-
Pediatric Nephrology (Berlin, Germany) Aug 2022Edema is one of the cardinal clinical features of nephrotic syndrome (NS). It may vary from mild periorbital edema to severe generalized edema (anasarca). In patients... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Edema is one of the cardinal clinical features of nephrotic syndrome (NS). It may vary from mild periorbital edema to severe generalized edema (anasarca). In patients where edema does not improve with prednisone therapy, the most common supportive medications are diuretics and albumin. However, due to the complex pathophysiology of edema formation in NS patients resulting in intravascular normovolemia or hypovolemia, optimal therapy for edema is still debated. We conducted a systematic review with the objective of evaluating the change in urine volume and urine sodium excretion after treatment with furosemide only versus furosemide with albumin in edematous patients with NS.
OBJECTIVES
(1) To evaluate efficacy of furosemide alone versus furosemide with albumin in the treatment of nephrotic edema in adults and children. (2) To compare the harms and benefits of different doses of furosemide for treating nephrotic edema.
SEARCH METHODS
The search included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in English and French using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL Trials Registry of the Cochrane Collaboration using the Ovid interface.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all RCTs and randomized cross-over studies in which furosemide and furosemide plus albumin are used in the treatment of children or adults with nephrotic edema. We excluded patients with hypoalbuminemia of non-renal origin and severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) with a glomerular filtration rate below 30 ml/min/1.74 m and patients with congenital NS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All abstracts were independently assessed by at least two authors to determine which studies met the inclusion criteria. Information on study design, methodology, and outcome data (urine volume, urine sodium excretion, adverse effects) from each identified study was entered into a separate data sheet. The differences in outcomes between the types of therapy were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
The search yielded 525 records, and after screening, five studies were included in the systematic review and four of those studies in the meta-analysis. One study had high risk of bias and the remaining three studies were deemed to have some concerns. Urine excretion was greater after treatment with furosemide and albumin versus furosemide (SMD 0.85, 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.38). Results for sodium excretion were inconclusive (SMD 0.37, 95%CI = - 0.28 to 1.02).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The current evidence is not sufficient to make definitive conclusions about the role of albumin in treating nephrotic edema. High-quality randomized studies with adequate samples sizes are needed. Including an assessment of intravascular volume status may be helpful.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Prospero: CRD4201808979. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.
Topics: Adult; Albumins; Child; Edema; Furosemide; Humans; Nephrotic Syndrome; Sodium
PubMed: 35239032
DOI: 10.1007/s00467-021-05358-4 -
JAMA Dermatology Apr 2023Antibiotics are an important risk for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), which are the most severe types of drug hypersensitivity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Antibiotics are an important risk for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), which are the most severe types of drug hypersensitivity reaction with a mortality rate up to 50%. To our knowledge, no global systematic review has described antibiotic-associated SJS/TEN.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the prevalence of antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN worldwide.
DATA SOURCES
The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for experimental and observational studies that described SJS/TEN risks since database inception to February 22, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies adequately described SJS/TEN origins and specified the antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers (E.Y.L. and C.K.) independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed in the studies that described patient-level associations. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the heterogeneity. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, and the certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Prevalence of antibiotic-associated SJS/TEN was presented as pooled proportions with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Among the 64 studies included in the systematic review, there were 38 studies that described patient-level associations; the meta-analysis included these 38 studies with 2917 patients to determine the prevalence of single antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN. The pooled proportion of antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN was 28% (95% CI, 24%-33%), with moderate certainty of evidence. Among antibiotic-associated SJS/TEN, the sulfonamide class was associated with 32% (95% CI, 22%-44%) of cases, followed by penicillins (22%; 95% CI, 17%-28%), cephalosporins (11%; 95% CI, 6%-17%), fluoroquinolones (4%; 95% CI, 1%-7%), and macrolides (2%; 95% CI, 1%-5%). There was a statistically significant heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, which could be partially explained in the subgroup analysis by continents. The overall risk of bias was low using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for case series.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of all case series, antibiotics were associated with more than one-quarter of SJS/TEN cases described worldwide, and sulfonamide antibiotics remained the most important association. These findings highlight the importance of antibiotic stewardship, clinician education and awareness, and weighing the risk-benefit assessment of antibiotic choice and duration.
Topics: Humans; Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Prevalence; Sulfanilamide; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36790777
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.6378 -
PloS One 2021It has been a matter of much debate whether the co-administration of furosemide and albumin can achieve better diuresis and natriuresis than furosemide treatment alone.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It has been a matter of much debate whether the co-administration of furosemide and albumin can achieve better diuresis and natriuresis than furosemide treatment alone. There is inconsistency in published trials regarding the effect of this combination therapy. We, therefore, conducted this meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of furosemide and albumin co-administration and the factors potentially influencing the diuretic effect of such co-administration.
METHODS
In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched the PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases. Prospective studies with adult populations which comparing the effect of furosemide and albumin co-administration with furosemide alone were included. The outcomes including diuretic effect and natriuresis effect measured by hourly urine output and hourly urine sodium excretion from both groups were extracted. Random effect model was applied for conducting meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity of treatment effects.
RESULTS
By including 13 studies with 422 participants, the meta-analysis revealed that furosemide with albumin co-administration increased urine output by 31.45 ml/hour and increased urine excretion by 1.76 mEq/hour in comparison to furosemide treatment alone. The diuretic effect of albumin and furosemide co-administration was better in participants with low baseline serum albumin levels (< 2.5 g/dL) and high prescribed albumin infusion doses (> 30 g), and the effect was more significant within 12 hours after administration. Diuretic effect of co-administration was better in those with baseline Cr > 1.2 mg/dL and natriuresis effect of co-administration was better in those with baseline eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2.
CONCLUSION
Co-administration of furosemide with albumin might enhance diuresis and natriuresis effects than furosemide treatment alone but with high heterogeneity in treatment response. According to the present meta-analysis, combination therapy might provide advantages compared to the furosemide therapy alone in patients with baseline albumin levels lower than 2.5 g/dL or in patients receiving higher albumin infusion doses or in patients with impaired renal function. Owing to high heterogeneity and limited enrolled participants, further parallel randomized controlled trials are warranted to examine our outcome.
REGISTRATION
PROSEPRO ID: CRD42020211002; https://clinicaltrials.gov/.
Topics: Albumins; Diuretics; Drug Combinations; Furosemide; Humans; Nephrotic Syndrome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34851962
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260312 -
Anaesthesia Feb 2018Loop diuretics remain a fundamental pharmacological therapy to remove excess fluid and improve symptom control in acute decompensated heart failure. Several recent... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Continuous infusion vs. intermittent bolus injection of furosemide in acute decompensated heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Loop diuretics remain a fundamental pharmacological therapy to remove excess fluid and improve symptom control in acute decompensated heart failure. Several recent randomised controlled trials have examined the clinical benefit of continuous vs. bolus furosemide in acute decompensated heart failure, but have reported conflicting findings. The aim of this review was to compare the effects of continuous and bolus furosemide with regard to mortality, length of hospital stay and its efficacy profile in acute decompensated heart failure. All parallel-arm randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until May 2017 were included. Cross-over randomised controlled trials, observational studies, case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews that involved children were excluded. Eight trials (n = 669) were eligible for inclusion. There was no difference between furosemide continuous infusion and bolus administration for all-cause mortality (four studies; n = 491; I = 0%; OR 1.65; 95%CI 0.93-2.91; p = 0.08) or duration of hospitalisation (six studies; n = 576; I = 71%; mean difference 0.27; 95%CI -1.35 to 1.89 days; p = 0.74). Continuous infusion of intravenous furosemide was associated with increased weight reduction (five studies; n = 516; I = 0%; mean difference 0.70; 95%CI 0.12-1.28 kg; p = 0.02); increased total urine output in 24 h (four studies; n = 390; I = 33%; mean difference 461.5; 95%CI 133.7-789.4 ml; p < 0.01); and reduced brain natriuretic peptide (two studies; n = 390; I = 0%; mean difference 399.5; 95%CI 152.7-646.3 ng.l ; p < 0.01), compared with the bolus group. There was no difference in the incidence of raised creatinine and hypokalaemia between the two groups. In summary, there was no difference between continuous infusion and bolus of furosemide for all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay and electrolyte disturbance, but continuous infusion was superior to bolus administration with regard to diuretic effect and reduction in brain natriuretic peptide.
Topics: Acute Disease; Diuretics; Furosemide; Heart Failure; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Injections, Intravenous; Length of Stay
PubMed: 28940440
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14038 -
Heart Failure Reviews Jan 2021Diuretics have an essential role in the management of heart failure (HF). However, each drug has its own benefit and side effect. Side effects include fluid, electrolyte... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Diuretics have an essential role in the management of heart failure (HF). However, each drug has its own benefit and side effect. Side effects include fluid, electrolyte abnormalities, and acid-base disturbance. These adverse effects of diuretics predispose patients to serious cardiac arrhythmias and may increase the risk of arrhythmic mortality. Herein, we aim to summarize the relative efficacy and safety of all available diuretics used in the treatment of patients with HF. In June 2017, a systematic electronic database search was conducted in nine databases. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the different diuretics used in HF were included for meta-analysis. The protocol was registered in Prospero with CRD42018084819. Among the included 54 studies (10,740 patients), 34 RCTs were eligible for quantitative network meta-analysis (NMA) and traditional meta-analysis while the other 20 studies were qualitatively analyzed. Our results showed that azosemide and torasemide caused a significant reduction in brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level. Torasemide also caused a significant decrease in collagen volume fraction (CVF) and edema. No significant difference between the agents concerning glomerular filtration rate (GFR), water extraction, and sodium excretion was demonstrated. Regarding side effects, no significant difference among diuretics was observed in terms of hospital readmission and mortality rates. Diuretics are the main treatment of hypervolemia in HF patients. The choice of appropriate diuretic is essential for successful management and is mainly guided by patient clinical situations and the presence of other co-morbidities.
Topics: Diuretics; Furosemide; Heart Failure; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Torsemide
PubMed: 32783109
DOI: 10.1007/s10741-020-10003-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Burn wounds cause high levels of morbidity and mortality worldwide. People with burns are particularly vulnerable to infections; over 75% of all burn deaths (after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Burn wounds cause high levels of morbidity and mortality worldwide. People with burns are particularly vulnerable to infections; over 75% of all burn deaths (after initial resuscitation) result from infection. Antiseptics are topical agents that act to prevent growth of micro-organisms. A wide range are used with the intention of preventing infection and promoting healing of burn wounds.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects and safety of antiseptics for the treatment of burns in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched three clinical trials registries and references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with any burn wound and assessed the use of a topical treatment with antiseptic properties.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 56 RCTs with 5807 randomised participants. Almost all trials had poorly reported methodology, meaning that it is unclear whether they were at high risk of bias. In many cases the primary review outcomes, wound healing and infection, were not reported, or were reported incompletely.Most trials enrolled people with recent burns, described as second-degree and less than 40% of total body surface area; most participants were adults. Antiseptic agents assessed were: silver-based, honey, Aloe Vera, iodine-based, chlorhexidine or polyhexanide (biguanides), sodium hypochlorite, merbromin, ethacridine lactate, cerium nitrate and Arnebia euchroma. Most studies compared antiseptic with a topical antibiotic, primarily silver sulfadiazine (SSD); others compared antiseptic with a non-antibacterial treatment or another antiseptic. Most evidence was assessed as low or very low certainty, often because of imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates, or both, often in single studies. Antiseptics versus topical antibioticsCompared with the topical antibiotic, SSD, there is low certainty evidence that, on average, there is no clear difference in the hazard of healing (chance of healing over time), between silver-based antiseptics and SSD (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.67; I = 0%; 3 studies; 259 participants); silver-based antiseptics may, on average, increase the number of healing events over 21 or 28 days' follow-up (RR 1.17 95% CI 1.00 to 1.37; I = 45%; 5 studies; 408 participants) and may, on average, reduce mean time to healing (difference in means -3.33 days; 95% CI -4.96 to -1.70; I = 87%; 10 studies; 979 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with honey are probably more likely to heal over time compared with topical antibiotics (HR 2.45, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.52; I = 66%; 5 studies; 140 participants).There is low certainty evidence from single trials that sodium hypochlorite may, on average, slightly reduce mean time to healing compared with SSD (difference in means -2.10 days, 95% CI -3.87 to -0.33, 10 participants (20 burns)) as may merbromin compared with zinc sulfadiazine (difference in means -3.48 days, 95% CI -6.85 to -0.11, 50 relevant participants). Other comparisons with low or very low certainty evidence did not find clear differences between groups.Most comparisons did not report data on infection. Based on the available data we cannot be certain if antiseptic treatments increase or reduce the risk of infection compared with topical antibiotics (very low certainty evidence). Antiseptics versus alternative antisepticsThere may be some reduction in mean time to healing for wounds treated with povidone iodine compared with chlorhexidine (MD -2.21 days, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.08). Other evidence showed no clear differences and is of low or very low certainty. Antiseptics versus non-antibacterial comparatorsWe found high certainty evidence that treating burns with honey, on average, reduced mean times to healing in comparison with non-antibacterial treatments (difference in means -5.3 days, 95% CI -6.30 to -4.34; I = 71%; 4 studies; 1156 participants) but this comparison included some unconventional treatments such as amniotic membrane and potato peel. There is moderate certainty evidence that honey probably also increases the likelihood of wounds healing over time compared to unconventional anti-bacterial treatments (HR 2.86, 95% C 1.60 to 5.11; I = 50%; 2 studies; 154 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with nanocrystalline silver dressings probably have a slightly shorter mean time to healing than those treated with Vaseline gauze (difference in means -3.49 days, 95% CI -4.46 to -2.52; I = 0%; 2 studies, 204 participants), but low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference in numbers of healing events at 14 days between burns treated with silver xenograft or paraffin gauze (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.16 1 study; 32 participants). Other comparisons represented low or very low certainty evidence.It is uncertain whether infection rates in burns treated with either silver-based antiseptics or honey differ compared with non-antimicrobial treatments (very low certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in infection rates between an iodine-based treatment compared with moist exposed burn ointment (moderate certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether infection rates differ for SSD plus cerium nitrate, compared with SSD alone (low certainty evidence).Mortality was low where reported. Most comparisons provided low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between many treatments. There may be fewer deaths in groups treated with cerium nitrate plus SSD compared with SSD alone (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; I = 0%, 2 studies, 214 participants) (low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It was often uncertain whether antiseptics were associated with any difference in healing, infections, or other outcomes. Where there is moderate or high certainty evidence, decision makers need to consider the applicability of the evidence from the comparison to their patients. Reporting was poor, to the extent that we are not confident that most trials are free from risk of bias.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Apitherapy; Bacterial Infections; Bandages; Burns; Chlorhexidine; Disinfectants; Honey; Humans; Merbromin; Plant Preparations; Povidone-Iodine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silver Sulfadiazine; Sodium Hypochlorite; Sulfadiazine; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28700086
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011821.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2013An acute burn wound is a complex and evolving injury. Extensive burns produce systemic consequences, in addition to local tissue damage. Treatment of partial thickness... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
An acute burn wound is a complex and evolving injury. Extensive burns produce systemic consequences, in addition to local tissue damage. Treatment of partial thickness burn wounds is directed towards promoting healing and a wide variety of dressings are currently available. Improvements in technology and advances in understanding of wound healing have driven the development of new dressings. Dressing selection should be based on their effects on healing, but ease of application and removal, dressing change requirements, cost and patient comfort should also be considered.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of burn wound dressings on superficial and partial thickness burns.
SEARCH METHODS
For this first update we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 8 November 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE (2008 to October Week 4 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, November 07, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2008 to 2012 Week 44); AND EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 2 November 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of burn wound dressings on the healing of superficial and partial thickness burns.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted the data independently using standardised forms. We assessed each trial for internal validity and resolved differences by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 30 RCTs are included in this review. Overall both the quality of trial reporting and trial conduct were generally poor and meta analysis was largely precluded due to study heterogeneity or poor data reporting. In the context of this poor quality evidence, silver sulphadiazine (SSD) was consistently associated with poorer healing outcomes than biosynthetic (skin substitute) dressings, silver-containing dressings and silicon-coated dressings. Burns treated with hydrogel dressings appear to heal more quickly than those treated with usual care.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a paucity of high-quality evidence regarding the effect of different dressings on the healing of superficial and partial thickness burn injuries. The studies summarised in this review evaluated a variety of interventions, comparators and clinical endpoints and all were at risk of bias. It is impossible to draw firm and confident conclusions about the effectiveness of specific dressings, however silver sulphadiazine was consistently associated with poorer healing outcomes than biosynthetic, silicon-coated and silver dressings whilst hydrogel-treated burns had better healing outcomes than those treated with usual care.
Topics: Bandages; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Burns; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silicon Compounds; Silver Sulfadiazine; Skin, Artificial; Wound Healing
PubMed: 23543513
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002106.pub4 -
BMJ Open May 2017To address clinical uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of long-term antibiotic therapy for preventing recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) in older... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To address clinical uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of long-term antibiotic therapy for preventing recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) in older adults.
DESIGN
Systematic review andmeta-analysis of randomised trials.
METHOD
We searched Medline, Embase, The CINAHL), and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2016. Eligible studies compared long-term antibiotic therapy with non-antibiotic therapy or placebo in men or women aged over 65, or in postmenopausal women, with recurrent UTIs.
RESULTS
We did not identify any studies that included older men. Three randomised controlled trials compared long-term antibiotics with vaginal oestrogens (n=150), oral lactobacilli (n=238) and D-mannose powder (n=94) in postmenopausal women. Long-term antibiotics reduced the risk of UTI recurrence by 24% (three trials, n=482; pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.76; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95, number needed to treat=8.5). There was no statistically significant increase in risk of adverse events (mild adverse events: pooled RR 1.52; 95% CI 0.76 to 3.03; serious adverse events: pooled RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.66). One trial showed 90% of urinary and faecal isolates were resistant to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole after 1 month of prophylaxis.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings from three small trials with relatively short follow-up periods suggest long-term antibiotic therapy reduces the risk of recurrence in postmenopausal women with recurrent UTI. We did not identify any evidence to inform several clinically important scenarios including, benefits and harms in older men or frail care home residents, optimal duration of prophylaxis, recurrence rates once prophylaxis stops and effects on urinary antibiotic resistance.
Topics: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Female; Humans; Postmenopause; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 28554926
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015233 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) is a disease affecting immunocompromised patients. PCP among these patients is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) is a disease affecting immunocompromised patients. PCP among these patients is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of PCP prophylaxis among non-HIV immunocompromised patients; and to define the type of immunocompromised patient for whom evidence suggests a benefit for PCP prophylaxis.
SEARCH METHODS
Electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE and EMBASE (to March 2014), LILACS (to March 2014), relevant conference proceedings; and references of identified trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing prophylaxis with an antibiotic effective against PCP versus placebo, no intervention, or antibiotic(s) with no activity against PCP; and trials comparing different antibiotics effective against PCP among immunocompromised non-HIV patients. We only included trials in which Pneumocystis infections were available as an outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias in each trial and extracted data from the included trials. We contacted authors of the included trials to obtain missing data. The primary outcome was documented PCP infections. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated and pooled using the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen trials performed between the years 1974 and 2008 were included, involving 1412 patients. Four trials included 520 children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and the remaining trials included adults with acute leukemia, solid organ transplantation or autologous bone marrow transplantation. Compared to no treatment or treatment with fluoroquinolones (inactive against Pneumocystis), there was an 85% reduction in the occurrence of PCP in patients receiving prophylaxis with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, RR of 0.15 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.62; 10 trials, 1000 patients). The evidence was graded as moderate due to possible risk of bias. PCP-related mortality was also significantly reduced, RR of 0.17 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.94; nine trials, 886 patients) (low quality of evidence due to possible risk of bias and imprecision), but in trials comparing PCP prophylaxis against placebo or no treatment there was no significant effect on all-cause mortality (low quality of evidence due to imprecision). Occurrence of leukopenia or neutropenia and their duration were not reported consistently. No significant differences in overall adverse events or events requiring discontinuation were seen comparing trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole to no treatment or placebo (four trials, 470 patients, moderate quality evidence). No differences between once daily versus thrice weekly trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole were seen (two trials, 207 patients).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Given an event rate of 6.2% in the control groups of the included trials, prophylaxis for PCP using trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is highly effective among non-HIV immunocompromised patients, with a number needed to treat to prevent PCP of 19 patients (95% CI 17 to 42). Prophylaxis should be considered for patients with a similar baseline risk of PCP.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents; Child; HIV Seronegativity; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Pneumonia, Pneumocystis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination
PubMed: 25269391
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005590.pub3 -
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2022(1) Background: pneumonia (PCP) has a substantial impact on the morbidity and mortality of patients, especially those with autoimmune disorders, thus requiring optimal... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: pneumonia (PCP) has a substantial impact on the morbidity and mortality of patients, especially those with autoimmune disorders, thus requiring optimal dosing strategies of Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX). Therefore, to ensure the safety of TMP-SMX, there is a high demand to review current evidence in PCP patients with a focus on dose optimization strategies; (2) Methods: Various databases were searched from January 2000 to December 2021 for articles in English, focusing on the dose optimization of TMP-SMX. The data were collected in a specific form with predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of each article was evaluated using a Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for retrospective studies, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical checklist for case reports, and Cochrane bias tool for randomized clinical trials (RCTs); (3) Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria for final analysis. Of the 13 selected studies, nine were retrospective cohort studies, two case reports, and two randomized controlled trials (RCT). Most of the studies compared the high-dose with low-dose TMP-SMX therapy for PCP. We have found that a low dose of TMP-SMX provides satisfactory outcomes while reducing the mortality rate and PCP-associated adverse events. This strategy reduces the economic burden of illness and enhances patients' compliance to daily regimen plan; (4) Conclusions: The large-scale RCTs and cohort studies are required to improve dosing strategies to prevent initial occurrence of PCP or to prevent recurrence of PCP in immune compromised patients.
Topics: Cohort Studies; Humans; Pneumonia, Pneumocystis; Retrospective Studies; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination
PubMed: 35270525
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052833