-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022The World Health Organization (WHO) End TB Strategy stresses universal access to drug susceptibility testing (DST). DST determines whether Mycobacterium tuberculosis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) End TB Strategy stresses universal access to drug susceptibility testing (DST). DST determines whether Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacteria are susceptible or resistant to drugs. Xpert MTB/XDR is a rapid nucleic acid amplification test for detection of tuberculosis and drug resistance in one test suitable for use in peripheral and intermediate level laboratories. In specimens where tuberculosis is detected by Xpert MTB/XDR, Xpert MTB/XDR can also detect resistance to isoniazid, fluoroquinolones, ethionamide, and amikacin.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/XDR for pulmonary tuberculosis in people with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis (having signs and symptoms suggestive of tuberculosis, including cough, fever, weight loss, night sweats). To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/XDR for resistance to isoniazid, fluoroquinolones, ethionamide, and amikacin in people with tuberculosis detected by Xpert MTB/XDR, irrespective of rifampicin resistance (whether or not rifampicin resistance status was known) and with known rifampicin resistance.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched multiple databases to 23 September 2021. We limited searches to 2015 onwards as Xpert MTB/XDR was launched in 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Diagnostic accuracy studies using sputum in adults with presumptive or confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis. Reference standards were culture (pulmonary tuberculosis detection); phenotypic DST (pDST), genotypic DST (gDST),composite (pDST and gDST) (drug resistance detection).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed reports for eligibility and extracted data using a standardized form. For multicentre studies, we anticipated variability in the type and frequency of mutations associated with resistance to a given drug at the different centres and considered each centre as an independent study cohort for quality assessment and analysis. We assessed methodological quality with QUADAS-2, judging risk of bias separately for each target condition and reference standard. For pulmonary tuberculosis detection, owing to heterogeneity in participant characteristics and observed specificity estimates, we reported a range of sensitivity and specificity estimates and did not perform a meta-analysis. For drug resistance detection, we performed meta-analyses by reference standard using bivariate random-effects models. Using GRADE, we assessed certainty of evidence of Xpert MTB/XDR accuracy for detection of resistance to isoniazid and fluoroquinolones in people irrespective of rifampicin resistance and to ethionamide and amikacin in people with known rifampicin resistance, reflecting real-world situations. We used pDST, except for ethionamide resistance where we considered gDST a better reference standard.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two multicentre studies from high multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis burden countries, reporting on six independent study cohorts, involving 1228 participants for pulmonary tuberculosis detection and 1141 participants for drug resistance detection. The proportion of participants with rifampicin resistance in the two studies was 47.9% and 80.9%. For tuberculosis detection, we judged high risk of bias for patient selection owing to selective recruitment. For ethionamide resistance detection, we judged high risk of bias for the reference standard, both pDST and gDST, though we considered gDST a better reference standard. Pulmonary tuberculosis detection - Xpert MTB/XDR sensitivity range, 98.3% (96.1 to 99.5) to 98.9% (96.2 to 99.9) and specificity range, 22.5% (14.3 to 32.6) to 100.0% (86.3 to 100.0); median prevalence of pulmonary tuberculosis 91.3%, (interquartile range, 89.3% to 91.8%), (2 studies; 1 study reported on 2 cohorts, 1228 participants; very low-certainty evidence, sensitivity and specificity). Drug resistance detection People irrespective of rifampicin resistance - Isoniazid resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 94.2% (87.5 to 97.4) and 98.5% (92.6 to 99.7) against pDST, (6 cohorts, 1083 participants, moderate-certainty evidence, sensitivity and specificity). - Fluoroquinolone resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity were 93.2% (88.1 to 96.2) and 98.0% (90.8 to 99.6) against pDST, (6 cohorts, 1021 participants; high-certainty evidence, sensitivity; moderate-certainty evidence, specificity). People with known rifampicin resistance - Ethionamide resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity were 98.0% (74.2 to 99.9) and 99.7% (83.5 to 100.0) against gDST, (4 cohorts, 434 participants; very low-certainty evidence, sensitivity and specificity). - Amikacin resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity were 86.1% (75.0 to 92.7) and 98.9% (93.0 to 99.8) against pDST, (4 cohorts, 490 participants; low-certainty evidence, sensitivity; high-certainty evidence, specificity). Of 1000 people with pulmonary tuberculosis, detected as tuberculosis by Xpert MTB/XDR: - where 50 have isoniazid resistance, 61 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating isoniazid resistance: of these, 14/61 (23%) would not have isoniazid resistance (FP); 939 (of 1000 people) would have a result indicating the absence of isoniazid resistance: of these, 3/939 (0%) would have isoniazid resistance (FN). - where 50 have fluoroquinolone resistance, 66 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating fluoroquinolone resistance: of these, 19/66 (29%) would not have fluoroquinolone resistance (FP); 934 would have a result indicating the absence of fluoroquinolone resistance: of these, 3/934 (0%) would have fluoroquinolone resistance (FN). - where 300 have ethionamide resistance, 296 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating ethionamide resistance: of these, 2/296 (1%) would not have ethionamide resistance (FP); 704 would have a result indicating the absence of ethionamide resistance: of these, 6/704 (1%) would have ethionamide resistance (FN). - where 135 have amikacin resistance, 126 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating amikacin resistance: of these, 10/126 (8%) would not have amikacin resistance (FP); 874 would have a result indicating the absence of amikacin resistance: of these, 19/874 (2%) would have amikacin resistance (FN).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Review findings suggest that, in people determined by Xpert MTB/XDR to be tuberculosis-positive, Xpert MTB/XDR provides accurate results for detection of isoniazid and fluoroquinolone resistance and can assist with selection of an optimised treatment regimen. Given that Xpert MTB/XDR targets a limited number of resistance variants in specific genes, the test may perform differently in different settings. Findings in this review should be interpreted with caution. Sensitivity for detection of ethionamide resistance was based only on Xpert MTB/XDR detection of mutations in the inhA promoter region, a known limitation. High risk of bias limits our confidence in Xpert MTB/XDR accuracy for pulmonary tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/XDR's impact will depend on its ability to detect tuberculosis (required for DST), prevalence of resistance to a given drug, health care infrastructure, and access to other tests.
Topics: Adult; Amikacin; Antibiotics, Antitubercular; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Ethionamide; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Isoniazid; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Rifampin; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tuberculosis, Lymph Node; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary
PubMed: 35583175
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014841.pub2 -
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 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Insulin resistance (IR) plays a crucial role in the development and progression of metabolism-related diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, tumors, and nonalcoholic...
Insulin resistance (IR) plays a crucial role in the development and progression of metabolism-related diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, tumors, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and provides the basis for a common understanding of these chronic diseases. In this study, we provide a systematic review of the causes, mechanisms, and treatments of IR. The pathogenesis of IR depends on genetics, obesity, age, disease, and drug effects. Mechanistically, any factor leading to abnormalities in the insulin signaling pathway leads to the development of IR in the host, including insulin receptor abnormalities, disturbances in the internal environment (regarding inflammation, hypoxia, lipotoxicity, and immunity), metabolic function of the liver and organelles, and other abnormalities. The available therapeutic strategies for IR are mainly exercise and dietary habit improvement, and chemotherapy based on biguanides and glucagon-like peptide-1, and traditional Chinese medicine treatments (e.g., herbs and acupuncture) can also be helpful. Based on the current understanding of IR mechanisms, there are still some vacancies to follow up and consider, and there is also a need to define more precise biomarkers for different chronic diseases and lifestyle interventions, and to explore natural or synthetic drugs targeting IR treatment. This could enable the treatment of patients with multiple combined metabolic diseases, with the aim of treating the disease holistically to reduce healthcare expenditures and to improve the quality of life of patients to some extent.
Topics: Insulin Resistance; Humans; Chronic Disease; Signal Transduction; Metabolic Diseases; Receptor, Insulin
PubMed: 37056675
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1149239 -
The International Journal of... Jan 2017Resistance to anti-tuberculosis drugs threatens to undermine effective control of tuberculosis (TB). In areas with weak TB control and misuse of anti-tuberculosis drugs,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Resistance to anti-tuberculosis drugs threatens to undermine effective control of tuberculosis (TB). In areas with weak TB control and misuse of anti-tuberculosis drugs, hotspots of multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) have appeared. The aim of this review is to determine the prevalence rate of any anti-tuberculosis drug resistance, monoresistance and MDR-TB in Ethiopia.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature on any resistance, monoresistance and MDR-TB was conducted.
RESULTS
Of the total 468 articles found using electronic search, 14 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The prevalence rate of any drug resistance, polyresistance and MDR-TB was respectively 6.7-72.9%, 0-54% and 0-46%. A higher rate of streptomycin monoresistance (1.5-20.4%) was observed.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence and distribution of drug-resistant TB remains a serious public health problem in Ethiopia. Rapid, advanced diagnostic tools should be introduced, along with strong treatment and follow-up strategies.
Topics: Antitubercular Agents; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Ethambutol; Ethiopia; Humans; Isoniazid; Prevalence; Public Health; Pyrazinamide; Rifampin; Streptomycin; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant
PubMed: 28157460
DOI: 10.5588/ijtld.16.0286 -
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease 2017There is a large increase in the numbers of refugees and asylum seekers worldwide and a lack of data on the carriage of antimicrobial resistance in refugee/asylum... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is a large increase in the numbers of refugees and asylum seekers worldwide and a lack of data on the carriage of antimicrobial resistance in refugee/asylum seeking groups.
METHODS
This article aims to identify the impact of refugees and asylum seekers on the acquisition and transmission of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) through a literature search. The databases Embase, Medline, Pubmed, and Web of Science Core Collection were utilised and covered all articles before the 1st of October 2016. In total, 577 articles were identified, and studies were eligible if they met the selection criteria, including observational study design, English language, and AMR strains reported in absolute numbers. In total, 17 articles met the criteria, the majority were from the European region.
RESULTS
Articles fitting the selection criteria exclusively reported AMR in bacterial species including Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia, K. oxytoca, Shigella spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecium, and Acinetobacter baumannii. The analyses indicated that a high percentage of AMR strains, have been circulating among refugees and asylum seekers.
CONCLUSION
The displacement of refugees and asylum seekers seem to play a key role in the transmission of AMR. Therefore, improved AMR control measures are essential. A knowledge gap was identified; further research is strongly recommended.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Escherichia coli; Humans; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Refugees; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 27919742
DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2016.12.001 -
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 -
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 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International May 2010Urinary tract infections (UTI) are among the leading reasons for treatment in adult primary care medicine, accounting for a considerable percentage of antibiotic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Urinary tract infections (UTI) are among the leading reasons for treatment in adult primary care medicine, accounting for a considerable percentage of antibiotic prescriptions. Because this problem is so common and so significant in routine clinical practice, a high level of diagnostic accuracy is essential. Antibiotics should not be prescribed excessively, particularly in view of the increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance.
METHOD
Systematic review of relevant articles that were retrieved by a search of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The recommendations of selected international guidelines were also taken into account, as were the German national quality standards for microbiological diagnosis.
RESULTS
The diagnosis of UTI by clinical criteria alone has an error rate of approximately 33%. The use of refined diagnostic algorithms does not completely eliminate uncertainty.
CONCLUSION
With the aid of a small number of additional diagnostic criteria, antibiotic treatment for UTI can be provided more specifically and thus more effectively. Differentiating UTI from asymptomatic bacteriuria, which usually requires no treatment, can lower the frequency of unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Algorithms; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Bacteriuria; Child; Colony-Forming Units Assay; Cystitis; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Female; Humans; Male; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Middle Aged; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pregnancy; Primary Health Care; Quality Assurance, Health Care; Risk Factors; Urinary Tract Infections; Young Adult
PubMed: 20539810
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0361 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, and short- and long-term safety, of nasal decongestants used in monotherapy to alleviate symptoms of the common cold in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 6, June 2016), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to July 2016), Embase (2010 to 15 July 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 15 July 2016), LILACS (1982 to July 2016), Web of Science (1955 to July 2016) and clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating the effectiveness and adverse effects of nasal decongestants compared with placebo for treating the common cold in adults and children. We excluded quasi-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted and summarised data on subjective measures of nasal congestion, overall patient well-being score, objective measures of nasal airway resistance, adverse effects and general recovery. One review author acted as arbiter in cases of disagreement. We categorised trials as single and multi-dose and analysed data both separately and together. We also analysed studies using an oral or topical nasal decongestant separately and together.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials with 1838 participants. Fourteen studies included adult participants only (aged 18 years and over). In six studies the intervention was a single dose and in nine studies multiple doses were used. Nine studies used pseudoephedrine and three studies used oxymetazoline. Other decongestants included phenylpropanolamine, norephedrine and xylometazoline. Phenylpropanolamine (or norephedrine) is no longer available on the market therefore we did not include the results of these studies in the meta-analyses. Eleven studies used oral decongestants; four studies used topical decongestants.Participants were included after contracting the common cold. The duration of symptoms differed among studies; in 10 studies participants had symptoms for less than three days, in three studies symptoms were present for less than five days, one study counted the number of colds over one year, and one study experimentally induced the common cold. In the single-dose studies, the effectiveness of a nasal decongestant was measured on the same day, whereas the follow-up in multi-dose studies ranged between one and 10 days.Most studies were conducted in university settings (N = eight), six at a specific university common cold centre. Three studies were conducted at a university in collaboration with a hospital and two in a hospital only setting. In two studies the setting was unclear.There were large differences in the reporting of outcomes and the reporting of methods in most studies was limited. Therefore, we judged most studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. Pooling was possible for a limited number of studies only; measures of effect are expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs). A positive SMD represents an improvement in congestion. There is no defined minimal clinically important difference for measures of subjective improvement in nasal congestion, therefore we used the SMDs as a guide to assess whether an effect was small (0.2 to 0.49), moderate (0.5 to 0.79) or large (≥ 0.8).Single-dose decongestant versus placebo: 10 studies compared a single dose of nasal decongestant with placebo and their effectiveness was tested between 15 minutes and 10 hours after dosing. Seven of 10 studies reported subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion; none reported overall patient well-being. However, pooling was not possible due to the large diversity in the measurement and reporting of symptoms of congestion. Two studies recorded adverse events. Both studies used an oral decongestant and each of them showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group versus the placebo group.Multi-dose decongestant versus placebo: nine studies compared multiple doses of nasal decongestants with placebo, but only five reported on the primary outcome, subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion. Only one study used a topical decongestant; none reported overall patient well-being. Subjective measures of congestion were significantly better for the treatment group compared with placebo approximately three hours after the last dose (SMD 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.92; P = 0.02; GRADE: low-quality evidence). However, the SMD of 0.49 only indicates a small clinical effect. Pooling was based on two studies, one oral and one topical, therefore we were unable to assess the effects of oral and topical decongestants separately. Seven studies reported adverse events (six oral and one topical decongestant); meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group (125 per 1000) compared to the placebo group (126 per 1000). The odds ratio (OR) for adverse events in the treatment group was 0.98 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.40; P = 0.90; GRADE: low-quality evidence). The results remained the same when we only considered studies using an oral decongestant (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.39; P = 0.80; GRADE: low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of single-dose nasal decongestants due to the limited evidence available. For multiple doses of nasal decongestants, the current evidence suggests that these may have a small positive effect on subjective measures of nasal congestion in adults with the common cold. However, the clinical relevance of this small effect is unknown and there is insufficient good-quality evidence to draw any firm conclusions. Due to the small number of studies that used a topical nasal decongestant, we were also unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of oral versus topical decongestants. Nasal decongestants do not seem to increase the risk of adverse events in adults in the short term. The effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants in children and the clinical relevance of their small effect in adults is yet to be determined.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adult; Child; Common Cold; Humans; Imidazoles; Nasal Decongestants; Oxymetazoline; Phenylpropanolamine; Pseudoephedrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27748955
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009612.pub2 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jul 2019The aim of these guidelines is to provide recommendations for decolonizing regimens targeting multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) carriers in all...
SCOPE
The aim of these guidelines is to provide recommendations for decolonizing regimens targeting multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) carriers in all settings.
METHODS
These evidence-based guidelines were produced after a systematic review of published studies on decolonization interventions targeting the following MDR-GNB: third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (3GCephRE), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), aminoglycoside-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (AGRE), fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (FQRE), extremely drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (XDRPA), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), cotrimoxazole-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (CRSM), colistin-resistant Gram-negative organisms (CoRGNB), and pan-drug-resistant Gram-negative organisms (PDRGNB). The recommendations are grouped by MDR-GNB species. Faecal microbiota transplantation has been discussed separately. Four types of outcomes were evaluated for each target MDR-GNB:(a) microbiological outcomes (carriage and eradication rates) at treatment end and at specific post-treatment time-points; (b) clinical outcomes (attributable and all-cause mortality and infection incidence) at the same time-points and length of hospital stay; (c) epidemiological outcomes (acquisition incidence, transmission and outbreaks); and (d) adverse events of decolonization (including resistance development). The level of evidence for and strength of each recommendation were defined according to the GRADE approach. Consensus of a multidisciplinary expert panel was reached through a nominal-group technique for the final list of recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The panel does not recommend routine decolonization of 3GCephRE and CRE carriers. Evidence is currently insufficient to provide recommendations for or against any intervention in patients colonized with AGRE, CoRGNB, CRAB, CRSM, FQRE, PDRGNB and XDRPA. On the basis of the limited evidence of increased risk of CRE infections in immunocompromised carriers, the panel suggests designing high-quality prospective clinical studies to assess the risk of CRE infections in immunocompromised patients. These trials should include monitoring of development of resistance to decolonizing agents during treatment using stool cultures and antimicrobial susceptibility results according to the EUCAST clinical breakpoints.
Topics: Acinetobacter baumannii; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Europe; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Stenotrophomonas maltophilia
PubMed: 30708122
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.01.005