-
The Journal of Infection Oct 2020Compared with guideline recommendations, antibiotic overuse is common in treating cellulitis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses on antibiotic route and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Compared with guideline recommendations, antibiotic overuse is common in treating cellulitis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses on antibiotic route and duration of treatment for cellulitis in adults and children.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registries from inception to Dec 11, 2019 for interventional and observational studies of antibiotic treatment for cellulitis. Exclusions included case series/reports, pre-septal/orbital cellulitis and non-English language articles. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to produce summary relative risk (RR) estimates for our primary outcome of clinical response.
PROSPERO
CRD42018100602.
RESULTS
We included 47/8423 articles, incorporating data from eleven trials (1855 patients) in two meta-analyses. The overall risk of bias was moderate. Only two trials compared the same antibiotic agent in each group. We found no evidence of difference in clinical response rates for antibiotic route or duration (RR(oral:IV)=1.12, 95%CI 0.98-1.27, I=32% and RR(shorter:longer)=0.99, 95%CI 0•96-1.03, I = 0%, respectively). Findings were consistent in observational studies. Follow-up data beyond 30 days were sparse.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence base for antibiotic treatment decisions in cellulitis is flawed by biased comparisons, short follow-up and lack of data around harms of antibiotic overuse. Future research should focus on developing patient-tailored antibiotic prescribing for cellulitis to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cellulitis; Child; Humans
PubMed: 32745638
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.07.030 -
International Journal of Molecular... Apr 2022Bacteriophages offer an alternative for the treatment of multidrug-resistant bacterial diseases as their mechanism of action differs from that of antibiotics. However,... (Review)
Review
Bacteriophages offer an alternative for the treatment of multidrug-resistant bacterial diseases as their mechanism of action differs from that of antibiotics. However, their application in the clinical field is limited to specific cases of patients with few or no other alternative therapies. This systematic review assesses the effectiveness and safety of phage therapy against multidrug-resistant bacteria through the evaluation of studies published over the past decade. To that end, a bibliographic search was carried out in the PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases. Of the 1500 studies found, 27 met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 165 treated patients. Treatment effectiveness, defined as the reduction in or elimination of the bacterial load, was 85%. Except for two patients who died from causes unrelated to phage therapy, no serious adverse events were reported. This shows that phage therapy could be an alternative treatment for patients with infections associated with multidrug-resistant bacteria. However, owing to the phage specificity required for the treatment of various bacterial strains, this therapy must be personalized in terms of bacteriophage type, route of administration, and dosage.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Bacteriophages; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Humans; Phage Therapy
PubMed: 35562968
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23094577 -
Microbiology Spectrum Apr 2022Several clinicians use ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) to treat bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to carbapenem-resistant (CRE), although no conclusive data support... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Several clinicians use ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) to treat bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to carbapenem-resistant (CRE), although no conclusive data support this practice. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of CAZ-AVI in the treatment of CRE bacteremia. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched until 5 November 2021. Studies comparing the clinical outcome of CAZ-AVI with other regimens in CRE BSI were included if they reported data on mortality. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences with accompanying 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Eleven articles with 1,205 patients were included. CAZ-AVI groups showed a significantly lower 30-day mortality than control groups of other regimens (RR = 0.55, 95% CI of 0.45 to 0.68, < 0.00001). The result is robust when a colistin-based regimen serves as the control group (RR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 of 0.69, < 0.0001). In subgroup meta-analyses, the 30-day mortality was significantly lower in patients infected with CRE producing Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (RR = 0.59, 95% CI of 0.46 to 0.75, < 0.0001). Additionally, patients in CAZ-AVI groups had a significantly higher clinical cure rate (RR = 1.75, 95% CI of 1.57 to 2.18, < 0.00001) and lower nephrotoxicity rate (RR = 0.41, 95% CI of 0.20 to 0.84, = 0.02). No significant differences of relapse rates were demonstrated in 2 groups (RR = 0.69, 95% CI of 0.29 to 1.66, = 0.41). Although the current study is based on observational studies with a small sample of participants, the findings suggest that CAZ-AVI treatment is effective and safe compared with other antibiotics, including colistin, in CRE BSI. Ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) has been used as a frontline agent in the treatment of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacterial infections. However, the efficacy and safety of CAZ-AVI on carbapenem-resistant (CRE) bloodstream infections (BSIs) remain unclear. Patients with CRE BSIs were often enrolled in small-sized clinical studies, together with other sites of infections, which reported pooled results. In this meta-analysis, the efficacy and safety were compared between CAZ-AVI and any other regimens used against CRE infections. The findings suggest that patients in the CAZ-AVI group had a significantly lower 30-day mortality than any other regimens and than colistin-based regimens. This paper provides a rationale for the use of CAZ-AVI in one of the most urgent antimicrobial-resistant infections of CRE bloodstream infections.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azabicyclo Compounds; Carbapenems; Ceftazidime; Colistin; Drug Combinations; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Sepsis
PubMed: 35377233
DOI: 10.1128/spectrum.02603-21 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017People with diabetes are at high risk for developing foot ulcers, which often become infected. These wounds, especially when infected, cause substantial morbidity. Wound... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with diabetes are at high risk for developing foot ulcers, which often become infected. These wounds, especially when infected, cause substantial morbidity. Wound treatments should aim to alleviate symptoms, promote healing, and avoid adverse outcomes, especially lower extremity amputation. Topical antimicrobial therapy has been used on diabetic foot ulcers, either as a treatment for clinically infected wounds, or to prevent infection in clinically uninfected wounds.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of treatment with topical antimicrobial agents on: the resolution of signs and symptoms of infection; the healing of infected diabetic foot ulcers; and preventing infection and improving healing in clinically uninfected diabetic foot ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus in August 2016. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and checked reference lists to identify additional studies. We used no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials conducted in any setting (inpatient or outpatient) that evaluated topical treatment with any type of solid or liquid (e.g., cream, gel, ointment) antimicrobial agent, including antiseptics, antibiotics, and antimicrobial dressings, in people with diabetes mellitus who were diagnosed with an ulcer or open wound of the foot, whether clinically infected or uninfected.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. Initial disagreements were resolved by discussion, or by including a third review author when necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We found 22 trials that met our inclusion criteria with a total of over 2310 participants (one study did not report number of participants). The included studies mostly had small numbers of participants (from 4 to 317) and relatively short follow-up periods (4 to 24 weeks). At baseline, six trials included only people with ulcers that were clinically infected; one trial included people with both infected and uninfected ulcers; two trials included people with non-infected ulcers; and the remaining 13 studies did not report infection status.Included studies employed various topical antimicrobial treatments, including antimicrobial dressings (e.g. silver, iodides), super-oxidised aqueous solutions, zinc hyaluronate, silver sulphadiazine, tretinoin, pexiganan cream, and chloramine. We performed the following five comparisons based on the included studies: Antimicrobial dressings compared with non-antimicrobial dressings: Pooled data from five trials with a total of 945 participants suggest (based on the average treatment effect from a random-effects model) that more wounds may heal when treated with an antimicrobial dressing than with a non-antimicrobial dressing: risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 1.45. These results correspond to an additional 119 healing events in the antimicrobial-dressing arm per 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 191 more). We consider this low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice due to risk of bias). The evidence on adverse events or other outcomes was uncertain (very low-certainty evidence, frequently downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Antimicrobial topical treatments (non dressings) compared with non-antimicrobial topical treatments (non dressings): There were four trials with a total of 132 participants in this comparison that contributed variously to the estimates of outcome data. Evidence was generally of low or very low certainty, and the 95% CIs spanned benefit and harm: proportion of wounds healed RR 2.82 (95% CI 0.56 to 14.23; 112 participants; 3 trials; very low-certainty evidence); achieving resolution of infection RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.54 to 2.51; 40 participants; 1 trial; low-certainty evidence); undergoing surgical resection RR 1.67 (95% CI 0.47 to 5.90; 40 participants; 1 trial; low-certainty evidence); and sustaining an adverse event (no events in either arm; 81 participants; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison of different topical antimicrobial treatments: We included eight studies with a total of 250 participants, but all of the comparisons were different and no data could be appropriately pooled. Reported outcome data were limited and we are uncertain about the relative effects of antimicrobial topical agents for each of our review outcomes for this comparison, that is wound healing, resolution of infection, surgical resection, and adverse events (all very low-certainty evidence). Topical antimicrobials compared with systemic antibiotics : We included four studies with a total of 937 participants. These studies reported no wound-healing data, and the evidence was uncertain for the relative effects on resolution of infection in infected ulcers and surgical resection (very low certainty). On average, there is probably little difference in the risk of adverse events between the compared topical antimicrobial and systemic antibiotics treatments: RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.06; moderate-certainty evidence - downgraded once for inconsistency). Topical antimicrobial agents compared with growth factor: We included one study with 40 participants. The only review-relevant outcome reported was number of ulcers healed, and these data were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The randomised controlled trial data on the effectiveness and safety of topical antimicrobial treatments for diabetic foot ulcers is limited by the availability of relatively few, mostly small, and often poorly designed trials. Based on our systematic review and analysis of the literature, we suggest that: 1) use of an antimicrobial dressing instead of a non-antimicrobial dressing may increase the number of diabetic foot ulcers healed over a medium-term follow-up period (low-certainty evidence); and 2) there is probably little difference in the risk of adverse events related to treatment between systemic antibiotics and topical antimicrobial treatments based on the available studies (moderate-certainty evidence). For each of the other outcomes we examined there were either no reported data or the available data left us uncertain as to whether or not there were any differences between the compared treatments. Given the high, and increasing, frequency of diabetic foot wounds, we encourage investigators to undertake properly designed randomised controlled trials in this area to evaluate the effects of topical antimicrobial treatments for both the prevention and the treatment of infection in these wounds and ultimately the effects on wound healing.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Diabetic Foot; Foot Ulcer; Humans; Incidence; Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28613416
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011038.pub2 -
Journal of Infection and Public Health Mar 2023There is paucity of data describing the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial resistance. This review evaluated the changes in the rate of multidrug resistant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is paucity of data describing the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial resistance. This review evaluated the changes in the rate of multidrug resistant gram negative and gram positive bacteria during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS
A search was conducted in PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases to identify eligible studies. Studies that reported the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), extended-spectrum beta-lactamase inhibitor (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae, vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CPE) were selected. Studies published in English language from the start of COVID-19 pandemic to July 2022 were considered for inclusion.
RESULTS
Thirty eligible studies were selected and most of them were from Italy (n = 8), Turkey (n = 3) and Brazil (n = 3). The results indicated changes in the rate of multidrug resistant bacteria, and the changes varied between the studies. Most studies (54.5%) reported increase in MRSA infection/colonization during the pandemic, and the increase ranged from 4.6 to 170.6%. Five studies (55.6%) reported a 6.8-65.1% increase in VRE infection/colonization during the pandemic. A 2.4-58.2% decrease in ESBL E. coli and a 1.8-13.3% reduction in ESBL Klebsiella pneumoniae was observed during the pandemic. For CRAB, most studies (58.3%) reported 1.5-621.6% increase in infection/colonization during the pandemic. Overall, studies showed increase in the rate of CRE infection/colonization during the pandemic. There was a reduction in carbapenem-resistant E. coli during COVID-19 pandemic, and an increase in carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae. Most studies (55.6%) showed 10.4 - 40.9% reduction in the rate of CRPA infection during the pandemic.
CONCLUSION
There is an increase in the rate of multidrug resistant gram positive and gram negative bacteria during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the rate of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae and CRPA has decrease during the pandemic. Both infection prevention and control strategies and antimicrobial stewardship should be strengthen to address the increasing rate of multidrug resistant gram positive and gram negative bacteria.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Pandemics; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Escherichia coli; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Gram-Positive Bacteria; COVID-19; Enterobacteriaceae; Klebsiella pneumoniae; Carbapenems; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 36657243
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2022.12.022 -
Emerging Microbes & Infections Dec 2022Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are global health challenges. The burden of antibiotic resistance in HAIs is still unclear in low-... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are global health challenges. The burden of antibiotic resistance in HAIs is still unclear in low- and lower-middle-income countries (L-LMICs). This study summarizes recent data on antibiotic resistance in priority HAIs (ESKAPE-E) in L-LMICs and compares them with data from high-income countries (HICs). EMBASE, Web of Science, and Global Index Medicus were searched for studies on AMR patterns in HAIs published from 01/2010 to 10/2020. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to obtain pooled estimates. In total, 163 eligible studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. The pooled methicillin resistance proportion in was 48.4% (95% confidence interval [95%CI] 41·7-55·2, n = 80). Pooled carbapenem resistance proportions were high in Gram-negative pathogens: : 16·6% (95%CI 10·7-23·4, n = 60); : 34·9% (95%CI 24·6-45·9, n = 50); : 37.1% (95%CI 24·6-45·9, n = 56); spp.: 51·2% (95%CI 27·5-74·7, n = 7); and 72·4% (95%CI 62·1-81·7%, n = 36). A higher resistance proportions were observed for third-generation cephalosporins: : 78·7% (95%CI 71·5-85·2, n = 46); 78·5% (95%CI 72·1-84·2%, n = 58); and spp.: 83·5% (95%CI 71·9-92·8, n = 8). We observed a high between-study heterogeneity (I > 80%), which could not be explained by our set of moderators. Pooled resistance proportions for Gram-negative pathogens were higher in L-LMICs than regional and national estimates from HICs. Patients in resource-constrained regions are particularly affected by AMR. To combat the high resistance to critical antibiotics in L-LMICs, and bridge disparities in health, it is crucial to strengthen local surveillance and the health systems in general.
Topics: Acinetobacter baumannii; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Developing Countries; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Hospitals; Humans; Klebsiella pneumoniae
PubMed: 35034585
DOI: 10.1080/22221751.2022.2030196 -
Advances in Therapy Mar 2020Studies assessing the effect of high dose tigecycline on severe infections are limited and remain controversial. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Studies assessing the effect of high dose tigecycline on severe infections are limited and remain controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess systematically the effectiveness and safety of high dose tigecycline in the treatment of severe infections.
METHODS
Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials were searched up to February 20, 2019 for studies that compared the effectiveness and safety of high dose tigecycline with standard dose tigecycline or other non-tigecycline-containing regimens in the treatment of severe infections. Rates for all-cause mortality, clinical cure, microbiological eradication and adverse events were analysed.
RESULTS
Ten studies with 593 patients were included. The results indicated that using high dose tigecycline resulted in better outcomes compared with controls with lower all-cause mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30-0.66, p < 0.0001), higher clinical cure (OR 3.43, 95% CI 2.09-5.63, p < 0.00001), higher microbiological eradication (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.44-3.50, p = 0.0003), and without increasing adverse events rates. Subgroup analysis showed that high dose tigecycline reduced all-cause mortality in nosocomial acquired pneumonia (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22-0.70, p = 0.002), bloodstream infections (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.58, p = 0.004) and mixed infections (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07-0.59, p = 0.003), with no statistical differences in complicated intra-abdominal infections (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.80-5.23, p = 0.14). In carbapenem-resistant pathogens, the microbiological eradication rate in those given high dose tigecycline did not differ from controls (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.44-2.60, p = 0.87), although mortality was reduced (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09-0.45, p = 0.0001). The main limitation of the review is that most of the included studies are observational studies with small sample sizes and high risks of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
High dose tigecycline treatment is effective and safe for severe infections owing to its lower all-cause mortality, higher clinical cure, microbiological eradication and comparable adverse events. However, as a result of the high risks of bias of the included studies, well-designed randomised clinical trials are warranted to establish the effectiveness and safety of high dose tigecycline compared with standard dose tigecycline and other commonly used antibiotics.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Infections; Observational Studies as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Tigecycline
PubMed: 32006240
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01235-y -
Clinical Interventions in Aging 2018Aspiration pneumonia is a common problem in older people with high mortality and increasing prevalence.
BACKGROUND
Aspiration pneumonia is a common problem in older people with high mortality and increasing prevalence.
OBJECTIVE
The aims of this paper were to systematically review the literature on the antibacterial treatment of aspiration pneumonia in elderly patients and identify the microbiology of aspiration pneumonia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies that examined the clinical efficacy of antibiotic treatment in elderly patients with aspiration pneumonia. Information on study design, antibiotic treatment, study population, participants, microbiology, clinical outcomes, adverse events, and mortality was recorded.
RESULTS
There were no definitive clinical trials, placebo-controlled trials, or meta-analyses. Of the eight studies selected for inclusion in the review, the majority utilized and/or compared broad-spectrum antibiotics. No specific antibacterial agent had evidence of superior efficacy. Broad-spectrum antibiotics resulted in the emergence of multiresistant organisms. Anaerobic bacteria were infrequently isolated, suggesting a less important role in the pathogenesis of aspiration pneumonia.
CONCLUSION
There is limited evidence with regard to the use of antibiotics in older patients with aspiration pneumonia. Research providing an evidence base for the treatment of aspiration pneumonia in older people is required.
Topics: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Humans; Pneumonia, Aspiration; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30464429
DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S183344 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Chronic 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. Topical antibiotics, the most common treatment for CSOM, 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, such as antiseptics or ear cleaning (aural toileting).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical antibiotics (without steroids) 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 1 April 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving participants (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 interventions were any single, or combination of, topical antibiotic agent(s) of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. The two main comparisons were topical antibiotic compared to a) placebo or no intervention and b) another topical antibiotic (e.g. topical antibiotic A versus topical antibiotic B). Within each comparison we separated studies where both groups of participants had received topical antibiotic a) alone or with aural toileting and b) on top of background treatment (such as systemic antibiotics).
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 17 studies with a total of 2198 participants. Twelve studies reported the sample size in terms of participants (not ears); these had a total of 1797 participants. The remaining five studies reported both the number of participants and ears, representing 401 participants, or 510 ears. A: Topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment (with aural toilet in both arms and no other background treatment) One small study compared a topical antibiotic (ciprofloxacin) with placebo (saline). All participants received aural toilet. Although ciprofloxacin was better than saline in terms of resolution of discharge at one to two weeks: 84% versus 12% (risk ratio (RR) 6.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.82 to 24.99; 35 participants, very low-certainty evidence), the very low certainty of the evidence means that it is very uncertain whether or not one intervention is better or worse than the other. The study authors reported that "no medical side-effects and worsening of audiological measurements related to this topical medication were detected" (very low-certainty evidence). B: Topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment (with use of oral antibiotics in both arms) Four studies compared topical ciprofloxacin to no treatment (three studies; 190 participants) or topical ceftizoxime to no treatment (one study; 248 participants). In each study all participants received the same antibiotic systemically (oral ciprofloxacin, injected ceftizoxime). In at least one study all participants received aural toilet. Useable data were only available from the first three studies; ciprofloxacin was better than no treatment, resolution of discharge occurring in 88.2% versus 60% at one to two weeks (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.80; 2 studies, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported ear pain or discomfort/local irritation. C: Comparisons of different topical antibiotics The certainty of evidence for all outcomes in these comparisons is very low. Quinolones versus aminoglycosides Seven studies compared an aminoglycoside (gentamicin, neomycin or tobramycin) with ciprofloxacin (734 participants) or ofloxacin (214 participants). Whilst resolution of discharge at one to two weeks was higher in the quinolones group the very low certainty of the evidence means that it is very uncertain whether or not one intervention is better or worse than the other (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.29; 6 studies, 694 participants). One study measured ear pain and reported no difference between the groups. Quinolones versus aminoglycosides/polymyxin B combination ±gramicidin We identified three studies but data on our primary outcome were only available in one study. Comparing ciprofloxacin to a neomycin/polymyxin B/gramicidin combination, for an unknown treatment duration (likely four weeks), ciprofloxacin was better (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.22, 186 participants). A "few" patients experienced local irritation upon the first instillation of topical treatment (numbers/groups not stated). Others Other studies examined topical gentamicin versus a trimethoprim/sulphacetamide/polymixin B combination (91 participants) and rifampicin versus chloramphenicol (160 participants). Limited data were available and the findings were very uncertain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain about the effectiveness of topical antibiotics in improving resolution of ear discharge in patients with CSOM because of the limited amount of low-quality evidence available. However, amongst this uncertainty there is some evidence to suggest that the use of topical antibiotics may be effective when compared to placebo, or when used in addition to a systemic antibiotic. There is also uncertainty about the relative effectiveness of different types of antibiotics; it is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not quinolones are better or worse than 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; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chronic Disease; Humans; Otitis Media, Suppurative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31896168
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013051.pub2 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery Sep 2021Platelet rich plasma or PRP is a supraphysiologic concentrate of platelets derived by centrifugation and separation of whole blood components. Along with platelets and... (Review)
Review
Platelet rich plasma or PRP is a supraphysiologic concentrate of platelets derived by centrifugation and separation of whole blood components. Along with platelets and plasma, PRP contains various cell types including white blood cells (WBC)/leukocytes, both granulocytes (neutrophils, basophils, eosinophils) and agranulocytes (monocytes, lymphocytes). Researchers and clinicians have explored the application of PRP in wound healing and prevention of surgical wound infections, such as deep sternal wounds. We conducted this systematic literature review to evaluate the preclinical and clinical evidence for the antibacterial effect of PRP and its potential mechanism of action. 526 records were identified for screening. 34 unique articles were identified to be included in this literature review for data summary. Overall, the quality of the clinical trials in this review is low, and collectively qualify as Oxford level C. Based on the available clinical data, there is a clear trend towards safety of autologous PRP and potential efficacy in deep sternal wound management. The preclinical and bench data is very compelling. The application of PRP in treatment of wounds or prevention of infection with PRP is promising but there is a need for foundational bench and preclinical animal research to optimize PRP as an antibacterial agent, and to provide data to aid in the design and conduct of well-designed RCTs with adequate power to confirm antimicrobial efficacy of PRP in specific disease states and wound types.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing
PubMed: 34583720
DOI: 10.1186/s13019-021-01652-2