-
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and... Jan 2023Maternal rectovaginal colonization with group B Streptococcus (GBS) or Streptococcus agalactiae is the most common pathway for this disease during the perinatal period.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Maternal rectovaginal colonization with group B Streptococcus (GBS) or Streptococcus agalactiae is the most common pathway for this disease during the perinatal period. This meta-analysis aimed to summarize existing data regarding maternal colonization, serotype profiles, and antibiotic resistance in China.
METHODS
Systematic literature reviews were conducted after searching 6 databases. Meta-analysis was applied to analyze colonization rate, serotype, and antimicrobial susceptibility of GBS clinical isolates in different regions of China. Summary estimates are presented using tables, funnel plots, forest plots, histograms, violin plots, and line plots.
RESULTS
The dataset regarding colonization included 52 articles and 195 303 pregnant women. Our estimate for maternal GBS colonization in China was 8.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.2%-8.9%). Serotypes Ia, Ib, III, and V account for 95.9% of identified isolates. Serotype III, which is frequently associated with the hypervirulent clonal complex, accounts for 46.4%. Among the maternal GBS isolates using multilocus sequence typing (MLST), ST19 (25.7%, 289/1126) and ST10 (25.1%, 283/1126) were most common, followed by ST12 (12.4%, 140/1126), ST17 (4.8%, 54/1126), and ST651 (3.7%, 42/1126). GBS was highly resistant to tetracycline (75.1% [95% CI 74.0-76.3%]) and erythromycin (65.4% [95% CI 64.5-66.3%]) and generally susceptible to penicillin, ampicillin, vancomycin, ceftriaxone, and linezolid. Resistance rates of GBS to clindamycin and levofloxacin varied greatly (1.0-99.2% and 10.3-72.9%, respectively). A summary analysis of the bacterial drug resistance reports released by the China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) in the past 5 years showed that the drug resistance rate of GBS to erythromycin, clindamycin, and levofloxacin decreased slowly from 2018 to 2020. However, the resistance rates of GBS to all 3 antibiotics increased slightly in 2021.
CONCLUSIONS
The overall colonization rate in China was much lower than the global colonization rate (17.4%). Consistent with many original and review reports in other parts of the world, GBS was highly resistant to tetracycline. However, the resistance of GBS isolates in China to erythromycin and clindamycin was greater than in other countries. This paper provides important epidemiological information, to assist with prevention and treatment of GBS colonization in these women.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Clindamycin; Streptococcal Infections; Levofloxacin; Streptococcus agalactiae; Multilocus Sequence Typing; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Erythromycin; Tetracycline; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; China; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 36639677
DOI: 10.1186/s12941-023-00553-7 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Sep 2021The efficacy of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin in the treatment of urinary tract infection is not clear yet. This study perform a meta-analysis to explore the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin in the treatment of urinary tract infection is not clear yet. This study perform a meta-analysis to explore the differences between the two against urinary tract infection (UTI).
METHODS
A computerized literature search was conducted of the databases of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. All the retrieved literatures were randomized comparative studies of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin. The included studies were screened according to the standard of nanofiltration. The risk of bias was assessed with RevMan 5.3.5 software. The treatment effect index and incidence of adverse reactions index were established and compared via meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 5 studies were included, involving 2,877 patients overall. The results showed that levofloxacin was more effective than ciprofloxacin, but the difference between the 2 drugs was not statistically significant [odds ratio (OR) =1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94 to 1.46, P=0.15]. There was also no statistical significance in the rate of adverse reactions between the 2 drugs (OR =0.91, 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.07, P=0.27).
DISCUSSION
In the treatment of UTI, the efficacy and safety of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin are similar statistically. If bacterial resistance is discovered after the treatment of one of the drugs, the other drug might become an alternative.
Topics: Ciprofloxacin; Humans; Levofloxacin; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 34628902
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-2042 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jan 2023Due to increasing resistance rates of () to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and...
BACKGROUND
Due to increasing resistance rates of () to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and treatment algorithms for first-line and second-line therapy against infection are well-established, there is no clear recommendation for third-line and rescue therapy in refractory infection.
AIM
To perform a systematic review evaluating the efficacy and safety of rescue therapies against refractory infection.
METHODS
A systematic search of available rescue treatments for refractory infection was conducted on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed search platform based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of infection rescue therapies were included.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies were included in the analysis of mean eradication rates as rescue therapy, and 21 of these were selected for analysis of mean eradication rate as third-line treatment. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple-therapy as third-line treatment, mean eradication rates of 81.6% and 84.4%, 79.4% and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. For third-line quadruple therapy, mean eradication rates of 69.2% and 72.1% were found for bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT), 88.9% and 90.9% for bismuth quadruple therapy, three-in-one, Pylera (BQT-Pylera), and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT) in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple therapy as rescue therapy, mean eradication rates of 75.4% and 78.8%, 79.4 and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For quadruple therapy as rescue treatment, mean eradication rates of 76.7% and 79.2% for BQT, 84.9% and 87.8% for BQT-Pylera, and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For susceptibility-guided therapy, mean eradication rates as third-line and rescue treatment were 75.0% in ITT and 79.2% in PP analysis.
CONCLUSION
We recommend sitafloxacin-based triple therapy containing vonoprazan in regions with low macrolide resistance profile. In regions with known resistance to macrolides or unavailability of bismuth, rifabutin-based triple therapy is recommended.
Topics: Humans; Helicobacter Infections; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Metronidazole; Helicobacter pylori; Bismuth; Levofloxacin; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Macrolides; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Tetracycline; Rifabutin
PubMed: 36687120
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i2.390 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Mar 2024Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma spp. especially M. hominis, U. parvum, and U. urealyticum recognized as an important cause of urogenital infections. Sake of the presence of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma spp. especially M. hominis, U. parvum, and U. urealyticum recognized as an important cause of urogenital infections. Sake of the presence of antibiotic resistance and a continuous rise in resistance, the treatment options are limited, and treatment has become more challenging and costlier.
OBJECTIVES
Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to estimate worldwide resistance rates of genital Mycoplasmas and Ureaplasma to fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin) agents.
METHODS
We searched the relevant published studies in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase from until 3, March 2022. All statistical analyses were carried out using the statistical package R.
RESULTS
The 30 studies included in the analysis were performed in 16 countries. In the metadata, the proportions of ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin resistance in Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma urogenital isolates were reported 59.8% (95% CI 49.6, 69.1), 31.2% (95% CI 23, 40), 7.3% (95% CI 1, 31), and 5.3% (95% CI 1, 2), respectively. According to the meta-regression, the ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin rate increased over time. There was a statistically significant difference in the fluoroquinolones resistance rates between different continents/countries (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results obtained in this systematic review and meta-analysis we recommend the use of the newer group of fluoroquinolones especially levofloxacin as the first choice for the treatment of genital mycoplasmosis, as well as ofloxacin for the treatment of genital infections caused by U. parvum.
Topics: Humans; Ureaplasma; Mycoplasma; Fluoroquinolones; Levofloxacin; Ureaplasma urealyticum; Moxifloxacin; Mycoplasma hominis; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Ureaplasma Infections; Urinary Tract Infections; Ciprofloxacin
PubMed: 38016593
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2023.11.007 -
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Sep 2021Sepsis is common, deadly, and a major challenge to treat. Quinolones added to beta-lactam antibiotics are currently recommended as a second-line empiric regimen in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sepsis is common, deadly, and a major challenge to treat. Quinolones added to beta-lactam antibiotics are currently recommended as a second-line empiric regimen in sepsis, but the evidence regarding their benefits and harms is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the benefits and harms of adding quinolones to standard care for sepsis.
DATA SOURCES
We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-Expanded, and BIOSIS.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of adding any quinolone to standard care for children and adults with sepsis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. The certainty of the evidence was assessed by GRADE.
RESULTS
We included three trials randomizing 995 adults. All trials were at overall "high risk of bias." All trials compared a quinolone (moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, or ciprofloxacin) and a beta-lactam antibiotic versus the same beta-lactam antibiotic. We found no evidence of an effect of adding quinolones to beta-lactam antibiotics when assessing all-cause mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33; 2 trials; 915 participants; very low certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.50; 977 participants; two trials; very low certainty of evidence). No trials reported on quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS
The effects of adding quinolones to beta-lactam antibiotics for the treatment of sepsis were unclear for all outcomes. Additional trial data are warranted to support the recommendation of empirical use of quinolones for sepsis.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Humans; Quality of Life; Quinolones; Sepsis; beta-Lactams
PubMed: 33864250
DOI: 10.1111/aas.13831 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Feb 2023The eradication of infection remains challenging due to increasing bacterial resistance. Resistance rates to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and levofloxacin were higher... (Review)
Review
The eradication of infection remains challenging due to increasing bacterial resistance. Resistance rates to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and levofloxacin were higher than 30% in the USA, making current therapies less effective. Vonoprazan triple therapy (VAC) has demonstrated similar efficacy and safety profiles compared to PPI-based triple therapy (PPI). However, the eradication rate of vonoprazan dual therapy (VA) for infection in comparison to VAC, and PPI was poorly established. Electronic databases were searched up to 6 October 2022, to identify studies examining the safety and efficacy of VA compared to VAC and PPI. Six studies were included. For empiric therapies among treatment naïve patients, VA, VAC, and PPI did not achieve high cure rates (>90%). The comparative efficacy ranking showed VAC was the most effective therapy, followed by VA, and PPI. The results were similar for clarithromycin-resistant infections. The comparative safety ranking showed VA ranked first, whereas PPI triple therapy was the least safe regimen. These findings should guide the selection of the most effective and safe treatment and conduct additional studies to determine the place of vonoprazan dual versus triple therapies in patients with from various countries across the world.
PubMed: 36830257
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12020346 -
EClinicalMedicine May 2024The escalating resistance of to macrolides has become a significant global health concern, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although...
BACKGROUND
The escalating resistance of to macrolides has become a significant global health concern, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although tetracyclines and quinolones have been proposed as alternative therapeutic options, concerns regarding age-specific safety issues and the lack of consensus in recommendations across various national guidelines prevail. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to ascertain the most efficacious interventions for second-line treatment of . infection while considering the age-specific safety issues associated with these interventions.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis we searched PubMed, Embase, CNKI, and WanFang Data, from inception up to November 11th, 2023. Studies of quinolones or tetracyclines for the treatment of people with infection were collected and screened by reading published reports, with any type of study included, and no individual patient-level data requested. A systematic review and direct meta-analysis compared the efficacy of tetracyclines and quinolones regarding time to defervescence (TTD) and the rates of fever disappearance within 24 h and 48 h of antibiotic administration, for managing . infection. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was employed to indirectly assess the relative effectiveness of different interventions in people with . infection and the safety profile of medication in paediatric patients. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023478383.
FINDINGS
The systematic review and direct meta-analysis included a total of 4 articles involving 246 patients, while the NMA encompassed 85 articles involving a substantial cohort of 7095 patients. The NMA measured the effectiveness across all ages and included 7043 patients, with a mean age of 37.80 ± 3.91 years. Of the 85 included studies, 14 (16.5%) were at low risk of bias, 71 (83.5%) were at moderate risk, and no studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. In the direct meta-analysis, no statistically significant differences were found between tetracyclines and quinolones concerning TTD (mean difference: -0.40, 95% CI: -1.43 to 0.63; = 0%), fever disappearance rate within 24 h of antibiotic administration (OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.08-1.79; = 58%), and fever disappearance rate within 48 h of antibiotic administration (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.30-3.98; = 59%). However, the comprehensive NMA analysis of clinical response (in 70 studies; n = 6143 patients), shortening of TTD (in 52 studies; n = 4363 patients), shortening length of cough relief or disappearance (in 39 studies; n = 3235 patients), fever disappearance rate at 48 h (in four studies; n = 418 patients) revealed that minocycline exhibited the most favourable outcomes across these various parameters, and the analysis of fever disappearance rate at 24 h (in three studies; n = 145 patients) revealed that levofloxacin may be the most effective, as indicated by the rank probabilities and surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) value. Moxifloxacin ranked second in clinical response and in shortening the length of cough relief or disappearance, and third in shortening TTD. Notably, when evaluating the occurrence of adverse reactions in paediatric patients (in four studies; n = 239 children), levofloxacin was associated with the highest SUCRA value rankings for the rate of adverse events.
INTERPRETATION
Our findings suggest that tetracyclines and quinolones may be equally effective. Based on the age of participants in the included studies, minocycline may be the most effective intervention for children over eight years of age when all preventive measures are considered, whereas moxifloxacin may benefit people under eight years of age. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, given the limited number of studies and patients included, and the heterogeneity between included studies. Based on a limited number of studies in children, levofloxacin is likely to have one of the highest rates of adverse reactions. The majority of the studies included in the NMA were from the Asian region, and more randomised controlled trials comparing different therapeutic strategies in patients with . are warranted. This comparative study provides clinical pharmacists and clinicians with important information to enable them to make informed decisions about treatment options, considering drug efficacy and safety.
FUNDING
The Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province, China.
PubMed: 38596615
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102589 -
Cureus Apr 2023Community-acquired pneumonia is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world, which incurs significant healthcare costs. The aim of his meta-analysis... (Review)
Review
Community-acquired pneumonia is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world, which incurs significant healthcare costs. The aim of his meta-analysis is to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of a novel non-fluorinated quinolone, nemonoxacin, compared with levofloxacin in treating community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). A recursive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus up to August 2022. All randomized clinical trials comparing nemonoxacin to levofloxacin for community-acquired pneumonia were included. The patients selected for this study had mild to moderate CAP. Each individual received treatment with either nemonoxacin (500 mg or 750 mg) or levofloxacin (500 mg) for a duration of 3-10 days. Four randomized control trials with a total of 1955 patients were included. Nemonoxacin and levofloxacin were found to have similar clinical cure rates in the treatment of CAP. There were no significant differences reported in the treatment-emergent adverse events between the two drugs (RR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.08, I=0%). However, the most frequent symptoms exhibited were gastrointestinal system-related. Both the dosages (500 mg and 750 mg) of nemonoxacin were found to have similar efficacy as that of levofloxacin. Our meta-analysis indicates that nemonoxacin is a well-tolerated and effective antibiotic therapy for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), with clinical success rates comparable to those of levofloxacin. Furthermore, the adverse effects associated with nemonoxacin are generally mild. Therefore, both the 500 mg and 750 mg dosages of nemonoxacin can be recommended as appropriate antibiotic therapy regimens for the treatment of CAP.
PubMed: 37200652
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.37650 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Sep 2023Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (S. maltophilia), an opportunistic pathogen, causes infection in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy, mechanical ventilation, or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (S. maltophilia), an opportunistic pathogen, causes infection in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy, mechanical ventilation, or catheters and in long-term hospitalized patients. Due to its extensive resistance to various antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents, S. maltophilia is challenging to treat. Using case reports, case series, and prevalence studies, the current study provides a systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic resistance profiles across clinical isolates of S. maltophilia.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed for original research articles published in Medline, Web of Science, and Embase databases from 2000 to 2022. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 14 software to report antibiotic resistance of S. maltophilia clinical isolates worldwide.
RESULTS
223 studies (39 case reports/case series and 184 prevalence studies) were collected for analysis. A meta-analysis of prevalence studies demonstrated that the most antibiotic resistance worldwide was to levofloxacin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX), and minocycline (14.4%, 9.2%, and 1.4%, respectively). Resistance to TMP/SMX (36.84%), levofloxacin (19.29%), and minocycline (1.75%) were the most prevalent antibiotic resistance types found in evaluated case reports/case series studies. The highest resistance rate to TMP/SMX was reported in Asia (19.29%), Europe (10.52%), and America (7.01%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Considering the high resistance to TMP/SMX, more attention should be paid to patients' drug regimens to prevent the emergence of multidrug-resistant S. maltophilia isolates.
Topics: Humans; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination; Levofloxacin; Minocycline; Stenotrophomonas maltophilia; Prevalence; Drug Resistance, Bacterial
PubMed: 36906172
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2023.02.018 -
Emerging infections in vulnerable hosts: Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and Elizabethkingia anophelis.Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases Dec 2023This systematic review aimed to explore the recent trends in the epidemiology, risk factors, and antimicrobial susceptibility of two emerging opportunistic pathogens,...
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
This systematic review aimed to explore the recent trends in the epidemiology, risk factors, and antimicrobial susceptibility of two emerging opportunistic pathogens, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and Elizabethkingia anophelis .
RECENT FINDINGS
Since 2020, numerous outbreaks of S. maltophilia and E. anophelis have been reported worldwide. Most of these outbreaks have been associated with healthcare facilities, although one outbreak caused by E. anophelis in France was considered a community-associated infection. In terms of antimicrobial susceptibility, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMZ), levofloxacin, and minocycline have exhibited good efficacy against S. maltophilia . Additionally, cefiderocol and a combination of aztreonam and avibactam have shown promising results in in vitro susceptibility testing. For E. anophelis , there is currently no consensus on the optimal treatment. Although some studies have reported good efficacy with rifampin, TMP-SMZ, piperacillin/tazobactam, and cefoperazone/sulbactam, minocycline had the most favourable in vitro susceptibility rates. Cefiderocol may serve as an alternative due to its low minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) against E. anophelis . The role of vancomycin in treatment is still uncertain, although several successful cases with vancomycin treatment, even with high MIC values, have been reported.
SUMMARY
Immunocompromised patients are particularly vulnerable to infections caused by S. maltophilia and E. anophelis , but the optimal treatment strategy remains inconclusive. Further research is necessary to determine the most effective use of conventional and novel antimicrobial agents in combatting these multidrug-resistant pathogens.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Minocycline; Stenotrophomonas maltophilia; Vancomycin; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination; Anti-Infective Agents; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Cefiderocol
PubMed: 37548375
DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000953