-
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Apr 2021Nocardiosis is a rare infection that is often difficult to treat and may be life-threatening. There is no consensus on its management.
BACKGROUND
Nocardiosis is a rare infection that is often difficult to treat and may be life-threatening. There is no consensus on its management.
OBJECTIVES
Our aim was to provide the current evidence for the diagnosis and management of individuals with nocardiosis, and to propose a management approach for this uncommon infection.
SOURCES
We systematically searched the medical literature on nocardiosis for studies published between 2010 and 2020 and describing ten or more individuals.
CONTENT
Nocardiosis, a primarily opportunistic infection which may occur in immunocompetent persons, most commonly involves the lungs and frequently disseminates to other sites including the central nervous system. The reference standard for Nocardia species identification is molecular biology, and the preferred method for antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) is broth microdilution. Monotherapy seems appropriate for patients with primary skin nocardiosis or non-severe pulmonary disease; we reserve a multidrug regimen for more severe infections. Species identification and AST results are often missing at initiation of antibiotics. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is the preferred agent for initial therapy, because Nocardia is very often susceptible to this agent, and because it has been the keystone of nocardiosis treatment for years. Linezolid, to which Nocardia is almost always susceptible, may be an alternative. When combination therapy is required, the repertoire of companion drugs includes third-generation cephalosporins, amikacin and imipenem. Therapeutic modifications should take into account clinical response to initial therapy and AST results. Treatment duration of 6 months is appropriate for most situations, but longer durations are preferred for disseminated nocardiosis and shorter durations are reasonable in low-risk situations. Secondary prophylaxis may be considered in selected individuals with permanent immunosuppression.
IMPLICATIONS
We hereby provide the clinician with an easy-to-use algorithm for the management of individuals with nocardiosis. We also illuminate gaps in evidence and suggest future research directions.
Topics: Algorithms; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Nocardia; Nocardia Infections
PubMed: 33418019
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.12.019 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Apr 2023: This project was developed from anecdotal evidence of varied practices around antibiotic prescribing in dental procedures. The aim of the study was to ascertain if... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: This project was developed from anecdotal evidence of varied practices around antibiotic prescribing in dental procedures. The aim of the study was to ascertain if there is evidence to support whether antibiotic (AB) use can effectively reduce postoperative infections after dental implant placements (DIPs). : Following PRISMA-P© methodology, a systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials was designed and registered on the PROSPERO© database. Searches were performed using PubMed, Science Direct and the Cochrane© Database, plus the bibliographies of studies identified. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics, independent of the regimen used, versus a placebo, control or no therapy based on implant failure due to infection was the primary measured outcome. Secondary outcomes were other post-surgical complications due to infection and AB adverse events. : Twelve RCTs were identified and analysed. Antibiotic use was reported to be statistically significant in preventing infection ( < 001). The prevention of complications was not statistically significant ( = 0.96), and the NNT was >5 (14 and 2523 respectively), which indicates that the intervention was not sufficiently effective to justify its use. The occurrence of side effects was not statistically significant ( = 0.63). NNH was 528 indicating that possible harm caused by the use of ABs is very small and does not negate the AB use when indicated. : The routine use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection in dental implant placement was found to be not sufficiently effective to justify routine use. Clear clinical assessment pathways, such as those used for medical conditions, based on the patients' age, dental risk factors, such as oral health and bone health, physical risk factors, such as chronic or long-term conditions and modifiable health determinants, such as smoking, are required to prevent the unnecessary use of antibiotics.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Dental Implants
PubMed: 37109671
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59040713 -
Journal of Psychosomatic Research Jan 2023Increasingly, disruption of the gastrointestinal ecosystem is thought to be involved in the pathogenesis of several medical conditions, including depression. Antibiotics... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Increasingly, disruption of the gastrointestinal ecosystem is thought to be involved in the pathogenesis of several medical conditions, including depression. Antibiotics can induce substantial changes in the gastrointestinal microbiota and several lines of evidence suggest that antibiotics exposure may increase the risk of developing depression. This systematic review examined this potential association.
METHODS
PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychINFO databases, as well as unpublished resources, were searched for studies in humans published from 2000 onwards. The studies needed to consider the connection between antibiotic exposure (either alone or in combination with other antibiotics and medications) and the development of depressive symptoms and/or disorders (in isolation to other psychological conditions).
RESULTS
Nine studies met the eligibility criteria. All were observational in nature. The studies were conducted in different age groups with various indications for receiving antibiotics. Together, these relatively low-quality studies suggest a potential association between antibiotic exposure and subsequent development of depression symptoms. Specifically, studies from the United Kingdom and Sweden indicate that the risk of depression is increased by at least 20%, with the former (over 1 million participants) reporting an increased risk with the number of courses and agents used, that persists with a slow decline over the ten years following exposure.
CONCLUSIONS
The inherent limitations associated with the studies' methodologies make a reliable conclusion difficult. While the risk of antimicrobial resistance may prohibit large randomised clinical trials in healthy individuals, future placebo-controlled trials with antibiotics-based protocols (e.g. for acne) should explore their effect on mental health.
Topics: Humans; Depression; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ecosystem; Mental Disorders; Sweden
PubMed: 36502554
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2022.111113 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2023Bacterial biofilms are complex microbial communities encased in extracellular polymeric substances. Their formation is a multi-step process. Biofilms are a significant... (Review)
Review
Bacterial biofilms are complex microbial communities encased in extracellular polymeric substances. Their formation is a multi-step process. Biofilms are a significant problem in treating bacterial infections and are one of the main reasons for the persistence of infections. They can exhibit increased resistance to classical antibiotics and cause disease through device-related and non-device (tissue) -associated infections, posing a severe threat to global health issues. Therefore, early detection and search for new and alternative treatments are essential for treating and suppressing biofilm-associated infections. In this paper, we systematically reviewed the formation of bacterial biofilms, associated infections, detection methods, and potential treatment strategies, aiming to provide researchers with the latest progress in the detection and treatment of bacterial biofilms.
Topics: Humans; Biofilms; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Extracellular Polymeric Substance Matrix; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37091673
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1137947 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the third leading cause of neonatal mortality globally constituting 13% of overall neonatal mortality....
BACKGROUND
Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the third leading cause of neonatal mortality globally constituting 13% of overall neonatal mortality. Despite the high burden of neonatal sepsis, high-quality evidence in diagnosis and treatment is scarce. Possibly due to the diagnostic challenges of sepsis and the relative immunosuppression of the newborn, many neonates receive antibiotics for suspected sepsis. Antibiotics have become the most used therapeutics in neonatal intensive care units. The last Cochrane Review was updated in 2004. Given the clinical importance, an updated systematic review assessing the effects of different antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase Ovid; CINAHL; LILACS; Science Citation Index EXPANDED and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 12 March 2021. We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing different antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis. We included participants from birth to 72 hours of life at randomisation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and our secondary outcomes were: serious adverse events, respiratory support, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, necrotising enterocolitis, and ototoxicity. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs (865 participants). All trials were at high risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence according to GRADE was very low. The included trials assessed five different comparisons of antibiotics. We did not conduct any meta-analyses due to lack of relevant data. Of the five included trials one trial compared ampicillin plus gentamicin with benzylpenicillin plus gentamicin; one trial compared piperacillin plus tazobactam with amikacin; one trial compared ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid with piperacillin plus gentamicin; one trial compared piperacillin with ampicillin plus amikacin; and one trial compared ceftazidime with benzylpenicillin plus gentamicin. None of the five comparisons found any evidence of a difference when assessing all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, or necrotising enterocolitis; however, none of the trials were near an information size that could contribute significantly to the evidence of the comparative benefits and risks of any particular antibiotic regimen. None of the trials assessed respiratory support or ototoxicity. The benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the lack of well-powered trials and the high risk of systematic errors.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. Large RCTs assessing different antibiotic regimens in early-onset neonatal sepsis with low risk of bias are warranted.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Cause of Death; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Sepsis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33998666
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013837.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021The most frequent indications for tooth extractions, generally performed by general dental practitioners, are dental caries and periodontal infections. Systemic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The most frequent indications for tooth extractions, generally performed by general dental practitioners, are dental caries and periodontal infections. Systemic antibiotics may be prescribed to patients undergoing extractions to prevent complications due to infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis on the prevention of infectious complications following tooth extractions.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 16 April 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 April 2020), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 April 2020), and LILACS (1982 to 16 April 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing tooth extraction(s) for any indication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently performed data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment for the included studies. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) with 95% CI using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for key outcomes as high, moderate, low, or very low, using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 trials that randomised approximately 3206 participants (2583 analysed) to prophylactic antibiotics or placebo. Although general dentists perform dental extractions because of severe dental caries or periodontal infection, only one of the trials evaluated the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in groups of patients affected by those clinical conditions. We assessed 16 trials as being at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and four as unclear. Compared to placebo, antibiotics may reduce the risk of postsurgical infectious complications in patients undergoing third molar extractions by approximately 66% (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1728 participants; 12 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 19 people (95% CI 15 to 34) need to be treated with antibiotics to prevent one infection following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. Antibiotics may also reduce the risk of dry socket by 34% (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; 1882 participants; 13 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 46 people (95% CI 29 to 62) need to take antibiotics to prevent one case of dry socket following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. The evidence for our other outcomes is uncertain: pain, whether measured dichotomously as presence or absence (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.12; 675 participants; 3 studies) or continuously using a visual analogue scale (0-to-10-centimetre scale, where 0 is no pain) (MD -0.26, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.07; 422 participants; 4 studies); fever (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.79; 475 participants; 4 studies); and adverse effects, which were mild and transient (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.64; 1277 participants; 8 studies) (very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence that the timing of antibiotic administration (preoperative, postoperative, or both) was important. The included studies enrolled a subset of patients undergoing dental extractions, that is healthy people who had surgical extraction of third molars. Consequently, the results of this review may not be generalisable to all people undergoing tooth extractions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The vast majority (21 out of 23) of the trials included in this review included only healthy patients undergoing extraction of impacted third molars, often performed by oral surgeons. None of the studies evaluated tooth extraction in immunocompromised patients. We found low-certainty evidence that prophylactic antibiotics may reduce the risk of infection and dry socket following third molar extraction when compared to placebo, and very low-certainty evidence of no increase in the risk of adverse effects. On average, treating 19 healthy patients with prophylactic antibiotics may stop one person from getting an infection. It is unclear whether the evidence in this review is generalisable to patients with concomitant illnesses or patients at a higher risk of infection. Due to the increasing prevalence of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotic treatment, clinicians should evaluate if and when to prescribe prophylactic antibiotic therapy before a dental extraction for each patient on the basis of the patient's clinical conditions (healthy or affected by systemic pathology) and level of risk from infective complications. Immunocompromised patients, in particular, need an individualised approach in consultation with their treating medical specialist.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bacterial Infections; Bias; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dry Socket; Humans; Molar, Third; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted
PubMed: 33624847
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003811.pub3 -
The European Journal of Health... Aug 2022To quantify the association between income and antibiotic misuse including unprescribed use, storage of antibiotics and non-adherence. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the association between income and antibiotic misuse including unprescribed use, storage of antibiotics and non-adherence.
METHODS
We identified pertinent studies through database search, and manual examination of reference lists of selected articles and review reports. We performed a dose-response meta-analysis of income, both continuous and categorical, in relation to antibiotic misuse. Summary odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated under a random-effects random effects model.
RESULTS
Fifty-seven studies from 22 countries of different economic class were included. Overall, the data are in agreement with a flat linear association between income standardized to socio-economic indicators and antibiotic misuse (OR per 1 unit increment = 1.00, p-value = 0.954, p-value non-linearity = 0.429). Data were compatible with no association between medium and high income with general antibiotic misuse (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.89, 1.20 and OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.82, 1.29). Medium income was associated with 19% higher odds of antibiotic storage (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.07, 1.32) and 18% higher odds of any aspect of antibiotic misuse in African studies (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.00, 1.39). High income was associated with 51% lower odds of non-adherence to antibiotic treatment (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.34, 0.60). High income was also associated with 11% higher odds of any antibiotic misuse in upper-middle wealth countries (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.00, 1.22).
CONCLUSIONS
The association between income and antibiotic misuse varies by type of misuse and country wellness. Understanding the socioeconomic properties of antibiotic misuse should prove useful in developing related intervention programs and health policies.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Income
PubMed: 34845563
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01416-8 -
Research in Social & Administrative... Jul 2023Decreasing the prevalence of antibiotic self-medication among the public requires proper understanding of the risk factors involved. However, the determinants of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Decreasing the prevalence of antibiotic self-medication among the public requires proper understanding of the risk factors involved. However, the determinants of antibiotic self-medication are not well defined.
OBJECTIVES
To identify patient and health system-related determinants of antibiotic self-medication among the public.
METHODS
A systematic review of quantitative observational studies and qualitative studies was undertaken. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify studies on determinants of antibiotic self-medication. The data were analyzed using meta-analysis, descriptive analysis, and thematic analysis.
RESULTS
Sixty-eight studies were included in the review. From meta-analyses, male sex (pooled odds ratio [POR]: 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-1.75), lack of satisfaction with healthcare services/physicians (POR: 3.53, 95% CI: 2.26-4.75) were associated with antibiotic self-medication. In subgroup analysis, lower age was directly associated with self-medication in high-income countries (POR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.10-2.36). In low- and middle-income countries, people with greater knowledge of antibiotics were less likely to self-medicate (POR: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.08-0.47). Patient-related determinants identified from descriptive and qualitative studies included previous experience with antibiotics and similar symptoms, perceived low severity of disease, intention to save time and get better quickly, cultural beliefs about curative power of antibiotics, advice from family/friends, and having home stock of antibiotics. Health system-related determinants included high cost of consulting physicians and low cost of self-medication, lack of access to physician/medical care, lack of trust/confidence in physicians, greater trust in pharmacists, long distance of physicians/healthcare facilities, long waiting time at healthcare facilities, easy access to antibiotics from pharmacies, and convenience associated with self-medication.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient and health system-related determinants are associated with antibiotic self-medication. Interventions to decrease antibiotic self-medication should incorporate community programs along with appropriate policies and healthcare reforms targeting these determinants with specific attention to population at high risk of self-medication.
Topics: Humans; Male; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Self Medication; Pharmacists; Health Services; Physicians
PubMed: 37019706
DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.03.009 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Oct 2019Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the more common infections encountered in everyday clinical practice. They account for 10-20% of all infections treated in...
PURPOSE
Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the more common infections encountered in everyday clinical practice. They account for 10-20% of all infections treated in primary care units and 30-40% of those treated in hospitals. The risk of UTI in the female population is considered to be 14 times higher than in the male population. The prevalence of bacterial etiology results in a large consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which in turn leads to increased rates of resistant uropathogens. Therefore, non-antibiotic prevention and treatment options are now of great importance.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed for the last 20 years (1999-2019) and the efficiencies of these eight different non-antibiotic interventions were analysed and discussed.
RESULTS
This article provides an overview on non-antibiotic options for management of UTI, including the application of cranberry products, the phytodrug Canephron N, probiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), D-mannose, estrogens, vitamins, and immunotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
The last 20 years of research on non-antibiotic approaches in UTI have not brought conclusive evidence that antibiotic usage can be replaced completely by non-antibiotic options. Hence, antibiotics still remain a gold standard for UTI treatment and prevention. However, changing the therapeutic strategy by including non-antibiotic measures in the management of UTI could be successful in avoiding antimicrobial resistance at least to some extent.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Female; Humans; Male; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 31350663
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05256-z -
JAMA Network Open Feb 2023Antimicrobial resistance continues to spread rapidly at a global scale. Little evidence exists on the association of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Antimicrobial resistance continues to spread rapidly at a global scale. Little evidence exists on the association of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) with the consumption of antibiotics across health care and income settings.
OBJECTIVE
To synthesize current evidence regarding the association between antimicrobial stewardship programs and the consumption of antibiotics globally.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from August 1, 2010, to Aug 1, 2020. Additional studies from the bibliography sections of previous systematic reviews were included.
STUDY SELECTION
Original studies of the association of ASPs with antimicrobial consumption across health care and income settings. Animal and environmental studies were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Following the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline, the pooled association of targeted ASPs with antimicrobial consumption was measured using multilevel random-effects models. The Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool was used to assess study quality.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main outcome measures were proportion of patients receiving an antibiotic prescription and defined daily doses per 100 patient-days.
RESULTS
Overall, 52 studies (with 1 794 889 participants) measured the association between ASPs and antimicrobial consumption and were included, with 40 studies conducted in high-income countries and 12 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). ASPs were associated with a 10% (95% CI, 4%-15%) reduction in antibiotic prescriptions and a 28% reduction in antibiotic consumption (rate ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92). ASPs were also associated with a 21% (95% CI, 5%-36%) reduction in antibiotic consumption in pediatric hospitals and a 28% reduction in World Health Organization watch groups antibiotics (rate ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, ASPs appeared to be effective in reducing antibiotic consumption in both hospital and nonhospital settings. Impact assessment of ASPs in resource-limited settings remains scarce; further research is needed on how to best achieve reductions in antibiotic use in LMICs.
Topics: Humans; Child; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antimicrobial Stewardship; Anti-Infective Agents; Prescriptions; Hospitals, Pediatric
PubMed: 36757700
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53806