%; 0·68, 0·53-0·88; p=0·0029). Antibiotic stewardship programmes were more effective when implemented with infection control measures (IR 0·69, 0·54-0·88; p=0·0030), especially hand-hygiene interventions (0·34, 0·21-0·54; p<0·0001), than when implemented alone. Antibiotic stewardship did not affect the IRs of vancomycin-resistant enterococci and quinolone-resistant and aminoglycoside-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Significant heterogeneity between studies was detected, which was partly explained by the type of interventions and co-resistance patterns of the target bacteria.
INTERPRETATION
Antibiotic stewardship programmes significantly reduce the incidence of infections and colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and C difficile infections in hospital inpatients. These results provide stakeholders and policy makers with evidence for implementation of antibiotic stewardship interventions to reduce the burden of infections from antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
FUNDING
German Center for Infection Research.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Clostridioides difficile; Clostridium Infections; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Humans; Incidence; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; beta-Lactamases
PubMed: 28629876
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30325-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the third leading cause of neonatal mortality globally constituting 13% of overall neonatal mortality....
BACKGROUND
Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the third leading cause of neonatal mortality globally constituting 13% of overall neonatal mortality. Despite the high burden of neonatal sepsis, high-quality evidence in diagnosis and treatment is scarce. Due to the diagnostic challenges of sepsis and the relative immunosuppression of the newborn, many neonates receive antibiotics for suspected sepsis. Antibiotics have become the most used therapeutics in neonatal intensive care units, and observational studies in high-income countries suggest that 83% to 94% of newborns treated with antibiotics for suspected sepsis have negative blood cultures. The last Cochrane Review was updated in 2005. There is a need for an updated systematic review assessing the effects of different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase Ovid; CINAHL; LILACS; Science Citation Index EXPANDED and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 12 March 2021. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis. We included participants older than 72 hours of life at randomisation, suspected or diagnosed with neonatal sepsis, meningitis, osteomyelitis, endocarditis, or necrotising enterocolitis. We excluded trials that assessed treatment of fungal infections.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and our secondary outcomes were: serious adverse events, respiratory support, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, necrotising enterocolitis, and ototoxicity. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs (580 participants). All trials were at high risk of bias, and had very low-certainty evidence. The five included trials assessed five different comparisons of antibiotics. We did not conduct a meta-analysis due to lack of relevant data. Of the five included trials one trial compared cefazolin plus amikacin with vancomycin plus amikacin; one trial compared ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid with flucloxacillin plus gentamicin; one trial compared cloxacillin plus amikacin with cefotaxime plus gentamicin; one trial compared meropenem with standard care (ampicillin plus gentamicin or cefotaxime plus gentamicin); and one trial compared vancomycin plus gentamicin with vancomycin plus aztreonam. None of the five comparisons found any evidence of a difference when assessing all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, or necrotising enterocolitis; however, none of the trials were near an information size that could contribute significantly to the evidence of the comparative benefits and risks of any particular antibiotic regimen. None of the trials assessed respiratory support or ototoxicity. The benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the lack of well-powered trials and the high risk of systematic errors.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. RCTs assessing different antibiotic regimens in late-onset neonatal sepsis with low risks of bias are warranted.
Topics: Amikacin; Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Aztreonam; Bias; Cefazolin; Clavulanic Acid; Drug Therapy, Combination; Floxacillin; Gentamicins; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Sepsis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ticarcillin; Vancomycin
PubMed: 33998665
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013836.pub2 -
JAMA Surgery Apr 2021Cefazolin is the preoperative antibiotic of choice because it is safer and more efficacious than second-line alternatives. Surgical patients labeled as having penicillin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cefazolin is the preoperative antibiotic of choice because it is safer and more efficacious than second-line alternatives. Surgical patients labeled as having penicillin allergy are less likely to prophylactically receive cefazolin and more likely to receive clindamycin or vancomycin, which results in higher rates of surgical site infections.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the incidence of dual allergy to cefazolin and natural penicillins.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched without language restrictions for relevant articles published from database inception until July 31, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed for articles published from database inception to July 31, 2020, for studies that included patients who had index allergies to a natural penicillin and were tested for tolerability to cefazolin or that included patients who had index allergies to cefazolin and were tested for tolerability to a natural penicillin. A total of 3228 studies were identified and 2911 were screened for inclusion.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were independently extracted by 2 authors. Bayesian meta-analysis was used to estimate the frequency of allergic reactions.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Dual allergy to cefazolin and a natural penicillin.
RESULTS
Seventy-seven unique studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding 6147 patients. Cefazolin allergy was identified in 44 participants with a history of penicillin allergy, resulting in a dual allergy meta-analytical frequency of 0.7% (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.1%-1.7%; I2 = 74.9%). Such frequency was lower for participants with unconfirmed (0.6%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-1.3%; I2 = 54.3%) than for those with confirmed penicillin allergy (3.0%; 95% CrI, 0.01%-17.0%; I2 = 88.2%). Thirteen studies exclusively assessed surgical patients (n = 3884), among whom 0.7% (95% CrI, 0%-3.3%; I2 = 85.5%) had confirmed allergy to cefazolin. Low heterogeneity was observed for studies of patients with unconfirmed penicillin allergy who had been exposed to perioperative cefazolin (0.1%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-0.3%; I2 = 13.1%). Penicillin allergy was confirmed in 16 participants with a history of cefazolin allergy, resulting in a meta-analytical frequency of 3.7% (95% CrI, 0.03%-13.3%; I2 = 64.4%). The frequency of penicillin allergy was 4.4% (95% CrI, 0%-23.0%; I2 = 75%) for the 8 studies that exclusively assessed surgical patients allergic to cefazolin.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that most patients with a penicillin allergy history may safely receive cefazolin. The exception is patients with confirmed penicillin allergy in whom additional care is warranted.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cefazolin; Drug Hypersensitivity; Incidence; Penicillins; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 33729459
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0021 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Feb 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis explored the relationship between vancomycin (VCM) monitoring strategies and VCM effectiveness and safety. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis explored the relationship between vancomycin (VCM) monitoring strategies and VCM effectiveness and safety.
METHODS
We conducted our analysis using the MEDLINE, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases searched on August 9, 2020. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Adult patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia with VCM trough concentrations ≥15 μg/mL had significantly lower treatment failure rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47-0.85). The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) increased with increased trough concentrations and was significantly higher for trough concentrations ≥20 μg/mL compared to those at 15-20 μg/mL (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.78-3.20). Analysis of the target area under the curve/minimum inhibitory concentration ratios (AUC/MIC) showed significantly lower treatment failure rates for high AUC/MIC (cut-off 400 ± 15%) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.18-0.45). The safety analysis revealed that high AUC value (cut-off 600 ± 15%) significantly increased the risk of AKI (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.13-3.89). Our meta-analysis of differences in monitoring strategies included four studies. The incidence of AKI tended to be lower in AUC-guided monitoring than in trough-guided monitoring (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.28-1.01); however, it was not significant in the analysis of mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
We identified VCM trough concentrations and AUC values that correlated with effectiveness and safety. Furthermore, compared to trough-guided monitoring, AUC-guided monitoring showed potential for decreasing nephrotoxicity.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Area Under Curve; Bacteremia; Drug Monitoring; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Odds Ratio; Safety; Staphylococcal Infections; Treatment Failure; Vancomycin
PubMed: 33549035
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-05858-6 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Jun 2023Carriers of multidrug-resistant bacteria are at risk of infections with these bacteria; the precise size of this risk is unclear. We aimed to quantify the effect of gut...
BACKGROUND
Carriers of multidrug-resistant bacteria are at risk of infections with these bacteria; the precise size of this risk is unclear. We aimed to quantify the effect of gut colonisation on subsequent risk of infection with multidrug-resistant bacteria.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar for follow-up studies published from Jan 1, 1995, to March 17, 2022, that measured the incidence of infections with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) and from Jan 1, 1995, to March 15, 2022, that measured the incidence of infections with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). We included original cohort studies and case-control studies that used incidence-density sampling, included 50 or more patients with enteric colonisation or positive urinary samples as a surrogate marker of colonisation, or both, and analysed infections clearly preceded by colonisation. We did not use any language restrictions. We excluded studies not reporting length of follow-up. Summary data were extracted and independently cross-verified by two authors. Carriage was defined as MDR-GNB or VRE, detected in faecal or urinary cultures. Our primary outcomes were cumulative incidence and incidence density of infection in patients colonised by multidrug-resistant bacteria. To estimate pooled incidences, general linearised mixed-effects meta-regressions were used, adjusting for varying follow-up durations. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020222415.
FINDINGS
Of the 301 studies identified, 44 studies (26 on MDR-GNB, 14 on VRE, and four on both MDR-GNB and VRE) from 14 countries were retained for qualitative synthesis, 40 of which were analysed with meta-regression, comprising data for 14 049 patients colonised with multidrug-resistant bacteria. The pooled cumulative incidence of infection was 14% (95% CI 10-18; p<0·0001) at a median follow-up time of 30 days for MDR-GNB (845 cases of infection in 9034 patients colonised) and 8% (5-13; p<0·0001) at 30 days for VRE (229 cases of infection in 4747 patients colonised). Infection incidence density (4·26 infections per 1000 patient-days; 95% CI 1·69-6·82) and cumulative incidence of infection (19%, 95% CI 15-25; p<0·0001; 602 cases of infection in 4547 patients colonised) were highest for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria at 30 days. Risk of bias was rated low to moderate.
INTERPRETATION
The risk of infection was substantial, with the highest risk for patients colonised with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria and the lowest in patients with VRE. These data might help to guide prophylactic and treatment decisions and form a valuable resource for planning clinical trials on targeted prevention.
FUNDING
The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.
Topics: Humans; Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Incidence; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Regression Analysis; Carbapenems; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections
PubMed: 36731484
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00811-8 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Feb 2020Pharmacokinetics (PK) are severely altered in critically ill patients due to changes in volume of distribution (Vd) and/or drug clearance (Cl). This affects the target...
BACKGROUND
Pharmacokinetics (PK) are severely altered in critically ill patients due to changes in volume of distribution (Vd) and/or drug clearance (Cl). This affects the target attainment of antibiotics in critically ill children. We aimed to identify gaps in current knowledge and to compare published PK parameters and target attainment of antibiotics in critically ill children to healthy children and critically ill adults.
METHODS
Systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Articles were labelled as relevant when they included information on PK of antibiotics in critically ill, non-neonatal, pediatric patients. Extracted PK-parameters included Vd, Cl, (trough) concentrations, AUC, probability of target attainment, and elimination half-life.
RESULTS
50 relevant articles were identified. Studies focusing on vancomycin were most prevalent (17/50). Other studies included data on penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems and aminoglycosides, but data on ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, penicillin and metronidazole could not be found. Critically ill children generally show a higher Cl and larger Vd than healthy children and critically ill adults. Reduced target-attainment was described in critically ill children for multiple antibiotics, including amoxicillin, piperacillin, cefotaxime, vancomycin, gentamicin, teicoplanin, amikacin and daptomycin. 38/50 articles included information on both Vd and Cl, but a dosing advice was given in only 22 articles.
CONCLUSION
The majority of studies focus on agents where TDM is applied, while other antibiotics lack data altogether. The larger Vd and higher Cl in critically ill children might warrant a higher dose or extended infusions of antibiotics in this patient population to increase target-attainment. Studies frequently fail to provide a dosing advice for this patient population, even if the necessary information is available. Our study shows gaps in current knowledge and encourages future researchers to provide dosing advice for special populations whenever possible.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Adolescent; Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Area Under Curve; Carbapenems; Cephalosporins; Child; Child, Preschool; Critical Illness; Drug Monitoring; Female; Half-Life; Humans; Infant; Infusions, Intravenous; Male; Penicillins; Vancomycin; Young Adult
PubMed: 31432468
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-019-00813-w -
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 -
The Science of the Total Environment Nov 2020Antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic-resistance genes (ARGs) are constantly shed into the aquatic environment, with hospital wastewater potentially acting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic-resistance genes (ARGs) are constantly shed into the aquatic environment, with hospital wastewater potentially acting as an important source for resistance spread into the environment. A systematic review was conducted aiming to investigate the role of hospital wastewater on dissemination of antimicrobial resistance in the aquatic environment. Studies included in the review compared the prevalence of ARB and/or ARGs in hospital versus community wastewater. Data were extracted on ARB and/or ARG prevalence. Data on sampling techniques, microbiological methodology and risk of bias of included studies were recorded. Thirty-seven studies were included. Higher frequencies of antibiotic resistance determinants were found in hospital wastewater compared to community sources in 30/37 (81%) of included studies. However, trends for specific multi-drug-resistant bacteria differed. Antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative were more prevalent in hospital compared to community wastewaters, with higher concentrations of extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-producing pathogens and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in hospital sources in 9/9 studies and 6/7 studies, respectively. Hospitals did not contribute consistently to the abundance of vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE); 5/10 studies found higher abundance of VRE in hospital compared to community wastewaters. Reporting on sampling methods, wastewater treatment processes and statistical analysis were at high risk of bias. Extreme heterogeneity in study methods and outcome reporting precluded meta-analysis. Current evidence concurs that hospital wastewater is an important source for antibiotic resistance in aquatic environments, mainly multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Future research is needed to assess the effect of wastewater treatment processes on overall antibiotic resistance in the aquatic environment.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Genes, Bacterial; Wastewater
PubMed: 32758846
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140804