-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease and is used in more than 200,000 such patients globally. However, its value... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease and is used in more than 200,000 such patients globally. However, its value is often limited by the development of infections such as peritonitis and exit-site and tunnel infections. Multiple strategies have been developed to reduce the risk of peritonitis including antibiotics, topical disinfectants to the exit site and antifungal agents. However, the effectiveness of these strategies has been variable and are based on a small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The optimal preventive strategies to reduce the occurrence of peritonitis remain unclear.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of antimicrobial strategies used to prevent peritonitis in PD patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 4 October 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs or quasi-RCTs in patients receiving chronic PD, which evaluated any antimicrobial agents used systemically or locally to prevent peritonitis or exit-site/tunnel infection were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-nine studies, randomising 4435 patients, were included. Twenty additional studies have been included in this update. The risk of bias domains were often unclear or high; risk of bias was judged to be low in 19 (49%) studies for random sequence generation, 12 (31%) studies for allocation concealment, 22 (56%) studies for incomplete outcome reporting, and in 12 (31%) studies for selective outcome reporting. Blinding of participants and personnel was considered to be at low risk of bias in 8 (21%) and 10 studies (26%) for blinding of outcome assessors. It should be noted that blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in many of the studies because of the nature of the intervention or control treatment.The use of oral or topical antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment, had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 191 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.04) and the risk of peritonitis (5 studies, 395 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.19).The use of nasal antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.87) and the risk of peritonitis (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.31).Pre/perioperative intravenous vancomycin compared with no treatment may reduce the risk of early peritonitis (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61) but has an uncertain effect on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.32).The use of topical disinfectant compared with standard care or other active treatment (antibiotic or other disinfectant) had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (8 studies, 973 patients, low quality evidence, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33) and the risk of peritonitis (6 studies, 853 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06).Antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin/fluconazole compared with placebo/no treatment may reduce the risk of fungal peritonitis occurring after a patient has had an antibiotic course (2 studies, 817 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63).No intervention reduced the risk of catheter removal or replacement. Most of the available studies were small and of suboptimal quality. Only six studies enrolled 200 or more patients.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this update, we identified limited data from RCTs and quasi-RCTs which evaluated strategies to prevent peritonitis and exit-site/tunnel infections. This review demonstrates that pre/peri-operative intravenous vancomycin may reduce the risk of early peritonitis and that antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin or fluconazole reduces the risk of fungal peritonitis following an antibiotic course. However, no other antimicrobial interventions have proven efficacy. In particular, the use of nasal antibiotic to eradicate Staphylococcus aureus, had an uncertain effect on the risk of peritonitis and raises questions about the usefulness of this approach. Given the large number of patients on PD and the importance of peritonitis, the lack of adequately powered and high quality RCTs to inform decision making about strategies to prevent peritonitis is striking.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Antifungal Agents; Catheter-Related Infections; Device Removal; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Mupirocin; Mycoses; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 28390069
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004679.pub3 -
Journal of Infection and Public Health Mar 2023There is paucity of data describing the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial resistance. This review evaluated the changes in the rate of multidrug resistant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is paucity of data describing the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial resistance. This review evaluated the changes in the rate of multidrug resistant gram negative and gram positive bacteria during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS
A search was conducted in PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases to identify eligible studies. Studies that reported the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), extended-spectrum beta-lactamase inhibitor (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae, vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CPE) were selected. Studies published in English language from the start of COVID-19 pandemic to July 2022 were considered for inclusion.
RESULTS
Thirty eligible studies were selected and most of them were from Italy (n = 8), Turkey (n = 3) and Brazil (n = 3). The results indicated changes in the rate of multidrug resistant bacteria, and the changes varied between the studies. Most studies (54.5%) reported increase in MRSA infection/colonization during the pandemic, and the increase ranged from 4.6 to 170.6%. Five studies (55.6%) reported a 6.8-65.1% increase in VRE infection/colonization during the pandemic. A 2.4-58.2% decrease in ESBL E. coli and a 1.8-13.3% reduction in ESBL Klebsiella pneumoniae was observed during the pandemic. For CRAB, most studies (58.3%) reported 1.5-621.6% increase in infection/colonization during the pandemic. Overall, studies showed increase in the rate of CRE infection/colonization during the pandemic. There was a reduction in carbapenem-resistant E. coli during COVID-19 pandemic, and an increase in carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae. Most studies (55.6%) showed 10.4 - 40.9% reduction in the rate of CRPA infection during the pandemic.
CONCLUSION
There is an increase in the rate of multidrug resistant gram positive and gram negative bacteria during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the rate of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae and CRPA has decrease during the pandemic. Both infection prevention and control strategies and antimicrobial stewardship should be strengthen to address the increasing rate of multidrug resistant gram positive and gram negative bacteria.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Pandemics; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Escherichia coli; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Gram-Positive Bacteria; COVID-19; Enterobacteriaceae; Klebsiella pneumoniae; Carbapenems; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 36657243
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2022.12.022 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Clostridioides difficile (formerly known as Clostridium difficile) is a bacterium that can cause potentially life-threatening diarrheal illness in individuals with an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Clostridioides difficile (formerly known as Clostridium difficile) is a bacterium that can cause potentially life-threatening diarrheal illness in individuals with an unhealthy mixture of gut bacteria, known as dysbiosis, and can cause recurrent infections in nearly a third of infected individuals. The traditional treatment of recurrent C difficile infection (rCDI) includes antibiotics, which may further exacerbate dysbiosis. There is growing interest in correcting the underlying dysbiosis in rCDI using of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT); and there is a need to establish the benefits and harms of FMT for the treatment of rCDI based on data from randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of donor-based fecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection in immunocompetent people.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomized trials of adults or children with rCDI for inclusion. Eligible interventions must have met the definition of FMT, which is the administration of fecal material containing distal gut microbiota from a healthy donor to the gastrointestinal tract of a person with rCDI. The comparison group included participants who did not receive FMT and were given placebo, autologous FMT, no intervention, or antibiotics with activity against C difficile.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. proportion of participants with resolution of rCDI and 2. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 3. treatment failure, 4. all-cause mortality, 5. withdrawal from study, 6. rate of new CDI infection after a successful FMT, 7. any adverse event, 8. quality of life, and 9. colectomy. We used the GRADE criteria to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies with 320 participants. Two studies were conducted in Denmark, and one each in the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, and the US. Four were single-center and two were multicenter studies. All studies included only adults. Five studies excluded people who were severely immunocompromised, with only one study including 10 participants who were receiving immunosuppressive therapy out of the 64 enrolled; these were similarly distributed between the FMT arm (4/24 or 17%) and comparison arms (6/40 or 15%). The route of administration was the upper gastrointestinal tract via a nasoduodenal tube in one study, two studies used enema only, two used colonoscopic only delivery, and one used either nasojejunal or colonoscopic delivery, depending on a clinical determination of whether the recipient could tolerate a colonoscopy. Five studies had at least one comparison group that received vancomycin. The risk of bias (RoB 2) assessments did not find an overall high risk of bias for any outcome. All six studies assessed the efficacy and safety of FMT for the treatment of rCDI. Pooled results from six studies showed that the use of FMT in immunocompetent participants with rCDI likely leads to a large increase in resolution of rCDI in the FMT group compared to control (risk ratio (RR) 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.71; P = 0.02, I = 63%; 6 studies, 320 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3; moderate-certainty evidence). Fecal microbiota transplantation probably results in a slight reduction in serious adverse events; however, the CIs around the summary estimate were wide (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.41; P = 0.24, I² = 26%; 6 studies, 320 participants; NNTB 12; moderate-certainty evidence). Fecal microbiota transplantation may result in a reduction in all-cause mortality; however, the number of events was small, and the CIs of the summary estimate were wide (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.45; P = 0.48, I = 0%; 6 studies, 320 participants; NNTB 20; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported colectomy rates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In immunocompetent adults with rCDI, FMT likely leads to a large increase in the resolution of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection compared to alternative treatments such as antibiotics. There was no conclusive evidence regarding the safety of FMT for the treatment of rCDI as the number of events was small for serious adverse events and all-cause mortality. Additional data from large national registry databases might be required to assess any short-term or long-term risks with using FMT for the treatment of rCDI. Elimination of the single study that included some immunocompromised people did not alter these conclusions. Due to the low number of immunocompromised participants enrolled, conclusions cannot be drawn about the risks or benefits of FMT for rCDI in the immunocompromised population.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Fecal Microbiota Transplantation; Clostridioides difficile; Clostridioides; Quality of Life; Dysbiosis; Recurrence; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clostridium Infections; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37096495
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013871.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively.
MAIN RESULTS
Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Female; Fosfomycin; Humans; Imipenem; Levofloxacin; Male; Penicillins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 32407558
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3 -
Spine Feb 2020A systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to investigate the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) in patients following spine surgery and the rate of microorganisms in these cases.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Many studies have investigated the incidence and risk factors of SSI following spinal surgery, whereas no meta-analysis studies have been conducted regarding the comprehensive epidemiological incidence of SSI after spine surgery.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies that reported the incidence of SSI after spine surgery, and manually screened reference lists for additional studies. Relevant incidence estimates were calculated. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias assessment were also performed.
RESULTS
Our meta-analysis included 27 studies, with 603 SSI cases in 22,475 patients. The pooled SSI incidence was 3.1%. Subgroup analysis revealed that the incidence of superficial SSI was 1.4% and the incidence of deep SSI was 1.7%. Highest incidence (13.0%) was found in patients with neuromuscular scoliosis among the different indications. The incidences of SSI in cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine were 3.4%, 3.7%, and 2.7%, respectively. Compared with posterior approach surgery (5.0%), anterior approach showed a lower incidence (2.3%) of SSI. Instrumented surgery had a higher incidence of SSI than noninstrumented surgery (4.4% vs. 1.4%). Patients with minimally invasive surgery (1.5%) had a lower SSI incidence than open surgery (3.8%). Lower incidence of SSI was found when vancomycin powder was applied locally during the surgery (1.9%) compared with those not used (4.8%). In addition, the rates of Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococci in microbiological culture results were 37.9%, 22.7%, and 23.1%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The pooled incidence of SSI following spine surgery was 3.1%. These figures may be useful in the estimation of the probability of SSI following spine surgery.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
3.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Humans; Incidence; Orthopedic Procedures; Spine; Surgical Wound Infection; Vancomycin
PubMed: 31464972
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003218 -
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection... 2018Identifying risk factors predicting acquisition of resistant will aid surveillance and diagnostic initiatives and can be crucial in early and appropriate antibiotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Identifying risk factors predicting acquisition of resistant will aid surveillance and diagnostic initiatives and can be crucial in early and appropriate antibiotic therapy. We conducted a systematic review examining risk factors of acquisition of resistant among hospitalized patients.
METHODS
MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, and Cochrane Central were searched between 2000 and 2016 for studies examining independent risk factors associated with acquisition of resistant , among hospitalized patients. Random effects model meta-analysis was conducted when at least three or more studies were sufficiently similar.
RESULTS
Of the 54 eligible articles, 28 publications (31studies) examined multi-drug resistant (MDR) or extensively drug resistant (XDR) and 26 publications (29 studies) examined resistant The acquisition of MDR , as compared with non-MDR , was significantly associated with intensive care unit (ICU) admission (3 studies: summary adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.2) or use of quinolones (4 studies: summary adjusted OR 3.59). Acquisition of MDR or XDR compared with susceptible was significantly associated with prior hospital stay (4 studies: summary adjusted OR 1.90), use of quinolones (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 4.34), or use of carbapenems (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 13.68). The acquisition of MDR compared with non- was significantly associated with prior use of cephalosporins (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 3.96), quinolones (4 studies: summary adjusted OR 2.96), carbapenems (6 studies: summary adjusted OR 2.61), and prior hospital stay (4 studies: summary adjusted OR 1.74). The acquisition of carbapenem-resistant compared with susceptible , was statistically significantly associated with prior use of piperacillin-tazobactam (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 2.64), vancomycin (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 1.76), and carbapenems (7 studies: summary adjusted OR 4.36).
CONCLUSIONS
Prior use of antibiotics and prior hospital or ICU stay was the most significant risk factors for acquisition of resistant . These findings provide guidance in identifying patients that may be at an elevated risk for a resistant infection and emphasize the importance of antimicrobial stewardship and infection control in hospitals.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae; Carbapenems; Cephalosporins; Critical Care; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Female; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Male; Middle Aged; Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination; Pseudomonas Infections; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Quinolones; Risk Factors; Vancomycin
PubMed: 29997889
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-018-0370-9 -
The Journal of Hospital Infection Nov 2023Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) cause many infections in the healthcare context. Knowledge regarding the epidemiology and burden of VRE infections, however,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) cause many infections in the healthcare context. Knowledge regarding the epidemiology and burden of VRE infections, however, remains fragmented. We aimed to summarize recent studies on VRE epidemiology and outcomes in hospitals, long-term-care facilities (LTCFs) and nursing homes worldwide based on current epidemiological reports. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for observational studies, which reported on VRE faecium and faecalis infections in in-patients published between January 2014 and December 2020. Outcomes were incidence, infection rate, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and healthcare costs. We conducted a meta-analysis on mortality (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020146389). Of 681 identified publications, 57 studies were included in the analysis. Overall quality of evidence was moderate to low. VRE incidence was rarely and heterogeneously reported. VRE infection rate differed highly (1-55%). The meta-analysis showed a higher mortality for VRE faecium bloodstream infections (BSIs) compared with VSE faecium BSIs (risk ratio, RR 1.46; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-1.82). No difference was observed when comparing VRE faecium vs VRE faecalis BSI (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.52-1.93). LOS was higher in BSIs caused by E. faecium vs E. faecalis. Only three studies reported healthcare costs. In contrast to previous findings, our meta-analysis of included studies indicates that vancomycin resistance independent of VRE species may be associated with a higher mortality. We identified a lack of standardization in reporting outcomes, information regarding healthcare costs, and state-of-the-art microbiological species identification methodology, which may inform the set-up and reporting of future studies.
Topics: Humans; Vancomycin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Enterococcus faecalis; Enterococcus faecium; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections; Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci; Sepsis
PubMed: 37734679
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2023.09.008 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Dec 2023Methicillin-resistant (MRSA) is responsible for an array of problematic community- and healthcare-acquired infections, including pneumonia, and is frequently associated... (Review)
Review
Methicillin-resistant (MRSA) is responsible for an array of problematic community- and healthcare-acquired infections, including pneumonia, and is frequently associated with severe disease and high mortality rates. Standard recommended treatments for empiric and targeted coverage of suspected MRSA in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), are vancomycin and linezolid. However, adverse events such as acute kidney injury and infection have been associated with these antibiotics. Ceftaroline fosamil is a β-lactam/extended-spectrum cephalosporin approved for the treatment of adults and children with CAP and complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Ceftaroline has activity against a range of common Gram-positive bacteria and is distinct among the β-lactams in retaining activity against MRSA. Due to the design of the pivotal randomised controlled trials of ceftaroline fosamil, outcomes in patients with MRSA CAP were not evaluated. However, various reports of real-world outcomes with ceftaroline fosamil for pneumonia caused by MRSA, including CAP and HAP/VAP, been published since its approval. A systematic literature review and qualitative analysis of relevant publications was undertaken to collate and summarise relevant published data on the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with MRSA pneumonia. While relatively few real-world outcomes studies are available, the available data suggest that ceftaroline fosamil is a possible alternative to linezolid and vancomycin for MRSA pneumonia. Specific scenarios in which ceftaroline fosamil might be considered include bacteraemia and complicating factors such as empyema.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Linezolid; Vancomycin; Cephalosporins; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Community-Acquired Infections; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Ceftaroline
PubMed: 37852658
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0117-2023 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy May 2015To systematically assess the literature to ascertain the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical efficacy and safety associated with administration of a... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically assess the literature to ascertain the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical efficacy and safety associated with administration of a vancomycin loading dose (LD).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE (1948-December 31, 2014), EMBASE (1980-December 31, 2014), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-December 31, 2014), Google and Google Scholar, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched using the following terms: vancomycin, glycopeptides, loading dose, dose-response relationship.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical efficacy studies using vancomycin LDs to achieve trough concentrations of 15 to 20 mg/L were included. Nonhuman, non-English, oral vancomycin, and dialysis patient studies were excluded. Abstracts were included. Study quality was ranked using US Preventative Services Task Force 1996 classification system. Data on study design, baseline characteristics, exclusion criteria, dosing, study outcomes, and conclusions were extracted.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 8 studies (5 manuscripts [2 level I, 3 level II-3] and 3 abstracts) were cited. Of 6 adult studies, 4 concluded that administration of vancomycin LDs resulted in significantly more patients achieving troughs of 15 to 20 mg/L. Studies in children found that LDs did not lead to rapid attainment of vancomycin levels ≥15 mg/L. No studies assessed clinical or microbiological outcomes. Limitations included heterogeneity and inconsistent timing of concentration measurements.
CONCLUSIONS
High-quality data to guide the use of vancomycin LDs are lacking. LDs may more rapidly attain vancomycin troughs of 15 to 20 mg/L in adults, but information in pediatrics, obesity, and renal impairment is limited. Further studies are required to determine benefit of LDs on clinical and microbiological outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Vancomycin
PubMed: 25712445
DOI: 10.1177/1060028015571163