-
Advances in Clinical and Experimental... Aug 2020The antibiotic meropenem is commonly administered to patients with sepsis and septic shock. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The antibiotic meropenem is commonly administered to patients with sepsis and septic shock. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of continuous compared to intermittent meropenem infusion for the treatment of sepsis. Electronic databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were researched to collect clinical trials comparing continuous and intermittent infusion of meropenem in patients with sepsis. After data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies, Stata v. 12.0 software (Stata Corporation LLC, College Station, USA) was used for a meta-analysis of mortality, clinical cure, microbiological eradication, and safety. Seven studies with a total of 1,191 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that continuous meropenem infusion was superior to intermittent infusion in terms of mortality (combined risk ratio (RR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.46-0.98, p = 0.03), clinical cure rate (combined RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.02-1.30, p = 0.026) and microbiological eradication (combined RR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.01-1.42, p = 0.04), although it may increase the incidence of some adverse events (AEs). Compared with intermittent dosing, administration of meropenem antibiotics through continuous infusion in patients with sepsis is associated with decreased hospital mortality, increased clinical cure rates and greater microbiological eradication. Further high-quality studies should be conducted to confirm our findings.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; China; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Meropenem; Sepsis
PubMed: 32783408
DOI: 10.17219/acem/121934 -
BMC Pulmonary Medicine May 2022Antibiotics are frequently prescribed for acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) even though most do not have a bacterial aetiology. Biomarkers may help clinicians target... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antibiotics are frequently prescribed for acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) even though most do not have a bacterial aetiology. Biomarkers may help clinicians target antibiotic use by identifying AECOPD caused by bacterial pathogens. We aimed to summarise current evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers for detecting bacterial versus non-bacterial AECOPD.
METHODS
We searched Embase and Medline using a search strategy including terms for COPD, biomarkers and bacterial infection. Data regarding diagnostic accuracy for each biomarker in predicting bacterial cause of exacerbation were extracted and summarised. We used to QUADAS-2 tool to assess risk of bias.
RESULTS
Of 509 papers identified, 39 papers evaluating 61 biomarkers were eligible for inclusion. Moderate quality evidence was found for associations between serum C-reactive protein (CRP), serum procalcitonin (PCT), sputum interleukin (IL)-8 and sputum tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), and the presence of bacterial pathogens in the sputum of patients with AECOPD. Having bacterial pathogens was associated with a mean difference (higher) CRP and PCT of 29.44 mg/L and 0.76 ng/mL respectively. There was inconsistent or weak evidence for associations between bacterial AECOPD and higher levels of sputum IL-1β, IL-6, myeloperoxidase (MPO) and neutrophil elastase (NE). We did not find any consistent evidence of diagnostic value for other biomarkers.
CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate evidence from heterogeneous studies that serum CRP and PCT are of value in differentiating bacterial from non-bacterial AECOPD, and little evidence for other biomarkers. Further high-quality research on the role of biomarkers in identifying bacterial exacerbations is needed.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Biomarkers; C-Reactive Protein; Disease Progression; Humans; Procalcitonin; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
PubMed: 35549921
DOI: 10.1186/s12890-022-01958-4 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Apr 2023: This project was developed from anecdotal evidence of varied practices around antibiotic prescribing in dental procedures. The aim of the study was to ascertain if... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: This project was developed from anecdotal evidence of varied practices around antibiotic prescribing in dental procedures. The aim of the study was to ascertain if there is evidence to support whether antibiotic (AB) use can effectively reduce postoperative infections after dental implant placements (DIPs). : Following PRISMA-P© methodology, a systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials was designed and registered on the PROSPERO© database. Searches were performed using PubMed, Science Direct and the Cochrane© Database, plus the bibliographies of studies identified. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics, independent of the regimen used, versus a placebo, control or no therapy based on implant failure due to infection was the primary measured outcome. Secondary outcomes were other post-surgical complications due to infection and AB adverse events. : Twelve RCTs were identified and analysed. Antibiotic use was reported to be statistically significant in preventing infection ( < 001). The prevention of complications was not statistically significant ( = 0.96), and the NNT was >5 (14 and 2523 respectively), which indicates that the intervention was not sufficiently effective to justify its use. The occurrence of side effects was not statistically significant ( = 0.63). NNH was 528 indicating that possible harm caused by the use of ABs is very small and does not negate the AB use when indicated. : The routine use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection in dental implant placement was found to be not sufficiently effective to justify routine use. Clear clinical assessment pathways, such as those used for medical conditions, based on the patients' age, dental risk factors, such as oral health and bone health, physical risk factors, such as chronic or long-term conditions and modifiable health determinants, such as smoking, are required to prevent the unnecessary use of antibiotics.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Dental Implants
PubMed: 37109671
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59040713 -
BMJ Open Gastroenterology Jun 2021Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer for women and men and the second leading cause of cancer death in the USA. There is emerging evidence that the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer for women and men and the second leading cause of cancer death in the USA. There is emerging evidence that the gut microbiome plays a role in CRC development, and antibiotics are one of the most common exposures that can alter the gut microbiome. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to characterise the association between antibiotic use and colorectal neoplasia.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science for articles that examined the association between antibiotic exposure and colorectal neoplasia (cancer or adenoma) through 15 December 2019. A total of 6031 citations were identified and 6 papers were included in the final analysis. We assessed the association between the level of antibiotic use (defined as number of courses or duration of therapy) and colorectal neoplasia using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Six studies provided 16 estimates of the association between level of antibiotic use and colorectal neoplasia. Individuals with the highest levels of antibiotic exposure had a 10% higher risk of colorectal neoplasia than those with the lowest exposure (effect size: 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.18). We found evidence of high heterogeneity (I=79%, p=0.0001) but not of publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Higher levels of antibiotic exposure is associated with an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. Given the widespread use of antibiotics in childhood and early adulthood, additional research to further characterise this relationship is needed.
Topics: Adenoma; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Colorectal Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Male
PubMed: 34083227
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2021-000601 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1996, WHO launched the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the...
BACKGROUND
Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1996, WHO launched the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the 'SAFE' strategy (surgery, antibiotics, facial cleanliness, and environmental improvement).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence supporting the antibiotic arm of the SAFE strategy by assessing the effects of antibiotics on both active trachoma (primary objective), Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the conjunctiva, antibiotic resistance, and adverse effects (secondary objectives).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched relevant electronic databases and trials registers. The date of the last search was 4 January 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that satisfied either of two criteria: (a) trials in which topical or oral administration of an antibiotic was compared to placebo or no treatment in people or communities with trachoma, (b) trials in which a topical antibiotic was compared with an oral antibiotic in people or communities with trachoma. We also included studies addressing different dosing strategies in the population. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies where individuals with trachoma were randomised and 12 cluster-randomised studies. Any antibiotic versus control (individuals)Nine studies (1961 participants) randomised individuals with trachoma to antibiotic or control (no treatment or placebo). All of these studies enrolled children and young people with active trachoma. The antibiotics used in these studies included topical (oxy)tetracycline (5 studies), doxycycline (2 studies), and sulfonamides (4 studies). Four studies had more than two study arms. In general these studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.These studies provided low-certainty evidence that people with active trachoma treated with antibiotics experienced a reduction in active trachoma at three months (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.89; 1961 people; 9 RCTs; I = 73%) and 12 months (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; 1035 people; 4 RCTs; I = 90%). Low-certainty evidence was available for ocular infection at three months (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04; 297 people; 4 RCTs; I = 0%) and 12 months (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78; 129 people; 1 RCT). None of these studies assessed antimicrobial resistance. In those studies that reported harms, no serious adverse effects were reported (low-certainty evidence).Oral versus topical antibiotics (individuals)Eight studies (1583 participants) compared oral and topical antibiotics. Only one study included people older than 21 years of age. Oral antibiotics included azithromycin (5 studies), sulfonamides (2 studies), and doxycycline (1 study). Topical antibiotics included (oxy)tetracycline (6 studies), azithromycin (1 study), and sulfonamide (1 study). These studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in effect between oral and topical antibiotics on active trachoma at three months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; 953 people; 6 RCTs; I = 63%) and 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15; 886 people; 5 RCTs; I = 56%). There was very low-certainty evidence for ocular infection at three or 12 months. Antimicrobial resistance was not assessed. In those studies that reported adverse effects, no serious adverse effects were reported; one study reported abdominal pain with azithromycin; one study reported a couple of cases of nausea with azithromycin; and one study reported three cases of reaction to sulfonamides (low-certainty evidence).Oral azithromycin versus control (communities)Four cluster-randomised studies compared antibiotic with no or delayed treatment. Data were available on active trachoma at 12 months from two studies but could not be pooled because of reporting differences. One study at low risk of bias found a reduced prevalence of active trachoma 12 months after a single dose of azithromycin in communities with a high prevalence of infection (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.65; 1247 people). The other, lower quality, study in low-prevalence communities reported similar median prevalences of infection at 12 months: 9.3% in communities treated with azithromycin and 8.2% in untreated communities. We judged this moderate-certainty evidence for a reduction in active trachoma with treatment, downgrading one level for inconsistency between the two studies. Two studies reported ocular infection at 12 months and data could be pooled. There was a reduction in ocular infection (RR 0.36, 0.31 to 0.43; 2139 people) 12 months after mass treatment with a single dose compared with no treatment (moderate-certainty evidence). There was high-certainty evidence of an increased risk of resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli to azithromycin, tetracycline, and clindamycin in communities treated with azithromycin, with approximately 5-fold risk ratios at 12 months. The evidence did not support increased resistance to penicillin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. None of the studies measured resistance to C trachomatis. No serious adverse events were reported. The main adverse effect noted for azithromycin (˜10%) was abdominal pain, vomiting, and nausea.Oral azithromycin versus topical tetracycline (communities)Three cluster-randomised studies compared oral azithromycin with topical tetracycline. The evidence was inconsistent for active trachoma and ocular infection at three and 12 months (low-certainty evidence) and was not pooled due to considerable heterogeneity. Antimicrobial resistance and adverse effects were not reported.Different dosing strategiesSix studies compared different strategies for dosing. There were: mass treatment at different dosing intervals; applying cessation or stopping rules to mass treatment; strategies to increase mass treatment coverage. There was no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended annual mass treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic treatment may reduce the risk of active trachoma and ocular infection in people infected with C trachomatis, compared to no treatment/placebo, but the size of the treatment effect in individuals is uncertain. Mass antibiotic treatment with single dose oral azithromycin reduces the prevalence of active trachoma and ocular infection in communities. There is no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended periodicity of annual mass treatment. There is evidence of an increased risk of antibiotic resistance at 12 months in communities treated with antibiotics.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlamydia trachomatis; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trachoma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31554017
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001860.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Bronchiectasis is a chronic airway disease characterised by a destructive cycle of recurrent airway infection, inflammation and tissue damage. Antibiotics are a main... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bronchiectasis is a chronic airway disease characterised by a destructive cycle of recurrent airway infection, inflammation and tissue damage. Antibiotics are a main treatment for bronchiectasis. The aim of continuous therapy with prophylactic antibiotics is to suppress bacterial load, but bacteria may become resistant to the antibiotic, leading to a loss of effectiveness. On the other hand, intermittent prophylactic antibiotics, given over a predefined duration and interval, may reduce antibiotic selection pressure and reduce or prevent the development of resistance. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current evidence for studies comparing continuous versus intermittent administration of antibiotic treatment in bronchiectasis in terms of clinical efficacy, the emergence of resistance and serious adverse events.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of continuous versus intermittent antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis, using the primary outcomes of exacerbations, antibiotic resistance and serious adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
On 1 August 2017 and 4 May 2018 we searched the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and AMED. On 25 September 2017 and 4 May 2018 we also searched www.clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, conference proceedings and the reference lists of existing systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults or children with bronchiectasis that compared continuous versus intermittent administration of long-term prophylactic antibiotics of at least three months' duration. We considered eligible studies reported as full-text articles, as abstracts only and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results and full-text reports.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 268 unique records. Of these we retrieved and examined 126 full-text reports, representing 114 studies, but none of these studies met our inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No randomised controlled trials have compared the effectiveness and risks of continuous antibiotic therapy versus intermittent antibiotic therapy for bronchiectasis. High-quality clinical trials are needed to establish which of these interventions is more effective for reducing the frequency and duration of exacerbations, antibiotic resistance and the occurrence of serious adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bronchiectasis; Child; Humans
PubMed: 29860722
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012733.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017The benefits and risks of antibiotics for acute bronchitis remain unclear despite it being one of the most common illnesses seen in primary care. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The benefits and risks of antibiotics for acute bronchitis remain unclear despite it being one of the most common illnesses seen in primary care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antibiotics in improving outcomes and to assess adverse effects of antibiotic therapy for people with a clinical diagnosis of acute bronchitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL 2016, Issue 11 (accessed 13 January 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to January week 1, 2017), Embase (1974 to 13 January 2017), and LILACS (1982 to 13 January 2017). We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 April 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing any antibiotic therapy with placebo or no treatment in acute bronchitis or acute productive cough, in people without underlying pulmonary disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this 2017 update. We included 17 trials with 5099 participants in the primary analysis. The quality of trials was generally good. At follow-up there was no difference in participants described as being clinically improved between the antibiotic and placebo groups (11 studies with 3841 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.15). Participants given antibiotics were less likely to have a cough (4 studies with 275 participants, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6) and a night cough (4 studies with 538 participants, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 7). Participants given antibiotics had a shorter mean cough duration (7 studies with 2776 participants, mean difference (MD) -0.46 days, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.04). The differences in presence of a productive cough at follow-up and MD of productive cough did not reach statistical significance.Antibiotic-treated participants were more likely to be improved according to clinician's global assessment (6 studies with 891 participants, RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79; NNTB 11) and were less likely to have an abnormal lung exam (5 studies with 613 participants, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.70; NNTB 6). Antibiotic-treated participants also had a reduction in days feeling ill (5 studies with 809 participants, MD -0.64 days, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.13) and days with impaired activity (6 studies with 767 participants, MD -0.49 days, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.04). The differences in proportions with activity limitations at follow-up did not reach statistical significance. There was a significant trend towards an increase in adverse effects in the antibiotic group (12 studies with 3496 participants, RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.36; NNT for an additional harmful outcome 24).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence of clinical benefit to support the use of antibiotics in acute bronchitis. Antibiotics may have a modest beneficial effect in some patients such as frail, elderly people with multimorbidity who may not have been included in trials to date. However, the magnitude of this benefit needs to be considered in the broader context of potential side effects, medicalisation for a self limiting condition, increased resistance to respiratory pathogens, and cost of antibiotic treatment.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bronchitis; Cough; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28626858
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000245.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Bronchiectasis is a common but under-diagnosed chronic disorder characterised by permanent dilation of the airways arising from a cycle of recurrent infection and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bronchiectasis is a common but under-diagnosed chronic disorder characterised by permanent dilation of the airways arising from a cycle of recurrent infection and inflammation. Symptoms including chronic, persistent cough and productive phlegm are a significant burden for people with bronchiectasis, and the main aim of treatment is to reduce exacerbation frequency and improve quality of life. Prophylactic antibiotic therapy aims to break this infection cycle and is recommended by clinical guidelines for adults with three or more exacerbations a year, based on limited evidence. It is important to weigh the evidence for bacterial suppression against the prevention of antibiotic resistance and further evidence is required on the safety and efficacy of different regimens of intermittently administered antibiotic treatments for people with bronchiectasis.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intermittent prophylactic antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified through multiple electronic searches and handsearches of other sources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted searches on 6 September 2021, with no restriction on language of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least three months' duration comparing an intermittent regime of prophylactic antibiotics with placebo, usual care or an alternate intermittent regimen. Intermittent prophylactic administration was defined as repeated courses of antibiotics with on-treatment and off-treatment intervals of at least 14 days' duration. We included adults and children with a clinical diagnosis of bronchiectasis confirmed by high resolution computed tomography (HRCT), plain film chest radiograph, or bronchography and a documented history of recurrent chest infections. We excluded studies where participants received high dose antibiotics immediately prior to enrolment or those with a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), primary ciliary dyskinesia, hypogammaglobulinaemia, sarcoidosis, or a primary diagnosis of COPD. Our primary outcomes were exacerbation frequency and serious adverse events. We did not exclude studies on the basis of review outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or relative risk (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted GRADE assessments for the following primary outcomes: exacerbation frequency; serious adverse events and secondary outcomes: antibiotic resistance; hospital admissions; health-related quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs, with interventions ranging from 16 to 48 weeks, involving 2180 adults. All evaluated one of three types of antibiotics over two to six cycles of 28 days on/off treatment: aminoglycosides, ß-lactams or fluoroquinolones. Two studies also included 12 cycles of 14 days on/off treatment with fluoroquinolones. Participants had a mean age of 63.6 years, 65% were women and approximately 85% Caucasian. Baseline FEV ranged from 55.5% to 62.6% predicted. None of the studies included children. Generally, there was a low risk of bias in the included studies. Antibiotic versus placebo: cycle of 14 days on/off. Ciprofloxacin reduced the frequency of exacerbations compared to placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93; I = 65%; 2 studies, 469 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with eight people (95% CI 6 to 28) needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome. The intervention increased the risk of antibiotic resistance more than twofold (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.36 to 3.35; I = 0%; 2 studies, 624 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events, lung function (FEV), health-related quality of life, and adverse effects did not differ between groups. Antibiotic versus placebo: cycle of 28 days on/off. Antibiotics did not reduce overall exacerbation frequency (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02; I = 0%; 8 studies, 1695 participants; high-certainty evidence) but there were fewer severe exacerbations (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93; I = 54%; 3 studies, 624 participants), though this should be interpreted with caution due to low event rates. The risk of antibiotic resistance was more than twofold higher based on a pooled analysis (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.42; I = 0%; 3 studies, 685 participants; high-certainty evidence) and consistent with unpooled data from four further studies. Serious adverse events, time to first exacerbation, duration of exacerbation, respiratory-related hospital admissions, lung function, health-related quality of life and adverse effects did not differ between study groups. Antibiotic versus usual care. We did not find any studies that compared intermittent antibiotic regimens with usual care. Cycle of 14 days on/off versus cycle of 28 days on/off. Exacerbation frequency did not differ between the two treatment regimens (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.24; I = 71%; 2 studies, 625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) However, inconsistencies in the results from the two trials in this comparison indicate that the apparent aggregated similarities may not be reliable. There was no evidence of a difference in antibiotic resistance between groups (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.48; I = 60%; 2 studies, 624 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events, adverse effects, lung function and health-related quality of life did not differ between the two antibiotic regimens.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, in adults who have frequent chest infections, long-term antibiotics given at 14-day on/off intervals slightly reduces the frequency of those infections and increases antibiotic resistance. Intermittent antibiotic regimens result in little to no difference in serious adverse events. The impact of intermittent antibiotic therapy on children with bronchiectasis is unknown due to an absence of evidence, and further research is needed to establish the potential risks and benefits.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bronchiectasis; Child; Ciprofloxacin; Female; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Middle Aged
PubMed: 34985761
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013254.pub2 -
Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica :... Apr 2022
Review
Topics: Abscess; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drainage; Humans
PubMed: 35612503
DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-N1837 -
The European Journal of Health... Aug 2022To quantify the association between income and antibiotic misuse including unprescribed use, storage of antibiotics and non-adherence. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the association between income and antibiotic misuse including unprescribed use, storage of antibiotics and non-adherence.
METHODS
We identified pertinent studies through database search, and manual examination of reference lists of selected articles and review reports. We performed a dose-response meta-analysis of income, both continuous and categorical, in relation to antibiotic misuse. Summary odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated under a random-effects random effects model.
RESULTS
Fifty-seven studies from 22 countries of different economic class were included. Overall, the data are in agreement with a flat linear association between income standardized to socio-economic indicators and antibiotic misuse (OR per 1 unit increment = 1.00, p-value = 0.954, p-value non-linearity = 0.429). Data were compatible with no association between medium and high income with general antibiotic misuse (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.89, 1.20 and OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.82, 1.29). Medium income was associated with 19% higher odds of antibiotic storage (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.07, 1.32) and 18% higher odds of any aspect of antibiotic misuse in African studies (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.00, 1.39). High income was associated with 51% lower odds of non-adherence to antibiotic treatment (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.34, 0.60). High income was also associated with 11% higher odds of any antibiotic misuse in upper-middle wealth countries (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.00, 1.22).
CONCLUSIONS
The association between income and antibiotic misuse varies by type of misuse and country wellness. Understanding the socioeconomic properties of antibiotic misuse should prove useful in developing related intervention programs and health policies.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Income
PubMed: 34845563
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01416-8