-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation and infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation and infection 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. Systemic antibiotics are a commonly used treatment option for CSOM, which 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.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic antibiotics 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Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials.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 16 March 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing systemic antibiotics (oral, injection) against placebo/no treatment or other systemic antibiotics with at least a one-week follow-up period, involving patients with chronic (at least two weeks) ear discharge of unknown cause or due to CSOM. Other treatments were allowed if both treatment and control arms also received it.
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 18 studies (2135 participants) with unclear or high risk of bias. 1. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo It is very uncertain if there is a difference between systemic (intravenous) antibiotics and placebo in the resolution of ear discharge at between one and two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 8.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88 to 38.21; 33 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report results for resolution of ear discharge after two weeks. Health-related quality of life was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain for hearing and serious (intracranial) complications. Ear pain and suspected ototoxicity were not reported. 2. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (both study arms received topical antibiotics) Six studies were included of which five presented useable data. There may be little or no difference in the resolution of ear discharge at between one to two weeks for oral ciprofloxacin compared to placebo or no treatment when ciprofloxacin ear drops were used in both intervention arms (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; 390 participants; low-certainty evidence). No results after two weeks were reported. Health-related quality of life was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain for ear pain, serious complications and suspected ototoxicity. 3. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (both study arms received other background treatments) Two studies used topical antibiotics plus steroids as background treatment in both arms. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge between metronidazole and placebo at four weeks (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.65; 40 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). This study did not report other outcomes. It is also very uncertain if resolution of ear discharge at six weeks was improved with co-trimoxazole compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.16; 98 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Resolution of ear discharge was not reported at other time points. From the narrative report there was no evidence of a difference between groups for health-related quality of life, hearing or serious complications (very low-certainty evidence). One study (136 participants) used topical antiseptics as background treatment in both arms and found similar resolution of ear discharge between the amoxicillin and no treatment groups at three to four months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.41; 136 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The narrative report indicated no evidence of differences in hearing or suspected ototoxicity (both very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were reported. 4. Different types of systemic antibiotics This is a summary of four comparisons, where different antibiotics were compared to each other. Eight studies compared different types of systemic antibiotics against each other: quinolones against beta-lactams (four studies), lincosamides against nitroimidazoles (one study) and comparisons of different types of beta-lactams (three studies). It was not possible to conclude if there was one class or type of systemic antibiotic that was better in terms of resolution of ear discharge. The studies did not report adverse events well.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was a limited amount of evidence available to examine whether systemic antibiotics are effective in achieving resolution of ear discharge for people with CSOM. When used alone (with or without aural toileting), we are very uncertain if systemic antibiotics are more effective than placebo or no treatment. When added to an effective intervention such as topical antibiotics, there seems to be little or no difference in resolution of ear discharge (low-certainty evidence). Data were only available for certain classes of antibiotics and it is very uncertain whether one class of systemic antibiotic may be more effective than another. Adverse effects of systemic antibiotics were poorly reported in the studies included. As we found very sparse evidence for their efficacy, the possibility of adverse events may detract from their use for CSOM.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ciprofloxacin; Humans; Otitis Media, Suppurative; Ototoxicity; Pain; Persistent Infection
PubMed: 35819801
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013052.pub2 -
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and... Apr 2021Resistance, prolonged therapy, and more adverse reactions made amoxicillin less preferred for treating otitis media. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Resistance, prolonged therapy, and more adverse reactions made amoxicillin less preferred for treating otitis media. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of azithromycin and amoxicillin/clavulanate for the treatment of otitis media in children.
METHODOLOGY
This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane library, and Google scholar databases were searched. Comparative randomized clinical trial studies between azithromycin and amoxicillin/clavulanate to treat otitis media in children published up to 30 September 2019 were included. The risk of bias was assessed and Data was extracted by the first author and checked by the second author. Meta-analysis was performed by STATA software version 16, and Mantel-Haenszel statistical method with effect measure odds ratio was employed for analysis.
RESULT
751 records were identified and 14 studies were eligible for analysis. In 12 studies azithromycin had equivalent clinical efficacy and 2 had less to amoxicillin/clavulanate. Meta-analysis results showed no statistically significant difference in efficacy in favor of amoxicillin/clavulanate after completion of treatment OR 0.75, 95% CI (0.62-0.91). On subgroup analysis for children less than 2 years (OR 0.96 95% CI (0.49-2.29), and greater than 2 years (OR 1.40 95% CI (0.93-2.11) and also efficacy on follow up (OR 0.97 95% CI (0.83-1.15) there is no statistically significant difference. The clinical adverse events are more in the amoxicillin/clavulanate group than in the azithromycin with a statistical significant difference OR 0.46 95% CI (0.43-0.56).
CONCLUSION
Azithromycin is comparable to amoxicillin/clavulanate to treat otitis media in children, and it is safer and more tolerable.
Topics: Adolescent; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Biomarkers, Pharmacological; Child; Child, Preschool; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Monitoring; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Infant; Male; Otitis Media; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33894769
DOI: 10.1186/s12941-021-00434-x -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2021Most studies indicate that the mechanical removal of the bacterial biofilm from the implant surface is the central goal of peri-implantitis therapy. However,... (Review)
Review
Most studies indicate that the mechanical removal of the bacterial biofilm from the implant surface is the central goal of peri-implantitis therapy. However, controversial results in the treatment of peri-implantitis have led to the consideration of additional strategies that include surgical approaches and chemical adjuvants. Local/topical antibiotics, such as minocycline, azithromycin, tetracycline, amoxicillin, doxycycline, and metronidazole, may improve the efficacy of the definitive treatment of the disease, but the lack of conclusive findings prevents their use in clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effect of local/topical antibiotics for peri-implantitis treatment. Randomised controlled studies (RCT) on patients with peri-implantitis and comparing the efficacy of local/topical antibiotics vs. placebo or mechanical debridement were included. A systematic search strategy was carried out using three registered databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus). RoB2 was used to assess risk of bias. Five RCTs were identified ( = 250 patients and 333 implants). Contrast results emerged among the included studies, and a high heterogeneity level was observed. Risk of bias revealed some concerns for three studies out of five, while one study was judged at high risk. Only one study analysed the limitations of its findings. Overall, local antibiotic use can be considered a valid approach in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Therefore, future long-term clinical trials with standardised protocols and antibiotics with similar biological activity profiles should be tested to achieve a valid and definitive conclusion.
PubMed: 34827236
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10111298 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Chronic 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. Antibiotics are the most common treatment for CSOM, which act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be administered both topically and systemically, and can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM such as ear cleaning (aural toileting).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical versus systemic antibiotics 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 16 March 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving patients (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 studies compared topical antibiotics against systemic (oral, injection) antibiotics. We separated studies according to whether they compared the same type of antibiotic in both treatment groups, or different types of antibiotics. For each comparison we considered whether there was background treatment for both treatment groups, for example aural toileting (ear cleaning).
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 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
Six studies (445 participants), all with high risk of bias, were included. All but two studies included patients with confirmed CSOM, where perforation of the ear drum was clearly documented. None of the studies reported results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks or health-related quality of life. 1. Topical versus systemic administration of the same type of antibiotics (quinolones) Four studies (325 participants) compared topical versus systemic (oral) administration of ciprofloxacin. Three studies reported resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks and found that the topical administration may slightly increase resolution (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.76; 285 participants; 3 studies; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence). In these studies, aural toileting was either not mentioned, or limited to the first visit. Three studies (265 participants) reported that they did not suspect ototoxicity in any participants, but it is unclear how this was measured (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the outcomes of ear pain or serious complications. No studies reported results for hearing, despite it being measured in three studies. 2. Topical versus systemic administration of different types of antibiotics (quinolones versus aminoglycosides) One study (60 participants) compared topical ciprofloxacin versus gentamicin injected intramuscularly. No aural toileting was reported. Resolution of ear discharge was not measured at one to two weeks. The study did not report any 'side effects' from which we assumed that no ear pain, suspected ototoxicity or serious complications occurred (very low-certainty evidence). The study stated that "no worsening of the audiometric function related to local or parenteral therapy was observed". 3. Topical versus systemic administration of different types of antibiotics (quinolones versus amoxicillin-clavulanic acid) One study compared topical ofloxacin with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid with all participants receiving suction ear cleaning at the first visit. It is uncertain if there is a difference between the two groups in resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks due to study limitations and the very small sample size (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.72; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if there is a difference between topical quinolone compared with oral amoxicillin-clavulanic acid with regards to ear pain, hearing or suspected ototoxicity (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the outcome of serious complications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was a limited amount of low-quality evidence available, from studies completed over 15 years ago, to examine whether topical or systemic antibiotics are more effective in achieving resolution of ear discharge for people with CSOM. However, amongst this uncertainty there is some evidence to suggest that the topical administration of antibiotics may be more effective than systemic administration of antibiotics in achieving resolution of ear discharge (dry ear). There is limited evidence available regarding different types of antibiotics. It is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not topical quinolones are better or worse than systemic 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; Adult; Aminoglycosides; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Child; Chronic Disease; Humans; Ofloxacin; Otitis Media, Suppurative; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 33561891
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013053.pub2 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2021This study aimed to investigate the association between the risk of aortic aneurysm (AA)/aortic dissection (AD) and the use of fluoroquinolones (FQs). PubMed, Embase,... (Review)
Review
This study aimed to investigate the association between the risk of aortic aneurysm (AA)/aortic dissection (AD) and the use of fluoroquinolones (FQs). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for relevant articles to 21st February 2021. Studies that compared the risk of AA/AD in patients who did and did not receive FQs or other comparators were included. The pooled results of nine studies with 11 study cohorts showed that the use of FQs increased the risk of AA/AD by 69% (pooled risk ratio (RR) = 1.69 (95% CI = 1.08, 2.64)). This significant association remained unchanged using leave-one-out sensitivity test analysis. Similar results were found for AA (pooled RR = 1.58 (1.21, 2.07)) but no significant association was observed for AD (pooled RR = 1.23 (0.93, 1.62)). Stratified by the comparators, the use of FQs was associated with a significantly higher risk of AA/AD compared to azithromycin (pooled RR = 2.31 (1.54, 3.47)) and amoxicillin (pooled RR = 1.57 (1.39, 1.78)). In contrast, FQ was not associated with a higher risk of AA/AD, when compared with amoxicillin/clavulanic acid or ampicillin/sulbactam (pooled RR = 1.18 (0.81, 1.73)), sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (pooled RR = 0.89 (0.65, 1.22)) and other antibiotics (pooled RR = 1.14 (0.90, 1.46)). In conclusion, FQs were associated with an increased risk of AA or AD, although the level of evidence was not robust. However, FQs did not exhibit a higher risk of AA or AD compared with other broad-spectrum antibiotics. Further studies are warranted to clarify the role of FQs in the development of AA or AD.
PubMed: 34200836
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10060697 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Feb 2023Pharmacokinetics (PK) are severely altered in pregnant women due to changes in volume of distribution (Vd) and/or drug clearance (CL), affecting target attainment of...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Pharmacokinetics (PK) are severely altered in pregnant women due to changes in volume of distribution (Vd) and/or drug clearance (CL), affecting target attainment of antibiotics in pregnant women. This review is part of a series that reviews literature on the description of PK and target attainment of antibiotics in pregnant women with specific focus on penicillins.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed. Articles were labelled as relevant when information on PK of penicillins in pregnant women was available.
RESULTS
Thirty-two relevant articles were included, 8 of which discussed amoxicillin (with and without clavulanic acid), 15 ampicillin, 4 benzylpenicillin, 1 phenoxymethylpenicillin, and 4 piperacillin (with and without tazobactam). No studies were found on pheneticillin and flucloxacillin in pregnant women. Ten out of 32 articles included information on both Vd and CL. During the second and third trimester of pregnancy, a higher CL and larger Vd was reported than in non-pregnant women and in pregnant women during first trimester. Reduced target attainment was described in second and third trimester pregnant women. Only 7 studies reported dosing advice, 4 of which were for amoxicillin.
CONCLUSION
The larger Vd and higher CL in second and third trimester pregnant women might warrant a higher dosage or shortening of the dosing interval of penicillins to increase target attainment. Studies frequently fail to provide dosing advice for pregnant women, even if the necessary PK information was available.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Penicillins; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Amoxicillin; Ampicillin; Piperacillin
PubMed: 36662480
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-023-01211-z -
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and... May 2022Antimicrobial resistance of H. pylori can lead to treatment failure. Importantly, several studies have reported on heteroresistance, i.e. the presence of resistant and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antimicrobial resistance of H. pylori can lead to treatment failure. Importantly, several studies have reported on heteroresistance, i.e. the presence of resistant and susceptible H. pylori populations in the same sample and/or a difference in the susceptibility patterns between biopsy samples. This meta-analysis aims to provide comprehensive data on the prevalence of metronidazole and clarithromycin heteroresistance and the approaches to their detection.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review was performed after the search of MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science. The study outcomes were the weighted pooled prevalence of heteroresistance to clarithromycin and metronidazole in H. pylori positive samples and/or isolates with a subanalysis by continent.
RESULTS
A total of 22 studies that had investigated 3852 H. pylori positive patients were included in the meta-analysis. Heteroresistance to clarithromycin was reported in 20 studies, with a weighted pooled prevalence of 6.8% (95% CI 5.1-8.6; 3654 H. pylori positive patients; the substantial heterogeneity I = 55.6%). Heteroresistance to metronidazole was reported in 12 studies, with a weighted pooled prevalence of 13.8% (95% CI 8.9-18.6; 1670 H. pylori positive patients; the substantial heterogeneity I = 60.9%). The weighted pooled prevalence of clarithromycin heteroresistance was similar in Asia and Europe (p = 0.174584), however, metronidazole heteroresistance was detected more often in Europe (p < 0.00001). Clarithromycin heteroresistance was detected more often by phenotype rather than by using genotyping methods (12 vs 8 studies), whereas heteroresistance to metronidazole was detected only by phenotype.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of heteroresistance to clarithromycin and/or metronidazole is not negligible and can be detected in approximately 7 and 14% of H. pylori positive samples, respectively. These findings highlight the need to raise the awareness of gastroenterologists and microbiologists to the heteroresistance to clarithromycin and metronidazole in patients with a H. pylori infection.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clarithromycin; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Metronidazole; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 35596211
DOI: 10.1186/s12941-022-00509-3 -
Infection and Drug Resistance 2022Rifaximin, a rifamycin antibiotic, is widely used to treat infectious diarrhea but not commonly used in eradication. With its potential advantages of the agent, some... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Rifaximin, a rifamycin antibiotic, is widely used to treat infectious diarrhea but not commonly used in eradication. With its potential advantages of the agent, some studies were conducted on this topic. The aim of this study is to assess effectiveness and safety of rifaximin-containing regimens and to evaluate whether they are alternative choices for eradication.
METHODS
Scientific databases including PubMed, EMbase and Cochrane Library were used to identify clinical trials on rifaximin-containing regimens published from January 2000 to October 2021. Review Manager 5.4 and STATA12 were adopted for the systematic review.
RESULTS
In this study, totally 1025 patients were included from 3 randomized controlled and 9 single-arm studies. It showed that the differences in effectiveness and safety between rifaximin-containing and first-line regimens were not statistically significant in randomized controlled trials. However, the results of the single-arm trials indicated that the eradication and adverse drug reaction rate varied suggesting data instability (=38.1%-85.4%, 0.00-67.5% by ITT analysis). Among them, the eradication rate of pediatric patients (=85.4% by ITT analysis) was higher than that of adult patients (=38.1-74.5% by ITT analysis). Meanwhile, in all adult subgroups (triple or quadruple, with or without amoxicillin, different duration and rifaximin dose), the results did not show sufficient effectiveness as all the eradication rates did not meet the minimum ideal or ideal target.
CONCLUSION
Taken together, rifaximin-containing regimens should not be recommended for eradication as they cannot achieve the eradication rate desired.
PubMed: 35859911
DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S371131 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2022Antibiotic resistance in is a global public health problem. serovar 1,4,[5],12:i:- (. 1,4,[5],12:i:-), a monophasic variant of Typhmurium, is one of the leading... (Review)
Review
Antibiotic resistance in is a global public health problem. serovar 1,4,[5],12:i:- (. 1,4,[5],12:i:-), a monophasic variant of Typhmurium, is one of the leading serovars in several countries. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of antibiotic resistance to this serovar in China through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nineteen eligible studies during 2011-2021 were included. A total of 4514 isolates from humans, animals, foods, and the environment were reported, which mainly concerned isolates found in Guangdong, Guangxi, Jiangsu, and Shanghai. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled resistance rate of . 1,4,[5],12:i:-. Rates were found to be very high (values ≥ 75%) for tetracycline, ampicillin, sulfisoxazole, and streptomycin; high (50-75%) for nalidixic acid, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, and chloramphenicol; and moderate (25-50%) for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, kanamycin, trimethoprim, and gentamicin. The rates of resistance to ciprofloxacin, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, cefepime, ceftazidime, and colistin were low (values ≤ 25%), but of great concern in terms of their current clinical importance. Furthermore, a high multidrug resistance rate (86%, 95% CI: 78-92%) was present in . 1,4,[5],12:i:-, with the ASSuT pattern largely dominating. Subgroup analysis results showed that the high heterogeneity of resistance rates was not entirely dependent on isolated sources. Taken together, the severity of antibiotic resistance in . 1,4,[5],12:i:- urgently requires the rational use of antibiotics in future infection control and antibiotic stewardship programs.
PubMed: 35453283
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11040532 -
Cureus Jan 2024Recent studies have discussed the role of antibiotic treatment in the conservative management of acute appendicitis and whether antibiotics are a safe option to replace... (Review)
Review
Recent studies have discussed the role of antibiotic treatment in the conservative management of acute appendicitis and whether antibiotics are a safe option to replace appendicectomy, which has been the gold standard treatment of acute appendicitis for many years. The bibliographic databases Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and PubMed comparing conservative versus surgical treatment of acute appendicitis were systematically searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Twenty-one studies consisting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses involving 44,699 participants were identified. At least 17,865 participants were treated with antibiotics. Our studies compare antibiotic versus appendicectomy among acute appendicitis patients ranging from 7 to 94 years of age. In most studies, patients received parenteral antibiotics for a total of one to three days, and oral antibiotics such as oral cephalosporin plus metronidazole, oral amoxicillin/clavulanate, oral fluoroquinolones plus Tinidazole upon hospital discharge for a total of 7 to 10 days. The total course of antibiotics for both parenteral and oral regimes ranged from 2 to 16 days, with 10 days being the commonest duration. The recurrence rate following initial antibiotic treatment at one-year follow-up ranged from 13% to 38%, while the mean duration of recurrence ranged from three to eight months. The majority of the patients with recurrence underwent appendicectomy, while some patients were either given a repeat or different course of antibiotics due to the possible presence of antibiotic resistance; however, only 2.4% of the patients were successfully treated upon completion of the second course of antibiotics. Most of the studies concluded that appendicectomy remains the gold standard treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis, given its higher efficacy and lower complication rates. Although antibiotic treatment cannot be routinely recommended, it can be considered an appropriate alternative in selected patients with uncomplicated appendicitis who wish to avoid surgery and also acknowledge the risk of recurrence and the potential need for subsequent surgery at the same time.
PubMed: 38384640
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.52697