-
Germs Dec 2023is one of the most common causes of diabetic foot infection globally. This study aimed to determine the global distribution of isolated from diabetic foot ulcer... (Review)
Review
is one of the most common causes of diabetic foot infection globally. This study aimed to determine the global distribution of isolated from diabetic foot ulcer infection. PRISMA procedure was used to perform the current systematic review and meta-analysis. The Web of Science, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and other databases were searched for studies published in English from 2000 to 2022. Data was analyzed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (CMA). Keywords and MESH phrases included , diabetic foot ulcer, , and diabetic foot infection. As a result of this review, 16.6% of diabetic foot wound infections were caused by . About 37.9% of strains were multidrug resistant (MDR). infection rates in diabetic foot ulcers ranged from 0.5 to 100% globally. In total, the prevalence rates of in diabetic foot ulcer infection from Asia, Africa, and Western countries were reported at 18.5%, 16.3%, and 11.1%, respectively. Data have shown that the prevalence of , particularly MDR strains, isolated from diabetic foot ulcer infection was relatively high; inherent resistance to antibiotics is also high; the wound either does not heal or if it does, it will be delayed. Therefore, timely treatment is essential.
PubMed: 38361543
DOI: 10.18683/germs.2023.1406 -
Germs Jun 2017Imipenem-resistant (IRPA), due to resistance to different classes of antibiotics and its remarkable capacity to survive in harsh and adverse conditions such as those in...
INTRODUCTION
Imipenem-resistant (IRPA), due to resistance to different classes of antibiotics and its remarkable capacity to survive in harsh and adverse conditions such as those in the hospital environment, is considered a serious threat to the healthcare system. Given the great impact of IRPA on patients' outcome and in order to possibly improve antibiotic prescription, this study was conducted to determine the prevalence of clinical isolates of IRPA in different parts of Iran.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scopus, as well as in two Iranian domestic search engines, i.e., Iranian Scientific Information Database and Magiran. Finally, after applying exclusion and inclusion criteria 37 articles with full-texts describing the prevalence of imipenem-resistant were selected for meta-analysis and systematic review.
RESULTS
The pooled estimation of 5227 isolates in this analysis showed that the percentage of imipenem-resistant is about 54% in the Iranian population (95%CI: 0.47-0.62, logit event rate=0.19, 95%CI: -0.12,0.49).
CONCLUSION
The findings of this analysis show that in the majority of Iranian hospitals the relative frequency of IRPA is high, therefore, in order to prevent further dissemination of IRPA, more appropriate antibiotic prescription and infection control policies must be implemented by decision-makers.
PubMed: 28626739
DOI: 10.18683/germs.2017.1113 -
Journal of Global Infectious Diseases 2018Multidrug-resistant (MDR ) is known as a serious threat to human health worldwide. Limited information is available concerning the prevalence of MDR in Iran. The aim...
BACKGROUND
Multidrug-resistant (MDR ) is known as a serious threat to human health worldwide. Limited information is available concerning the prevalence of MDR in Iran. The aim of the present study was to investigate the relative frequency of MDR in different parts of Iran.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Using appropriate keywords and well-known English and Persian database, available data about MDR in Iran were retrieved. After applying predefined criteria, relevant studies were selected.
RESULTS
By using random-effect models, the pooled incidence of MDR was estimated 58% (95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.54-0.61). The highest and lowest prevalence of MDR were observed in Tehran (100%) (95% CI; 0.94-1.00) and Zahedan (16%) (95% CI; 0.10-0.24), respectively. The highest resistance rate was against ceftazidime (50%) (95% CI; 0.46-0.54) and amikacin (50%) (95% CI; 0.46-0.54).
CONCLUSION
Our findings are of concern since they demonstrate the high prevalence rate of MDR in the majority of Iranian hospitals.
PubMed: 30581263
DOI: 10.4103/jgid.jgid_113_17 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Jan 2024is the most commonly isolated pathogen in bronchiectasis and is associated with worse outcomes. Eradication treatment is recommended by guidelines, but the evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
is the most commonly isolated pathogen in bronchiectasis and is associated with worse outcomes. Eradication treatment is recommended by guidelines, but the evidence base is limited. The expected success rate of eradication in clinical practice is not known.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for studies investigating eradication treatment using antibiotics (systemic or inhaled) in patients with bronchiectasis. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients negative for at 12 months after eradication treatment. Cystic fibrosis was excluded.
RESULTS
Six observational studies including 289 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis found a 12-month eradication rate of 40% (95% CI 34-45%; p<0.00001), with no significant heterogeneity (I=0%). Combined systemic and inhaled antibiotic treatment was associated with a higher eradication rate (48%, 95% CI 41-55%) than systemic antibiotics alone (27%, 13-45%).
CONCLUSION
Eradication treatment in bronchiectasis results in eradication of from sputum in ∼40% of cases at 12 months. Combined systemic and inhaled antibiotics achieve higher eradication rates than systemic antibiotics alone.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pseudomonas Infections; Administration, Inhalation; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bronchiectasis; Cystic Fibrosis; Pseudomonas aeruginosa
PubMed: 38296344
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0178-2023 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Apr 2023The aim of the guidelines is to provide recommendations on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) in adult inpatients who are carriers of multidrug-resistant...
SCOPE
The aim of the guidelines is to provide recommendations on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) in adult inpatients who are carriers of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) before surgery.
METHODS
These evidence-based guidelines were developed after a systematic review of published studies on PAP targeting the following MDR-GNB: extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), aminoglycoside-resistant Enterobacterales, fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacterales, cotrimoxazole-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), extremely drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, colistin-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, and pan-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. The critical outcomes were the occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) caused by any bacteria and/or by the colonizing MDR-GNB, and SSI-attributable mortality. Important outcomes included the occurrence of any type of postsurgical infectious complication, all-cause mortality, and adverse events of PAP, including development of resistance to targeted (culture-based) PAP after surgery and incidence of Clostridioides difficile infections. The last search of all databases was performed until April 30, 2022. The level of evidence and strength of each recommendation were defined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Consensus of a multidisciplinary expert panel was reached for the final list of recommendations. Antimicrobial stewardship considerations were included in the recommendation development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The guideline panel reviewed the evidence, per bacteria, of the risk of SSIs in patients colonized with MDR-GNB before surgery and critically appraised the existing studies. Significant knowledge gaps were identified, and most questions were addressed by observational studies. Moderate to high risk of bias was identified in the retrieved studies, and the majority of the recommendations were supported by low level of evidence. The panel conditionally recommends rectal screening and targeted PAP for fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacterales before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and for extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales in patients undergoing colorectal surgery and solid organ transplantation. Screening for CRE and CRAB is suggested before transplant surgery after assessment of the local epidemiology. Careful consideration of the laboratory workload and involvement of antimicrobial stewardship teams before implementing the screening procedures or performing changes in PAP are warranted. High-quality prospective studies to assess the impact of PAP among CRE and CRAB carriers performing high-risk surgeries are advocated. Future well-designed clinical trials should assess the effectiveness of targeted PAP, including the monitoring of MDR-GNB colonization through postoperative cultures using European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing clinical breakpoints.
Topics: Male; Adult; Humans; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Prospective Studies; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Carbapenems; Cephalosporins; Monobactams; Fluoroquinolones
PubMed: 36566836
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.12.012 -
Paediatric Respiratory Reviews Dec 2023Respiratory infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are a major concern for cystic fibrosis (CF) patients due to increasing antibiotic... (Review)
Review
Respiratory infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are a major concern for cystic fibrosis (CF) patients due to increasing antibiotic resistance. Bacteriophages, which are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria, are being studied as an alternative treatment for these infections. This systematic review evaluates the safety and effectiveness of bacteriophages for the treatment of CF-related infections caused by S. aureus and/or P. aeruginosa. We conducted a search for original, published articles in the English language up to March 2023. Studies that administered bacteriophages via intravenous, nebulised, inhaled, or intranasal routes were included, with no comparators required. In vitro and in vivo studies were eligible for inclusion, and only animal in vivo studies that utilised a CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) animal model were included. Bacteriophage treatment resulted in a decrease in bacterial load in both humans and animals infected with P. aeruginosa. Complete eradication of P. aeruginosa was only observed in one human subject. Additionally, there was a reduction in biofilm, improvement in resistance profile, and reduced pulmonary exacerbations in individual case reports. Evidence suggests that bacteriophage therapy may be a promising treatment option for CF-related infections caused by P. aeruginosa and S. aureus. However, larger and more robust trials are needed to establish its safety and efficacy and create necessary evidence for global legislative frameworks.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Pseudomonas Infections; Cystic Fibrosis; Staphylococcus aureus; Bacteriophages; Staphylococcal Infections; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37598024
DOI: 10.1016/j.prrv.2023.08.001 -
Infectious Diseases and Therapy Dec 2021A systematic literature review was undertaken to evaluate real-world use of ceftazidime-avibactam for infections due to aerobic Gram-negative organisms in adults with... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
A systematic literature review was undertaken to evaluate real-world use of ceftazidime-avibactam for infections due to aerobic Gram-negative organisms in adults with limited treatment options.
METHODS
Literature searches retrieved peer-reviewed publications and abstracts from major international infectious disease congresses from January 2015 to February 2021. Results were screened using pre-defined criteria to limit the dataset to relevant publications (notable exclusions were paediatric data and outcomes data for bacteria intrinsically resistant to ceftazidime-avibactam). Data for included publications were subjected to qualitative synthesis.
RESULTS
Seventy-three relevant publications (62 peer-reviewed articles; 10 abstracts) comprising 1926 patients treated with ceftazidime-avibactam (either alone or combined with other antimicrobials) and 1114 comparator/control patients were identified. All patients were hospitalised for serious illness and most had multiple comorbidities. The most common infections were pneumonia, bacteraemia, and skin/soft tissue, urinary tract, or abdominal infections; smaller numbers of patients with meningitis, febrile neutropenia, osteomyelitis, and cystic fibrosis were also included. Carbapenem-resistant or carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CRE; n = 1718) and carbapenem-resistant, multidrug-resistant (MDR), and extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 150) were the most common pathogens. Most publications reported positive outcomes for ceftazidime-avibactam treatment (clinical success rates ranged from 45 to 100% and reported 30-day mortality from 0 to 63%), which were statistically superior versus comparators in some studies. ceftazidime-avibactam resistance emergence occurred infrequently and mostly in Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing K. pneumoniae strains.
CONCLUSION
This review provides qualitative evidence of successful use of ceftazidime-avibactam for the treatment of hospitalised patients with CRE and MDR P. aeruginosa infections with limited treatment options.
PubMed: 34379310
DOI: 10.1007/s40121-021-00507-6 -
Microbial Pathogenesis Nov 2023Gram-negative bacteria are infectious and life-threatening agents after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). So, this study aimed to investigate the... (Review)
Review
Gram-negative bacteria are infectious and life-threatening agents after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). So, this study aimed to investigate the prevalence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and its antibiotic resistance in patients who have received Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation through a systematic review. The systematic search was done with key words; Pseudomonas aeruginosa, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from 2000 to the end of July 2023 in Google Scholar and PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science. Twelve studies were able to include our study. Quality assessment of studies was done by Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies. The most of the included studies were conducted as allo-HSCT. Infections such as respiratory infection, urinary infection and bacteremia have occurred. The rate of prevalence with P. aeruginosa has varied between 3 and 100%. The average age of the participants was between 1 and 74 years. The rate of prevalence of P. aeruginosa resistant to several drugs has been reported to be variable, ranging from 20 to 100%. The highest antibiotic resistance was reported against cefotetan (100%), and the lowest was related to tobramycin (1.8%) followed by amikacin, levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin with the prevalence of 16.6%. Our findings showed a high prevalence and antibiotic resistance rate of P. aeruginosa in Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Therefore, more serious health measures should be taken in patients after transplantation.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cross-Sectional Studies; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Prevalence; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Pseudomonas Infections
PubMed: 37769854
DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2023.106368 -
The Journal of Infection Aug 2020In previous influenza pandemics, bacterial co-infections have been a major cause of mortality. We aimed to evaluate the burden of co-infections in patients with COVID-19. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
In previous influenza pandemics, bacterial co-infections have been a major cause of mortality. We aimed to evaluate the burden of co-infections in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
We systematically searched Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, LILACS and CINAHL for eligible studies published from 1 January 2020 to 17 April 2020. We included patients of all ages, in all settings. The main outcome was the proportion of patients with a bacterial, fungal or viral co-infection. .
RESULTS
Thirty studies including 3834 patients were included. Overall, 7% of hospitalised COVID-19 patients had a bacterial co-infection (95% CI 3-12%, n=2183, I=92·2%). A higher proportion of ICU patients had bacterial co-infections than patients in mixed ward/ICU settings (14%, 95% CI 5-26, I=74·7% versus 4%, 95% CI 1-9, I= 91·7%). The commonest bacteria were Mycoplasma pneumonia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Haemophilus influenzae. The pooled proportion with a viral co-infection was 3% (95% CI 1-6, n=1014, I=62·3%), with Respiratory Syncytial Virus and influenza A the commonest. Three studies reported fungal co-infections.
CONCLUSIONS
A low proportion of COVID-19 patients have a bacterial co-infection; less than in previous influenza pandemics. These findings do not support the routine use of antibiotics in the management of confirmed COVID-19 infection.
Topics: Bacterial Infections; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coinfection; Coronavirus Infections; Humans; Mycoses; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 32473235
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.046 -
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection... Mar 2022Pneumonia from SARS-CoV-2 is difficult to distinguish from other viral and bacterial etiologies. Broad-spectrum antimicrobials are frequently prescribed to patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pneumonia from SARS-CoV-2 is difficult to distinguish from other viral and bacterial etiologies. Broad-spectrum antimicrobials are frequently prescribed to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 which potentially acts as a catalyst for the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR).
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis during the first 18 months of the pandemic to quantify the prevalence and types of resistant co-infecting organisms in patients with COVID-19 and explore differences across hospital and geographic settings.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science (BioSIS), and Scopus from November 1, 2019 to May 28, 2021 to identify relevant articles pertaining to resistant co-infections in patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Patient- and study-level analyses were conducted. We calculated pooled prevalence estimates of co-infection with resistant bacterial or fungal organisms using random effects models. Stratified meta-analysis by hospital and geographic setting was also performed to elucidate any differences.
RESULTS
Of 1331 articles identified, 38 met inclusion criteria. A total of 1959 unique isolates were identified with 29% (569) resistant organisms identified. Co-infection with resistant bacterial or fungal organisms ranged from 0.2 to 100% among included studies. Pooled prevalence of co-infection with resistant bacterial and fungal organisms was 24% (95% CI 8-40%; n = 25 studies: I = 99%) and 0.3% (95% CI 0.1-0.6%; n = 8 studies: I = 78%), respectively. Among multi-drug resistant organisms, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and multi-drug resistant Candida auris were most commonly reported. Stratified analyses found higher proportions of AMR outside of Europe and in ICU settings, though these results were not statistically significant. Patient-level analysis demonstrated > 50% (n = 58) mortality, whereby all but 6 patients were infected with a resistant organism.
CONCLUSIONS
During the first 18 months of the pandemic, AMR prevalence was high in COVID-19 patients and varied by hospital and geography although there was substantial heterogeneity. Given the variation in patient populations within these studies, clinical settings, practice patterns, and definitions of AMR, further research is warranted to quantify AMR in COVID-19 patients to improve surveillance programs, infection prevention and control practices and antimicrobial stewardship programs globally.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antifungal Agents; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; COVID-19; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Drug Resistance, Fungal; Fungi; Humans; Mycoses; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35255988
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-022-01085-z