-
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Jun 2021Over investigation and overuse of empirical antibiotics is a concern in management of neonatal early onset sepsis (EOS) using the Centers for Disease Control and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Over investigation and overuse of empirical antibiotics is a concern in management of neonatal early onset sepsis (EOS) using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. "Sepsis calculator" is a risk-based prediction model for managing neonates at risk of EOS.
OBJECTIVE
To compare outcomes of neonatal EOS using of sepsis calculator versus conventional approach.
METHODS
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-RCTs reporting on outcomes after implementation of sepsis calculator for EOS for neonates >34-week gestation was conducted using the Cochrane methodology. Databases PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Central library and Google Scholar were searched in May 2019. Primary outcomes were antibiotics usage and laboratory tests for managing EOS. Secondary outcomes included hospital admissions and readmissions, blood culture positive EOS and mortality. The level of evidence (LOE) was summarized using the GRADE guidelines.
RESULTS
A total of 387 articles were retrieved after initial search. Six high quality non-RCTs fulfilled inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis (random effects model) showed that implementation of sepsis calculator was associated with reduced antibiotic usage [ = 172,385; OR = 0.22 (0.14-0.36); < .00001; heterogeneity () = 97%, Number needed to treat (NNT): 22], laboratory tests [ = 168,432; OR = 0.14 (0.08-0.27); < .00001; = 99%, NNT = 8], and admissions to neonatal unit [ = 16,628; OR = 0.24 (0.11-0.51); = .0002; = 98%, NNT = 7]; LOE: moderate. There was no difference in mortality, culture positive EOS, and readmissions.
CONCLUSION
Moderate quality evidence indicates that the implementation of a sepsis calculator was associated with reduced usage of antibiotics, laboratory tests and admission to neonatal unit with no increase in mortality and readmissions.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Gestational Age; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Sepsis; Sepsis
PubMed: 31352846
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1649650 -
Critical Care (London, England) Oct 2023Appropriate antibiotic (AB) therapy remains a challenge in the intensive care unit (ICU). Procalcitonin (PCT)-guided AB stewardship could help optimize AB treatment and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Appropriate antibiotic (AB) therapy remains a challenge in the intensive care unit (ICU). Procalcitonin (PCT)-guided AB stewardship could help optimize AB treatment and decrease AB-related adverse effects, but firm evidence is still lacking. Our aim was to compare the effects of PCT-guided AB therapy with standard of care (SOC) in critically ill patients.
METHODS
We searched databases CENTRAL, Embase and Medline. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCT-guided AB therapy (PCT group) with SOC reporting on length of AB therapy, mortality, recurrent and secondary infection, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS or healthcare costs. Due to recent changes in sepsis definitions, subgroup analyses were performed in studies applying the Sepsis-3 definition. In the statistical analysis, a random-effects model was used to pool effect sizes.
RESULTS
We included 26 RCTs (n = 9048 patients) in the quantitative analysis. In comparison with SOC, length of AB therapy was significantly shorter in the PCT group (MD - 1.79 days, 95% CI: -2.65, - 0.92) and was associated with a significantly lower 28-day mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74, 0.95). In Sepsis-3 patients, mortality benefit was more pronounced (OR 0.46 95% CI: 0.27, 0.79). Odds of recurrent infection were significantly higher in the PCT group (OR 1.36, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.68), but there was no significant difference in the odds of secondary infection (OR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.54, 1.21), ICU and hospital length of stay (MD - 0.67 days 95% CI: - 1.76, 0.41 and MD - 1.23 days, 95% CI: - 3.13, 0.67, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
PCT-guided AB therapy may be associated with reduced AB use, lower 28-day mortality but higher infection recurrence, with similar ICU and hospital length of stay. Our results render the need for better designed studies investigating the role of PCT-guided AB stewardship in critically ill patients.
Topics: Humans; Procalcitonin; Critical Illness; Coinfection; Biomarkers; Sepsis; Intensive Care Units; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37833778
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04677-2 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jan 2024Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials was conducted to compare the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of lower third molars with different prophylactic antibiotics. The occurrence of any antibiotic-related adverse event was also analysed. A pairwise and network meta-analysis was performed to establish direct and indirect comparisons of each outcome variable. Sixteen articles involving 2158 patients (2428 lower third molars) were included, and the following antibiotics were analysed: amoxicillin (with and without clavulanic acid), metronidazole, azithromycin, and clindamycin. Pooled results favoured the use of antibiotics to reduce dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of a lower third molar, with a number needed to treat of 25 and 18, respectively. Although antibiotic prophylaxis was found to significantly reduce the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection in patients undergoing lower third molar extraction, the number of patients needed to treat was high. Thus, clinicians should evaluate the need to prescribe antibiotics taking into consideration the patient's systemic status and the individual risk of developing a postoperative infection.
Topics: Humans; Dry Socket; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Surgical Wound Infection; Molar, Third; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 37612199
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2023.08.001 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Oct 2019Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the more common infections encountered in everyday clinical practice. They account for 10-20% of all infections treated in...
PURPOSE
Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the more common infections encountered in everyday clinical practice. They account for 10-20% of all infections treated in primary care units and 30-40% of those treated in hospitals. The risk of UTI in the female population is considered to be 14 times higher than in the male population. The prevalence of bacterial etiology results in a large consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which in turn leads to increased rates of resistant uropathogens. Therefore, non-antibiotic prevention and treatment options are now of great importance.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed for the last 20 years (1999-2019) and the efficiencies of these eight different non-antibiotic interventions were analysed and discussed.
RESULTS
This article provides an overview on non-antibiotic options for management of UTI, including the application of cranberry products, the phytodrug Canephron N, probiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), D-mannose, estrogens, vitamins, and immunotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
The last 20 years of research on non-antibiotic approaches in UTI have not brought conclusive evidence that antibiotic usage can be replaced completely by non-antibiotic options. Hence, antibiotics still remain a gold standard for UTI treatment and prevention. However, changing the therapeutic strategy by including non-antibiotic measures in the management of UTI could be successful in avoiding antimicrobial resistance at least to some extent.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Female; Humans; Male; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 31350663
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05256-z -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Jun 2021Meropenem, a carbapenem antibiotic, is widely prescribed for the treatment of life-threatening infections. The main parameter associated with its therapeutic success is...
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
Meropenem, a carbapenem antibiotic, is widely prescribed for the treatment of life-threatening infections. The main parameter associated with its therapeutic success is the percentage of time that the levels remain above the minimum inhibitory concentration. Inadequate levels of meropenem can lead to therapeutic failure and increase the possibility of microbial resistance. The employment of strategies involving dose regimens and drug pharmacodynamics has become increasingly important to optimize therapies. In the present study, we conducted a review with the purpose of assembling information about the clinical use of meropenem and therapeutic drug monitoring.
METHODS
A literature review emphasizing the application of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of meropenem in clinical practice has been done. To identify articles related to the topic, we performed a standardized search from January 21, 2020 to December 21, 2020, using specific descriptors in PubMed, Lilacs and Embase.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In total, 35 studies were included in the review. The daily dose of meropenem commonly ranged from 3 to 6 g/day. Critically ill patients and those with impaired renal function appear to be the most suitable patients for the application of meropenem TDM, in order to guide therapy. We observed that most of the studies recommend TDM and that, in nine locations, the TDM of meropenem and of other beta-lactams is a routine practice. TDM data can help to maximize the clinical outcomes of the treatment with meropenem. It can also improve the patient care by providing suitable levels of meropenem, guiding the most appropriate dose regimens, which is the main parameter associated with therapeutic success.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
The findings from this review suggest that the therapeutic monitoring of meropenem can be beneficial, since it adjusts the treatment and aids clinical outcomes. It does so by indicating the appropriate dosage and preventing failure, toxicity and possible antimicrobial resistance. The multidisciplinary effort, basic knowledge and communication among the medical team are also essential.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Critical Illness; Drug Monitoring; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Humans; Meropenem; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 33533509
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.13369 -
The Journal of Infection Dec 2019Antibiotics change the composition of the intestinal microbiota. The magnitude of the effect of antibiotics on the microbiota and whether the effects are short-term or...
OBJECTIVE
Antibiotics change the composition of the intestinal microbiota. The magnitude of the effect of antibiotics on the microbiota and whether the effects are short-term or persist long-term remain uncertain. In this review, we summarise studies that have investigated the effect of antibiotics on the composition of the human intestinal microbiota.
METHODS
A systematic search was done to identify original studies that have investigated the effect of systemic antibiotics on the intestinal microbiota in humans.
RESULTS
We identified 129 studies investigating 2076 participants and 301 controls. Many studies reported a decrease in bacterial diversity with antibiotic treatment. Penicillin only had minor effects on the intestinal microbiota. Amoxicillin, amoxcillin/clavulanate, cephalosporins, lipopolyglycopeptides, macrolides, ketolides, clindamycin, tigecycline, quinolones and fosfomycin all increased abundance of Enterobacteriaea other than E. coli (mainly Citrobacter spp., Enterobacter spp. and Klebsiella spp.). Amoxcillin, cephalosporins, macrolides, clindamycin, quinolones and sulphonamides decreased abundance of E. coli, while amoxcillin/clavulante, in contrast to other penicillins, increased abundance of E. coli. Amoxicllin, piperacillin and ticarcillin, cephalosporins (except fifth generation cephalosporins), carbapenems and lipoglycopeptides were associated with increased abundance of Enterococcus spp., while macrolides and doxycycline decreased its abundance. Piperacillin and ticarcillin, carbapenems, macrolides, clindamycin and quinolones strongly decreased the abundance of anaerobic bacteria. In the studies that investigated persistence, the longest duration of changes was reported after treatment with ciprofloxacin (one year), clindamycin (two years) and clarithromycin plus metronidazole (four years). Many antibiotics were associated with a decrease in butyrate or butryrate-producing bacteria.
CONCLUSION
Antibiotics have profound and sometimes persisting effects on the intestinal microbiota, characterised by diminished abundance of beneficial commensals and increased abundance of potentially detrimental microorganisms. Understanding these effects will help tailor antibiotic treatment and the use of probiotics to minimise this 'collateral damage'.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Gram-Positive Bacteria; Humans; Microbiota
PubMed: 31629863
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2019.10.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more than one micro-organism) of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Topical antibiotics, the most common treatment for CSOM, act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antiseptics or ear cleaning (aural toileting).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical antibiotics (without steroids) for people with CSOM.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 April 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving participants (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The interventions were any single, or combination of, topical antibiotic agent(s) of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. The two main comparisons were topical antibiotic compared to a) placebo or no intervention and b) another topical antibiotic (e.g. topical antibiotic A versus topical antibiotic B). Within each comparison we separated studies where both groups of participants had received topical antibiotic a) alone or with aural toileting and b) on top of background treatment (such as systemic antibiotics).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies with a total of 2198 participants. Twelve studies reported the sample size in terms of participants (not ears); these had a total of 1797 participants. The remaining five studies reported both the number of participants and ears, representing 401 participants, or 510 ears. A: Topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment (with aural toilet in both arms and no other background treatment) One small study compared a topical antibiotic (ciprofloxacin) with placebo (saline). All participants received aural toilet. Although ciprofloxacin was better than saline in terms of resolution of discharge at one to two weeks: 84% versus 12% (risk ratio (RR) 6.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.82 to 24.99; 35 participants, very low-certainty evidence), the very low certainty of the evidence means that it is very uncertain whether or not one intervention is better or worse than the other. The study authors reported that "no medical side-effects and worsening of audiological measurements related to this topical medication were detected" (very low-certainty evidence). B: Topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment (with use of oral antibiotics in both arms) Four studies compared topical ciprofloxacin to no treatment (three studies; 190 participants) or topical ceftizoxime to no treatment (one study; 248 participants). In each study all participants received the same antibiotic systemically (oral ciprofloxacin, injected ceftizoxime). In at least one study all participants received aural toilet. Useable data were only available from the first three studies; ciprofloxacin was better than no treatment, resolution of discharge occurring in 88.2% versus 60% at one to two weeks (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.80; 2 studies, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported ear pain or discomfort/local irritation. C: Comparisons of different topical antibiotics The certainty of evidence for all outcomes in these comparisons is very low. Quinolones versus aminoglycosides Seven studies compared an aminoglycoside (gentamicin, neomycin or tobramycin) with ciprofloxacin (734 participants) or ofloxacin (214 participants). Whilst resolution of discharge at one to two weeks was higher in the quinolones group the very low certainty of the evidence means that it is very uncertain whether or not one intervention is better or worse than the other (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.29; 6 studies, 694 participants). One study measured ear pain and reported no difference between the groups. Quinolones versus aminoglycosides/polymyxin B combination ±gramicidin We identified three studies but data on our primary outcome were only available in one study. Comparing ciprofloxacin to a neomycin/polymyxin B/gramicidin combination, for an unknown treatment duration (likely four weeks), ciprofloxacin was better (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.22, 186 participants). A "few" patients experienced local irritation upon the first instillation of topical treatment (numbers/groups not stated). Others Other studies examined topical gentamicin versus a trimethoprim/sulphacetamide/polymixin B combination (91 participants) and rifampicin versus chloramphenicol (160 participants). Limited data were available and the findings were very uncertain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain about the effectiveness of topical antibiotics in improving resolution of ear discharge in patients with CSOM because of the limited amount of low-quality evidence available. However, amongst this uncertainty there is some evidence to suggest that the use of topical antibiotics may be effective when compared to placebo, or when used in addition to a systemic antibiotic. There is also uncertainty about the relative effectiveness of different types of antibiotics; it is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not quinolones are better or worse than aminoglycosides. These two groups of compounds have different adverse effect profiles, but there is insufficient evidence from the included studies to make any comment about these. In general, adverse effects were poorly reported.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chronic Disease; Humans; Otitis Media, Suppurative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31896168
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013051.pub2 -
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 -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Jul 2023Epidemiological studies have shown conflicting results between antibiotic use and multiple sclerosis (MS) risks. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Epidemiological studies have shown conflicting results between antibiotic use and multiple sclerosis (MS) risks. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the association between antibiotic use and the risk of MS.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as well as reference lists of retrieved studies were searched systematically to identify studies were assessed the relationship between antibiotic use and MS up to September 24, 2022. Random-effects model was used for the calculation of pooled Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
Five independent studies containing 47,491 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The overall results of included studies showed a non-significant positive association between antibiotic use (OR overall=1.01, 95%CI: 0.75-1.37) and a non-significant negative association between penicillin use (OR overall= 0.83; 95%CI: 0.62-1.13) and MS risk. Heterogeneity was (I=90.1, P < 0.001) and (I=90.7, P < 0.001) in antibiotics and penicillin use groups respectively.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis did not show a significant association between antibiotic or penicillin use with the risk of MS. However, due to the limitations of this study, further well-designed studies are required to confirm our findings.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Multiple Sclerosis; Penicillins; Odds Ratio
PubMed: 37209499
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2023.104765 -
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