-
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... 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 -
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 -
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 -
Head & Neck Jan 2022Postoperative surgical site infections (SSI) are worrisome complications after head and neck cancer surgery. Due to the lack of direct comparisons, it is difficult to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Postoperative surgical site infections (SSI) are worrisome complications after head and neck cancer surgery. Due to the lack of direct comparisons, it is difficult to indicate the best antibiotic in the setting of SSI prophylaxis for patients with head and neck cancer. For this reason, we decided to conduct a Bayesian network meta-analysis of clinical studies evaluating various antibiotic classes for SSI prophylaxis; thus, we directly and indirectly compared all the available antibiotics in the setting of head and neck oncological surgery. We performed a systematic review and a network meta-analysis according to the PRISMA-NMA checklist. Regarding inclusion criteria, we included articles with retrospective or prospective design recruiting adult participants with head and neck neoplasm of any subsite that compared different antibiotics or that compared different antibiotic treatment duration with sample sizes of more than 10 patients. Overall, 310 citations were identified by the search on all databases. Of these, 250 were excluded based on title and abstract, leaving 60 publications for full text examination. Finally, 20 papers were included for data extraction and analysis. In total, 8627 patients were evaluated across the included studies. Results of the Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that when compared to clindamycin short course, the antibiotics effective in preventing SSI were ampicillin/sulbactam or other penicillin short course (OR: 0.37, 95%CrI: 0.19-0.72), cefazolin/metronidazole short course (OR: 0.26, 95%CrI: 0.06-0.93), cefazolin (OR: 0.36, 95%CrI: 0.17-0.79), ampicillin/sulbactam long course (OR: 0.20, 95%CrI: 0.04-0.91), cefazolin/metronidazole long course (OR: 0.27, 95%CrI: 0.09-0.64), cefoperazone (OR: 0.05, 95%CrI: 0.002-0.89), cefotaxime (OR: 0.04, 95%CrI: 0.002-0.85). There was no significant difference between clindamycin and no antibiotic (OR: 2.3, 95%CrI: 0.59-9.9). Clindamycin plus aminoglycoside seemed to give a slight protection from SSI compared to clindamycin alone (OR: 0.30, 95%CrI: 0.09-0.99) or no antibiotic (OR: 0.13, 95%CrI: 0.02-067). Antibiotic prophylaxis is important in preventing SSI in head and neck cancer setting. Current evidence suggests that penicillins and cephalosporins are the best choice. Moreover, long duration course does not give any advantage compared to short course prophylaxis. Finally, it is important to implement appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis in patients that are labeled as penicillin allergic, in this regard clindamycin seems to be ineffective and, for this reason, further research is needed to provide a better care for this subset of patients.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bayes Theorem; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 34741354
DOI: 10.1002/hed.26908 -
Research in Social & Administrative... Jul 2023Decreasing the prevalence of antibiotic self-medication among the public requires proper understanding of the risk factors involved. However, the determinants of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Decreasing the prevalence of antibiotic self-medication among the public requires proper understanding of the risk factors involved. However, the determinants of antibiotic self-medication are not well defined.
OBJECTIVES
To identify patient and health system-related determinants of antibiotic self-medication among the public.
METHODS
A systematic review of quantitative observational studies and qualitative studies was undertaken. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify studies on determinants of antibiotic self-medication. The data were analyzed using meta-analysis, descriptive analysis, and thematic analysis.
RESULTS
Sixty-eight studies were included in the review. From meta-analyses, male sex (pooled odds ratio [POR]: 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-1.75), lack of satisfaction with healthcare services/physicians (POR: 3.53, 95% CI: 2.26-4.75) were associated with antibiotic self-medication. In subgroup analysis, lower age was directly associated with self-medication in high-income countries (POR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.10-2.36). In low- and middle-income countries, people with greater knowledge of antibiotics were less likely to self-medicate (POR: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.08-0.47). Patient-related determinants identified from descriptive and qualitative studies included previous experience with antibiotics and similar symptoms, perceived low severity of disease, intention to save time and get better quickly, cultural beliefs about curative power of antibiotics, advice from family/friends, and having home stock of antibiotics. Health system-related determinants included high cost of consulting physicians and low cost of self-medication, lack of access to physician/medical care, lack of trust/confidence in physicians, greater trust in pharmacists, long distance of physicians/healthcare facilities, long waiting time at healthcare facilities, easy access to antibiotics from pharmacies, and convenience associated with self-medication.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient and health system-related determinants are associated with antibiotic self-medication. Interventions to decrease antibiotic self-medication should incorporate community programs along with appropriate policies and healthcare reforms targeting these determinants with specific attention to population at high risk of self-medication.
Topics: Humans; Male; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Self Medication; Pharmacists; Health Services; Physicians
PubMed: 37019706
DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.03.009 -
Journal of Psychosomatic Research Jan 2023Increasingly, disruption of the gastrointestinal ecosystem is thought to be involved in the pathogenesis of several medical conditions, including depression. Antibiotics... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Increasingly, disruption of the gastrointestinal ecosystem is thought to be involved in the pathogenesis of several medical conditions, including depression. Antibiotics can induce substantial changes in the gastrointestinal microbiota and several lines of evidence suggest that antibiotics exposure may increase the risk of developing depression. This systematic review examined this potential association.
METHODS
PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychINFO databases, as well as unpublished resources, were searched for studies in humans published from 2000 onwards. The studies needed to consider the connection between antibiotic exposure (either alone or in combination with other antibiotics and medications) and the development of depressive symptoms and/or disorders (in isolation to other psychological conditions).
RESULTS
Nine studies met the eligibility criteria. All were observational in nature. The studies were conducted in different age groups with various indications for receiving antibiotics. Together, these relatively low-quality studies suggest a potential association between antibiotic exposure and subsequent development of depression symptoms. Specifically, studies from the United Kingdom and Sweden indicate that the risk of depression is increased by at least 20%, with the former (over 1 million participants) reporting an increased risk with the number of courses and agents used, that persists with a slow decline over the ten years following exposure.
CONCLUSIONS
The inherent limitations associated with the studies' methodologies make a reliable conclusion difficult. While the risk of antimicrobial resistance may prohibit large randomised clinical trials in healthy individuals, future placebo-controlled trials with antibiotics-based protocols (e.g. for acne) should explore their effect on mental health.
Topics: Humans; Depression; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ecosystem; Mental Disorders; Sweden
PubMed: 36502554
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2022.111113 -
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 -
Clinical Otolaryngology : Official... Nov 2023Otitis externa is a condition causing inflammation of the outer ear canal, which presents with itching, discharge and pain. Most cases of acute otitis externa are caused... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Otitis externa is a condition causing inflammation of the outer ear canal, which presents with itching, discharge and pain. Most cases of acute otitis externa are caused by bacterial infection and are thus treated with antibiotics. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials aims to assess the effectiveness of topical non-antibiotic treatments compared to topical antibiotic treatment for the treatment of acute otitis externa.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis databases searched: Cochrane Library including ClinicalTrials.gov; MEDLINE; World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Web of Science to identify randomised clinical trials evaluating topical antibiotics and topical non-antibiotic agents in adults and children with acute otitis externa. Non-antibiotic therapeutics for comparison with topical antibiotics included antiseptics, steroids, non-pharmaceuticals and astringents.
RESULTS
Seventeen trials were eligible for inclusion, with 10 combined in meta-analysis. Data could be pooled comparing antiseptic and steroid monotherapies with topical antibiotic agents. There were no significant differences in cure rates in any pairwise comparisons. Individually, the majority of studies favoured topical antiseptics or steroids over antibiotics, however these differences were not significant when pooled in meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
Antiseptic, steroid and antibiotic monotherapies are all effective for the management of acute otitis externa. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that topical antiseptic or steroid agents are superior or inferior to topical antibiotics.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Otitis Externa; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Inflammation; Acute Disease; Steroids
PubMed: 37550850
DOI: 10.1111/coa.14084 -
Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica :... Apr 2022
Review
Topics: Abscess; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drainage; Humans
PubMed: 35612503
DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-N1837