-
Severe Anaphylaxis in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Clinical Presentation to Determine Outcomes.Journal of Personalized Medicine Oct 2021Anaphylactic reactions during pregnancy can range from subjective cutaneous symptoms to anaphylaxis and lethal anaphylactic shock. The fetal and maternal outcomes are... (Review)
Review
Anaphylactic reactions during pregnancy can range from subjective cutaneous symptoms to anaphylaxis and lethal anaphylactic shock. The fetal and maternal outcomes are unpredictable. This study is the first systematic review of the clinical presentation of severe anaphylaxis in pregnancy as defined by the World Allergy Organization to determine maternal and fetal outcomes. We searched PubMed, the Web of Science, and Scopus databases for articles published between 1 January 1985 and 15 April 2021 using the following terms (((anaphylactic shock) AND (pregnancy)) OR ((anaphylaxis) AND (pregnancy))). In 42 studies involving 47 patients, 36.17% of patients were 31-35 years old, and 74.47% of cases occurred peripartum, mostly during cesarean section. Accurate diagnosis with valid and reliable outcome measures was reported for 71.74% of cases. Twenty-two allergens were identified: antibiotics (penicillins and cephalosporins), anesthetic drugs (suxamethonium, mepivacaine), latex, oxytocin, sodium and sucrose iron, laminaria, misoprostol, rubber from Foley catheter, oral phytomenadione, ranitidine, chamomile, and ant sting. Two cases of maternal death related to latex and intravenous iron sucrose, and six infants with neurological disease were reported, mostly related to antibiotics. This review of the currently available literature shows that favorable outcomes are attainable with a high degree of observation, multidisciplinary cooperation, and rapid treatment.
PubMed: 34834412
DOI: 10.3390/jpm11111060 -
Global epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in commensal Neisseria species: A systematic review.International Journal of Medical... Apr 2022Commensal Neisseria species (spp). represent an important reservoir of antimicrobial resistance genes for pathogenic Neisseria spp. In this systematic review, we aimed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Commensal Neisseria species (spp). represent an important reservoir of antimicrobial resistance genes for pathogenic Neisseria spp. In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the antimicrobial susceptibility of commensal Neisseria spp. and how this has evolved over time. We also aimed to assess if commensal Neisseria spp. showed intrinsic resistance to four antimicrobials - penicillin, azithromycin, ceftriaxone and ciprofloxacin.
METHODS
Pubmed and Google Scholar were searched following the PRISMA guidelines. Articles reporting MICs of commensal Neisseria spp. were included according to inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the quality of the articles was assessed using a pre-designed tool. Individual and summary measures of penicillin, azithromycin, ceftriaxone and ciprofloxacin MICs were collected. Additional data was sought to perform a comparison between the MICs of pathogenic and commensal Neisseria spp.
RESULTS
A total of 15 studies met our criteria.We found no evidence of intrinsic AMR in commensal Neisseria spp. We did find evidence of an increasing trend in MICs of commensal Neisseria spp. over time for all antimicrobials assessed. These findings were similar in various countries. Eight additional studies were included to compare pathogenic and commensal Neisseria spp.
CONCLUSION
The MICs of commensal Neisseria spp. appear to be increasing in multiple countries. Surveillance of MICs in commensals could be used as an early warning system for antimicrobial resistance emergence in pathogens. Our findings underline the need for antibiotic stewardship interventions, particularly in populations with high antimicrobial consumption.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ceftriaxone; Ciprofloxacin; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Gonorrhea; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Neisseria; Neisseria gonorrhoeae
PubMed: 35231823
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2022.151551 -
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 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Research Apr 2023Osteoarticular infections (OAIs) caused by () are a rare clinical entity. This study aimed to review all published cases of OAI due to A systematic review of PubMed,... (Review)
Review
Osteoarticular infections (OAIs) caused by () are a rare clinical entity. This study aimed to review all published cases of OAI due to A systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library was conducted to report the demographic and clinical characteristics, microbiological data, management, and outcome of OAIs caused by in the adult population. A total of 16 studies reporting on 16 patients were included in this review. Eight patients had arthritis and eight patients had osteomyelitis/discitis. The most reported risk factors were immunosuppression, poor dental hygiene/dental infections, and recent gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. Five cases of arthritis occurred in a native joint while three patients had prostheses. The potential source of infection was documented in more than half of the cases (56%) (most commonly odontogenic and GI sources (25% and 18%, respectively). The knee and hip joints were the most frequently affected joints in patients with arthritis, while the thoracic vertebrae were the most common sites for osteomyelitis/discitis. The blood cultures were positive in three patients with arthritis (37.5%) and five patients with osteomyelitis/discitis (62.5%). Associated endovascular infection was found in five patients with bacteremia. Contiguous spread (adjacent mediastinitis) was documented in two patients with sternal osteomyelitis and thoracic vertebral osteomyelitis. Surgical interventions were performed for 12 patients (75%). Most strains of were susceptible to penicillin and cephalosporins. All patients with reported outcomes had achieved complete recovery. is an emerging pathogen for OAIs in certain susceptible populations with specific risk factors. This review reported the demographic, clinical, and microbiological features of OAIs caused by . A careful evaluation of an underlying infectious focus is warranted to control the source. When bacteremia is present, it is also necessary to have a high index of suspicion to rule out an associated endovascular infection.
PubMed: 37187711
DOI: 10.14740/jocmr4891 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Jun 2022The aim of this study was to determine the pooled estimate of Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase negative staphylococci and their antimicrobial-resistance in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to determine the pooled estimate of Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase negative staphylococci and their antimicrobial-resistance in patients with wound infection.
METHODS
Literature searches were carried out in the electronic biomedical databases and indexing services such as PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Direct, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Original records of research articles, available online from 1988 to March 2020, addressing the rates and antimicrobial-resistance pattern of staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and coagulase negative staphylococci (CoNS) in patients with wound infection were identified and screened. Endnote citation manager software version X9 for windows was utilized to collect and organize search outcomes and for removal of duplicate articles. The relevant data were extracted from included studies using a format prepared in Microsoft Excel and exported to STATA 14.0 software for the outcome measures analyses and subgrouping.
RESULTS
The electronic databases search yielded 378 studies, of which 39 met predefined inclusion criteria and included in the final analyses. The pooled estimate of wound infection was 36% [95% CI: 23-50%) for S. aureus and 12% [95% CI: 9-14%) for CoNS. S. aureus exhibited a higher rate of resistance to penicillin (84%), ampicillin (83%), amoxicillin (67%), methicillin (50%), cotrimoxazole (50%), tetracycline (61%), doxycycline (58%), chloramphenicol (49%) and erythromycin (45%). However, relative lower resistant rate was observed to Augmentin (amoxicillin-clavulanic acid) (35%), gentamicin (33%), norfloxacin (23%), ciprofloxacin (26%), ceftriaxone (36%), vancomycin (29%) and clindamycin (40%). Similarly, for CoNS there was high resistance to methicillin, 52% [95% CI: 26-78%]) and other antibiotics, but lower resistance to clindamycin, 15% [95% CI: 6-24]) and vancomycin, 22% [95% CI: 2-41%]). Ceftriaxone resistance was observed with prevalence of 36% [95% CI: 21-50%] for S. aureus and 42% [95% CI: 29-55%] for CoNS.
CONCLUSION
There was high resistance of staphylococci bacterial species to commonly used antimicrobials in the clinical settings in Ethiopia. It is a high time to implement multitude strategies to contain the threat. Further research focusing on factors promoting resistance and the effect of resistance on treatment outcome studies on these virulent organisms are warranted.
Topics: Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Ceftriaxone; Clindamycin; Coagulase; Ethiopia; Humans; Methicillin; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus; Staphylococcus aureus; Vancomycin; Wound Infection
PubMed: 34801740
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2021.10.025 -
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 -
Journal of Health, Population, and... Jun 2022This study aimed to determine the prevalence and antibiotic resistance patterns in Staphylococcus aureus isolated from patients with cystic fibrosis in Middle Eastern... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A Middle East systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and antibiotic susceptibility pattern in MRSA Staphylococcus aureus isolated from patients with cystic fibrosis.
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to determine the prevalence and antibiotic resistance patterns in Staphylococcus aureus isolated from patients with cystic fibrosis in Middle Eastern countries.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science (ISI), and Scopus databases for studies presenting the prevalence of MRSA strains, antibiotic resistance pattern in S. aureus strains isolated from patients who suffered from cystic fibrosis in Middle Eastern countries from 1999 to 10 June 2020. The following terms were used; prevalence, antibiotic resistance, antimicrobial drug resistance, drug resistance, Staphylococcus aureus, S. aureus, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA, cystic fibrosis, CF, and the Middle East. The meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software (Version 3.3.070).
RESULTS
Patients' age ranged from 1.6 to 18 years. Females were more than males. The prevalence of S. aureus was varied between 5.6 and 77.8%. The prevalence of S. aureus was varied between 5.6 and 77.8% in different countries. The combined prevalence of S. aureus in Middle East countries from 1999 to 2020 was reported by 40.9% (95% CI 29.6-53.1). The pooled prevalence of MRSA was reported at 18.6% (95% CI 1.1-82.6), Z = 0.9, I = 98.6, Q = 146.7. The highest combined resistance in S. aureus strains was reported to Penicillin G (94%), followed by Ciprofloxacin (54.9%).
CONCLUSION
Regarding a quite prevalence of S. aureus and an intermediate prevalence of MRSA in CF patients, preventive measures and health policies should be implemented in the Middle East area to prevent the spread of infections caused by MRSA strains in CF patients.
Topics: Adolescent; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Cystic Fibrosis; Female; Humans; Infant; Male; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Prevalence; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 35765068
DOI: 10.1186/s41043-022-00305-x -
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 -
Dentistry Journal Apr 2022(1) Background: Antibiotics are used in every medical field including dentistry, where they are used for the prevention of postoperative complications in routine... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Antibiotics are used in every medical field including dentistry, where they are used for the prevention of postoperative complications in routine clinical practice during the third molar extraction. (2) Methods: This study is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The present systematic review aimed to evaluate and systematize the use of antibacterial drugs in order to prevent postoperative complications in outpatient oral surgery for wisdom teeth extraction. We conducted a systematic review using electronic databases such as Medline PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Considering inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included randomized clinical trials published up to 2021 investigating the antibiotic prescription for third molar extraction. (3) Results: We selected 10 studies after the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results showed that the most widely used antibiotic was amoxicillin both with and without clavulanic acid, in different dosages and duration. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups for development of postoperative complications. (4) Conclusions: Based on the analysis of the included studies, penicillin is currently the most widely prescribed group of antibiotics. The widespread use of this antibiotic group can lead to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Due to increasing prevalence of bacteria resistance to penicillins, clinicians should carefully prescribe these antibiotics and be aware that the widespread use of amoxicillin may do more harm than good for the population.
PubMed: 35448066
DOI: 10.3390/dj10040072 -
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