-
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection... 2018Identifying risk factors predicting acquisition of resistant will aid surveillance and diagnostic initiatives and can be crucial in early and appropriate antibiotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Identifying risk factors predicting acquisition of resistant will aid surveillance and diagnostic initiatives and can be crucial in early and appropriate antibiotic therapy. We conducted a systematic review examining risk factors of acquisition of resistant among hospitalized patients.
METHODS
MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, and Cochrane Central were searched between 2000 and 2016 for studies examining independent risk factors associated with acquisition of resistant , among hospitalized patients. Random effects model meta-analysis was conducted when at least three or more studies were sufficiently similar.
RESULTS
Of the 54 eligible articles, 28 publications (31studies) examined multi-drug resistant (MDR) or extensively drug resistant (XDR) and 26 publications (29 studies) examined resistant The acquisition of MDR , as compared with non-MDR , was significantly associated with intensive care unit (ICU) admission (3 studies: summary adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.2) or use of quinolones (4 studies: summary adjusted OR 3.59). Acquisition of MDR or XDR compared with susceptible was significantly associated with prior hospital stay (4 studies: summary adjusted OR 1.90), use of quinolones (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 4.34), or use of carbapenems (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 13.68). The acquisition of MDR compared with non- was significantly associated with prior use of cephalosporins (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 3.96), quinolones (4 studies: summary adjusted OR 2.96), carbapenems (6 studies: summary adjusted OR 2.61), and prior hospital stay (4 studies: summary adjusted OR 1.74). The acquisition of carbapenem-resistant compared with susceptible , was statistically significantly associated with prior use of piperacillin-tazobactam (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 2.64), vancomycin (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 1.76), and carbapenems (7 studies: summary adjusted OR 4.36).
CONCLUSIONS
Prior use of antibiotics and prior hospital or ICU stay was the most significant risk factors for acquisition of resistant . These findings provide guidance in identifying patients that may be at an elevated risk for a resistant infection and emphasize the importance of antimicrobial stewardship and infection control in hospitals.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae; Carbapenems; Cephalosporins; Critical Care; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Female; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Male; Middle Aged; Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination; Pseudomonas Infections; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Quinolones; Risk Factors; Vancomycin
PubMed: 29997889
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-018-0370-9 -
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. 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, and observational studies in high-income countries suggest that 83% to 94% of newborns treated with antibiotics for suspected sepsis have negative blood cultures. The last Cochrane Review was updated in 2005. There is a need for an updated systematic review assessing the effects of different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase Ovid; CINAHL; LILACS; Science Citation Index EXPANDED and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 12 March 2021. We also 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 late-onset neonatal sepsis. We included participants older than 72 hours of life at randomisation, suspected or diagnosed with neonatal sepsis, meningitis, osteomyelitis, endocarditis, or necrotising enterocolitis. We excluded trials that assessed treatment of fungal infections.
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 (580 participants). All trials were at high risk of bias, and had very low-certainty evidence. The five included trials assessed five different comparisons of antibiotics. We did not conduct a meta-analysis due to lack of relevant data. Of the five included trials one trial compared cefazolin plus amikacin with vancomycin plus amikacin; one trial compared ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid with flucloxacillin plus gentamicin; one trial compared cloxacillin plus amikacin with cefotaxime plus gentamicin; one trial compared meropenem with standard care (ampicillin plus gentamicin or cefotaxime plus gentamicin); and one trial compared vancomycin plus gentamicin with vancomycin plus aztreonam. 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. RCTs assessing different antibiotic regimens in late-onset neonatal sepsis with low risks of bias are warranted.
Topics: Amikacin; Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Aztreonam; Bias; Cefazolin; Clavulanic Acid; Drug Therapy, Combination; Floxacillin; Gentamicins; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Sepsis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ticarcillin; Vancomycin
PubMed: 33998665
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013836.pub2 -
Annals of Internal Medicine May 2007Nonchemotherapy drug-induced agranulocytosis is a rare adverse reaction that is characterized by a decrease in peripheral neutrophil count to less than 0.5 x 10(9)... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nonchemotherapy drug-induced agranulocytosis is a rare adverse reaction that is characterized by a decrease in peripheral neutrophil count to less than 0.5 x 10(9) cells/L due to immunologic or cytotoxic mechanisms.
PURPOSE
To systematically review case reports of drugs that are definitely or probably related to agranulocytosis.
DATA SOURCES
English-language and German-language reports in MEDLINE (1966 to 2006) or EMBASE (1989 to 2006) and in bibliographies of retrieved articles.
STUDY SELECTION
Published case reports of patients with nonchemotherapy drug-induced agranulocytosis.
DATA EXTRACTION
One reviewer abstracted details about cases and assessed causality between drug intake and agranulocytosis by using World Health Organization assessment criteria.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Causality assessments of 980 reported cases of agranulocytosis were definite in 56 (6%), probable in 436 (44%), possible in 481 (49%), and unlikely in 7 (1%). A total of 125 drugs were definitely or probably related to agranulocytosis. Drugs for which more than 10 reports were available (carbimazole, clozapine, dapsone, dipyrone, methimazole, penicillin G, procainamide, propylthiouracil, rituximab, sulfasalazine, and ticlopidine) accounted for more than 50% of definite or probable reports. Proportions of fatal cases decreased between 1966 and 2006. More patients with a neutrophil count nadir less than 0.1 x 10(9) cells/L had fatal complications than did those with a neutrophil count nadir of 0.1 x 10(9) cells/L or greater (10% vs. 3%; P < 0.001). Patients treated with hematopoietic growth factors had a shorter median duration of neutropenia (8 days vs. 9 days; P = 0.015) and, among asymptomatic patients at diagnosis, had a lower proportion of infectious or fatal complications (14% vs. 29%; P = 0.030) than patients without such treatment.
LIMITATIONS
Case reports cannot provide rates of drug-induced complications, sometimes incompletely assess or describe important details, and sometimes emphasize atypical features and outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Many drugs can cause nonchemotherapy drug-induced agranulocytosis. Case fatality may be decreasing over time with the availability of better treatment.
Topics: Agranulocytosis; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 17470834
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-9-200705010-00009 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jan 2021Having a penicillin allergy label associates with a higher risk for antibiotic resistance and increased health care use. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Having a penicillin allergy label associates with a higher risk for antibiotic resistance and increased health care use.
OBJECTIVE
We sought to assess the accuracy of skin tests and specific IgE quantification in the diagnostic evaluation of patients reporting a penicillin/β-lactam allergy.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis, searching on MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included studies conducted in patients reporting a penicillin allergy and in whom skin tests and/or specific IgE quantification were performed and compared with drug challenge results. We quantitatively assessed the accuracy of diagnostic tests with bivariate random-effects meta-analyses. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore causes of heterogeneity. Studies' quality was evaluated using QUADAS-2 criteria.
RESULTS
We included 105 primary studies, assessing 31,761 participants. Twenty-seven studies were assessed by bivariate meta-analysis. Skin tests had a summary sensitivity of 30.7% (95% CI, 18.9%-45.9%) and a specificity of 96.8% (95% CI, 94.2%-98.3%), with a partial area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.686 (I = 38.2%). Similar results were observed for subanalyses restricted to patients reporting nonimmediate maculopapular exanthema or urticaria/angioedema. Specific IgE had a summary sensitivity of 19.3% (95% CI, 12.0%-29.4%) and a specificity of 97.4% (95% CI, 95.2%-98.6%), with a partial area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.420 (I = 8.5%). Projected predictive values mainly reflect the low frequency of true penicillin allergy.
CONCLUSIONS
Skin tests and specific IgE quantification appear to have low sensitivity and high specificity. Because current evidence is insufficient for assessing the role of these tests in stratifying patients for delabeling, we identified key requirements needed for future studies.
Topics: Drug Hypersensitivity; Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Penicillins; Skin Tests
PubMed: 32446963
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.04.058 -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Jul 2023Epidemiological studies have shown conflicting results between antibiotic use and multiple sclerosis (MS) risks. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Epidemiological studies have shown conflicting results between antibiotic use and multiple sclerosis (MS) risks. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the association between antibiotic use and the risk of MS.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as well as reference lists of retrieved studies were searched systematically to identify studies were assessed the relationship between antibiotic use and MS up to September 24, 2022. Random-effects model was used for the calculation of pooled Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
Five independent studies containing 47,491 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The overall results of included studies showed a non-significant positive association between antibiotic use (OR overall=1.01, 95%CI: 0.75-1.37) and a non-significant negative association between penicillin use (OR overall= 0.83; 95%CI: 0.62-1.13) and MS risk. Heterogeneity was (I=90.1, P < 0.001) and (I=90.7, P < 0.001) in antibiotics and penicillin use groups respectively.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis did not show a significant association between antibiotic or penicillin use with the risk of MS. However, due to the limitations of this study, further well-designed studies are required to confirm our findings.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Multiple Sclerosis; Penicillins; Odds Ratio
PubMed: 37209499
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2023.104765 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Infective endocarditis is a severe infection arising in the lining of the chambers of the heart. It can be caused by fungi, but most often is caused by bacteria. Many... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Infective endocarditis is a severe infection arising in the lining of the chambers of the heart. It can be caused by fungi, but most often is caused by bacteria. Many dental procedures cause bacteraemia, which could lead to bacterial endocarditis in a small proportion of people. The incidence of bacterial endocarditis is low, but it has a high mortality rate. Guidelines in many countries have recommended that antibiotics be administered to people at high risk of endocarditis prior to invasive dental procedures. However, guidance by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales states that antibiotic prophylaxis against infective endocarditis is not recommended routinely for people undergoing dental procedures. This is an update of a review that we first conducted in 2004 and last updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To determine whether prophylactic antibiotic administration, compared to no antibiotic administration or placebo, before invasive dental procedures in people at risk or at high risk of bacterial endocarditis, influences mortality, serious illness or the incidence of endocarditis. Secondary objectives To determine whether the effect of dental antibiotic prophylaxis differs in people with different cardiac conditions predisposing them to increased risk of endocarditis, and in people undergoing different high risk dental procedures. Harms Had we foundno evidence from randomised controlled trials or cohort studies on whether prophylactic antibiotics affected mortality or serious illness, and we had found evidence from these or case-control studies suggesting that prophylaxis with antibiotics reduced the incidence of endocarditis, then we would also have assessed whether the harms of prophylaxis with single antibiotic doses, such as with penicillin (amoxicillin 2 g or 3 g) before invasive dental procedures, compared with no antibiotic or placebo, equalled the benefits in prevention of endocarditis in people at high risk of this disease.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 10 May 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: Due to the low incidence of bacterial endocarditis, we anticipated that few if any trials would be located. For this reason, we included cohort and case-control studies with suitably matched control or comparison groups. The intervention was antibiotic prophylaxis, compared to no antibiotic prophylaxis or placebo, before a dental procedure in people with an increased risk of bacterial endocarditis. Cohort studies would need to follow at-risk individuals and assess outcomes following any invasive dental procedures, grouping participants according to whether or not they had received prophylaxis. Case-control studies would need to match people who had developed endocarditis after undergoing an invasive dental procedure (and who were known to be at increased risk before undergoing the procedure) with those at similar risk who had not developed endocarditis. Our outcomes of interest were mortality or serious adverse events requiring hospital admission; development of endocarditis following any dental procedure in a defined time period; development of endocarditis due to other non-dental causes; any recorded adverse effects of the antibiotics; and the cost of antibiotic provision compared to that of caring for patients who developed endocarditis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search records, selected studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in the included study and extracted data from the included study. As an author team, we judged the certainty of the evidence identified for the main comparison and key outcomes using GRADE criteria. We presented the main results in a summary of findings table.
MAIN RESULTS
Our new search did not find any new studies for inclusion since the last version of the review in 2013. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) or cohort studies were included in the previous versions of the review, but one case-control study met the inclusion criteria. The trial authors collected information on 48 people who had contracted bacterial endocarditis over a specific two-year period and had undergone a medical or dental procedure with an indication for prophylaxis within the past 180 days. These people were matched to a similar group of people who had not contracted bacterial endocarditis. All study participants had undergone an invasive medical or dental procedure. The two groups were compared to establish whether those who had received preventive antibiotics (penicillin) were less likely to have developed endocarditis. The authors found no significant effect of penicillin prophylaxis on the incidence of endocarditis. No data on other outcomes were reported. The level of certainty we have about the evidence is very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There remains no clear evidence about whether antibiotic prophylaxis is effective or ineffective against bacterial endocarditis in at-risk people who are about to undergo an invasive dental procedure. We cannot determine whether the potential harms and costs of antibiotic administration outweigh any beneficial effect. Ethically, practitioners should discuss the potential benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis with their patients before a decision is made about administration.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Dentistry; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Humans; Penicillins
PubMed: 35536541
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003813.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2018Dental pain can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dental pain can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from an inflamed or necrotic dental pulp, or infection of the pulpless root canal system. Clinical guidelines recommend that the first-line treatment for teeth with these conditions should be removal of the source of inflammation or infection by local, operative measures, and that systemic antibiotics are currently only recommended for situations where there is evidence of spreading infection (cellulitis, lymph node involvement, diffuse swelling) or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). Despite this, there is evidence that dentists frequently prescribe antibiotics in the absence of these signs. There is concern that this could contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacterial colonies within both the individual and the community. This review is an update of the original version that was published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of systemic antibiotics provided with or without surgical intervention (such as extraction, incision and drainage of a swelling, or endodontic treatment), with or without analgesics, for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 February 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 February 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 February 2018), Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 February 2018), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 26 February 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. A grey literature search was conducted using OpenGrey (to 26 February 2018) and ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1993 to 26 February 2018). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of systemic antibiotics in adults with a clinical diagnosis of symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess, with or without surgical intervention (considered in this situation to be extraction, incision and drainage or endodontic treatment) and with or without analgesics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MD) (standardised mean difference (SMD) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data. A fixed-effect model was used in the meta-analysis as there were fewer than four studies. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two trials in this review, with 62 participants included in the analyses. Both trials were conducted in university dental schools in the USA and compared the effects of oral penicillin V potassium (penicillin VK) versus a matched placebo when provided in conjunction with a surgical intervention (total or partial pulpectomy) and analgesics to adults with acute apical abscess or symptomatic necrotic tooth. The patients included in these trials had no signs of spreading infection or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). We assessed one study as having a high risk of bias and the other study as having unclear risk of bias.The primary outcome variables reported in both studies were participant-reported pain and swelling (one trial also reported participant-reported percussion pain). One study reported the type and number of analgesics taken by participants. One study recorded the incidence of postoperative endodontic flare-ups (people who returned with symptoms that necessitated further treatment). Adverse effects, as reported in one study, were diarrhoea (one participant, placebo group) and fatigue and reduced energy postoperatively (one participant, antibiotic group). Neither study reported quality of life measurements.Objective 1: systemic antibiotics versus placebo with surgical intervention and analgesics for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscessTwo studies provided data for the comparison between systemic antibiotics (penicillin VK) and a matched placebo for adults with acute apical abscess or a symptomatic necrotic tooth when provided in conjunction with a surgical intervention. Participants in one study all underwent a total pulpectomy of the affected tooth, while participants in the other study had their tooth treated by either partial or total pulpectomy. Participants in both trials received oral analgesics. There were no statistically significant differences in participant-reported measures of pain or swelling at any of the time points assessed within the review. The MD for pain (short ordinal numerical scale 0 to 3) was -0.03 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.47) at 24 hours; 0.32 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.86) at 48 hours; and 0.08 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.54) at 72 hours. The SMD for swelling was 0.27 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.78) at 24 hours; 0.04 (95% CI -0.47 to 0.55) at 48 hours; and 0.02 (95% CI -0.49 to 0.52) at 72 hours. The body of evidence was assessed as at very low quality.Objective 2: systemic antibiotics without surgical intervention for adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscessWe found no studies that compared the effects of systemic antibiotics with a matched placebo delivered without a surgical intervention for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess in adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-quality evidence that is insufficient to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics on adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Penicillin V; Periapical Abscess; Periapical Periodontitis; Pulpectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Toothache
PubMed: 30259968
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010136.pub3 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Nov 2018The new German S3 guideline on Lyme neuroborreliosis is intended to provide physicians with scientifically based information and recommendations on the diagnosis and...
BACKGROUND
The new German S3 guideline on Lyme neuroborreliosis is intended to provide physicians with scientifically based information and recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of this disease.
METHODS
The scientific literature was systematically searched and the retrieved publications were assessed at the German Cochrane Center (Deutsches Cochrane Zentrum) in Freiburg in the 12 months beginning in March 2014. In addition to the main search terms "Lyme disease," "neuroborreliosis," "Borrelia," and "Bannwarth," 28 further terms relating to neurological manifestations of the disease were used for the search in the Medline and Embase databases and in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
RESULTS
In the treatment of early Lyme neuroborreliosis, orally administered doxycycline is well tolerated, and its efficacy is equivalent to that of intravenously administered beta-lactam antibiotics (penicillin G, ceftriaxone, and cefotaxime) (relative risk [RR]: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.68; 1.42], P = 0.93). 14 days of treatment suffice for early Lyme neuroborreliosis, and 14-21 days of treatment usually suffice for late (chronic) Lyme neuroborreliosis.
CONCLUSION
Lyme neuroborreliosis has a favorable prognosis if treated early. The long-term administration of antibiotics over many weeks or even months for putative chronic Lyme neuroborreliosis with nonspecific symptoms yields no additional benefit and carries the risk of serious adverse effects.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Borrelia; Doxycycline; Humans; Lyme Neuroborreliosis; Polyradiculopathy; Prognosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30573008
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0751 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Nov 2022To answer the following PICO question: "In patients requiring surgical treatment of peri-implantitis (P), is any implant surface decontamination protocol (I) superior to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To answer the following PICO question: "In patients requiring surgical treatment of peri-implantitis (P), is any implant surface decontamination protocol (I) superior to others (C) in terms of clinical and radiographic parameters (O)?"
METHODS
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing two or more decontamination protocols as part of the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis were included. Two authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened titles and abstracts, did full-text analysis, extracted data, and performed the risk-of-bias assessment. Whenever possible, results were summarized through random effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Twenty-two manuscripts reporting on 16 RCTs were included, testing mechanical, chemical and physical decontamination protocols. All of them resulted in an improvement in clinical parameters; however, the superiority of specific protocols over others is mainly based on single RCTs. The use of titanium brushes and implantoplasty showed favorable results as single decontamination methods. Meta-analyses indicated a lack of added effect of Er:Yag laser on probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (n = 2, WMD = -0.24 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.10; 0.63], p = .59); while systemic antimicrobials (amoxicillin or azithromycin) showed an added effect on treatment success ([PPD ≤5 mm, no bleeding or suppuration, no progressive bone loss]; n = 2, RR = 1.84, 95% CI [1.17;2.91], p = .008), but not in terms of PPD reduction (n = 2, WMD = 0.93 mm, 95% CI [-0.69; 2.55], p = .26), even if with substantial heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
No single decontamination method demonstrated clear evidence of superiority compared to the others. Systemic antibiotics, but not Er:Yag laser, may provide short-term clinical benefits in terms of treatment success (CRD42020182303).
Topics: Humans; Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Decontamination; Dental Implants; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 36017594
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13992 -
Allergy Sep 2017A documented penicillin allergy is associated with increased morbidity including length of hospital stay and an increased incidence of resistant infections attributed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A documented penicillin allergy is associated with increased morbidity including length of hospital stay and an increased incidence of resistant infections attributed to use of broader-spectrum antibiotics. The aim of the systematic review was to identify whether inpatient penicillin allergy testing affected clinical outcomes during hospitalization.
METHODS
We performed an electronic search of Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library over the past 20 years. Inpatients having a documented penicillin allergy that underwent penicillin allergy testing were included.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies met eligibility criteria. Study sample size was between 24 and 252 patients in exclusively inpatient cohorts. Penicillin skin testing (PST) with or without oral amoxicillin challenge was the main intervention described (18 studies). The population-weighted mean for a negative PST was 95.1% [CI 93.8-96.1]. Inpatient penicillin allergy testing led to a change in antibiotic selection that was greater in the intensive care unit (77.97% [CI 72.0-83.1] vs 54.73% [CI 51.2-58.2], P<.01). An increased prescription of penicillin (range 9.9%-49%) and cephalosporin (range 10.7%-48%) antibiotics was reported. Vancomycin and fluoroquinolone use was decreased. Inpatient penicillin allergy testing was associated with decreased healthcare cost in four studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Inpatient penicillin allergy testing is safe and effective in ruling out penicillin allergy. The rate of negative tests is comparable to outpatient and perioperative data. Patients with a documented penicillin allergy who require penicillin should be tested during hospitalization given its benefit for individual patient outcomes and antibiotic stewardship.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Hypersensitivity; Health Care Costs; Humans; Inpatients; Penicillins; Predictive Value of Tests; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28370003
DOI: 10.1111/all.13168