-
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Mar 2021This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with high-dose sulbactam or colistin with additional antibacterial agents for treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative efficacy and safety of combination therapy with high-dose sulbactam or colistin with additional antibacterial agents for multiple drug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with high-dose sulbactam or colistin with additional antibacterial agents for treating multidrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (MDR-AB or XDR-AB) infections.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science (through March 30, 2020) for studies that examined high-dose sulbactam or colistin with additional antibacterial agents as therapy for patients with infections with MDR-AB and XDR-AB. Through a network meta-analysis (NMA), using both direct and indirect evidence, we determined risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Primary outcomes included clinical improvement, clinical cure, microbiological eradication, and mortality from any cause. Secondary outcomes included nephrotoxicity.
RESULTS
The NMA included 18 studies and 1835 patients. We found that high-dose sulbactam (≥6 g per day), combined with another single antibacterial agent (levofloxacin or tigecycline), which were the highest ranking in clinical improvement and clinical cure. Still colistin-based combination in drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii therapy occupied the main position (the number of studies and patients) in most studies. Colistin combined with additional antibacterial agents was associated with a higher risk of nephrotoxicity.
CONCLUSIONS
Therapeutic regimens including high-dose sulbactam in combination with additional antibacterial agents (including colistin) might be one of the promising options for the treatment of MDR-AB or XDR-AB infections and high-quality study will be needed to confirm clinical efficacy.
Topics: Acinetobacter Infections; Acinetobacter baumannii; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Colistin; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Minocycline; Network Meta-Analysis; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Sulbactam
PubMed: 32889142
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2020.08.021 -
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy May 2024The prevalence of obesity has increased considerably in the last few decades. Pathophysiological changes in obese patients lead to pharmacokinetic (PK) and...
The prevalence of obesity has increased considerably in the last few decades. Pathophysiological changes in obese patients lead to pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) alterations that can condition the correct exposure to antimicrobials if standard dosages are used. Inadequate dosing in obese patients can lead to toxicity or therapeutic failure. In recent years, additional antimicrobial PK/PD data, extended infusion strategies, and studies in critically ill patients have made it possible to obtain data to provide a better dosage in obese patients. Despite this, it is usually difficult to find information on drug dosing in this population, which is sometimes contradictory. This is a comprehensive review of the dosing of different types of antimicrobials (antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals, and antituberculosis drugs) in obese patients, where the literature on PK and possible dosing strategies in obese adults was critically assessed.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Antifungal Agents; Antitubercular Agents; Antiviral Agents; Critical Illness; Obesity
PubMed: 38526051
DOI: 10.1128/aac.01719-23 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Apr 2018We sought to determine if clinical data validate the dogma that bactericidal antibiotics are more clinically effective than bacteriostatic agents. We performed a...
We sought to determine if clinical data validate the dogma that bactericidal antibiotics are more clinically effective than bacteriostatic agents. We performed a systematic literature review of published, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a bacteriostatic agent to a bactericidal agent in the treatment of clinical, bacterial infections. Of 56 identified trials published since 1985, 49 found no significant difference in efficacy between bacteriostatic and bactericidal agents. In 6 trials it was found that the bacteriostatic agent was superior to the bactericidal agent in efficacy. Only 1 trial found that the bactericidal agent was superior; in that case, the inferiority of the static agent was explainable by underdosing of the drug based on pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis. Thus, virtually all available data from high-quality, RCTs demonstrate no intrinsic superiority of bactericidal compared to bacteriostatic agents. Other drug characteristics such as optimal dosing, pharmacokinetics, and tissue penetration may be more important efficacy drivers.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29293890
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cix1127 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Jul 2016Antimicrobial stewardship is advocated to improve the quality of antimicrobial use. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether antimicrobial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antimicrobial stewardship is advocated to improve the quality of antimicrobial use. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether antimicrobial stewardship objectives had any effects in hospitals and long-term care facilities on four predefined patients' outcomes: clinical outcomes, adverse events, costs, and bacterial resistance rates.
METHODS
We identified 14 stewardship objectives and did a separate systematic search for articles relating to each one in Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed. Studies were included if they reported data on any of the four predefined outcomes in patients in whom the specific antimicrobial stewardship objective was assessed and compared the findings in patients in whom the objective was or was not met. We used a random-effects model to calculate relative risk reductions with relative risks and 95% CIs.
FINDINGS
We identified 145 unique studies with data on nine stewardship objectives. Overall, the quality of evidence was generally low and heterogeneity between studies was mostly moderate to high. For the objectives empirical therapy according to guidelines, de-escalation of therapy, switch from intravenous to oral treatment, therapeutic drug monitoring, use of a list of restricted antibiotics, and bedside consultation the overall evidence showed significant benefits for one or more of the four outcomes. Guideline-adherent empirical therapy was associated with a relative risk reduction for mortality of 35% (relative risk 0·65, 95% CI 0·54-0·80, p<0·0001) and for de-escalation of 56% (0·44, 0·30-0·66, p<0·0001). Evidence of effects was less clear for adjusting therapy according to renal function, discontinuing therapy based on lack of clinical or microbiological evidence of infection, and having a local antibiotic guide. We found no reports for the remaining five stewardship objectives or for long-term care facilities.
INTERPRETATION
Our findings of beneficial effects on outcomes with nine antimicrobial stewardship objectives suggest they can guide stewardship teams in their efforts to improve the quality of antibiotic use in hospitals.
FUNDING
Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy and Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Bacterial Infections; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Drug Utilization; Hospitals; Humans; Netherlands; Patient Safety
PubMed: 26947617
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00065-7 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Sep 2022This systematic literature review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the risk factors for vancomycin-associated acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
This systematic literature review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the risk factors for vancomycin-associated acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence.
METHODS
This study assessed risk factors for vancomycin-associated AKI in adult patients by searching studies from PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase. Random effect models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Fifty-three studies were included in our meta-analysis. For patient factors, black race (OR 1.47, 95% CI: 1.16-1.87), Caucasian (OR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.90) and obesity (OR 1.46, 95% CI: 1.12-1.90) were associated with an increase in vancomycin-associated AKIs. In terms of vancomycin-related factors, longer treatment duration (>14 d; OR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.06-2.83), serum vancomycin trough level >15 μg/mL (OR 2.10, 95% CI: 1.43-3.07) and vancomycin trough level >20 μg/mL (OR 2.84, 95% CI: 1.48-5.44) increased the risks of vancomycin-associated AKI. For comorbidities and clinical factors, renal disease (OR 2.19, 95% CI: 1.51-3.17) showed the highest odds of vancomycin-associated AKI, followed by hepatic disease, intensive care unit admission, heart failure, sepsis, coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus. For concomitant nephrotoxic drugs, amphotericin B (OR 5.21, 95% CI: 3.44-7.87) showed the highest odds of vancomycin-associated AKI, followed by acyclovir (OR 3.22, 95% CI: 1.39-7.46), vasopressors, loop diuretics, piperacillin-tazobactam and aminoglycoside. The use of any concomitant nephrotoxic agent (OR 1.74, 95% CI: 1.17-2.58) increased the odds of vancomycin-associated AKI.
CONCLUSION
Our results may help predict the risk of vancomycin-associated AKI in the clinical setting.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Vancomycin
PubMed: 35665530
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15429 -
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection... Sep 2020Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile is an important pathogen of healthcare- associated diarrhea, however, an increase in the occurrence of C. difficile infection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile is an important pathogen of healthcare- associated diarrhea, however, an increase in the occurrence of C. difficile infection (CDI) outside hospital settings has been reported. The accumulation of antimicrobial resistance in C. difficile can increase the risk of CDI development and/or its spread. The limited number of antimicrobials for the treatment of CDI is matter of some concern.
OBJECTIVES
In order to summarize the data on antimicrobial resistance to C. difficile derived from humans, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed.
METHODS
We searched five bibliographic databases: (MEDLINE [PubMed], Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) for studies that focused on antimicrobial susceptibility testing in C. difficile and were published between 1992 and 2019. The weighted pooled resistance (WPR) for each antimicrobial agent was calculated using a random- effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 111 studies were included. The WPR for metronidazole and vancomycin was 1.0% (95% CI 0-3%) and 1% (95% CI 0-2%) for the breakpoint > 2 mg/L and 0% (95% CI 0%) for breakpoint ≥32 μg/ml. Rifampin and tigecycline had a WPRs of 37.0% (95% CI 18-58%) and 1% (95% CI 0-3%), respectively. The WPRs for the other antimicrobials were as follows: ciprofloxacin 95% (95% CI 85-100%), moxifloxacin 32% (95% CI 25-40%), clindamycin 59% (95% CI 53-65%), amoxicillin/clavulanate 0% (0-0%), piperacillin/tazobactam 0% (0-0%) and ceftriaxone 47% (95% CI 29-65%). Tetracycline had a WPR 20% (95% CI 14-27%) and meropenem showed 0% (95% CI 0-1%); resistance to fidaxomicin was reported in one isolate (0.08%).
CONCLUSION
Resistance to metronidazole, vancomycin, fidaxomicin, meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam is reported rarely. From the alternative CDI drug treatments, tigecycline had a lower resistance rate than rifampin. The high-risk antimicrobials for CDI development showed a high level of resistance, the highest was seen in the second generation of fluoroquinolones and clindamycin; amoxicillin/clavulanate showed almost no resistance. Tetracycline resistance was present in one fifth of human clinical C. difficile isolates.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clindamycin; Clostridioides difficile; Clostridium Infections; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 32977835
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-020-00815-5 -
Revista Do Instituto de Medicina... 2021The aim of this study was to establish an evidence-based guideline for the antibiotic treatment of Corynebacterium striatum infections. Several electronic databases were...
The aim of this study was to establish an evidence-based guideline for the antibiotic treatment of Corynebacterium striatum infections. Several electronic databases were systematically searched for clinical trials, observational studies or individual cases on patients of any age and gender with systemic inflammatory response syndrome, harboring C. striatum isolated from body fluids or tissues in which it is not normally present. C. striatum had to be identified as the only causative agent of the invasive infection, and its isolation from blood, body fluids or tissues had to be confirmed by one of the more advanced diagnostic methods (biochemical methods, mass spectrometry and/or gene sequencing). This systematic review included 42 studies that analyzed 85 individual cases with various invasive infections caused by C. striatum. More than one isolate of C. striatum exhibited 100% susceptibility to vancomycin, linezolid, teicoplanin, piperacillin-tazobactam, amoxicillin-clavulanate and cefuroxime. On the other hand, some strains of this bacterium showed a high degree of resistance to fluoroquinolones, to the majority majority of β-lactams, aminoglycosides, macrolides, lincosamides and cotrimoxazole. Despite the antibiotic treatment, fatal outcomes were reported in almost 20% of the patients included in this study. Gene sequencing methods should be the gold standard for the identification of C. striatum, while MALDI-TOF and the Vitek system can be used as alternative methods. Vancomycin should be used as the antibiotic of choice for the treatment of C. striatum infections, in monotherapy or in combination with piperacillin-tazobactam. Alternatively, linezolid, teicoplanin or daptomycin may be used in severe infections, while amoxicillin-clavulanate may be used to treat mild infections caused by C. striatum.
Topics: Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Corynebacterium; Corynebacterium Infections; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 34161555
DOI: 10.1590/S1678-9946202163049 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... 2022Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health threat; rapid and timely identification of AMR improves patient prognosis and reduces inappropriate antibiotic use. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health threat; rapid and timely identification of AMR improves patient prognosis and reduces inappropriate antibiotic use.
METHODS
Relevant literature in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers prior to 28 September 2021 was searched. Any study that deployed machine learning (ML) or a risk score as a tool to predict AMR was included in the final review; there were 25 studies that employed the ML algorithm to predict AMR.
RESULTS
Extended spectrum β-lactamases, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and carbapenem resistance were the most common outcomes in studies with a specific resistance pattern. The most common algorithms in ML prediction were logistic regression (n = 14 studies), decision tree (n = 14) and random forest (n = 7). The area under the curve (AUC) range for ML prediction was 0.48-0.93. The pooled AUC for ML prediction was 0.82 (0.78-0.85). Compared with risk score, higher specificity [87% (82-91) vs. 37% (25-51)] was indicated for ML prediction, but not sensitivity [67% (62-72) vs. 73% (67-79)].
CONCLUSIONS
Machine learning might be a potential technology for AMR prediction; however, retrospective methodology for model development, nonstandard data processing and scarcity of validation in a randomised controlled trial or real-world study limit the application of these models in clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Retrospective Studies; Machine Learning
PubMed: 36279973
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2022.106684 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023The success of elective colorectal surgery is mainly influenced by the surgical procedure and postoperative complications. The most serious complications include... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The success of elective colorectal surgery is mainly influenced by the surgical procedure and postoperative complications. The most serious complications include anastomotic leakages and surgical site infections (SSI)s, which can lead to prolonged recovery with impaired long-term health. Compared with other abdominal procedures, colorectal resections have an increased risk of adverse events due to the physiological bacterial colonisation of the large bowel. Preoperative bowel preparation is used to remove faeces from the bowel lumen and reduce bacterial colonisation. This bowel preparation can be performed mechanically and/or with oral antibiotics. While mechanical bowel preparation alone is not beneficial, the benefits and harms of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation is still unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the use of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and trial registries on 15 December 2021. In addition, we searched reference lists and contacted colorectal surgery organisations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult participants undergoing elective colorectal surgery comparing combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MBP+oAB) with either MBP alone, oAB alone, or no bowel preparation (nBP). We excluded studies in which no perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis was given.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Pooled results were reported as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 RCTs analysing 5264 participants who underwent elective colorectal surgery. None of the included studies had a high risk of bias, but two-thirds of the included studies raised some concerns. This was mainly due to the lack of a predefined analysis plan or missing information about the randomisation process. Most included studies investigated both colon and rectal resections due to malignant and benign surgical indications. For MBP as well as oAB, the included studies used different regimens in terms of agent(s), dosage and timing. Data for all predefined outcomes could be extracted from the included studies. However, only four studies reported on side effects of bowel preparation, and none recorded the occurrence of adverse effects such as dehydration, electrolyte imbalances or the need to discontinue the intervention due to side effects. Seventeen trials compared MBP+oAB with sole MBP. The incidence of SSI could be reduced through MBP+oAB by 44% (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.74; 3917 participants from 16 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and the risk of anastomotic leakage could be reduced by 40% (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.99; 2356 participants from 10 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). No difference between the two comparison groups was found with regard to mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.82; 639 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.32; 2013 participants from 6 studies, low-certainty of evidence) and length of hospital stay (MD -0.19, 95% CI -1.81 to 1.44; 621 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Three trials compared MBP+oAB with sole oAB. No difference was demonstrated between the two treatment alternatives in terms of SSI (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.21; 960 participants from 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence), anastomotic leakage (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.45; 960 participants from 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.50; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.33; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.1 respectively 0.2, 95% CI -0.68 to 1.08; data from 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (396 participants) compared MBP+oAB versus nBP. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of MBP+oAB on the incidence of SSI as well as mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23 respectively RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; low-certainty evidence), while no effect on the risk of anastomotic leakages (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.42; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81; low-certainty evidence) or the length of hospital stay (MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.8 to 1; low-certainty evidence) could be demonstrated.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on moderate-certainty evidence, our results suggest that MBP+oAB is probably more effective than MBP alone in preventing postoperative complications. In particular, with respect to our primary outcomes, SSI and anastomotic leakage, a lower incidence was demonstrated using MBP+oAB. Whether oAB alone is actually equivalent to MBP+oAB, or leads to a reduction or increase in the risk of postoperative complications, cannot be clarified in light of the low- to very low-certainty evidence. Similarly, it remains unclear whether omitting preoperative bowel preparation leads to an increase in the risk of postoperative complications due to limited evidence. Additional RCTs, particularly on the comparisons of MBP+oAB versus oAB alone or nBP, are needed to assess the impact of oAB alone or nBP compared with MBP+oAB on postoperative complications and to improve confidence in the estimated effect. In addition, RCTs focusing on subgroups (e.g. in relation to type and location of colon resections) or reporting side effects of the intervention are needed to determine the most effective approach of preoperative bowel preparation.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anastomotic Leak; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Colorectal Surgery; Ileus; Surgical Wound Infection; Preoperative Care
PubMed: 36748942
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014909.pub2 -
The Journal of Antimicrobial... Oct 2016The objectives of this study were to identify the amikacin dosage regimens and drug concentrations consistent with good outcomes and to determine the drug exposures... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study were to identify the amikacin dosage regimens and drug concentrations consistent with good outcomes and to determine the drug exposures related to nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity.
METHODS
A literature review was conducted in Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Full journal articles reporting randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, interrupted time series trials, and controlled before and after studies involving amikacin therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and dose adjustment were considered for inclusion.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies for inclusion were identified, comprising 1677 participants. Amikacin doses ranged from 11 to 15 mg/kg/day with 13 studies using 15 mg/kg/day. Studies were generally designed to compare different aminoglycosides rather than to assess concentration-effect relationships. Only 11 papers presented data on target concentrations, rate of clinical cure and toxicity. Target peak concentrations ranged from 15 to 40 mg/L and target troughs were typically <10 or <5 mg/L. It was not clear whether these targets were achieved. Measured peaks averaged 28 mg/L for twice-daily dosing and 40-45 mg/L for once-daily dosing; troughs averaged 5 and 1-2 mg/L, respectively. Fifteen of the included studies reported rates of nephrotoxicity; auditory and vestibular toxicities were reported in 12 and 8 studies.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review found little published evidence to support an optimal dosage regimen or TDM targets for amikacin therapy. The use of alternative approaches, such as consensus opinion and a review of current practice, will be required to develop guidelines to maximize therapeutic outcomes and minimize toxicity with amikacin.
Topics: Adult; Amikacin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Monitoring; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Interrupted Time Series Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27494904
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkw250