-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Ascaris lumbricoides is a common infection, and mainly affects children living in low-income areas. Water and sanitation improvement, health education, and drug... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ascaris lumbricoides is a common infection, and mainly affects children living in low-income areas. Water and sanitation improvement, health education, and drug treatment may help break the cycle of transmission, and effective drugs will reduce morbidity.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of anthelmintic drugs (albendazole, mebendazole, ivermectin) for treating people with Ascaris infection.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, three other databases, and reference lists of included studies, without language restrictions, up to 4 July 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared albendazole, mebendazole, and ivermectin in children and adults with confirmed Ascaris infection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data from the included trials. A third review author checked the quality of data extraction. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool to determine the risk of bias in included trials. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare dichotomous outcomes in treatment and control groups. We used the fixed-effect model for studies with low heterogeneity and the random-effects model for studies with moderate to high heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the control rate average to provide illustrative cure rates in the comparison groups.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 30 parallel-group RCTs, which enrolled 6442 participants from 17 countries across Africa, Asia, Central America and the Caribbean, and South America. Participants were from 28 days to 82 years of age, recruited from school, communities, and health facilities. Twenty studies were funded or co-funded by manufacturers, while 10 studies were independent of manufacturer funding. Twenty-two trials had a high risk of bias for one or two domains (blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting). Single dose of albendazole (four trials), mebendazole (three trials) or ivermectin (one trial) was compared to placebo. Parasitological cure at 14 to 60 days was high in all the studies (illustrative cure of 93.0% in the anthelmintic group and 16.1% in the placebo group; RR 6.29, 95% CI 3.91 to 10.12; 8 trials, 1578 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Single dose of albendazole is as effective as multiple doses of albendazole (illustrative cure of 93.2% with single dose, 94.3% with multiple doses; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05; 3 trials, 307 participants; high-certainty evidence); or as single dose of mebendazole (illustrative cure of 98.0% with albendazole, 96.9% with mebendazole; RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02; 6 trials, 2131 participants; high-certainty evidence). Studies did not detect a difference between a single dose of albendazole and a single dose of ivermectin (cure rates of 87.8% with albendazole, 90.2% with ivermectin; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.08; 3 trials, 519 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Across all the studies, failure after single dose of albendazole ranged from 0.0% to 30.3%, mebendazole from 0.0% to 22.2%, and ivermectin from 0.0% to 21.6%. The egg reduction rate (ERR) measured up to 60 days after the treatment was high in all treated groups, regardless of the anthelmintic used (range 96% to 100%). It was not possible to evaluate parasitological cure by classes of infection intensity. No included trials reported complication or serious adverse events. Other adverse events were apparently similar among the compared anthelmintic groups (moderate- to low-certainty evidence). The most commonly reported other adverse events were nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, headache, and fever.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Single-dose of albendazole, mebendazole, and ivermectin all appeared effective against Ascaris lumbricoides infection, yielding high parasitological cure and large reductions in eggs excreted, with no differences detected between them. The drugs appear to be safe to treat children and adults with confirmed Ascaris infection. There is little to choose between drugs and regimens in terms of cure or adverse events.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Albendazole; Animals; Anthelmintics; Ascariasis; Ascaris lumbricoides; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Ivermectin; Mebendazole; Middle Aged; Parasite Egg Count; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 32289194
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010599.pub2 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Feb 2023: (SM) is a Gram-negative pathogen discovered by Italian pharmacist, Bizio, in 1819. According to the literature, is resistant to a wide range of antibiotics,... (Review)
Review
: (SM) is a Gram-negative pathogen discovered by Italian pharmacist, Bizio, in 1819. According to the literature, is resistant to a wide range of antibiotics, including penicillin, cephalosporin, tetracycline, macrolide, nitrofurantoin, and colistin. We conducted a systematic review of published reports, determined what invasive infections could cause SM, and established the most appropriate antibiotic therapy. : We registered this systematic review on the PROSPERO registry of systematic reviews-meta-analyses before we started our research (registration number CRD42022323159). The online searches of published studies were implemented via MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCO, Scopus, Google Scholar, SCIndex, and the registry of clinical studies of human participants (ClinicalTrials.gov). : Our study included 32 published articles (9 case series and 23 case reports). There were 57 individual cases, respectively. The oldest patient was 97 years and the youngest patient was a newborn. was, in most cases, isolated from blood followed by urine and cerebrospinal fluid. In most cases, sensitivity was tested to cotrimoxazole (from 27 isolates, 10 showed resistance) followed by gentamicin (from 26 isolates, 3 showed resistance) as well as amikacin (from 21 isolates, none showed resistance). Patients died from an infection in 21 cases (31%). : Treatment of SM infections should include carbapenems or aminoglycosides in combination with third-generation (and eventually fourth-generation) cephalosporin. Cotrimoxazole should be considered in cases of uncomplicated urinary infections.
PubMed: 36830278
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12020367 -
The Journal of Antimicrobial... Feb 2022Azithromycin has been widely used in the management of COVID-19. However, the evidence on its actual effects remains disperse and difficult to apply in clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Azithromycin has been widely used in the management of COVID-19. However, the evidence on its actual effects remains disperse and difficult to apply in clinical settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the available evidence to date on the beneficial and adverse effects of azithromycin in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
The PRISMA 2020 statement criteria were followed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated with and without azithromycin, indexed until 5 July 2021, were searched in PubMed, Embase, The Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MedRXivs. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled effect size from aggregate data.
RESULTS
The initial search produced 4950 results. Finally, 16 studies, 5 RCTs and 11 with an observational design, with a total of 22 984 patients, were included. The meta-analysis showed no difference in mortality for those treated with or without azithromycin, in observational studies [OR: 0.90 (0.66-1.24)], RCTs [OR: 0.97 (0.87-1.08)] and also when both types of studies were pooled together [with an overall OR: 0.95 (0.79-1.13)]. Different individual studies also reported no significant difference for those treated with or without azithromycin in need for hospital admission or time to admission from ambulatory settings, clinical severity, need for intensive care, or adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS
The results presented in this systematic review do not support the use of azithromycin in the management of COVID-19. Future research on treatment for patients with COVID-19 may need to focus on other drugs.
Topics: Azithromycin; Critical Care; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34791330
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkab404 -
PLoS Medicine Jun 2023Inappropriate antimicrobial usage is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately burdened by AMR and...
BACKGROUND
Inappropriate antimicrobial usage is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately burdened by AMR and young children are especially vulnerable to infections with AMR-bearing pathogens. The impact of antibiotics on the microbiome, selection, persistence, and horizontal spread of AMR genes is insufficiently characterized and understood in children in LMICs. This systematic review aims to collate and evaluate the available literature describing the impact of antibiotics on the infant gut microbiome and resistome in LMICs.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
In this systematic review, we searched the online databases MEDLINE (1946 to 28 January 2023), EMBASE (1947 to 28 January 2023), SCOPUS (1945 to 29 January 2023), WHO Global Index Medicus (searched up to 29 January 2023), and SciELO (searched up to 29 January 2023). A total of 4,369 articles were retrieved across the databases. Duplicates were removed resulting in 2,748 unique articles. Screening by title and abstract excluded 2,666 articles, 92 articles were assessed based on the full text, and 10 studies met the eligibility criteria that included human studies conducted in LMICs among children below the age of 2 that reported gut microbiome composition and/or resistome composition (AMR genes) following antibiotic usage. The included studies were all randomized control trials (RCTs) and were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias for randomized studies tool. Overall, antibiotics reduced gut microbiome diversity and increased antibiotic-specific resistance gene abundance in antibiotic treatment groups as compared to the placebo. The most widely tested antibiotic was azithromycin that decreased the diversity of the gut microbiome and significantly increased macrolide resistance as early as 5 days posttreatment. A major limitation of this study was paucity of available studies that cover this subject area. Specifically, the range of antibiotics assessed did not include the most commonly used antibiotics in LMIC populations.
CONCLUSION
In this study, we observed that antibiotics significantly reduce the diversity and alter the composition of the infant gut microbiome in LMICs, while concomitantly selecting for resistance genes whose persistence can last for months following treatment. Considerable heterogeneity in study methodology, timing and duration of sampling, and sequencing methodology in currently available research limit insights into antibiotic impacts on the microbiome and resistome in children in LMICs. More research is urgently needed to fill this gap in order to better understand whether antibiotic-driven reductions in microbiome diversity and selection of AMR genes place LMIC children at risk for adverse health outcomes, including infections with AMR-bearing pathogens.
Topics: Infant; Child; Humans; Child, Preschool; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Developing Countries; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Azithromycin; Drug Resistance, Microbial
PubMed: 37368871
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004235 -
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 -
Nutrients Oct 2022() is the most prevalent etiology of gastritis worldwide. management depends mainly on antibiotics, especially the triple therapy formed of clarithromycin,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and Safety of Polaprezinc-Based Therapy versus the Standard Triple Therapy for Eradication: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
() is the most prevalent etiology of gastritis worldwide. management depends mainly on antibiotics, especially the triple therapy formed of clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and proton pump inhibitors. Lately, many antibiotic-resistant strains have emerged, leading to a decrease in the eradication rates of Polaprezinc (PZN), a mucosal protective zinc-L-carnosine complex, may be a non-antibiotic agent to treat without the risk of resistance. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a PZN-based regimen for the eradication of This study used a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, PubMed, and Google Scholar until 25 July 2022. We used the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes presented with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We registered our protocol in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022349231. We included 3 trials with a total of 396 participants who were randomized to either PZN plus triple therapy ( = 199) or triple therapy alone (control) ( = 197). Pooled OR found a statistical difference favoring the PZN arm in the intention to treat and per protocol eradication rates (OR: 2.01 with 95% CI [1.27, 3.21], 0.003) and (OR: 2.65 with 95% CI [1.55, 4.54], 0.0004), respectively. We found no statistical difference between the two groups regarding the total adverse events (OR: 1.06 with 95% CI [0.55, 2.06], 0.85). PZN, when added to the triple therapy, yielded a better effect concerning the eradication rates of with no difference in adverse event rates, and thus can be considered a valuable adjuvant for the management of However, the evidence is still scarce, and larger trials are needed to confirm or refute our findings.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Carnosine; Clarithromycin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Organometallic Compounds; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zinc Compounds
PubMed: 36235778
DOI: 10.3390/nu14194126 -
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and... Aug 2023Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, therapeutic options for treating COVID-19 have been investigated at different stages of clinical manifestations.... (Review)
Review
Pan-American Guidelines for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19: a joint evidence-based guideline of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API).
BACKGROUND
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, therapeutic options for treating COVID-19 have been investigated at different stages of clinical manifestations. Considering the particular impact of COVID-19 in the Americas, this document aims to present recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 specific to this population.
METHODS
Fifteen experts, members of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API) make up the panel responsible for developing this guideline. Questions were formulated regarding prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings. The outcomes considered in decision-making were mortality, hospitalisation, need for mechanical ventilation, symptomatic COVID-19 episodes, and adverse events. In addition, a systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. The quality of evidence assessment and guideline development process followed the GRADE system.
RESULTS
Nine technologies were evaluated, and ten recommendations were made, including the use of tixagevimab + cilgavimab in the prophylaxis of COVID-19, tixagevimab + cilgavimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, and remdesivir in the treatment of outpatients, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab in the treatment of hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19. The use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and ivermectin was discouraged.
CONCLUSION
This guideline provides recommendations for treating patients in the Americas following the principles of evidence-based medicine. The recommendations present a set of drugs that have proven effective in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, emphasising the strong recommendation for the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in outpatients as the lack of benefit from the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
Topics: Humans; United States; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Ritonavir; Hydroxychloroquine; Pandemics; Brazil; Ivermectin; Communicable Diseases; Antiviral Agents
PubMed: 37550690
DOI: 10.1186/s12941-023-00623-w -
Virology Journal Jun 2022We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients based on current peer-reviewed RCTs and to address... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients based on current peer-reviewed RCTs and to address disputes over the existing evidence.
METHODS
MEDLINE (Pubmed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Google scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs assessing the efficacy of Ivermectin up to 20 February 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies was performed based on the PRISMA 2020 statement criteria.
RESULTS
19 and 17 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. There was no significant difference in progression to severe disease (log OR - 0.27 [95% CI - 0.61 to 0.08], I2 = 42.29%), negative RT-PCR (log OR 0.25 [95% CI - 0.18-0.68], I2 = 58.73%), recovery (log OR 0.11 [95% CI - 0.22-0.45], I2 = 13.84%), duration of hospitalization (SMD - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.85-0.06], I2 = 88.90%), time to negative RT-PCR (SMD - 0.36 [95% CI - 0.89-0.17], I2 = 46.2%), and viral load (SMD -0.17 [95% CI -0.45 to 0.12], I^2 = 0%). It is worth noting that, based on low-certainty evidence, ivermectin may possibly reduce mortality (log OR - 0.67 [95% CI - 1.20 to - 0.13], I2 = 28.96%). However, studies with a higher risk of bias were more likely to indicate positive effects on the efficacy of this drug, according to our subgroup analyses based on study quality.
CONCLUSION
Ivermectin did not have any significant effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients and as WHO recommends, use of ivermectin should be limited to clinical trials.
Topics: Hospitalization; Humans; Ivermectin; Viral Load; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35698151
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-022-01829-8 -
The Journal of Antimicrobial... Jul 2022Limited antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance coupled with syndromic management of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) could be...
OBJECTIVES
Limited antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance coupled with syndromic management of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) could be contributing to an increase in AMR in the region. This systematic review aimed to synthesize data on the prevalence of AMR in common STIs in SSA and identify some research gaps that exist.
METHODS
We searched three electronic databases for studies published between 1 January 2000 and 26 May 2020. We screened the titles and abstracts for studies that potentially contained data on AMR in SSA. Then we reviewed the full text of these studies to identify articles that reported data on the prevalence of AMR in Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, Trichomonas vaginalis and Mycoplasma genitalium in SSA. We summarized the data using a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
The 40 included studies reported on AMR data from 7961 N. gonorrhoeae isolates from 15 countries in SSA and 350 M. genitalium specimens from South Africa. All four SSA regions reported very high rates of ciprofloxacin, tetracycline and penicillin resistance in N. gonorrhoeae. Resistance to cefixime or ceftriaxone was observed in all regions except West Africa. Azithromycin resistance, recommended as part of dual therapy with an extended-spectrum cephalosporin for gonorrhoea, was reported in all the regions. Both macrolide and fluoroquinolone-associated resistance were reported in M. genitalium in South Africa. Studies investigating AMR in C. trachomatis and T. vaginalis were not identified.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a need to strengthen AMR surveillance in SSA for prompt investigation and notification of drug resistance in STIs.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlamydia trachomatis; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Gonorrhea; Humans; Mycoplasma Infections; Mycoplasma genitalium; Neisseria gonorrhoeae; Prevalence; Sexually Transmitted Diseases; South Africa
PubMed: 35578892
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkac159 -
BioMed Research International 2023Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a significant public health issue in Bangladesh like many other developing countries where data on resistance trends are scarce.... (Review)
Review
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a significant public health issue in Bangladesh like many other developing countries where data on resistance trends are scarce. Moreover, the existence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) exerts an ominous effect on the poultry sector. Therefore, the current systematic review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, was conducted to find out the AMR scenarios in isolates sourced from poultry and poultry environments in Bangladesh between 2010 and 2021. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a total of 17 published scientific articles were selected for this systematic review. This review revealed that 18 out of 64 districts in Bangladesh reported in poultry, having a higher prevalence (combined prevalence: 69.3%, 95% confidence interval, CI: 67.3-71%). Moreover, the prevalence ranged from 24.3% to 100%. This review found that isolates showed resistance to 14 antimicrobial classes and 45 different antimicrobial agents, including the last-line (reserve group) antibiotics and banned antimicrobial categories for the treatment of infections in agricultural animals. Phenotypic resistance of against penicillins and beta-lactamase inhibitors (20.2%-100%), cephalosporins (1.9%-100%), fluoroquinolones (5.98%-100%), aminoglycosides (6%-100%), tetracyclines (17.7%-100%), carbapenems (13.6%-72.7%), macrolides (11.8%-100%), polymyxins (7.9%-100%), phenicols (20%-97.2%), sulfa drugs (44.7%-100%), cephamycins (21.4%-48.8%), nitrofurans (21.4%-63.2%), monobactams (1.2%), and glycylcyclines (2.3%) was recorded in the last decades in Bangladesh. Also, 14 articles reported MDR in poultry, including a 100% MDR in nine articles and a 92.7% (95% CI: 91.2-94%) combined percentage of MDR isolates. Twenty-four different AMR genes encoding resistance to beta-lactams ( , , , , , , , and ), colistin ( and ), fluoroquinolones ( and ), tetracyclines (, , and ), sulfonamides ( and ), trimethoprim (), aminoglycosides (), streptomycin (), gentamicin (), erythromycin (), and chloramphenicol ( and ) were detected in isolates. The presence of MDR and their corresponding resistance genes in poultry and poultry environments is an alarming issue for all health communities in Bangladesh. We suggest a regular antimicrobial surveillance program with a strong One Health approach to lessen the hazardous effects of AMR in poultry industries in Bangladesh.
Topics: Animals; Escherichia coli; Poultry; Bangladesh; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Escherichia coli Infections; Aminoglycosides; Fluoroquinolones; Tetracyclines; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 36778056
DOI: 10.1155/2023/2425564