-
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 -
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 -
Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology Apr 2021The treatment of SARS CoV2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome corona virus 2) also known as COVID-19 (corona virus disease 2019) continues to remain an enigma even after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The treatment of SARS CoV2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome corona virus 2) also known as COVID-19 (corona virus disease 2019) continues to remain an enigma even after six months of the pandemic. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been one of the most widely tested drugs for SARS CoV2 on account of its antiviral properties. However the results so far have been far from categorical. The meta-analyses conducted till date are also lacking in precision and appropriateness. This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of HCQ in SARS CoV2 by overcoming the limitations of earlier meta-analysis.
METHODS
A total of 5 prominent medical databases were searched and fourteen studies (n = 12455) were included in the systematic review and meta-analyses. The data on survival, alleviation of symptoms, conversion of RT PCR positivity to negativity, use and efficacy in presence of co-morbidities (Hypertension, diabetes and heart disease) and cardiac and gastrointestinal side effects were extracted. Meta-analysis was applied to calculate the pooled estimates. Fixed-effects model results were chosen since I was <25%.Meta-analysis was conducted using STATA version 13 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).
RESULTS
The pooled estimates showed that HCQ treatment did not significantly affect survival at 14 and 28 days in COVID-19 patients with respect to the control population (RR: 1.003, 95% CI: 0.983-1.022), alleviation of symptoms at day 10 (RR: 1.044, 95% CI: 0.911 1.196), success in presence of co-morbidities (RR: 1.058, 95% CI: 1.035-1.082) and conversion from RT PCR positive to RT PCR negative on day 6 (RR:1.123, 95% CI: 1.041 1.212). There was higher risk for cardiac side effects (RR: 2.012, 95% CI: 1.428 2.833) and gastrointestinal side effects (RR: 1.318, 95% CI: 0.730 2.380) in HCQ recipients.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence on the safety and efficacy of HCQ either alone or in combination with other drugs in SARS CoV2 infection.
Topics: Azithromycin; COVID-19; COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing; Comorbidity; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33781656
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmmb.2021.03.002 -
Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2022Staphylococci other than Staphylococcus aureus (SOSA) in animals are becoming more pathogenic and antibiotic resistant and can potentially disseminate to humans....
INTRODUCTION
Staphylococci other than Staphylococcus aureus (SOSA) in animals are becoming more pathogenic and antibiotic resistant and can potentially disseminate to humans. However, there is little synthesized information regarding SOSA from animals in Africa. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance of SOSA in companion animals (pets) and livestock in Africa.
METHOD
This systematic review (PROSPERO-CRD42021252303) was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines, and 75 eligible studies from 13 countries were identified until August 2022. Three electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science) were employed.
RESULTS
The frequently isolated SOSA were , and . Thirty (40%) studies performed antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST). Penicillin (58%) and tetracycline (28%) resistance were most common across all SOSA with high rates of resistance to aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, and macrolides in some species. Resistance to last-resort antibiotics such as linezolid and fusidic acid were also reported. Limited data on strain typing and molecular resistance mechanisms precluded analysis of the clonal diversity of SOSA on the continent.
CONCLUSION
The findings of this review indicate that research on livestock-associated SOSA in Africa is lacking in some regions such as Central and Western Africa, furthermore, research on companion animals and more advanced methods for identification and strain typing of SOSA need to be encouraged.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021252303.
PubMed: 36583033
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1059054 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Oct 2023Antibiotics are the first-line treatment for bacterial infections; however, overuse and inappropriate prescribing have made antibiotics less effective with increased...
BACKGROUND
Antibiotics are the first-line treatment for bacterial infections; however, overuse and inappropriate prescribing have made antibiotics less effective with increased antimicrobial resistance. Unconfirmed reported antibiotic allergy labels create a significant barrier to optimal antimicrobial stewardship in health care, with clinical and economic implications.
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review was conducted to summarize the impact of patient-reported antibiotic allergy on clinical outcomes and various strategies that have been employed to effectively assess and remove these allergy labels, improving patient care.
METHODS
The review was undertaken using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A critical appraisal was conducted on all studies and a narrative synthesis was performed to identify themes.
RESULTS
Four themes emerged: the prevalence of antibiotic allergy, impact of antibiotic allergy on antimicrobial prescribing, impact of antibiotic allergy on clinical outcomes, and delabeling strategies to improve clinical outcomes. Of the 32 studies, including 1,089,675 participants, the prevalence of reported antibiotic allergy was between 5% and 35%. Patients with a reported antibiotic allergy had poorer concordance with prescribing guidelines in 30% to 60% of cases, with a higher use of alternatives such as quinolone, tetracycline, macrolide, lincosamide, and carbapenem and lower use of beta-lactam antibiotics. Antibiotic allergy delabeling was identified as an intervention and recommendation to advance the state of the science.
CONCLUSIONS
There is substantial evidence within the literature that antibiotic allergy labels significantly impact patient clinical outcomes and a consensus that systematic assessment of reported antibiotic allergies, commonly referred to as delabeling, improves the clinical management of patients.
Topics: Humans; Self Report; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Hypersensitivity; Delivery of Health Care; Hypersensitivity; Penicillins
PubMed: 37352931
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2023.06.025 -
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection... Apr 2022Vibrio cholerae O1/O139 were the predominant circulating serogroups exhibiting multi-drug resistance (MDR) during the cholera outbreak which led to cholera treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Vibrio cholerae O1/O139 were the predominant circulating serogroups exhibiting multi-drug resistance (MDR) during the cholera outbreak which led to cholera treatment failures.
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the weighted pooled resistance (WPR) rates in V. cholerae O1/O139 isolates obtained from environmental samples.
METHODS
We systematically searched the articles in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase (until January 2020). Subgroup analyses were then employed by publication year, geographic areas, and the quality of studies. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA software (ver. 14.0).
RESULTS
A total of 20 studies investigating 648 environmental V. cholerae O1/O139 isolates were analysed. The majority of the studies were originated from Asia (n = 9). In addition, a large number of studies (n = 15 i.e. 71.4%) included in the meta-analysis revealed the resistance to cotrimoxazole and ciprofloxacin. The WPR rates were as follows: cotrimoxazole 59%, erythromycin 28%, tetracycline 14%, doxycycline 5%, and ciprofloxacin 0%. There was increased resistance to nalidixic acid, cotrimoxazole, furazolidone, and tetracycline while a decreased resistance to amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, chloramphenicol, ampicillin, streptomycin, and ceftriaxone was observed during the years 2000-2020. A significant decrease in the doxycycline and ciprofloxacin-resistance rates in V. cholerae O1/O139 isolates was reported over the years 2011-2020 which represents a decrease in 2001-2010 (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Fluoroquinolones, gentamicin, ceftriaxone, doxycycline, kanamycin, and cefotaxime showed the highest effectiveness and the lowest resistance rate. However, the main interest is the rise of antimicrobial resistance in V. cholerae strains especially in low-income countries or endemic areas, and therefore, continuous surveillance, careful appropriate AST, and limitation on improper antibiotic usage are crucial.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ceftriaxone; Cholera; Ciprofloxacin; Doxycycline; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Erythromycin; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination; Vibrio cholerae O1; Vibrio cholerae O139
PubMed: 35468830
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-022-01100-3 -
Drug Safety Jun 2021Ivermectin (IVM) and doxycycline (DOXY) have demonstrated in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, and have a reasonable safety profile. The objective of this systematic...
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE
Ivermectin (IVM) and doxycycline (DOXY) have demonstrated in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, and have a reasonable safety profile. The objective of this systematic review was to explore the evidence in the literature on the safety and efficacy of their use as monotherapy and combination therapy in COVID-19 management.
METHODS
After prospectively registering the study protocol with the Open Science Framework, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, various pre-print servers and reference lists for relevant records published until 16 February, 2021 using appropriate search strategies. Baseline features and data pertaining to efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted separately for IVM monotherapy, DOXY monotherapy, and IVM + DOXY combination therapy. Methodological quality was assessed based on the study design.
RESULTS
Out of 200 articles screened, 19 studies (six retrospective cohort studies, seven randomised controlled trials, five non-randomised trials, one case series) with 8754 unique patients with multiple stages of COVID-19 were included; four were pre-prints and one was an unpublished clinicaltrials.gov document. The comparator was standard care and 'hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin' in seven and three studies respectively, and two studies were placebo controlled; six studies did not have a comparator. IVM monotherapy, DOXY monotherapy and IVM + DOXY were explored in eight, five and five studies, respectively; one study compared IVM monotherapy and IVM + DOXY with placebo. While all studies described efficacy, the safety profile was described in only six studies. Efficacy outcomes were mixed with some studies concluding in favour of the intervention and some studies displaying no significant benefit; barring one study that described 9/183 patients with erosive esophagitis and non-ulcer dyspepsia with IVM + DOXY (without causality assessment details), there were no new safety signals of concern with any of the three interventions considered. The quality of studies varied widely, with five studies having a 'good' methodological quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence is not sufficiently strong to either promote or refute the efficacy of IVM, DOXY, or their combination in COVID-19 management.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION DETAILS
Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/n7r2j .
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Doxycycline; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Ivermectin; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33864232
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-021-01066-y -
BJGP Open Jun 2021Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health priority. Acne vulgaris is a common skin condition for which antibiotic use ranges from a few months to years of daily...
BACKGROUND
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health priority. Acne vulgaris is a common skin condition for which antibiotic use ranges from a few months to years of daily exposure.
AIM
To systemically search for and synthesise evidence on the risk of treatment-resistant infections, and other evidence of AMR, following long-term oral antibiotic use for acne.
DESIGN & SETTING
In this systematic review, a literature search was carried out using the databases Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. They were searched using MeSH, Emtree, or other relevant terms, and followed a pre-registered protocol.
METHOD
Search strategies were developed with a librarian and undertaken in July 2019. All searches date from database inception. The primary outcome was antibiotic treatment failure or infection caused by a resistant organism. Secondary outcomes included detection of resistant organisms without an infection, rate of infection, or changes to flora.
RESULTS
A total of 6996 records were identified. Seventy-three full-text articles were shortlisted for full review, of which five were included. Two investigated rates of infection, and three resistance or changes to microbial flora. Three studies had 35 or fewer participants (range 20-118 496). Three studies had a serious or high risk of bias, one moderate, and one a low risk of bias. Weak evidence was found for an association between antibiotic use for acne and subsequent increased rates of upper respiratory tract infections and pharyngitis.
CONCLUSION
There is a lack of high quality evidence on the relationship between oral antibiotics for acne treatment and subsequent AMR sequelae. This needs to be urgently addressed with rigorously conducted studies.
PubMed: 33687983
DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2020.0181 -
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 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2020To evaluate the effectiveness of short courses of antibiotic therapy for patients with acute streptococcal pharyngitis. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the effectiveness of short courses of antibiotic therapy for patients with acute streptococcal pharyngitis.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials comparing short-course antibiotic therapy (≤5 days) with long-course antibiotic therapy (≥7 days) for patients with streptococcal pharyngitis were included. Two primary outcomes: early clinical cure and early bacterial eradication.
RESULTS
Fifty randomized clinical trials were included. Overall, short-course antibiotic treatment was as effective as long-course antibiotic treatment for early clinical cure (odds ratio (OR) 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.15). Subgroup analysis showed that short-course penicillin was less effective for early clinical cure (OR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.82) and bacteriological eradication (OR 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.61) in comparison to long-course penicillin. Short-course macrolides were equally effective, compared to long-course penicillin. Finally, short-course cephalosporin was more effective for early clinical cure (OR 1.48; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.96) and early microbiological cure (OR 1.60; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.27) in comparison to long-course penicillin. In total, 1211 (17.7%) participants assigned to short-course antibiotic therapy, and 893 (12.3%) cases assigned to long-course, developed adverse events (OR 1.35; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.68).
CONCLUSIONS
Macrolides and cephalosporins belong to the list of "Highest Priority Critically Important Antimicrobials"; hence, long-course penicillin V should remain as the first line antibiotic for the management of patients with streptococcal pharyngitis as far as the benefits of using these two types of antibiotics do not outweigh the harms of their unnecessary use.
PubMed: 33114471
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics9110733