-
BMC Oral Health May 2022To compare the reported efficacy and costs of available interventions used for the management of oral lichen planus (OLP).
OBJECTIVE
To compare the reported efficacy and costs of available interventions used for the management of oral lichen planus (OLP).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed from database inception until March 2021 in MEDLINE via PubMed and the Cochrane library following PRISMA guidelines. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing an active intervention with placebo or different active interventions for OLP management were considered.
RESULTS
Seventy (70) RCTs were included. The majority of evidence suggested efficacy of topical steroids (dexamethasone, clobetasol, fluocinonide, triamcinolone), topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus, pimecrolimus, cyclosporine), topical retinoids, intra-lesional triamcinolone, aloe-vera gel, photodynamic therapy, and low-level laser therapies for OLP management. Based on the estimated cost per month and evidence for efficacy and side-effects, topical steroids (fluocinonide > dexamethasone > clobetasol > triamcinolone) appear to be more cost-effective than topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus > pimecrolimus > cyclosporine) followed by intra-lesional triamcinolone.
CONCLUSION
Of common treatment regimens for OLP, topical steroids appear to be the most economical and efficacious option followed by topical calcineurin inhibitors. Large-scale multi-modality, prospective trials in which head-to-head comparisons interventions are compared are required to definitely assess the cost-effectiveness of OLP treatments.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Clobetasol; Cyclosporins; Dexamethasone; Fluocinonide; Health Care Costs; Humans; Lichen Planus, Oral; Steroids; Tacrolimus; Treatment Outcome; Triamcinolone
PubMed: 35524296
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02168-4 -
European Archives of... Aug 2022Children with extensive lymphatic malformations of the head and neck often suffer from functional impairment and aesthetic deformity which significantly affect the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Children with extensive lymphatic malformations of the head and neck often suffer from functional impairment and aesthetic deformity which significantly affect the quality of life and may be life-threatening. Treatment with sirolimus has the potential to improve symptoms and downsize lymphatic malformations. This systematic review summarizes the current information about sirolimus treatment of lymphatic malformations of the head and neck in children, its efficacy and side effects.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature regarding studies on sirolimus treatment of children with lymphatic malformations of the head and neck was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar up to July 2021 with the search terms "lymphatic malformation", "lymphangioma", "cystic hygroma", "low-flow malformation", "sirolimus", "rapamycin", "mTOR inhibitor" and "children".
RESULTS
In all, 28 studies including 105 children from newborn to 17 years treated with sirolimus for lymphatic malformations of the head and neck were analyzed. The most frequent initial dose was 0.8 mg/m per dose, twice daily at 12-h interval. The target blood level differed between studies, 10-15 ng/mL and 5-15 ng/mL were most often used. More than 91% of the children responded to sirolimus treatment which lasts from 6 months to 4 years. Typical side effects were hyperlipidemia, neutropenia and infections.
METHODS
Sirolimus could be an effective treatment for children with large complicated lymphatic malformations of the head and neck. As not all patients will benefit from treatment, the decision to treat sirolimus should be made by a multidisciplinary team.
Topics: Head; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Lymphatic Abnormalities; Neck; Quality of Life; Sirolimus; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Malformations
PubMed: 35526176
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-022-07378-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although their effectiveness increases in people with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although their effectiveness increases in people with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. This is an update of a review first published in 2010, and updated in 2013, 2016, and 2020.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing clinical relapse (i.e. recurrence of symptoms after initial resolution); and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 3 September 2020: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), Embase Elsevier (from 1974), and Web of Science Thomson Reuters (from 2010). We also searched clinical trial registers on 3 September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics, and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications and/or adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes. We have reported the intention-to-treat analysis, and also performed an analysis of evaluable participants to explore the robustness of the intention-to-treat results.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 trials reported in 18 publications (5839 randomised participants): six trials compared penicillin with cephalosporins; six compared penicillin with macrolides; three compared penicillin with carbacephem; one compared penicillin with sulphonamides; one compared clindamycin with ampicillin; and one compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All participants had confirmed acute GABHS tonsillopharyngitis, and ages ranged from one month to 80 years. Nine trials included only, or predominantly, children. Most trials were conducted in an outpatient setting. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both; heterogeneity; and wide confidence intervals. Cephalosporins versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference in symptom resolution (at 2 to 15 days) for cephalosporins versus penicillin (odds ratio (OR) for absence of symptom resolution 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12; 5 trials; 2018 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results of the sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants differed (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 5 trials; 1660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; 4 trials; 1386 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence showed no difference in reported adverse events. Macrolides versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference between macrolides and penicillin for resolution of symptoms (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; 6 trials; 1728 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants resulted in an OR of 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.09; 6 trials; 1159 participants). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be different (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.03; 6 trials; 802 participants; low-certainty evidence). Azithromycin versus amoxicillin Based on one unpublished trial in children, we are uncertain if resolution of symptoms is better with azithromycin in a single dose versus amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; 1 trial; 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis for per-protocol analysis resulted in an OR of 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; 1 trial; 482 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain if there was a difference in relapse between groups (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; 1 trial; 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were more common with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; 1 trial; 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Carbacephem versus penicillin There is low-certainty evidence that compared with penicillin, carbacephem may provide better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14.3; 3 trials; 795 participants). Studies did not report on long-term complications, so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better in preventing serious but rare complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if there are clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Low-certainty evidence in children suggests that carbacephem may be more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the other comparisons in this review. Data on complications were too scarce to draw conclusions. These results do not demonstrate that other antibiotics are more effective than penicillin in the treatment of GABHS pharyngitis. All studies were conducted in high-income countries with a low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is a need for trials in low-income countries and Aboriginal communities, where the risk of complications remains high.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Amoxicillin; Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Cephalosporins; Child; Child, Preschool; Clindamycin; Humans; Infant; Macrolides; Middle Aged; Penicillins; Pharyngitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Streptococcal Infections; Streptococcus pyogenes; Sulfonamides; Young Adult
PubMed: 33728634
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004406.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the topical acne treatments azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulphur, zinc, and alpha-hydroxy acid is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical treatments (azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, zinc, alpha-hydroxy acid, and sulphur) for acne.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to May 2019: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Clinical randomised controlled trials of the six topical treatments compared with other topical treatments, placebo, or no treatment in people with acne.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Key outcomes included participants' global self-assessment of acne improvement (PGA), withdrawal for any reason, minor adverse events (assessed as total number of participants who experienced at least one minor adverse event), and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 49 trials (3880 reported participants) set in clinics, hospitals, research centres, and university settings in Europe, Asia, and the USA. The vast majority of participants had mild to moderate acne, were aged between 12 to 30 years (range: 10 to 45 years), and were female. Treatment lasted over eight weeks in 59% of the studies. Study duration ranged from three months to three years. We assessed 26 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain, but most domains were at low or unclear risk of bias. We grouped outcome assessment into short-term (less than or equal to 4 weeks), medium-term (from 5 to 8 weeks), and long-term treatment (more than 8 weeks). The following results were measured at the end of treatment, which was mainly long-term for the PGA outcome and mixed length (medium-term mainly) for minor adverse events. Azelaic acid In terms of treatment response (PGA), azelaic acid is probably less effective than benzoyl peroxide (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.95; 1 study, 351 participants), but there is probably little or no difference when comparing azelaic acid to tretinoin (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 289 participants) (both moderate-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in PGA when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.38; 1 study, 229 participants; low-quality evidence), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence indicates there may be no differences in rates of withdrawal for any reason when comparing azelaic acid with benzoyl peroxide (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.29; 1 study, 351 participants), clindamycin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.56; 2 studies, 329 participants), or tretinoin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.47; 2 studies, 309 participants), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). In terms of total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is a difference between azelaic acid compared to adapalene (1 study; 55 participants) or benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 30 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). There may be no difference when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.35; 1 study, 100 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the comparison of azelaic acid versus tretinoin, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling. Salicylic acid For PGA, there may be little or no difference between salicylic acid and tretinoin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 1 study, 46 participants; low-quality evidence); we are not certain whether there is a difference between salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (1 study, 86 participants; very low-quality evidence); and PGA was not measured in the comparison of salicylic acid versus benzoyl peroxide. There may be no difference between groups in withdrawals when comparing salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.50; 1 study, 86 participants); when salicylic acid was compared to tretinoin, neither group had withdrawals (both based on low-quality evidence (2 studies, 74 participants)). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in withdrawals between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants; very low-quality evidence). For total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is any difference between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants) or tretinoin (2 studies, 74 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). This outcome was not reported for salicylic acid versus pyruvic acid, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling and redness. Nicotinamide Four studies evaluated nicotinamide against clindamycin or erythromycin, but none measured PGA. Low-quality evidence showed there may be no difference in withdrawals between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.60; 3 studies, 216 participants) or erythromycin (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.22; 1 study, 158 participants), or in total minor adverse events between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; 3 studies, 216 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the nicotinamide versus erythromycin comparison. Alpha-hydroxy (fruit) acid There may be no difference in PGA when comparing glycolic acid peel to salicylic-mandelic acid peel (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; 1 study, 40 participants; low-quality evidence), and we are uncertain if there is a difference in total minor adverse events due to very low-quality evidence (1 study, 44 participants). Neither group had withdrawals (2 studies, 84 participants; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to benzoyl peroxide, azelaic acid probably leads to a worse treatment response, measured using PGA. When compared to tretinoin, azelaic acid probably makes little or no difference to treatment response. For other comparisons and outcomes the quality of evidence was low or very low. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence in the evidence. We encourage the comparison of more methodologically robust head-to-head trials against commonly used active drugs.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adapalene; Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Benzoyl Peroxide; Bias; Child; Clindamycin; Dermatologic Agents; Dicarboxylic Acids; Erythromycin; Female; Glycolates; Humans; Keratolytic Agents; Male; Mandelic Acids; Niacinamide; Patient Dropouts; Pyruvic Acid; Quality of Life; Salicylic Acid; Sulfur; Tretinoin; Young Adult; Zinc
PubMed: 32356369
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011368.pub2 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2022In patients that are admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), the clinical outcome of severe infections depends on several factors, as well as the early administration... (Review)
Review
In patients that are admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), the clinical outcome of severe infections depends on several factors, as well as the early administration of chemotherapies and comorbidities. Antimicrobials may be used in off-label regimens to maximize the probability of therapeutic concentrations within infected tissues and to prevent the selection of resistant clones. Interestingly, the literature clearly shows that the rate of tissue penetration is variable among antibacterial drugs, and the correlation between plasma and tissue concentrations may be inconstant. The present review harvests data about tissue penetration of antibacterial drugs in ICU patients, limiting the search to those drugs that mainly act as protein synthesis inhibitors and disrupting DNA structure and function. As expected, fluoroquinolones, macrolides, linezolid, and tigecycline have an excellent diffusion into epithelial lining fluid. That high penetration is fundamental for the therapy of ventilator and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Some drugs also display a high penetration rate within cerebrospinal fluid, while other agents diffuse into the skin and soft tissues. Further studies are needed to improve our knowledge about drug tissue penetration, especially in the presence of factors that may affect drug pharmacokinetics.
PubMed: 36139972
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11091193 -
Pharmacological Research Jan 2021Ivermectin is a macrolide antiparasitic drug with a 16-membered ring that is widely used for the treatment of many parasitic diseases such as river blindness,...
Ivermectin is a macrolide antiparasitic drug with a 16-membered ring that is widely used for the treatment of many parasitic diseases such as river blindness, elephantiasis and scabies. Satoshi ōmura and William C. Campbell won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of the excellent efficacy of ivermectin against parasitic diseases. Recently, ivermectin has been reported to inhibit the proliferation of several tumor cells by regulating multiple signaling pathways. This suggests that ivermectin may be an anticancer drug with great potential. Here, we reviewed the related mechanisms by which ivermectin inhibited the development of different cancers and promoted programmed cell death and discussed the prospects for the clinical application of ivermectin as an anticancer drug for neoplasm therapy.
Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Antiparasitic Agents; Cell Death; Humans; Ivermectin; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Neoplasms; Signal Transduction
PubMed: 32971268
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2020.105207 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Jun 2021The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends either a fluoroquinolone or a macrolide as a first-line antibiotic treatment for Legionella pneumonia, but it is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends either a fluoroquinolone or a macrolide as a first-line antibiotic treatment for Legionella pneumonia, but it is unclear which antibiotic leads to optimal clinical outcomes. We compared the effectiveness of fluoroquinolone versus macrolide monotherapy in Legionella pneumonia using a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of literature in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to 1 June 2019. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing macrolide with fluoroquinolone monotherapy using clinical outcomes in patients with Legionella pneumonia were included. Twenty-one publications out of an initial 2073 unique records met the selection criteria. Following PRISMA guidelines, 2 reviewers participated in data extraction. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included clinical cure, time to apyrexia, length of hospital stay (LOS), and the occurrence of complications. The review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019132901).
RESULTS
Twenty-one publications with 3525 patients met inclusion criteria. The mean age of the population was 60.9 years and 67.2% were men. The mortality rate for patients treated with fluoroquinolones was 6.9% (104/1512) compared with 7.4% (133/1790) among those treated with macrolides. The pooled odds ratio assessing risk of mortality for patients treated with fluoroquinolones versus macrolides was 0.94 (95% confidence interval, .71-1.25, I2 = 0%, P = .661). Clinical cure, time to apyrexia, LOS, and the occurrence of complications did not differ for patients treated with fluoroquinolones versus macrolides.
CONCLUSIONS
We found no difference in the effectiveness of fluoroquinolones versus macrolides in reducing mortality among patients with Legionella pneumonia.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Community-Acquired Infections; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Legionella; Macrolides; Male; Middle Aged; Pneumonia
PubMed: 32296816
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciaa441 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Jun 2022This study aimed to estimate the effect of erythromycin vs azithromycin on the duration of latency and the rate of clinical chorioamnionitis in women with preterm... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to estimate the effect of erythromycin vs azithromycin on the duration of latency and the rate of clinical chorioamnionitis in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature.
DATA SOURCES
From inception to October 2021, we explored MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Studies comparing the duration of latency and the rate of clinical chorioamnionitis between women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes who were treated with erythromycin and those who were treated with azithromycin at the time of diagnosis were included.
METHODS
Here, 2 reviewers separately ascertained studies, obtained data, and gauged study quality. The mean length of latency and the rate of clinical chorioamnionitis were compared and mean differences and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated.
RESULTS
A total of 5 studies with 1289 women were identified. The mean length of latency in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes was similar between individuals treated with erythromycin and those treated with azithromycin: 6.6 days vs 6.7 days (mean difference, 0.07 days; 95% confidence interval, -0.45 to 0.60; I, 0%). The median point prevalence rates of clinical chorioamnionitis were 25% (95% confidence interval, 12-32) in women treated with erythromycin and 14% (95% confidence interval, 9-24) in women treated with azithromycin. The overall clinical chorioamnionitis rate in women treated with azithromycin was lower than women treated with erythromycin (pooled odds ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.71; I, 0%).
CONCLUSION
The administration of azithromycin in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes was associated with a similar latency period but a lower rate of clinical chorioamnionitis than the administration of erythromycin.
Topics: Azithromycin; Chorioamnionitis; Erythromycin; Female; Fetal Membranes, Premature Rupture; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy
PubMed: 34973176
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.12.262 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric fever) are febrile bacterial illnesses common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric fever) are febrile bacterial illnesses common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends treatment with azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, or ceftriaxone due to widespread resistance to older, first-line antimicrobials. Resistance patterns vary in different locations and are changing over time. Fluoroquinolone resistance in South Asia often precludes the use of ciprofloxacin. Extensively drug-resistant strains of enteric fever have emerged in Pakistan. In some areas of the world, susceptibility to old first-line antimicrobials, such as chloramphenicol, has re-appeared. A Cochrane Review of the use of fluoroquinolones and azithromycin in the treatment of enteric fever has previously been undertaken, but the use of cephalosporins has not been systematically investigated and the optimal choice of drug and duration of treatment are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of cephalosporins for treating enteric fever in children and adults compared to other antimicrobials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 24 November 2021. We also searched reference lists of included trials, contacted researchers working in the field, and contacted relevant organizations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and children with enteric fever that compared a cephalosporin to another antimicrobial, a different cephalosporin, or a different treatment duration of the intervention cephalosporin. Enteric fever was diagnosed on the basis of blood culture, bone marrow culture, or molecular tests.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse. Our secondary outcomes were time to defervescence, duration of hospital admission, convalescent faecal carriage, and adverse effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 RCTs with 2231 total participants published between 1986 and 2016 across Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the Caribbean, with comparisons between cephalosporins and other antimicrobials used for the treatment of enteric fever in children and adults. The main comparisons are between antimicrobials in most common clinical use, namely cephalosporins compared to a fluoroquinolone and cephalosporins compared to azithromycin. Cephalosporin (cefixime) versus fluoroquinolones Clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse may be increased in patients treated with cefixime compared to fluoroquinolones in three small trials published over 14 years ago: clinical failure (risk ratio (RR) 13.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.24 to 55.39; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 4.07, 95% CI 0.46 to 36.41; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 4.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 17.84; 2 trials, 220 participants; low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with cefixime may be longer compared to participants treated with fluoroquinolones (mean difference (MD) 1.74 days, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.98, 3 trials, 425 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus azithromycin Ceftriaxone may result in a decrease in clinical failure compared to azithromycin, and it is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on microbiological failure compared to azithromycin in two small trials published over 18 years ago and in one more recent trial, all conducted in participants under 18 years of age: clinical failure (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.57; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.64, 3 trials, 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone increases or decreases relapse compared to azithromycin (RR 10.05, 95% CI 1.93 to 52.38; 3 trials, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with ceftriaxone may be shorter compared to participants treated with azithromycin (mean difference of -0.52 days, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.12; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus fluoroquinolones It is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on clinical failure, microbiological failure, relapse, and time to defervescence compared to fluoroquinolones in three trials published over 28 years ago and two more recent trials: clinical failure (RR 3.77, 95% CI 0.72 to 19.81; 4 trials, 359 participants; very low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 6.83; 3 trials, 316 participants; very low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.92; 3 trials, 297 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and time to defervescence (MD 2.73 days, 95% CI -0.37 to 5.84; 3 trials, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone decreases convalescent faecal carriage compared to the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.72; 1 trial, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and length of hospital stay may be longer in participants treated with ceftriaxone compared to participants treated with the fluoroquinolone ofloxacin (mean of 12 days (range 7 to 23 days) in the ceftriaxone group compared to a mean of 9 days (range 6 to 13 days) in the ofloxacin group; 1 trial, 47 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on very low- to low-certainty evidence, ceftriaxone is an effective treatment for adults and children with enteric fever, with few adverse effects. Trials suggest that there may be no difference in the performance of ceftriaxone compared with azithromycin, fluoroquinolones, or chloramphenicol. Cefixime can also be used for treatment of enteric fever but may not perform as well as fluoroquinolones. We are unable to draw firm general conclusions on comparative contemporary effectiveness given that most trials were small and conducted over 20 years previously. Clinicians need to take into account current, local resistance patterns in addition to route of administration when choosing an antimicrobial.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Paratyphoid Fever; Typhoid Fever; Cephalosporins; Azithromycin; Ceftriaxone; Cefixime; Fluoroquinolones; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chloramphenicol; Anti-Infective Agents; Monobactams; Ciprofloxacin; Ofloxacin; Recurrence; Pakistan
PubMed: 36420914
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010452.pub2 -
American Journal of Obstetrics &... Jul 2023Various prophylactic antibiotic regimens are used in the management of preterm premature rupture of membranes. We investigated the efficacy and safety of these regimens... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Various prophylactic antibiotic regimens are used in the management of preterm premature rupture of membranes. We investigated the efficacy and safety of these regimens in terms of maternal and neonatal outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to July 20, 2021.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials involving pregnant women with preterm premature rupture of membranes before 37 weeks of gestation and a comparison of ≥2 of the following 10 antibiotic regimens: control/placebo, erythromycin, clindamycin, clindamycin plus gentamicin, penicillins, cephalosporins, co-amoxiclav, co-amoxiclav plus erythromycin, aminopenicillins plus macrolides, and cephalosporins plus macrolides.
METHODS
Two investigators independently extracted published data and assessed the risk of bias with a standard procedure following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Network meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies that recruited a total of 7671 pregnant women were included. Only penicillins (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.77) had significantly superior effectiveness for maternal chorioamnionitis. Clindamycin plus gentamicin reduced the risk of clinical chorioamnionitis, with borderline significance (odds ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.00). By contrast, clindamycin alone increased the risk of maternal infection. For cesarean delivery, no significant differences were noted among these regimens.
CONCLUSION
Penicillins remain the recommended antibiotic regimen for reducing maternal clinical chorioamnionitis. The alternative regimen includes clindamycin plus gentamicin. Clindamycin should not be used alone.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Clindamycin; Chorioamnionitis; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Premature Birth; Erythromycin; Macrolides; Gentamicins; Cephalosporins
PubMed: 37094635
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.100978