-
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Feb 2020Pharmacokinetics (PK) are severely altered in critically ill patients due to changes in volume of distribution (Vd) and/or drug clearance (Cl). This affects the target...
BACKGROUND
Pharmacokinetics (PK) are severely altered in critically ill patients due to changes in volume of distribution (Vd) and/or drug clearance (Cl). This affects the target attainment of antibiotics in critically ill children. We aimed to identify gaps in current knowledge and to compare published PK parameters and target attainment of antibiotics in critically ill children to healthy children and critically ill adults.
METHODS
Systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Articles were labelled as relevant when they included information on PK of antibiotics in critically ill, non-neonatal, pediatric patients. Extracted PK-parameters included Vd, Cl, (trough) concentrations, AUC, probability of target attainment, and elimination half-life.
RESULTS
50 relevant articles were identified. Studies focusing on vancomycin were most prevalent (17/50). Other studies included data on penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems and aminoglycosides, but data on ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, penicillin and metronidazole could not be found. Critically ill children generally show a higher Cl and larger Vd than healthy children and critically ill adults. Reduced target-attainment was described in critically ill children for multiple antibiotics, including amoxicillin, piperacillin, cefotaxime, vancomycin, gentamicin, teicoplanin, amikacin and daptomycin. 38/50 articles included information on both Vd and Cl, but a dosing advice was given in only 22 articles.
CONCLUSION
The majority of studies focus on agents where TDM is applied, while other antibiotics lack data altogether. The larger Vd and higher Cl in critically ill children might warrant a higher dose or extended infusions of antibiotics in this patient population to increase target-attainment. Studies frequently fail to provide a dosing advice for this patient population, even if the necessary information is available. Our study shows gaps in current knowledge and encourages future researchers to provide dosing advice for special populations whenever possible.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Adolescent; Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Area Under Curve; Carbapenems; Cephalosporins; Child; Child, Preschool; Critical Illness; Drug Monitoring; Female; Half-Life; Humans; Infant; Infusions, Intravenous; Male; Penicillins; Vancomycin; Young Adult
PubMed: 31432468
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-019-00813-w -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Nov 2022To answer the following PICO question: "In patients requiring surgical treatment of peri-implantitis (P), is any implant surface decontamination protocol (I) superior to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To answer the following PICO question: "In patients requiring surgical treatment of peri-implantitis (P), is any implant surface decontamination protocol (I) superior to others (C) in terms of clinical and radiographic parameters (O)?"
METHODS
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing two or more decontamination protocols as part of the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis were included. Two authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened titles and abstracts, did full-text analysis, extracted data, and performed the risk-of-bias assessment. Whenever possible, results were summarized through random effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Twenty-two manuscripts reporting on 16 RCTs were included, testing mechanical, chemical and physical decontamination protocols. All of them resulted in an improvement in clinical parameters; however, the superiority of specific protocols over others is mainly based on single RCTs. The use of titanium brushes and implantoplasty showed favorable results as single decontamination methods. Meta-analyses indicated a lack of added effect of Er:Yag laser on probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (n = 2, WMD = -0.24 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.10; 0.63], p = .59); while systemic antimicrobials (amoxicillin or azithromycin) showed an added effect on treatment success ([PPD ≤5 mm, no bleeding or suppuration, no progressive bone loss]; n = 2, RR = 1.84, 95% CI [1.17;2.91], p = .008), but not in terms of PPD reduction (n = 2, WMD = 0.93 mm, 95% CI [-0.69; 2.55], p = .26), even if with substantial heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
No single decontamination method demonstrated clear evidence of superiority compared to the others. Systemic antibiotics, but not Er:Yag laser, may provide short-term clinical benefits in terms of treatment success (CRD42020182303).
Topics: Humans; Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Decontamination; Dental Implants; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 36017594
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13992 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Infective endocarditis is a severe infection arising in the lining of the chambers of the heart. It can be caused by fungi, but most often is caused by bacteria. Many... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Infective endocarditis is a severe infection arising in the lining of the chambers of the heart. It can be caused by fungi, but most often is caused by bacteria. Many dental procedures cause bacteraemia, which could lead to bacterial endocarditis in a small proportion of people. The incidence of bacterial endocarditis is low, but it has a high mortality rate. Guidelines in many countries have recommended that antibiotics be administered to people at high risk of endocarditis prior to invasive dental procedures. However, guidance by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales states that antibiotic prophylaxis against infective endocarditis is not recommended routinely for people undergoing dental procedures. This is an update of a review that we first conducted in 2004 and last updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To determine whether prophylactic antibiotic administration, compared to no antibiotic administration or placebo, before invasive dental procedures in people at risk or at high risk of bacterial endocarditis, influences mortality, serious illness or the incidence of endocarditis. Secondary objectives To determine whether the effect of dental antibiotic prophylaxis differs in people with different cardiac conditions predisposing them to increased risk of endocarditis, and in people undergoing different high risk dental procedures. Harms Had we foundno evidence from randomised controlled trials or cohort studies on whether prophylactic antibiotics affected mortality or serious illness, and we had found evidence from these or case-control studies suggesting that prophylaxis with antibiotics reduced the incidence of endocarditis, then we would also have assessed whether the harms of prophylaxis with single antibiotic doses, such as with penicillin (amoxicillin 2 g or 3 g) before invasive dental procedures, compared with no antibiotic or placebo, equalled the benefits in prevention of endocarditis in people at high risk of this disease.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 10 May 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: Due to the low incidence of bacterial endocarditis, we anticipated that few if any trials would be located. For this reason, we included cohort and case-control studies with suitably matched control or comparison groups. The intervention was antibiotic prophylaxis, compared to no antibiotic prophylaxis or placebo, before a dental procedure in people with an increased risk of bacterial endocarditis. Cohort studies would need to follow at-risk individuals and assess outcomes following any invasive dental procedures, grouping participants according to whether or not they had received prophylaxis. Case-control studies would need to match people who had developed endocarditis after undergoing an invasive dental procedure (and who were known to be at increased risk before undergoing the procedure) with those at similar risk who had not developed endocarditis. Our outcomes of interest were mortality or serious adverse events requiring hospital admission; development of endocarditis following any dental procedure in a defined time period; development of endocarditis due to other non-dental causes; any recorded adverse effects of the antibiotics; and the cost of antibiotic provision compared to that of caring for patients who developed endocarditis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search records, selected studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in the included study and extracted data from the included study. As an author team, we judged the certainty of the evidence identified for the main comparison and key outcomes using GRADE criteria. We presented the main results in a summary of findings table.
MAIN RESULTS
Our new search did not find any new studies for inclusion since the last version of the review in 2013. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) or cohort studies were included in the previous versions of the review, but one case-control study met the inclusion criteria. The trial authors collected information on 48 people who had contracted bacterial endocarditis over a specific two-year period and had undergone a medical or dental procedure with an indication for prophylaxis within the past 180 days. These people were matched to a similar group of people who had not contracted bacterial endocarditis. All study participants had undergone an invasive medical or dental procedure. The two groups were compared to establish whether those who had received preventive antibiotics (penicillin) were less likely to have developed endocarditis. The authors found no significant effect of penicillin prophylaxis on the incidence of endocarditis. No data on other outcomes were reported. The level of certainty we have about the evidence is very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There remains no clear evidence about whether antibiotic prophylaxis is effective or ineffective against bacterial endocarditis in at-risk people who are about to undergo an invasive dental procedure. We cannot determine whether the potential harms and costs of antibiotic administration outweigh any beneficial effect. Ethically, practitioners should discuss the potential benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis with their patients before a decision is made about administration.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Dentistry; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Humans; Penicillins
PubMed: 35536541
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003813.pub5 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... May 2021The superiority of combination therapy for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (CR-GNB) infections remains controversial. In vitro models may predict the efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The superiority of combination therapy for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (CR-GNB) infections remains controversial. In vitro models may predict the efficacy of antibiotic regimens against CR-GNB. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed including pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) and time-kill (TK) studies examining the in vitro efficacy of antibiotic combinations against CR-GNB [PROSPERO registration no. CRD42019128104]. The primary outcome was in vitro synergy based on the effect size (ES): high, ES ≥ 0.75, moderate, 0.35 < ES < 0.75; low, ES ≤ 0.35; and absent, ES = 0). A network meta-analysis assessed the bactericidal effect and re-growth rate (secondary outcomes). An adapted version of the ToxRTool was used for risk-of-bias assessment. Over 180 combination regimens from 136 studies were included. The most frequently analysed classes were polymyxins and carbapenems. Limited data were available for ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam and imipenem/relebactam. High or moderate synergism was shown for polymyxin/rifampicin against Acinetobacter baumannii [ES = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-1.00], polymyxin/fosfomycin against Klebsiella pneumoniae (ES = 1.00, 95% CI 0.66-1.00) and imipenem/amikacin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ES = 1.00, 95% CI 0.21-1.00). Compared with monotherapy, increased bactericidal activity and lower re-growth rates were reported for colistin/fosfomycin and polymyxin/rifampicin in K. pneumoniae and for imipenem/amikacin or imipenem/tobramycin against P. aeruginosa. High quality was documented for 65% and 53% of PK/PD and TK studies, respectively. Well-designed in vitro studies should be encouraged to guide the selection of combination therapies in clinical trials and to improve the armamentarium against carbapenem-resistant bacteria.
Topics: Amikacin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azabicyclo Compounds; Carbapenems; Ceftazidime; Cephalosporins; Colistin; Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Drug Synergism; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fosfomycin; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Humans; Imipenem; In Vitro Techniques; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Polymyxins; Rifampin; Tazobactam; Tobramycin
PubMed: 33857539
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106344 -
Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters Dec 2019Guidelines can help healthcare practitioners manage syphilis in pregnancy and prevent perinatal death or disability. We conducted systematic reviews to locate guidance...
Guidelines can help healthcare practitioners manage syphilis in pregnancy and prevent perinatal death or disability. We conducted systematic reviews to locate guidance documents describing management of syphilis in pregnancy, 2003-2017. We compared country and regional guidelines with current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. We found 64 guidelines with recommendations on management of syphilis in pregnancy representing 128 of the 195 WHO member countries, including the two WHO guidelines published in 2016 and 2017. Of the 62 guidelines, 16 were for countries in Africa, 21 for the Americas, two for Eastern Mediterranean, six for Europe and 17 for Asia or the Pacific. Fifty-seven (92%) guidelines recommended universal syphilis screening in pregnancy, of which 46 (81%) recommended testing at the first antenatal care visit. Also, 46 (81%) recommended repeat testing including 21 guidelines recommended this during the third pregnancy trimester and/or at delivery. Fifty-nine (95%) guidelines recommended benzathine penicillin G (BPG) as the first-line therapy for syphilis in pregnancy, consistent with WHO guidelines. Alternative regimens to BPG were listed in 42 (68%) guidelines, primarily from Africa and Asia; only 20 specified that non-penicillin regimens are not proven-effective in treating the fetus. We identified guidance recommending use of injectable penicillin in exposed infants for 112 countries. Most guidelines recommended universal syphilis testing for pregnant women, repeat testing for high-risk women and treatment of infected women with BPG; but several did not. Updating guidance on syphilis testing and treatment in pregnancy to reflect global norms could prevent congenital syphilis and save newborn lives.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Female; Global Health; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Syphilis; Syphilis, Congenital; World Health Organization
PubMed: 31884900
DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2019.1691897 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Nov 2021In areas where Lyme disease is endemic, bites from ticks are common, but no vaccine is currently available against Lyme disease for humans. Therefore, the feasibility of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In areas where Lyme disease is endemic, bites from ticks are common, but no vaccine is currently available against Lyme disease for humans. Therefore, the feasibility of using antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent Lyme disease after a tick bite is worth further exploration. Previous meta-analyses lack sufficient power to demonstrate the efficacy of about antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of Lyme disease following a tick bite. In this study, we explored more precise evidence and attempted to identify and update optimum treatment strategies.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies until March 23, 2021. We included studies if the enrolled patients were randomly allocated to a treatment or control group within 72 h following a tick bite and had no clinical evidence of Lyme disease at enrolment. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed for data abstraction. Two authors (GZZ and XX) independently reviewed the abstracts and identified articles for detailed assessment. We used a random-effects model to calculate the pooled results and reported the 95% confidence interval (CI). Study quality was assessed using a modified Jadad scale, and publication bias was assessed using Egger's test. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for the rates of unfavorable events in patients who received intervention versus the control group. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42021245002.
RESULTS
Six studies (3,766 individuals) were included. The pooled rate of unfavorable events in persons receiving treatment and the control group were 0.4% (95%CI: 0.1-1.1%) and 2.2% (95%CI: 1.6-3.0%), respectively. The pooled RR was 0.38 (95%CI: 0.22-0.66). Subgroup analysis revealed that the pooled RR was 0.29 (95%CI: 0.14-0.60) in the single-use 200-mg doxycycline group; 0.28 (95%CI: 0.05-1.67) in a 10-day course group (Amoxicillin, Penicillin or tetracycline); and 0.73 (95%CI: 0.25-2.08) in a topical antibiotic treatment group (Azithromycin).
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence supports the use of antibiotics for the prevention of Lyme disease, and reveals advantages of using single-dose; however, further confirmation is needed.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Doxycycline; Humans; Lyme Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tick Bites
PubMed: 34749665
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06837-7 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Apr 2023Which antimicrobial agents provide the optimal efficacy, safety, and tolerability for the empirical treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Which antimicrobial agents provide the optimal efficacy, safety, and tolerability for the empirical treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) remains unclear but is paramount in the context of evolving antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, updated meta-analyses on this issue are warranted.
METHODS
We systematically searched four major electronic databases from their inception through October 2022. Randomized controlled trials examining antimicrobial agents for cIAI treatment were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies utilizing the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool as described in the updated version 1 of the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and extracted data from all manuscripts according to a predetermined list of topics. All meta-analyses were conducted using R software. The primary outcome was clinical success rate in patients with cIAIs.
RESULTS
Forty-five active-controlled trials with low to medium methodological quality and involving 14,267 adults with cIAIs were included in the network meta-analyses. The vast majority of patients with an acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score < 10 had low risk of treatment failure or death. Twenty-one regimens were investigated. In the network meta-analyses, cefepime plus metronidazole was more effective than tigecycline and ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole (odds ratio [OR] = 1.96, 95% credibility interval [CrI] 1.05 ~ 3.79; OR = 3.09, 95% CrI 1.02 ~ 9.79, respectively). No statistically significant differences were found among antimicrobial agents regarding microbiological success rates. Cefepime plus metronidazole had lower risk of all-cause mortality than tigecycline (OR = 0.22, 95% CrI 0.05 ~ 0.85). Statistically significant trends were observed favoring cefotaxime plus metronidazole, which exhibited fewer discontinuations because of adverse events (AEs) when compared with eravacycline, meropenem and ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole (OR = 0.0, 95% CrI 0.0 ~ 0.8; OR = 0.0, 95% CrI 0.0 ~ 0.7; OR = 0.0, 95% CrI 0.0 ~ 0.64, respectively). Compared with tigecycline, eravacycline was associated with fewer discontinuations because of AEs (OR = 0.17, 95% CrI 0.03 ~ 0.81). Compared with meropenem, ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole had a higher rate of discontinuation due to AEs (OR = 2.09, 95% CrI 1.0 ~ 4.41). In pairwise meta-analyses, compared with ceftriaxone plus metronidazole, ertapenem and moxifloxacin (one trial, OR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.06 ~ 3.50; one trial, OR = 4.24, 95% CI 1.18 ~ 15.28, respectively) were associated with significantly increased risks of serious AEs. Compared with imipenem/cilastatin, tigecycline (four trials, OR = 1.57, 95%CI 1.07 ~ 2.32) was associated with a significantly increased risk of serious AEs. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, Cefepime plus metronidazole was more likely to be optimal among all treatments in terms of efficacy and safety, tigecycline was more likely to be worst regimen in terms of tolerability, and eravacycline was more likely to be best tolerated.
CONCLUSION
This study suggests that cefepime plus metronidazole is optimal for empirical treatment of patients with cIAIs and that tigecycline should be prescribed cautiously considering the safety and tolerability concerns. However, it should be noted that data currently available on the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of antimicrobial agents pertain mostly to lower-risk patients with cIAIs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Metronidazole; Meropenem; Network Meta-Analysis; Tigecycline; Cefepime; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Intraabdominal Infections; Tazobactam; Anti-Infective Agents
PubMed: 37085768
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08209-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively.
MAIN RESULTS
Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Female; Fosfomycin; Humans; Imipenem; Levofloxacin; Male; Penicillins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 32407558
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Apr 2022A panel of experts generated 5 "key questions" in the management of adult syphilis. A systematic literature review was conducted and tables of evidence were constructed...
A panel of experts generated 5 "key questions" in the management of adult syphilis. A systematic literature review was conducted and tables of evidence were constructed to answer these questions. Available data suggest no clinical benefit to >1 dose of benzathine penicillin G for early syphilis in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients. While penicillin remains the drug of choice to treat syphilis, doxycycline to treat early and late latent syphilis is an acceptable alternate option if penicillin cannot be used. There are very limited data regarding the impact of additional antibiotic doses on serologic responses in serofast patients and no data on the impact of additional antibiotic courses on long-term clinical outcomes. In patients with isolated ocular or otic signs and symptoms, reactive syphilis serologic results, and confirmed ocular/otic abnormalities at examination, a diagnostic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) examination is not necessary, because up to 40% and 90% of patients, respectively, would have no CSF abnormalities. Based on the results of 2 studies, repeated CSF examinations are not necessary for HIV-uninfected patients or HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy who exhibit appropriate serologic and clinical responses after treatment for neurosyphilis. Finally, several important gaps were identified and should be a priority for future research.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.; HIV Infections; Humans; Neurosyphilis; Penicillin G Benzathine; Syphilis; United States
PubMed: 35416969
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac060