-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that...
BACKGROUND
Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that is disproportionate in magnitude or duration to the typical course of pain after similar injury. There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal management of CRPS, although a broad range of interventions have been described and are commonly used. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of any intervention used to reduce pain, disability, or both, in adults with CRPS.
METHODS
We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro, LILACS and Epistemonikos from inception to October 2022, with no language restrictions. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CRPS, using any diagnostic criteria. Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools respectively. We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes quality of life, emotional well-being, and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement with treatment. MAIN RESULTS: We included six Cochrane and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the previous version of this overview and five Cochrane and 12 non-Cochrane reviews in the current version. Using the AMSTAR 2 tool, we judged Cochrane reviews to have higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. The studies in the included reviews were typically small and mostly at high risk of bias or of low methodological quality. We found no high-certainty evidence for any comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may reduce pain intensity post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to -3.4, P = 0.001; I = 81%; 4 trials, n = 181) and moderate-certainty evidence that they are probably associated with increased adverse events of any nature (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.47; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 168.0; 4 trials, n = 181). There was moderate-certainty evidence that lidocaine local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade probably does not reduce pain intensity compared with placebo, and low-certainty evidence that it may not reduce pain intensity compared with ultrasound of the stellate ganglion. No effect size was reported for either comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that topical dimethyl sulfoxide may not reduce pain intensity compared with oral N-acetylcysteine, but no effect size was reported. There was low-certainty evidence that continuous bupivacaine brachial plexus block may reduce pain intensity compared with continuous bupivacaine stellate ganglion block, but no effect size was reported. For a wide range of other commonly used interventions, the certainty in the evidence was very low and provides insufficient evidence to either support or refute their use. Comparisons with low- and very low-certainty evidence should be treated with substantial caution. We did not identify any RCT evidence for routinely used pharmacological interventions for CRPS such as tricyclic antidepressants or opioids.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite a considerable increase in included evidence compared with the previous version of this overview, we identified no high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of any therapy for CRPS. Until larger, high-quality trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult. Current non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for CRPS are of low methodological quality and should not be relied upon to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the evidence.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Bupivacaine; Chronic Pain; Complex Regional Pain Syndromes; Quality of Life; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 37306570
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009416.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric fever) are febrile bacterial illnesses common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric fever) are febrile bacterial illnesses common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends treatment with azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, or ceftriaxone due to widespread resistance to older, first-line antimicrobials. Resistance patterns vary in different locations and are changing over time. Fluoroquinolone resistance in South Asia often precludes the use of ciprofloxacin. Extensively drug-resistant strains of enteric fever have emerged in Pakistan. In some areas of the world, susceptibility to old first-line antimicrobials, such as chloramphenicol, has re-appeared. A Cochrane Review of the use of fluoroquinolones and azithromycin in the treatment of enteric fever has previously been undertaken, but the use of cephalosporins has not been systematically investigated and the optimal choice of drug and duration of treatment are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of cephalosporins for treating enteric fever in children and adults compared to other antimicrobials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 24 November 2021. We also searched reference lists of included trials, contacted researchers working in the field, and contacted relevant organizations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and children with enteric fever that compared a cephalosporin to another antimicrobial, a different cephalosporin, or a different treatment duration of the intervention cephalosporin. Enteric fever was diagnosed on the basis of blood culture, bone marrow culture, or molecular tests.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse. Our secondary outcomes were time to defervescence, duration of hospital admission, convalescent faecal carriage, and adverse effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 RCTs with 2231 total participants published between 1986 and 2016 across Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the Caribbean, with comparisons between cephalosporins and other antimicrobials used for the treatment of enteric fever in children and adults. The main comparisons are between antimicrobials in most common clinical use, namely cephalosporins compared to a fluoroquinolone and cephalosporins compared to azithromycin. Cephalosporin (cefixime) versus fluoroquinolones Clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse may be increased in patients treated with cefixime compared to fluoroquinolones in three small trials published over 14 years ago: clinical failure (risk ratio (RR) 13.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.24 to 55.39; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 4.07, 95% CI 0.46 to 36.41; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 4.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 17.84; 2 trials, 220 participants; low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with cefixime may be longer compared to participants treated with fluoroquinolones (mean difference (MD) 1.74 days, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.98, 3 trials, 425 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus azithromycin Ceftriaxone may result in a decrease in clinical failure compared to azithromycin, and it is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on microbiological failure compared to azithromycin in two small trials published over 18 years ago and in one more recent trial, all conducted in participants under 18 years of age: clinical failure (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.57; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.64, 3 trials, 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone increases or decreases relapse compared to azithromycin (RR 10.05, 95% CI 1.93 to 52.38; 3 trials, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with ceftriaxone may be shorter compared to participants treated with azithromycin (mean difference of -0.52 days, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.12; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus fluoroquinolones It is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on clinical failure, microbiological failure, relapse, and time to defervescence compared to fluoroquinolones in three trials published over 28 years ago and two more recent trials: clinical failure (RR 3.77, 95% CI 0.72 to 19.81; 4 trials, 359 participants; very low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 6.83; 3 trials, 316 participants; very low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.92; 3 trials, 297 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and time to defervescence (MD 2.73 days, 95% CI -0.37 to 5.84; 3 trials, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone decreases convalescent faecal carriage compared to the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.72; 1 trial, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and length of hospital stay may be longer in participants treated with ceftriaxone compared to participants treated with the fluoroquinolone ofloxacin (mean of 12 days (range 7 to 23 days) in the ceftriaxone group compared to a mean of 9 days (range 6 to 13 days) in the ofloxacin group; 1 trial, 47 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on very low- to low-certainty evidence, ceftriaxone is an effective treatment for adults and children with enteric fever, with few adverse effects. Trials suggest that there may be no difference in the performance of ceftriaxone compared with azithromycin, fluoroquinolones, or chloramphenicol. Cefixime can also be used for treatment of enteric fever but may not perform as well as fluoroquinolones. We are unable to draw firm general conclusions on comparative contemporary effectiveness given that most trials were small and conducted over 20 years previously. Clinicians need to take into account current, local resistance patterns in addition to route of administration when choosing an antimicrobial.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Paratyphoid Fever; Typhoid Fever; Cephalosporins; Azithromycin; Ceftriaxone; Cefixime; Fluoroquinolones; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chloramphenicol; Anti-Infective Agents; Monobactams; Ciprofloxacin; Ofloxacin; Recurrence; Pakistan
PubMed: 36420914
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010452.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2011Acute bronchitis affects over 40/1000 adults a year in the UK. The causes are usually considered to be infective, but only around half of people have identifiable... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute bronchitis affects over 40/1000 adults a year in the UK. The causes are usually considered to be infective, but only around half of people have identifiable pathogens. The role of smoking or of environmental tobacco smoke inhalation in predisposing to acute bronchitis is unclear. One third of people may have longer-term symptoms or recurrence.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute bronchitis in people without chronic respiratory disease? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to March 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 21 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: analgesics, antibiotics (macrolides, tetracyclines, cephalosporins, penicillins, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole [co-trimoxazole]), antihistamines, antitussives, beta(2) agonists (inhaled or oral), and expectorants/mucolytics.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antitussive Agents; Bronchitis; Humans; Penicillins; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination
PubMed: 21711957
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of the American Dental... Jan 2023Local anesthesia is essential for pain control in dentistry. The authors assessed the comparative effect of local anesthetics on acute dental pain after tooth extraction... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Local anesthesia is essential for pain control in dentistry. The authors assessed the comparative effect of local anesthetics on acute dental pain after tooth extraction and in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US Clinical Trials registry through November 21, 2020. The authors included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long- vs short-acting injectable anesthetics to reduce pain after tooth extraction (systematic review 1) and evaluated the effect of topical anesthetics in patients with symptomatic pulpitis (systematic review 2). Pairs of reviewers screened articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The authors assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs comparing long- vs short-acting local anesthetics suggest that bupivacaine may decrease the use of rescue analgesia and may not result in additional adverse effects (low certainty evidence). Bupivacaine probably reduces the amount of analgesic consumption compared with lidocaine with epinephrine (mean difference, -1.91 doses; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.46; moderate certainty) and mepivacaine (mean difference, -1.58 doses; 95% CI, -2.21 to -0.95; moderate certainty). Five RCTs suggest that both benzocaine 10% and 20% may increase the number of people experiencing pain reduction compared with placebo when managing acute irreversible pulpitis (low certainty).
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Bupivacaine may be superior to lidocaine with epinephrine and mepivacaine with regard to time to and amount of analgesic consumption. Benzocaine may be superior to placebo in reducing pain for 20 through 30 minutes after application.
Topics: Humans; Acute Pain; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Benzocaine; Bupivacaine; Epinephrine; Lidocaine; Mepivacaine; Pulpitis
PubMed: 36608963
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2022.10.014 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Dec 2022To assess the success rates of off-label uses of ceftaroline for infections caused by methicillin-resistant (MRSA) and evaluate emerging ceftaroline resistance. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the success rates of off-label uses of ceftaroline for infections caused by methicillin-resistant (MRSA) and evaluate emerging ceftaroline resistance.
DATA SOURCES
We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, with the search term "Ceftaroline." Articles were restricted to the English language and year of publication (January 1, 2009-January 31, 2022).
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Clinical trials, observational studies, and case reports that reported efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, use in MRSA infections other than acute bacterial skin infection and community-acquired pneumonia, and ceftaroline resistance were selected.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The search pooled 103 publications and all abstracts were reviewed. Forty-six articles that reported efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, or off-label use in multiple patients and 7 articles on ceftaroline resistance are used in this review. Ceftaroline has been approved for treatment of acute skin/soft tissue infection and community-acquired pneumonia. Ceftaroline's efficacy in off-label infections ranged from 66.7% to 87.3% depending on the types of infection. There were 14 documented cases of ceftaroline resistance associated with PBP2a changes.
RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Case series and observational studies have documented success with ceftaroline alone or in combination with vancomycin or daptomycin for treatment of MRSA bone and joint, endovascular, diabetic foot infections, and bacteremia from other causes.
CONCLUSION
Despite the lack of randomized controlled trials, ceftaroline is used as salvage therapy for different MRSA infections. The data from case series and observational studies are promising but ceftaroline should be used judiciously as ceftaroline-resistant MRSA begin to emerge.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cephalosporins; Community-Acquired Infections; Daptomycin; Drug Resistance; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Staphylococcal Infections; Vancomycin; Ceftaroline
PubMed: 35300514
DOI: 10.1177/10600280221082326 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Apr 2020Amisulpride, a first-line schizophrenia treatment, has shown large interindividual variability in plasma/serum levels, often outside the reference range (100-320 ng/mL).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Amisulpride, a first-line schizophrenia treatment, has shown large interindividual variability in plasma/serum levels, often outside the reference range (100-320 ng/mL). This study aims to clarify the impact of dose, sex, age and related factors for the interpatient variability in amisulpride plasma/serum concentration.
METHODS
Both English and Chinese databases were searched from their inception to May 16, 2019, using the terms: amisulpride and (plasma OR serum OR blood OR "drug monitoring" OR concentration). Studies reporting concentrations and either a dose, associated factor, clinical outcome or side effect were included.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies with 1628 participants were eventually included. Eligible articles yielded data on drug concentration and dose, averaging 333.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 294.5-373.3) ng/mL and 636.2 (95% CI: 549.7-722.6) mg/d, respectively. The calculated mean concentration-to-dose (C/D) ratio was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.52-0.67) (ng/mL)/mg. Subgroup analysis suggested that female patients on combined lithium-amisulpride have higher concentration levels and C/D ratios. Age was slight positive associated with C/D ratio while not for plasma level. Smoker patients have high concentration level than nonsmoking patients but not for C/D. Responsive and nonresponsive groups did not differ in concentration and C/D.
CONCLUSION
Pooled concentration levels of amisulpride were higher than recommended with wide individual variation, especially in older patients, female patients and patients taking amisulpride combined with lithium. The specific therapeutic reference range for amisulpride may require reconstruction, which should consider the influence of age, sex, kidney function, drug-drug interactions, different dose regimens and sampling times in future study.
Topics: Aged; Amisulpride; Antipsychotic Agents; Drug Monitoring; Female; Humans; Schizophrenia; Sulpiride
PubMed: 32090363
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14246 -
Systematic Reviews Nov 2022Klebsiella pneumoniae is a gram-negative rod belonging to the order Enterobacterales and having a wide distribution in the environment, including the human colon.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Klebsiella pneumoniae is a gram-negative rod belonging to the order Enterobacterales and having a wide distribution in the environment, including the human colon. Recently, the bacterium is one of the known problems in the healthcare setting as it has become resistant to last-resort drugs like carbapenems. The colonized person can serve as a reservoir for his/herself and others, especially in the healthcare setting leading to nosocomial and opportunistic infections. Therefore, we aimed to quantitatively estimate the rate of prevalence and incidence of colonization with carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, WHO Index Medicus, and university databases. The study includes all published and unpublished papers that addressed the prevalence or incidence of K. pneumoniae colonization. Data were extracted onto format in Microsoft Excel and pooled estimates with a 95% confidence interval calculated using Der-Simonian-Laird random-effects model. With the use of I statistics and prediction intervals, the level of heterogeneity was displayed. Egger's tests and funnel plots of standard error were used to demonstrate the publication bias.
RESULTS
A total of 35 studies were included in the review and 32 records with 37,661 patients for assessment of prevalence, while ten studies with 3643 patients for incidence of colonization. The prevalence of carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae colonization varies by location and ranges from 0.13 to 22%, with a pooled prevalence of 5.43%. (3.73-7.42). Whereas the incidence of colonization ranges from 2 to 73% with a pooled incidence of 22.3% (CI 12.74-31.87), both prevalence and incidence reports are majorly from developed countries. There was a variation in the distribution of carbapenem resistance genes among colonizing isolates with KPC as a prominent gene reported from many studies and NDM being reported mainly by studies from Asian countries. A univariate meta-regression analysis indicated continent, patient type, study design, and admission ward do not affect the heterogeneity (p value>0.05).
CONCLUSION
The review revealed that colonization with K. pneumoniae is higher in a healthcare setting with variable distribution in different localities, and resistance genes for carbapenem drugs also have unstable distribution in different geographic areas.
Topics: Humans; Carbapenems; Klebsiella pneumoniae; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Prevalence; Incidence; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 36380387
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-022-02110-3 -
Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology 2022Neisseria meningitidis is one of the most important causes of meningitis and pathogens-associated deaths in developing and developed countries. Effective anti-microbial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neisseria meningitidis is one of the most important causes of meningitis and pathogens-associated deaths in developing and developed countries. Effective anti-microbial agents are pivotal to treat and control N. meningitidis infections. The aim of the present study was to systematically review published studies on the antibiotic resistance of N. meningitidis in the last 20 years (2000-2020) in the world.
METHODS
Published researches were identified through a literature search using reputable databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Finally, 24 studies were included for a random-effects model meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The overall resistance to most commonly used antibiotics such as ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin and rifampin was low, ranging from 1 to 3.4%. However, non-sensitivity to penicillin, as the first-line antibiotic against N. meningitidis, was higher (27.2%). Altogether, the resistance to the first-line antibiotics (except penicillin) is still low indicating these drugs are effective against meningococcal meningitis. We also found a significant gap between MIC and disk diffusion for evaluating resistance to antibiotics in which disk diffusion overestimate the resistance rate.
CONCLUSIONS
To properly management and prevent the spread of N. miningitidis isolates resistant antibiotics, it is necessary to monitor the pattern of antibiotic susceptibility regionally and globally using the MIC methods.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Humans; Meningococcal Infections; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Neisseria meningitidis; Penicillins
PubMed: 35654713
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmmb.2022.05.005 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Aug 2023Carbapenem-sparing antibiotics are needed urgently for patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). Although several novel antibiotics - novel... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Carbapenem-sparing antibiotics are needed urgently for patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). Although several novel antibiotics - novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations (e.g. ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam) and a novel tetracycline derivative (eravacycline) - have been developed for cIAIs, it remains unclear whether these antibiotics are comparable to carbapenems for the treatment of cIAIs.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted until 1 October 2022. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical efficacy and safety of novel antibiotics against carbapenems for patients with cIAIs were included.
RESULTS
Among the 11 selected RCTs, no significant differences in clinical cure rate at the test-of-cure visit were observed between the study group and the control group on analysis of the clinically evaluable population [93.6% vs 93.7%, risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.01; P=0.84], microbiologically evaluable population (93.0% vs 94.5%, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-1.00; P=0.10) and modified intention-to-treat population (85.9% vs 87.7%, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-1.01; P=0.13). All findings were consistent across the subgroup analyses and sensitivity tests. Similarly, no significant difference in microbiological eradication was observed between the study group and the control group (87.8% vs 89.7%, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-1.01; P=0.18). The risk of adverse events was similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Clinical efficacy, microbiological response and safety of the novel antibiotics, including ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam and eravacycline, are comparable to carbapenems for the treatment of patients with cIAIs. These agents can be potential therapeutic options as carbapenem-sparing antibiotics for cIAIs.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Carbapenems; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ceftazidime; Intraabdominal Infections; Tazobactam; beta-Lactamase Inhibitors; Drug Combinations; Azabicyclo Compounds
PubMed: 37160243
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2023.106844 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2008Acute bronchitis, with transient inflammation of the trachea and major bronchi, affects over 40/1000 adults a year in the UK. The causes are usually considered to be... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute bronchitis, with transient inflammation of the trachea and major bronchi, affects over 40/1000 adults a year in the UK. The causes are usually considered to be infective, but only around half of people have identifiable pathogens. The role of smoking or of environmental tobacco smoke inhalation in predisposing to acute bronchitis is unclear. A third of people may have longer-term symptoms or recurrence.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute bronchitis in people without chronic respiratory disease? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2007 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 19 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics (amoxicillin [with or without clavulanic acid], cephalosporins, or macrolides), antihistamines, antitussives, beta(2) agonists (inhaled or oral), cephalosporins, expectorants, and analgesics.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antitussive Agents; Bronchitis; Cephalosporins; Humans
PubMed: 19445737
DOI: No ID Found