-
BMJ Open Aug 2023Infective endocarditis (IE) is a devastating disease with a 50% 1-year mortality rate. In recent years, medical authorities across the globe advised stricter criteria... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Infective endocarditis (IE) is a devastating disease with a 50% 1-year mortality rate. In recent years, medical authorities across the globe advised stricter criteria for antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with high risk of IE undergoing dental procedures. Whether such recommendations may increase the risk of IE in at-risk patients must be investigated.
DESIGN
Prospectively registered systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through 23 May 2022, together with an updated search on 5 August 2023.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
All primary studies reporting IE within 3 months of dental procedures in adults >18 years of age were included, while conference abstracts, reviews, case reports and case series involving fewer than 10 cases were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
All studies were assessed by two reviewers independently, and any discrepancies were further resolved through a third researcher.
RESULTS
Of the 3771 articles screened, 38 observational studies fit the inclusion criteria and were included in the study for subsequent analysis. Overall, 11% (95% CI 0.08 to 0.16, I=100%) of IE are associated with recent dental procedures. accounted for 69% (95% CI 0.46 to 0.85) of IE in patients who had undergone recent dental procedures, compared with only 21% (95% CI 0.17 to 0.26) in controls (p=0.003). None of the high-risk patients developed IE across all studies where 100% of the patients were treated with prophylactic antibiotics, and IE patients are 12% more likely to have undergone recent dental manipulation compared with matched controls (95% CI 1.00 to 1.26, p=0.048).
CONCLUSIONS
Although there is a lack of randomised control trials due to logistic difficulties in the literature on this topic, antibiotic prophylaxis are likely of benefit in reducing the incidence of IE in high-risk patients after dental procedures. Further well-designed high-quality case-control studies are required.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022326664.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endocarditis; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Case-Control Studies; Group Processes
PubMed: 37607797
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077026 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Bronchiectasis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterised by a recurrent cycle of respiratory bacterial infections associated with cough, sputum production and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bronchiectasis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterised by a recurrent cycle of respiratory bacterial infections associated with cough, sputum production and impaired quality of life. Antibiotics are the main therapeutic option for managing bronchiectasis exacerbations. Evidence suggests that inhaled antibiotics may be associated with more effective eradication of infective organisms and a lower risk of developing antibiotic resistance when compared with orally administered antibiotics. However, it is currently unclear whether antibiotics are more effective when administered orally or by inhalation.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the comparative efficacy and safety of oral versus inhaled antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies through searches of the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register (CAGR), which is maintained by the Information Specialist for the group. The Register contains trial reports identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO trials portal. We searched all databases in March 2018 and imposed no restrictions on language of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include studies which compared oral antibiotics with inhaled antibiotics. We would have considered short-term use (less than four weeks) for treating acute exacerbations separately from longer-term use as a prophylactic (4 weeks or more). We would have considered both intraclass and interclass comparisons. We planned to exclude studies if the participants received continuous or high-dose antibiotics immediately before the start of the trial, or if they have received a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis (CF), sarcoidosis, active allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis or active non-tuberculous Mycobacterial infection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria to the searches and we planned for two authors to independently extract data, assess risk of bias and assess overall quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We also planned to obtain missing data from the authors where possible and to report results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 313 unique records through database searches and a further 21 records from trial registers. We excluded 307 on the basis of title and abstract alone and a further 27 after examining full-text reports. No studies were identified for inclusion in the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no evidence indicating whether orally administered antibiotics are more beneficial compared to inhaled antibiotics. The recent ERS bronchiectasis guidelines provide a practical approach to the use of long-term antibiotics. New research is needed comparing inhaled versus oral antibiotic therapies for bronchiectasis patients with a history of frequent exacerbations, to establish which approach is the most effective in terms of exacerbation prevention, quality of life, treatment burden, and antibiotic resistance.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bronchiectasis; Child; Humans
PubMed: 29587336
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012579.pub2 -
JAMA Network Open Feb 2023Antimicrobial resistance continues to spread rapidly at a global scale. Little evidence exists on the association of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Antimicrobial resistance continues to spread rapidly at a global scale. Little evidence exists on the association of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) with the consumption of antibiotics across health care and income settings.
OBJECTIVE
To synthesize current evidence regarding the association between antimicrobial stewardship programs and the consumption of antibiotics globally.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from August 1, 2010, to Aug 1, 2020. Additional studies from the bibliography sections of previous systematic reviews were included.
STUDY SELECTION
Original studies of the association of ASPs with antimicrobial consumption across health care and income settings. Animal and environmental studies were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Following the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline, the pooled association of targeted ASPs with antimicrobial consumption was measured using multilevel random-effects models. The Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool was used to assess study quality.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main outcome measures were proportion of patients receiving an antibiotic prescription and defined daily doses per 100 patient-days.
RESULTS
Overall, 52 studies (with 1 794 889 participants) measured the association between ASPs and antimicrobial consumption and were included, with 40 studies conducted in high-income countries and 12 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). ASPs were associated with a 10% (95% CI, 4%-15%) reduction in antibiotic prescriptions and a 28% reduction in antibiotic consumption (rate ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92). ASPs were also associated with a 21% (95% CI, 5%-36%) reduction in antibiotic consumption in pediatric hospitals and a 28% reduction in World Health Organization watch groups antibiotics (rate ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, ASPs appeared to be effective in reducing antibiotic consumption in both hospital and nonhospital settings. Impact assessment of ASPs in resource-limited settings remains scarce; further research is needed on how to best achieve reductions in antibiotic use in LMICs.
Topics: Humans; Child; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antimicrobial Stewardship; Anti-Infective Agents; Prescriptions; Hospitals, Pediatric
PubMed: 36757700
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53806 -
Military Medical Research Jan 2024Antimicrobial resistance is a global public health threat, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has announced a priority list of the most threatening pathogens... (Review)
Review
Antimicrobial resistance is a global public health threat, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has announced a priority list of the most threatening pathogens against which novel antibiotics need to be developed. The discovery and introduction of novel antibiotics are time-consuming and expensive. According to WHO's report of antibacterial agents in clinical development, only 18 novel antibiotics have been approved since 2014. Therefore, novel antibiotics are critically needed. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been rapidly applied to drug development since its recent technical breakthrough and has dramatically improved the efficiency of the discovery of novel antibiotics. Here, we first summarized recently marketed novel antibiotics, and antibiotic candidates in clinical development. In addition, we systematically reviewed the involvement of AI in antibacterial drug development and utilization, including small molecules, antimicrobial peptides, phage therapy, essential oils, as well as resistance mechanism prediction, and antibiotic stewardship.
Topics: Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Public Health
PubMed: 38254241
DOI: 10.1186/s40779-024-00510-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease characterised by abnormal and irreversible dilatation of the smaller airways and associated with a mortality rate greater... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease characterised by abnormal and irreversible dilatation of the smaller airways and associated with a mortality rate greater than twice that of the general population. Antibiotics serve as front-line therapy for managing bacterial load, but their use is weighed against the development of antibiotic resistance. Dual antibiotic therapy has the potential to suppress infection from multiple strains of bacteria, leading to more successful treatment of exacerbations, reduced symptoms, and improved quality of life. Further evidence is required on the efficacy of dual antibiotics in terms of management of exacerbations and extent of antibiotic resistance.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of dual antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), which includes the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), and PsycINFO, as well as studies obtained by handsearching of journals/abstracts. We also searched the following trial registries: US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We imposed no restriction on language of publication. We conducted our search in October 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing dual antibiotics versus a single antibiotic for short-term (< 4 weeks) or long-term management of bronchiectasis diagnosed in adults and/or children by bronchography, plain film chest radiography, or high-resolution computed tomography. Primary outcomes included exacerbations, length of hospitalisation, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were response rates, emergence of resistance to antibiotics, systemic markers of infection, sputum volume and purulence, measures of lung function, adverse events/effects, deaths, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life. We did not apply outcome measures as selection criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of 287 records, along with the full text of seven reports. Two studies met review inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias. We extracted data from only one study and conducted GRADE assessments for the following outcomes: successful treatment of exacerbation; response rates; and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
Two randomised trials assessed the effectiveness of oral plus inhaled dual therapy versus oral monotherapy in a total of 118 adults with a mean age of 62.8 years. One multi-centre trial compared inhaled tobramycin plus oral ciprofloxacin versus ciprofloxacin alone, and one single-centre trial compared nebulised gentamicin plus systemic antibiotics versus a systemic antibiotic alone. Published papers did not report study funding sources.Effect estimates from one small study with 53 adults showed no evidence of treatment benefit with oral plus inhaled dual therapy for the following primary outcomes at the end of the study: successful management of exacerbation - cure at day 42 (odds ratio (OR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.01; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); number of participants with Pseudomonas aeruginosa eradication at day 21 (OR 2.33, 95% CI 0.66 to 8.24; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); and serious adverse events (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.87; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, researchers provided no evidence of treatment benefit for the following secondary outcomes: clinical response rates - relapse at day 42 (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.69; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); microbiological response rate at day 21 - eradicated (OR 2.40, 95% CI 0.67 to 8.65; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); and adverse events - incidence of wheeze (OR 5.75, 95% CI 1.55 to 21.33). Data show no evidence of benefit in terms of sputum volume, lung function, or antibiotic resistance. Outcomes from a second small study with 65 adults, available only as an abstract, were not included in the quantitative data synthesis. The included studies did not report our other primary outcomes: duration; frequency; and time to next exacerbation; nor our secondary outcomes: systemic markers of infection; exercise capacity; and quality of life. We did not identify any trials that included children.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
A small number of studies in adults have generated high-quality evidence that is insufficient to inform robust conclusions, and studies in children have provided no evidence. We identified only one dual-therapy combination of oral and inhaled antibiotics. Results from this single trial of 53 adults that we were able to include in the quantitative synthesis showed no evidence of treatment benefit with oral plus inhaled dual therapy in terms of successful treatment of exacerbations, serious adverse events, sputum volume, lung function, and antibiotic resistance. Further high-quality research is required to determine the efficacy and safety of other combinations of dual antibiotics for both adults and children with bronchiectasis, particularly in terms of antibiotic resistance.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bronchiectasis; Ciprofloxacin; Gentamicins; Humans; Middle Aged; Pseudomonas Infections; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tobramycin
PubMed: 29889304
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012514.pub2 -
BMC Medicine Jul 2023Probiotics are often used to prevent antibiotic-induced low-diversity dysbiosis, however their effect is not yet sufficiently summarized in this regard. We aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics are often used to prevent antibiotic-induced low-diversity dysbiosis, however their effect is not yet sufficiently summarized in this regard. We aimed to investigate the effects of concurrent probiotic supplementation on gut microbiome composition during antibiotic therapy.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reporting the differences in gut microbiome diversity between patients on antibiotic therapy with and without concomitant probiotic supplementation. The systematic search was performed in three databases (MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)) without filters on 15 October 2021. A random-effects model was used to estimate pooled mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021282983).
RESULTS
Of 11,769 identified articles, 15 were eligible in the systematic review and 5 in the meta-analyses. Quantitative data synthesis for Shannon (MD = 0.23, 95% CI: [(-)0.06-0.51]), Chao1 (MD = 11.59 [(-)18.42-41.60]) and observed OTUs (operational taxonomic unit) (MD = 17.15 [(-)9.43-43.73]) diversity indices revealed no significant difference between probiotic supplemented and control groups. Lacking data prevented meta-analyzing other diversity indices; however, most of the included studies reported no difference in the other reported α- and ß-diversity indices between the groups. Changes in the taxonomic composition varied across the eligible studies but tended to be similar in both groups. However, they showed a potential tendency to restore baseline levels in both groups after 3-8 weeks. This is the first meta-analysis and the most comprehensive review of the topic to date using high quality methods. The limited number of studies and low sample sizes are the main limitations of our study. Moreover, there was high variability across the studies regarding the indication of antibiotic therapy and the type, dose, and duration of antimicrobials and probiotics.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results showed that probiotic supplementation during antibiotic therapy was not found to be influential on gut microbiome diversity indices. Defining appropriate microbiome diversity indices, their standard ranges, and their clinical relevance would be crucial.
Topics: Humans; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Probiotics; Dietary Supplements; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dysbiosis
PubMed: 37468916
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-023-02961-0 -
BMC Surgery Jul 2023This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis.
METHODS
We searched the randomized controlled studies (RCTs) comparing appendectomy with antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in the electronic database including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang. The primary outcomes included complication-free treatment success at 1 year, complications, surgical complications, and the complicated appendicitis rates. Secondary outcomes included negative appendicitis, length of hospital stay, the quality of life at 1 month, and the impact of an appendicolith on antibiotic therapy.
RESULTS
Twelve randomized controlled studies were included. Compared with surgery group, the antibiotic group decreased the complication-free treatment success at 1 year (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; z = 3.65; p = 0.000). Statistically significance was existed between antibiotic group and surgical group with both surgical types(open and laparoscopic) (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.31-0.58; z = 5.36; p = 0.000), while no between the antibiotic treatment and laparoscopic surgery (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.41-1.24; z = 1.19; p = 0.236). There was no statistically significant differences between two groups of surgical complications (RR 1.38; 95% CI 0.70-2.73; z = 0.93; p = 0.353), the complicated appendicitis rate (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.36-1.42; z = 0.96; p = 0.338), negative appendectomy rate (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.69-1.79; z = 0.43; p = 0.670), duration of hospital stay (SMD 0.08; 95%CI -0.11-0.27; z = 0.80; p = 0.422), and quality of life at 1 month (SMD 0.09; 95%CI -0.03-0.20; z = 1.53; p = 0.127). However, in the antibiotic treatment group, appendicolith rates were statistically higher in those whose symptoms did not improve (RR 2.94; 95% CI 1.28-6.74; z = 2.55; p = 0.011).
CONCLUSIONS
Although the cure rate of antibiotics is lower than surgery, antibiotic treatment is still a reasonable option for patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis who do not want surgery without having to worry about complications or complicating the original illness.
Topics: Humans; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Treatment Outcome; Acute Disease; Length of Stay
PubMed: 37488583
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-023-02108-1 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Sep 2014Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common reason for primary care visits in children. Yet, there is considerable debate on the most effective treatment. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common reason for primary care visits in children. Yet, there is considerable debate on the most effective treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments (analgesics, antibiotics, and myringotomy) in children with AOM? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 17 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: analgesics, antibiotics, delayed antibiotics, immediate antibiotics, longer courses of antibiotics, and myringotomy.
Topics: Analgesics; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Humans; Middle Ear Ventilation; Otitis Media
PubMed: 25229555
DOI: No ID Found -
Bulletin of the World Health... Apr 2018To review the effectiveness of antibiotic stewardship interventions in hospitals in low- and middle-income countries. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review the effectiveness of antibiotic stewardship interventions in hospitals in low- and middle-income countries.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and regional indexes for studies of interventions to improve appropriate prescribing and use of antibiotics for hospitalized patients in low- and middle-income countries. We included controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time-series studies published up to December 2017. We report prescribing, clinical and microbiological outcomes using a narrative approach.
FINDINGS
We screened 7342 original titles and abstracts, assessed 241 full-text articles and included 27 studies from 2 low-income and 11 middle-income countries. We found a medium (11 studies) or high risk (13 studies) of bias. Generally, all types of interventions (structural, persuasive and enabling) and intervention bundles were reported to improve prescribing and clinical outcomes. However, the studied interventions and reported outcomes varied widely. The most frequent intervention was procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment (8 of 27 studies, all randomized controlled trials). The intervention was associated with a relative risk for patients receiving antibiotics ranging between 0.40 and 0.87.
CONCLUSION
The majority of studies reported a positive effect of hospital antibiotic stewardship interventions. However, we cannot draw general conclusions about the effectiveness of such interventions in low- and middle-income countries because of low study quality, heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes, and under-representation of certain settings. To strengthen the evidence base, action needs to be taken to address these shortcomings.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antimicrobial Stewardship; Bacterial Infections; Child; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Female; Hospitals; Humans; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29695883
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.17.203448 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Antibiotics are sometimes used to prevent recurrent sore throat, despite concern about resistance. However, there is conflicting primary evidence regarding their... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Antibiotics are sometimes used to prevent recurrent sore throat, despite concern about resistance. However, there is conflicting primary evidence regarding their effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antibiotics in patients with recurrent sore throat.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group (CENTDG) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CENTDG Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 5); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Clinicaltrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 25 June 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antibiotics in adults and children suffering from pre-existing recurrent sore throat, defined as three or more sore throats in a year, examining the incidence of sore throat recurrence, with follow-up of at least 12 months post-antibiotic therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Multiple attempts to contact the authors of one study yielded no response.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no trials that met the inclusion criteria for the review. We discarded the majority of the references retrieved from our search following screening of the title and abstract. We formally excluded four studies following review of the full-text report.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of antibiotics for preventing recurrent sore throat. This finding must be balanced against the known adverse effects and cost of antibiotic therapy, when considering antibiotics for this purpose. There is a need for high quality RCTs that compare the effects of antibiotics versus placebo in adults and children with pre-existing recurrent sore throat on the following outcomes: incidence of sore throat recurrence, adverse effects, days off work and absence from school, and the incidence of complications. Future studies should be conducted and reported according to the CONSORT statement.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Humans; Pharyngitis; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 26171901
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008911.pub2