-
Journal of Clinical and Experimental... Oct 2022Patients with odontogenic infections are commonly prescribed antimicrobials on an experiential base without knowing the precise microorganisms implicated. The aim of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patients with odontogenic infections are commonly prescribed antimicrobials on an experiential base without knowing the precise microorganisms implicated. The aim of this systematic scoping review is to evaluate the prevalence and proportions of antimicrobial-resistant species in patients with odontogenic infections.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic scoping review of scientific evidence was accomplished involving different databases.
RESULTS
Eight randomized clinical trials and 13 prospective observational studies were included. These investigations analyzed 1506 patients. The species that showed higher levels of resistance included aerobic and facultative anaerobe such as , and . In obligate anaerobes sampled were Peptostreptococcos spp., Bacteroides spp., and Prevotella spp. Staphylococcus showed resistance to ampicillin, piperacillin, clindamycin, amoxicillin, metronidazole, and penicillin. Streptococcus had resistance to metronidazole, clindamycin, doxycycline, penicillin, and amoxicillin. Peptostreptococcus spp. presented resistance to penicillin, amoxicillin, erythromycin, and cefalexin. Gram-negative microorganisms had resistance to tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, azithromycin, amoxicillin, erythromycin, and penicillin. Bacteroides spp. exhibited resistance to penicillin, erythromycin, and gentamicin. Prevotella spp. showed resistance to penicillin, amoxicillin, erythromycin, clindamycin, levofloxacin, and imipenem. Finally, Klebsiella spp. displayed resistance to ampicillin, amoxicillin, moxifloxacin, and cefalexin. Interestingly, one clinical trial showed that after therapy there was a reduction in sensitivity of 18% for azithromycin and 26% for spiramycin.
CONCLUSIONS
Most of the microorganisms had resistance to diverse groups of antimicrobials. Suitable antimicrobials must be prescribed founded on the microbial samples, culture susceptibility, and clinical progression of the odontogenic infection. Furthermore, it was observed high levels of resistance to antimicrobials that have been used in local and systemic therapy of oral cavity infections. A preponderance of anaerobic microorganisms over aerobic ones was observed. Antibiotic resistance, odontogenic infections, efficacy, microorganisms, scoping review.
PubMed: 36320675
DOI: 10.4317/jced.59830 -
Increased risk of hearing loss associated with macrolide use: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific Reports Jan 2024The increased risk of hearing loss with macrolides remains controversial. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze data on the clinical risk of hearing loss,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The increased risk of hearing loss with macrolides remains controversial. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze data on the clinical risk of hearing loss, tinnitus, and ototoxicity following macrolide use. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases from database inception to May 2023. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and text keywords were utilized, without any language restrictions. In addition to the electronic databases, two authors manually and independently searched for relevant studies in the US and European clinical trial registries and Google Scholar. Studies that involved (1) patients who had hearing loss, tinnitus, or ototoxicity after macrolide use, (2) intervention of use of macrolides such as azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, fidaxomicin, roxithromycin, spiramycin, and/or telithromycin, (3) comparisons with specified placebos or other antibiotics, (4) outcomes measured as odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), hazard ratio (HR), and mean difference for ototoxicity symptoms using randomized control trial (RCT)s and observational studies (case-control, cross-section, and cohort studies) were included. Data extraction was performed independently by two extractors, and a crosscheck was performed to identify any errors. ORs along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effects models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guidelines for RCTs and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines for observational studies were followed. We assessed the hearing loss risk after macrolide use versus controls (placebos and other antibiotics). Based on data from 13 studies including 1,142,021 patients (n = 267,546 for macrolide and n = 875,089 for controls), the overall pooled OR was 1.25 (95% CI 1.07-1.47). In subgroup analysis by study design, the ORs were 1.37 (95% CI 1.08-1.73) for RCTs and 1.33 (95% CI 1.24-1.43) for case-control studies, indicating that RCT and case-control study designs showed a statistically significant higher risk of hearing loss. The group with underlying diseases such as multiple infectious etiologies (OR, 1.16 [95% CI 0.96-1.41]) had a statistically significant lower risk than the group without (OR, 1.53 [95% CI 1.38-1.70] P = .013). The findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that macrolide antibiotics increase the risk of hearing loss and that healthcare professionals should carefully consider this factor while prescribing macrolides.
Topics: Humans; Macrolides; Tinnitus; Ototoxicity; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Hearing Loss; Deafness
PubMed: 38167873
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-50774-1