-
British Journal of Sports Medicine Nov 2019Achilles tendinopathy is a common problem, but its exact aetiology remains unclear.
BACKGROUND
Achilles tendinopathy is a common problem, but its exact aetiology remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the association between potential clinical risk factors and Achilles tendinopathy.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
The databases Embase, MEDLINE Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched up to February 2018.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
To answer our research question, cohort studies investigating risk factors for Achilles tendinopathy in humans were included. We restricted our search to potential clinical risk factors (imaging studies were excluded).
RESULTS
We included 10 cohort studies, all with a high risk of bias, from 5111 publications identified. There is limited evidence for nine risk factors: (1) prior lower limb tendinopathy or fracture, (2) use of ofloxacin (quinolone) antibiotics, (3) an increased time between heart transplantation and initiation of quinolone treatment for infectious disease, (4) moderate alcohol use, (5) training during cold weather, (6) decreased isokinetic plantar flexor strength, (7) abnormal gait pattern with decreased forward progression of propulsion, (8) more lateral foot roll-over at the forefoot flat phase and (9) creatinine clearance of <60 mL/min in heart transplant patients. Twenty-six other putative risk factors were not associated with Achilles tendinopathy, including being overweight, static foot posture and physical activity level.
CONCLUSION
From an ocean of studies with high levels of bias, we extracted nine clinical risk factors that may increase a person's risk of Achilles tendinopathy. Clinicians may consider ofloxacin use, alcohol consumption and a reduced plantar flexor strength as modifiable risk factors when treating patients with Achilles tendinopathy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42017053258.
Topics: Achilles Tendon; Alcohol Drinking; Cold Temperature; Foot; Gait; Heart Transplantation; Humans; Ofloxacin; Posture; Risk Factors; Tendinopathy
PubMed: 30718234
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099991 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jan 2023Due to increasing resistance rates of () to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and...
BACKGROUND
Due to increasing resistance rates of () to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and treatment algorithms for first-line and second-line therapy against infection are well-established, there is no clear recommendation for third-line and rescue therapy in refractory infection.
AIM
To perform a systematic review evaluating the efficacy and safety of rescue therapies against refractory infection.
METHODS
A systematic search of available rescue treatments for refractory infection was conducted on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed search platform based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of infection rescue therapies were included.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies were included in the analysis of mean eradication rates as rescue therapy, and 21 of these were selected for analysis of mean eradication rate as third-line treatment. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple-therapy as third-line treatment, mean eradication rates of 81.6% and 84.4%, 79.4% and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. For third-line quadruple therapy, mean eradication rates of 69.2% and 72.1% were found for bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT), 88.9% and 90.9% for bismuth quadruple therapy, three-in-one, Pylera (BQT-Pylera), and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT) in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple therapy as rescue therapy, mean eradication rates of 75.4% and 78.8%, 79.4 and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For quadruple therapy as rescue treatment, mean eradication rates of 76.7% and 79.2% for BQT, 84.9% and 87.8% for BQT-Pylera, and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For susceptibility-guided therapy, mean eradication rates as third-line and rescue treatment were 75.0% in ITT and 79.2% in PP analysis.
CONCLUSION
We recommend sitafloxacin-based triple therapy containing vonoprazan in regions with low macrolide resistance profile. In regions with known resistance to macrolides or unavailability of bismuth, rifabutin-based triple therapy is recommended.
Topics: Humans; Helicobacter Infections; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Metronidazole; Helicobacter pylori; Bismuth; Levofloxacin; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Macrolides; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Tetracycline; Rifabutin
PubMed: 36687120
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i2.390 -
The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine Apr 2020Treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis requires long-term therapy with a combination of multiple second-line drugs. These drugs are associated with numerous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis requires long-term therapy with a combination of multiple second-line drugs. These drugs are associated with numerous adverse events that can cause severe morbidity, such as deafness, and in some instances can lead to death. Our aim was to estimate the absolute and relative frequency of adverse events associated with different tuberculosis drugs to provide useful information for clinicians and tuberculosis programmes in selecting optimal treatment regimens.
METHODS
We did a meta-analysis using individual-level patient data that were obtained from studies that reported adverse events that resulted in permanent discontinuation of anti-tuberculosis medications. We used a database created for our previous meta-analysis of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment and outcomes, for which we did a systematic review of literature published between Jan 1, 2009, and Aug 31, 2015 (updated April 15, 2016), and requested individual patient-level information from authors. We also considered for this analysis studies contributing patient-level data in response to a public call made by WHO in 2018. Meta-analysis for proportions and arm-based network meta-analysis were done to estimate the incidence of adverse events for each tuberculosis drug.
FINDINGS
58 studies were identified, including 50 studies from the updated individual patient data meta-analysis for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment. 35 of these studies, with 9178 patients, were included in our analysis. Using meta-analysis of proportions, drugs with low risks of adverse event occurrence leading to permanent discontinuation included levofloxacin (1·3% [95% CI 0·3-5·0]), moxifloxacin (2·9% [1·6-5·0]), bedaquiline (1·7% [0·7-4·2]), and clofazimine (1·6% [0·5-5·3]). Relatively high incidence of adverse events leading to permanent discontinuation was seen with three second-line injectable drugs (amikacin: 10·2% [6·3-16·0]; kanamycin: 7·5% [4·6-11·9]; capreomycin: 8·2% [6·3-10·7]), aminosalicylic acid (11·6% [7·1-18·3]), and linezolid (14·1% [9·9-19·6]). Risk of bias in selection of studies was judged to be low because there were no important differences between included and excluded studies. Variability between studies was significant for most outcomes analysed.
INTERPRETATION
Fluoroquinolones, clofazimine, and bedaquiline had the lowest incidence of adverse events leading to permanent drug discontinuation, whereas second-line injectable drugs, aminosalicylic acid, and linezolid had the highest incidence. These results suggest that close monitoring of adverse events is important for patients being treated for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Our results also underscore the urgent need for safer and better-tolerated drugs to reduce morbidity from treatment itself for patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.
FUNDING
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA), American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, and Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Topics: Adult; Aminosalicylic Acid; Antitubercular Agents; Canada; Clofazimine; Diarylquinolines; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Incidence; Linezolid; Male; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary
PubMed: 32192585
DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30047-3 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively.
MAIN RESULTS
Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Female; Fosfomycin; Humans; Imipenem; Levofloxacin; Male; Penicillins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 32407558
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3 -
EClinicalMedicine May 2024The escalating resistance of to macrolides has become a significant global health concern, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although...
BACKGROUND
The escalating resistance of to macrolides has become a significant global health concern, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although tetracyclines and quinolones have been proposed as alternative therapeutic options, concerns regarding age-specific safety issues and the lack of consensus in recommendations across various national guidelines prevail. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to ascertain the most efficacious interventions for second-line treatment of . infection while considering the age-specific safety issues associated with these interventions.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis we searched PubMed, Embase, CNKI, and WanFang Data, from inception up to November 11th, 2023. Studies of quinolones or tetracyclines for the treatment of people with infection were collected and screened by reading published reports, with any type of study included, and no individual patient-level data requested. A systematic review and direct meta-analysis compared the efficacy of tetracyclines and quinolones regarding time to defervescence (TTD) and the rates of fever disappearance within 24 h and 48 h of antibiotic administration, for managing . infection. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was employed to indirectly assess the relative effectiveness of different interventions in people with . infection and the safety profile of medication in paediatric patients. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023478383.
FINDINGS
The systematic review and direct meta-analysis included a total of 4 articles involving 246 patients, while the NMA encompassed 85 articles involving a substantial cohort of 7095 patients. The NMA measured the effectiveness across all ages and included 7043 patients, with a mean age of 37.80 ± 3.91 years. Of the 85 included studies, 14 (16.5%) were at low risk of bias, 71 (83.5%) were at moderate risk, and no studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. In the direct meta-analysis, no statistically significant differences were found between tetracyclines and quinolones concerning TTD (mean difference: -0.40, 95% CI: -1.43 to 0.63; = 0%), fever disappearance rate within 24 h of antibiotic administration (OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.08-1.79; = 58%), and fever disappearance rate within 48 h of antibiotic administration (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.30-3.98; = 59%). However, the comprehensive NMA analysis of clinical response (in 70 studies; n = 6143 patients), shortening of TTD (in 52 studies; n = 4363 patients), shortening length of cough relief or disappearance (in 39 studies; n = 3235 patients), fever disappearance rate at 48 h (in four studies; n = 418 patients) revealed that minocycline exhibited the most favourable outcomes across these various parameters, and the analysis of fever disappearance rate at 24 h (in three studies; n = 145 patients) revealed that levofloxacin may be the most effective, as indicated by the rank probabilities and surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) value. Moxifloxacin ranked second in clinical response and in shortening the length of cough relief or disappearance, and third in shortening TTD. Notably, when evaluating the occurrence of adverse reactions in paediatric patients (in four studies; n = 239 children), levofloxacin was associated with the highest SUCRA value rankings for the rate of adverse events.
INTERPRETATION
Our findings suggest that tetracyclines and quinolones may be equally effective. Based on the age of participants in the included studies, minocycline may be the most effective intervention for children over eight years of age when all preventive measures are considered, whereas moxifloxacin may benefit people under eight years of age. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, given the limited number of studies and patients included, and the heterogeneity between included studies. Based on a limited number of studies in children, levofloxacin is likely to have one of the highest rates of adverse reactions. The majority of the studies included in the NMA were from the Asian region, and more randomised controlled trials comparing different therapeutic strategies in patients with . are warranted. This comparative study provides clinical pharmacists and clinicians with important information to enable them to make informed decisions about treatment options, considering drug efficacy and safety.
FUNDING
The Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province, China.
PubMed: 38596615
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102589 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Jun 2020Bacteremia and other invasive bacterial infections are common among children with cancer receiving intensive chemotherapy and in pediatric recipients of hematopoietic...
BACKGROUND
Bacteremia and other invasive bacterial infections are common among children with cancer receiving intensive chemotherapy and in pediatric recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Systemic antibacterial prophylaxis is one approach that can be used to reduce the risk of these infections. Our purpose was to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis administration in pediatric patients with cancer and those undergoing HSCT.
METHODS
An international and multidisciplinary panel was convened with representation from pediatric hematology/oncology and HSCT, pediatric infectious diseases (including antibiotic stewardship), nursing, pharmacy, a patient advocate, and a CPG methodologist. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to generate recommendations based on the results of a systematic review of the literature.
RESULTS
The systematic review identified 114 eligible randomized trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. The panel made a weak recommendation for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis for children receiving intensive chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia and relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Weak recommendations against the routine use of systemic antibacterial prophylaxis were made for children undergoing induction chemotherapy for ALL, autologous HSCT and allogeneic HSCT. A strong recommendation against its routine use was made for children whose therapy is not expected to result in prolonged severe neutropenia. If used, prophylaxis with levofloxacin was recommended during severe neutropenia.
CONCLUSIONS
We present a CPG for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis administration in pediatric cancer and HSCT patients. Future research should evaluate the long-term effectiveness and adverse effects of prophylaxis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bacteremia; Child; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Levofloxacin; Neoplasms
PubMed: 31676904
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz1082 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Mar 2024Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma spp. especially M. hominis, U. parvum, and U. urealyticum recognized as an important cause of urogenital infections. Sake of the presence of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma spp. especially M. hominis, U. parvum, and U. urealyticum recognized as an important cause of urogenital infections. Sake of the presence of antibiotic resistance and a continuous rise in resistance, the treatment options are limited, and treatment has become more challenging and costlier.
OBJECTIVES
Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to estimate worldwide resistance rates of genital Mycoplasmas and Ureaplasma to fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin) agents.
METHODS
We searched the relevant published studies in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase from until 3, March 2022. All statistical analyses were carried out using the statistical package R.
RESULTS
The 30 studies included in the analysis were performed in 16 countries. In the metadata, the proportions of ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin resistance in Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma urogenital isolates were reported 59.8% (95% CI 49.6, 69.1), 31.2% (95% CI 23, 40), 7.3% (95% CI 1, 31), and 5.3% (95% CI 1, 2), respectively. According to the meta-regression, the ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin rate increased over time. There was a statistically significant difference in the fluoroquinolones resistance rates between different continents/countries (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results obtained in this systematic review and meta-analysis we recommend the use of the newer group of fluoroquinolones especially levofloxacin as the first choice for the treatment of genital mycoplasmosis, as well as ofloxacin for the treatment of genital infections caused by U. parvum.
Topics: Humans; Ureaplasma; Mycoplasma; Fluoroquinolones; Levofloxacin; Ureaplasma urealyticum; Moxifloxacin; Mycoplasma hominis; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Ureaplasma Infections; Urinary Tract Infections; Ciprofloxacin
PubMed: 38016593
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2023.11.007 -
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and... Jan 2023Maternal rectovaginal colonization with group B Streptococcus (GBS) or Streptococcus agalactiae is the most common pathway for this disease during the perinatal period.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Maternal rectovaginal colonization with group B Streptococcus (GBS) or Streptococcus agalactiae is the most common pathway for this disease during the perinatal period. This meta-analysis aimed to summarize existing data regarding maternal colonization, serotype profiles, and antibiotic resistance in China.
METHODS
Systematic literature reviews were conducted after searching 6 databases. Meta-analysis was applied to analyze colonization rate, serotype, and antimicrobial susceptibility of GBS clinical isolates in different regions of China. Summary estimates are presented using tables, funnel plots, forest plots, histograms, violin plots, and line plots.
RESULTS
The dataset regarding colonization included 52 articles and 195 303 pregnant women. Our estimate for maternal GBS colonization in China was 8.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.2%-8.9%). Serotypes Ia, Ib, III, and V account for 95.9% of identified isolates. Serotype III, which is frequently associated with the hypervirulent clonal complex, accounts for 46.4%. Among the maternal GBS isolates using multilocus sequence typing (MLST), ST19 (25.7%, 289/1126) and ST10 (25.1%, 283/1126) were most common, followed by ST12 (12.4%, 140/1126), ST17 (4.8%, 54/1126), and ST651 (3.7%, 42/1126). GBS was highly resistant to tetracycline (75.1% [95% CI 74.0-76.3%]) and erythromycin (65.4% [95% CI 64.5-66.3%]) and generally susceptible to penicillin, ampicillin, vancomycin, ceftriaxone, and linezolid. Resistance rates of GBS to clindamycin and levofloxacin varied greatly (1.0-99.2% and 10.3-72.9%, respectively). A summary analysis of the bacterial drug resistance reports released by the China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) in the past 5 years showed that the drug resistance rate of GBS to erythromycin, clindamycin, and levofloxacin decreased slowly from 2018 to 2020. However, the resistance rates of GBS to all 3 antibiotics increased slightly in 2021.
CONCLUSIONS
The overall colonization rate in China was much lower than the global colonization rate (17.4%). Consistent with many original and review reports in other parts of the world, GBS was highly resistant to tetracycline. However, the resistance of GBS isolates in China to erythromycin and clindamycin was greater than in other countries. This paper provides important epidemiological information, to assist with prevention and treatment of GBS colonization in these women.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Clindamycin; Streptococcal Infections; Levofloxacin; Streptococcus agalactiae; Multilocus Sequence Typing; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Erythromycin; Tetracycline; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; China; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 36639677
DOI: 10.1186/s12941-023-00553-7 -
Tropical Medicine & International... Dec 2011A combination of rifampicin, ofloxacin and minocycline (ROM) is one of the newer recommendations for treatment of leprosy. We performed a systematic review and a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A combination of rifampicin, ofloxacin and minocycline (ROM) is one of the newer recommendations for treatment of leprosy. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies that had evaluated the efficacy of ROM therapy in treatment of paucibacillary and multibacillary leprosy patients.
METHODS
Studies were identified by searching the PubMed, Embase, LILACS and Cochrane databases. Data were abstracted from all relevant studies, and fixed effects models were used to calculate the summary estimate of effect in paucibacillary and multibacillary leprosy patients.
RESULTS
Six studies comparing ROM therapy to multidrug therapy and eight studies that evaluated the effect of ROM therapy alone (no comparison group) were included in the review and meta-analysis. The combined estimate for single dose ROM vs. multidrug therapy in paucibacillary leprosy patients suggested that ROM was less effective than multidrug therapy in these patients [relative risk: 0.91, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.86-0.97]. However, the combined estimate for multiple doses of ROM vs. multidrug therapy in multibacillary leprosy patients suggested that ROM was as effective as multidrug therapy in reducing bacillary indices in these patients (proportion change: -4%, 95% CI -31% to 23%). No major side effects were reported in either the ROM or the multidrug treatment groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Single-dose ROM therapy was less effective than multidrug therapy in paucibacillary patients. However, there are insufficient data to come to a valid conclusion on the efficacy of multidose ROM therapy in multibacillary leprosy, and additional studies with ROM therapy in multibacillary leprosy are needed. Furthermore, multiple doses may be considered as another alternative even for paucibacillary patients, and randomised controlled trials of this therapy may be useful to understand its contribution in the treatment and control of leprosy.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Leprostatic Agents; Leprosy; Minocycline; Ofloxacin; Rifampin; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21914093
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02873.x