-
Frontiers in Public Health 2022The comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of asymptomatic cases are helpful for the identification and management of patients with asymptomatic COVID-19... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
The comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of asymptomatic cases are helpful for the identification and management of patients with asymptomatic COVID-19 infection. Four electronic databases were searched from December 1, 2019 to February 8, 2022 for relevant articles. Data synthesis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were performed on the included studies. and Q tests were applied to evaluate heterogeneity across studies. The risk of publication bias was assessed and visualized using a funnel plot. A total of 45 studies consisting of 2,655 patients with no symptoms at the screening point were included. Pooled results showed that in China, 65% of initial no-symptoms COVID-19 patients did not present any COVID-19-related symptom during follow-up or by end of disease course (asymptomatic infections). High proportions of initial no-symptoms COVID-19 patients (76%) and patients with asymptomatic infection (55%) had abnormal CT features at the screening point. High proportion of patients with asymptomatic infection had been detected Ig G (72%) and/or Ig M (57%) at the screening point. The chest CT scan and SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody testing could serve as effective supplementary methods to identify asymptomatic cases in the early stage of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the chest CT scan and the SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG testing should not replace reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for screening in asymptomatic patients. The combination of repeated RT-PCR, chest CT scans, and the SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG testing should be performed for those highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier: CRD 42021261130.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; Asymptomatic Infections; COVID-19; Humans; Immunoglobulin G; Immunoglobulin M; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35433622
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.808471 -
International Journal of Infectious... Sep 2020Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by an unpredictable disease course, ranging from asymptomatic to severe, life-threatening infections. Asymptomatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by an unpredictable disease course, ranging from asymptomatic to severe, life-threatening infections. Asymptomatic COVID-19 infections have been described, and the aim of this systematic review was to summarise their presentation forms.
METHODS
We searched PubMed® and Google® (1 December 2019 to 29 March 2020) and extracted age, laboratory findings, and computed tomography (CT) scans. Pooled incidence rates of clinical characteristics were analyzed using random-effect models.
RESULTS
In total, 506 patients from 34 studies (68 single cases and 438 from case-series) with an asymptomatic course were identified. Patients with normal radiology were younger (19.59 ± 17.17 years) than patients with abnormal radiology (39.14 ± 26.70 years) (p-value = 0.013). Despite being asymptomatic, CT investigations revealed abnormalities in 62.2% of the cases; ground-glass opacities were most frequently observed (43.09% by meta-analysis). Most studies reported normal laboratory findings (61.74% by meta-analysis).
CONCLUSIONS
More than half of the patients without any symptoms present with CT abnormalities. Asymptomatic patients may be contagious and thus a potential source of transmission of COVID-19.
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Disease Progression; Humans; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 32562846
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.052 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Inhaled corticosteroids are well established for the long-term treatment of inflammatory respiratory diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Inhaled corticosteroids are well established for the long-term treatment of inflammatory respiratory diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They have been investigated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The anti-inflammatory action of inhaled corticosteroids might have the potential to reduce the risk of severe illness resulting from hyperinflammation in COVID-19.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether inhaled corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 7 October 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating inhaled corticosteroids for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We included the following interventions: any type or dose of inhaled corticosteroids. We included the following comparison: inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with or without placebo). We excluded studies examining nasal or topical steroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes of mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, time to symptom resolution, serious adverse events, adverse events, and infections.
MAIN RESULTS
Inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) - People with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 We found no studies that included people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19. - People with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included three RCTs allocating 3607 participants, of whom 2490 had confirmed mild COVID-19. We analysed a subset of the total number of participants recruited to the studies (2171, 52% female) as some trials had a platform design where not all participants were allocated to treatment groups simultaneously. The included studies were community-based, recruiting people who were able to use inhaler devices to deliver steroids and relied on remote assessment and self-reporting of outcomes. Most people were older than 50 years and had co-morbidities such as hypertension, lung disease, or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. A total of 1057 participants were analysed in the inhaled corticosteroid arm (budesonide: 860 participants; ciclesonide: 197 participants), and 1075 participants in the control arm. No studies included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. With respect to the following outcomes, inhaled corticosteroids compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (at up to day 30) (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.67; 2132 participants; low-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every nine deaths per 1000 people not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, there were six deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 2 to 16 per 1000 people); - probably reduces admission to hospital or death (at up to 30 days) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.99; 2025 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably increases resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14 (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; 1986 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may reduce the duration to symptom resolution (at up to day 30) (by -4.00 days, 95% CI -6.22 to -1.78 less than control group rate of 12 days; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence); - the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on serious adverse events (during study period) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.76; 1586 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in adverse events (at up to day 30) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.31; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in infections (during study period) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.58; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence). As studies did not report outcomes for subgroups (e.g. age, ethnicity, sex), we did not perform subgroup analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms who are able to use inhaler devices, we found moderate-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids probably reduce the combined endpoint of admission to hospital or death and increase the resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14. Low-certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids make little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to day 30 and may decrease the duration to symptom resolution. We do not know whether inhaled corticosteroids increase or decrease serious adverse events due to heterogeneity in the way they were reported across the studies. There is low-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids may decrease infections. The evidence we identified came from studies in high-income settings using budesonide and ciclesonide prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, serious adverse events, and people with asymptomatic infection or with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. The 10 ongoing and four completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review. We monitor newly published results of RCTs on inhaled corticosteroids on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Cause of Death; Female; Humans; Male; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35262185
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015125 -
BMJ Open Mar 2019To systematically review screening and treatment effectiveness, and patient preferences, to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care...
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review screening and treatment effectiveness, and patient preferences, to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnancy.
DESIGN
We searched multiple databases (inception to September 2017) and grey literature sources for studies on screening effectiveness and patient preferences. For treatment with antibiotics, we searched three databases for systematic reviews and obtained search results of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register to update a Cochrane review. Study selection, risk of bias assessment and evaluation of the quality for each outcome using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was completed independently by two reviewers with consensus. Meta-analysis was conducted when appropriate as were analyses based on planned subgroup variables.
OUTCOMES
For screening and treatment effectiveness: maternal and perinatal mortality, maternal and neonatal sepsis, pyelonephritis, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, low birth weight and serious adverse events. Valuation of outcomes for patient preferences.
RESULTS
Four studies compared outcomes before and after the introduction of a screening programme or between different screening programmes. All evidence on screening effectiveness was considered very low quality. Women have conflicting opinions about antibiotic use during pregnancy. Fifteen trials compared antibiotic treatment with no treatment or placebo in women with confirmed bacteriuria. Low-quality evidence found that treatment lowered rates of pyelonephritis (12 trials, relative risk [RR] 0.24; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.42; absolute risk reduction [ARR] 17.6%; number needed to treat [NNT] 6, 95% CI 5 to 7) and low birth weight (seven trials, RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90; ARR 4.4%; NNT 23, 95% CI 15 to 85).
CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic treatment for women having significant bacteriuria likely reduces the incidence of pyelonephritis and low birth weight, but we are uncertain about the magnitude of the effect and about the extent to which we can apply these results to asymptomatic populations and screening programmes.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42016045263.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Asymptomatic Diseases; Bacteriuria; Female; Humans; Mass Screening; Patient Preference; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30872538
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021347 -
Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and... May 2020Chest computed tomography (CT) is frequently used in diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for detecting abnormal changes in the lungs and monitoring disease... (Review)
Review
Chest computed tomography (CT) is frequently used in diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for detecting abnormal changes in the lungs and monitoring disease progression during the treatment process. Furthermore, CT imaging appearances are correlated with patients presenting with different clinical scenarios, such as early versus advanced stages, asymptomatic versus symptomatic patients, and severe versus nonsevere situations. However, its role as a screening and diagnostic tool in COVID-19 remains to be clarified. This article provides a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature on chest CT imaging findings with the aim of highlighting the contribution and judicious use of CT in the diagnosis of COVID-19. A search of PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar and Scopus was performed to identify studies reporting chest imaging findings in COVID-19. Chest imaging abnormalities associated with COVID-19 were extracted from the eligible studies and diagnostic value of CT in detecting these abnormal changes was compared between studies consisting of both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. A random-effects model was used to perform meta-analysis for calculation of pooled mean values and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of abnormal imaging findings. Fifty-five studies met the selection criteria and were included in the analysis. Pulmonary lesions more often involved bilateral lungs (78%, 95% CI: 45-100%) and were more likely to have a peripheral (65.35%, 95% CI: 25.93-100%) and peripheral plus central distribution (31.12%, 95% CI: 1.96-74.07%), but less likely to have a central distribution (3.57%, 95% CI: 0.99-9.80%). Ground glass opacities (GGO) (58.05%, 95% CI: 16.67-100%), consolidation (44.18%, 95% CI: 1.61-71.46%) and GGO plus consolidation (52.99%, 95% CI: 19.05-76.79%) were the most common findings reported in 94.5% (52/55) of the studies, followed by air bronchogram (42.50%, 95% CI: 7.78-80.39%), linear opacities (41.29%, 95% CI: 7.44-65.06%), crazy-paving pattern (23.57%, 95% CI: 3.13-91.67%) and interlobular septal thickening (22.91%, 95% CI: 0.90-80.49%). CT has low specificity in differentiating pneumonia-related lung changes due to significant overlap between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients with no significant differences in most of the imaging findings between these two groups (P>0.05). Furthermore, normal CT (13.31%, 95% CI: 0.74-38.36%) was reported in 26 (47.3%) studies. Despite widespread use of CT in the diagnosis of COVID-19 patients based on the current literature, CT findings are not pathognomonic as it lacks specificity in differentiating imaging appearances caused by different types of pneumonia. Further, there is a relatively high percentage of normal CT scans. Use of CT as a first-line diagnostic or screening tool in COVID-19 is not recommended.
PubMed: 32489929
DOI: 10.21037/qims-20-564 -
Virology Journal Jun 2022Noroviruses are the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis in all age groups globally. The problem is magnified in developing countries including Africa. These viruses... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Noroviruses are the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis in all age groups globally. The problem is magnified in developing countries including Africa. These viruses are highly prevalent with high genetic diversity and fast evolution rates. With this dynamicity, there are no recent review in the past five years in Africa. Therefore, this review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prevalence and genetic diversity of noroviruses in Africa and tried to address the change in the prevalence and genetic diverisity the virus has been observed in Africa and in the world.
METHODS
Twenty-one studies for the pooled prevalence, and 11 out of the 21 studies for genetic characterization of norovirus were included. Studies conducted since 2006, among symptomatic cases of all age groups in Africa, conducted with any study design, used molecular diagnostic methods and reported since 2015, were included and considered for the main meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched to obtain the studies. The quality the studies was assessed using the JBI assessment tool. Data from studies reporting both asymptomatic and symptomatic cases, that did not meet the inclusion criteria were reviewed and included as discussion points. Data was entered to excel and imported to STATA 2011 to compute the prevalence and genetic diversity. Heterogeneity was checked using I test statistics followed by subgroup and sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and eggers test that was followed by trim and fill analysis.
RESULT
The pooled prevalence of norovirus was 20.2% (95% CI: 15.91, 24.4). The highest (36.3%) prevalence was reported in Ghana. Genogroup II noroviruses were dominant and reported as 89.5% (95% CI: 87.8, 96). The highest and lowest prevalence of this genogroup were reported in Ethiopia (98.3%), and in Burkina Faso (72.4%), respectively. Diversified genotypes had been identified with an overall prevalence of GII. 4 NoV (50.8%) which was followed by GII.6, GII.17, GI.3 and GII.2 with a pooled prevalence of 7.7, 5.1, 4.6, and 4.2%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The overall pooled prevalence of norovirus was high in Africa with the dominance of genogroup II and GII.4 genotype. This prevalence is comparable with some reviews done in the same time frame around the world. However, in Africa, an in increasing trained of pooled prevalence had been reported through time. Likewise, a variable distribution of non-GII.4 norovirus genotypes were reported as compared to those studies done in the world of the same time frame, and those previous reviews done in Africa. Therefore, continuous surveillance is required in Africa to support future interventions and vaccine programs.
Topics: Burkina Faso; Caliciviridae Infections; Genetic Variation; Humans; Norovirus; Prevalence
PubMed: 35765033
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-022-01835-w -
Medicine Apr 2021Pediatric cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported. This meta-analysis was aimed at describing the clinical, laboratory, and imaging... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Pediatric cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported. This meta-analysis was aimed at describing the clinical, laboratory, and imaging characteristics of children with COVID-19 based on published data of pediatric COVID-19 cases.Search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Sciences, Science Direct, and Google Scholar for articles published until December 14, 2020, that described the clinical, laboratory, and imaging features of children with COVID-19. Data were extracted independently by 2 authors. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to report pooled results.Clinical data from 2874 children with COVID-19 from 37 articles were finally included for quantitative analyses. Fever (48.5%, 95% CI: 41.4%-55.6%) and cough (40.6%, 95% CI: 33.9%-47.5%) were the most common symptoms; asymptomatic infection and severe cases, respectively, accounted for 27.7% (95% CI: 19.7%-36.4%) patients and 1.1% of the 1933 patients included. Laboratory tests showed 5.5% (95% CI: 2.8%-8.9%) of the patients had lymphopenia. The pooled prevalence of leukopenia was 7.3% (95% CI: 3.4%-12.2%), and the C-reactive protein level was high in 14.0% (95% CI: 6.8%-22.8%). Chest computed tomography showed unilateral and bilateral lesions, and ground-glass opacity in 29.4% (95% CI: 24.8%-34.3%) and 24.7% (95% CI: 18.2%-31.6%), and 32.9% (95% CI: 25.3%-40.9%), respectively, and normal in approximately 36.0% (95% CI: 27.7%-44.7%).We found that children with COVID-19 had relatively mild disease, with quite a lot of asymptomatic infections and low rate of severe illness. Data from more regions are needed to determine the prevention and treatment strategies for children with COVID-19.
Topics: Asymptomatic Infections; COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Child; Diagnostic Imaging; Global Health; Humans; Pediatrics; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index; Symptom Assessment
PubMed: 33847620
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025230 -
Journal of Travel Medicine Jun 2024Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and blood-borne viruses (BBVs) impose a global health and economic burden. International travellers facilitate the spread of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and blood-borne viruses (BBVs) impose a global health and economic burden. International travellers facilitate the spread of infectious diseases, including STIs. Hence, this review assessed the prevalence/proportionate morbidity of travellers with STIs and sexually transmitted BBVs and factors associated with the infection in this population.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase and Cochrane Library were searched from inception of the databases until November 2022. Published analytical observational studies reporting the prevalence/proportionate morbidity of travellers with STIs and factors associated with STIs by type of traveller [i.e. tourists, business travellers, students, visiting friends or relatives (VFRs), international truck drivers, backpackers, expatriates and men who have sex with men (MSM)] were included. The selection of articles, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. Meta-analyses were conducted for each STI by clinical presentation and type of traveller.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies (n = 387 731 travellers) were included; 19 evaluated the proportionate morbidity of STIs among symptomatic travellers, while 13 examined the prevalence of STIs in asymptomatic travellers. The highest proportionate morbidity was found among VFRs (syphilis, 1.67%; 95% CI: 1.03-2.81%), backpackers (Chlamydia trachomatis, 6.58%; 95% CI: 5.96-7.25%) and MSM (HIV [2.50%;95% CI: 0.44-12.88%], gonorrhoea [4.17%; 95% CI: 1.1.5-13.98%], lymphogranuloma venereum [4.17%;95% CI: 1.1.5-13.98%] and HAV [20.0%; 95% CI: 14.99-26.17%]). The highest prevalence of STIs among asymptomatic were found in MSM (HIV [25.94%; 95% CI: 22.21-30.05%] and HBV [24.90%; 95% CI: 21.23-28.96%]) and backpackers (C. trachomatis, 3.92%; 95% CI: 2.72-5.32%). Short duration of the trip (<1 month), not having pre-travel consultation, travelling to Southeast Asia and being unvaccinated for HBV were identified as risk factors for STIs.
CONCLUSION
Strategies to prevent STIs and sexually transmitted BBVs should be discussed at pre-travel consultations, and recommendations should be prioritized in high-risk groups of travellers, such as backpackers, VFRs and MSMs. Additionally, healthcare providers should tailor recommendations for safe sex practices to individual travellers' unique needs.
Topics: Humans; Sexually Transmitted Diseases; Travel; Blood-Borne Infections; Male; Prevalence; Female; Risk Factors
PubMed: 38438164
DOI: 10.1093/jtm/taae038 -
Acta Gastro-enterologica Belgica 2020The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic infection spreading worldwide at an unprecedented rate. Our aim was to assess the frequency of gastrointestinal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic infection spreading worldwide at an unprecedented rate. Our aim was to assess the frequency of gastrointestinal (GI) involvement in COVID-19.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies reporting clinical data about COVID-19 patients, published until 25th March 2020. The primary endpoint was the pooled prevalence of COVID-19 patients complaining of GI symptoms. Secondary endpoints were the pooled prevalence of cases with COVID-19 positive stool samples, and of asymptomatic COVID-19 patients. We used random-effects model for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies were included in the meta-analysis. Out of 4434 COVID-19 patients, the pooled prevalence of GI manifestations was 11.51% (95% CI : 8.16 to 15.35). The most frequent GI symptom was diarrhea (7.78% of cases ; 95% CI : 5.05 to 11.04), followed by nausea/vomiting (3.57% ; 95% CI : 1.87 to 5.80), poor appetite (2.39% ; 95%CI : 0.55 ; 5.46) and abdominal pain (0.78% ; 95% CI : 0.26 to 1.57). Positivity for COVID-19 in stool samples was observed in 41.50% (95% CI : 17.70 to 67.65) of cases. 11.85% (95% CI : 3.53 to 24.17) of COVID-19 patients remained asymptomatic.
CONCLUSIONS
The present meta-analysis shows that a significant proportion of COVID-19 patients suffer from GI manifestations, as well as COVID-19 positivity in stool samples. Asymptomatic patients need to be considered a further potential route of viral transmission.
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33321018
DOI: No ID Found -
Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) Jun 2023Antimicrobial resistance (AMR), especially multidrug resistant Escherichia coli strains, is a problem even in Europe. That is why inadequate usage of antibiotic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR), especially multidrug resistant Escherichia coli strains, is a problem even in Europe. That is why inadequate usage of antibiotic therapy should be avoided, especially in the treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB).
OBJECTIVES
Should ASB be treated with antibiotics in immunocompromized patients, namely solid organ transplant, especially kidney transplant or stem cell transplant recipients?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A rapid review based on a systematic literature search in MEDLINE between 1980 and 2022 was performed. For evidence synthesis, only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs were considered.
RESULTS
No studies were identified for the search term solid organ and stem cell transplantation. Three RCTs (antibiotic therapy versus no therapy) were included for adult kidney transplantation. None of the studies showed a benefit for antibiotic therapy of ASB in reduction of symptomatic urinary tract infections, especially in the late transplantation phase two months after kidney transplantation; furthermore, this therapy may promote AMR development. In addition, there are numerous gaps of evidence, e.g., in pediatric transplantation or regarding the influence of special immunosuppressants.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence for antibiotic therapy of ASB in adult kidney transplantation two months after the surgery. Further studies addressing the identified evidence gaps are essential for the prevention of further AMR development.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteriuria; Escherichia coli; Immunocompromised Host; Kidney Transplantation; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 36941381
DOI: 10.1007/s00120-023-02059-8