-
Critical Care (London, England) Mar 2017Multiple corticosteroids and treatment regimens have been used as adjuncts in the treatment of septic shock. Qualitative and quantitative differences exist at cellular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple corticosteroids and treatment regimens have been used as adjuncts in the treatment of septic shock. Qualitative and quantitative differences exist at cellular and tissular levels between the different drugs and their patterns of delivery. The objective of this study was to elucidate any differences between the drugs and their treatment regimens regarding outcomes for corticosteroid use in adult patients with septic shock.
METHODS
Network meta-analysis of the data used for the recently conducted Cochrane review was performed. Studies that included children and were designed to assess respiratory function in pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, as well as cross-over studies, were excluded. Network plots were created for each outcome, and all analyses were conducted using a frequentist approach assuming a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Complete data from 22 studies and partial data from 1 study were included. Network meta-analysis provided no clear evidence that any intervention or treatment regimen is better than any other across the spectrum of outcomes. There was strong evidence of differential efficacy in only one area: shock reversal. Hydrocortisone boluses and infusions were more likely than methylprednisolone boluses and placebo to result in shock reversal.
CONCLUSIONS
There was no clear evidence that any one corticosteroid drug or treatment regimen is more likely to be effective in reducing mortality or reducing the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding or superinfection in septic shock. Hydrocortisone delivered as a bolus or as an infusion was more likely than placebo and methylprednisolone to result in shock reversal.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Child; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 28351429
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-017-1659-4 -
Acta Odontologica Latinoamericana : AOL Apr 2023Oral mucositis (OM) is a frequent complication in cancer patients who are undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy. It manifests as an inflammation of the oral mucosa,...
UNLABELLED
Oral mucositis (OM) is a frequent complication in cancer patients who are undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy. It manifests as an inflammation of the oral mucosa, sometimes provoking severe consequences such as eating limitations, difficulty in speaking, and possibly superinfection.
AIM
The aim of this review was to update the evidence published during the last five years on the treatment of oral mucositis induced by radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy in patients with cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
A search was conducted in Pubmed, Scielo and Scopus, using the search terms mucositis, stomatitis, therapy, treatment, oral cancer, oral squamous cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer and head and neck carcinoma, with Mesh terms and free terms, from 2017 to January 2023. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
A total 287 articles were retrieved, of which 86 were selected by title and abstract, and 18 were included after full-text analysis. The most frequently assessed variables were OM severity, pain intensity and healing time. Treatment types were diverse, and included drugs, mouthwashes, medicines based on plant extracts, cryotherapy and low-intensity laser therapies.
CONCLUSION
Dentoxol mouthwashes, Plantago major extract, thyme honey extract, zinc oxide paste, vitamin B complex combined with GeneTime, and the consumption of L-glutamine are effective in diminishing the severity of OM. Pain intensity was lower with doxepin mouthwashes and diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwashes.
Topics: Humans; Mucositis; Radiotherapy
PubMed: 37314054
DOI: 10.54589/aol.36/1/3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE when topical treatments, such as corticosteroids, are insufficient or poorly tolerated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of phototherapy for treating AE.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials in adults or children with any subtype or severity of clinically diagnosed AE. Eligible comparisons were any type of phototherapy versus other forms of phototherapy or any other treatment, including placebo or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology. For key findings, we used RoB 2.0 to assess bias, and GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. Primary outcomes were physician-assessed signs and patient-reported symptoms. Secondary outcomes were Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety (measured as withdrawals due to adverse events), and long-term control.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 trials with 1219 randomised participants, aged 5 to 83 years (mean: 28 years), with an equal number of males and females. Participants were recruited mainly from secondary care dermatology clinics, and study duration was, on average, 13 weeks (range: 10 days to one year). We assessed risk of bias for all key outcomes as having some concerns or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information to assess selective reporting. Assessed interventions included: narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB; 13 trials), ultraviolet A1 (UVA1; 6 trials), broadband ultraviolet B (BB-UVB; 5 trials), ultraviolet AB (UVAB; 2 trials), psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA; 2 trials), ultraviolet A (UVA; 1 trial), unspecified ultraviolet B (UVB; 1 trial), full spectrum light (1 trial), Saalmann selective ultraviolet phototherapy (SUP) cabin (1 trial), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy; 1 trial), and excimer laser (1 trial). Comparators included placebo, no treatment, another phototherapy, topical treatment, or alternative doses of the same treatment. Results for key comparisons are summarised (for scales, lower scores are better): NB-UVB versus placebo/no treatment There may be a larger reduction in physician-assessed signs with NB-UVB compared to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (mean difference (MD) -9.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.62 to -15.18; 1 trial, 41 participants; scale: 0 to 90). Two trials reported little difference between NB-UVB and no treatment (37 participants, four to six weeks of treatment); another reported improved signs with NB-UVB versus no treatment (11 participants, nine weeks of treatment). NB-UVB may increase the number of people reporting reduced itch after 12 weeks of treatment compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.69; 1 trial, 40 participants). Another trial reported very little difference in itch severity with NB-UVB (25 participants, four weeks of treatment). The number of participants with moderate to greater global improvement may be higher with NB-UVB than placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.17; 1 trial, 41 participants). NB-UVB may not affect rates of withdrawal due to adverse events. No withdrawals were reported in one trial of NB-UVB versus placebo (18 participants, nine weeks of treatment). In two trials of NB-UVB versus no treatment, each reported one withdrawal per group (71 participants, 8 to 12 weeks of treatment). We judged that all reported outcomes were supported with low-certainty evidence, due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trials reported HRQoL. NB-UVB versus UVA1 We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to UVA1 to be very low certainty for all outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.41 to 4.41; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 108), or patient-reported itch after six weeks (MD 0.3, 95% CI -1.07 to 1.67; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 10). Two split-body trials (20 participants, 40 sides) also measured these outcomes, using different scales at seven to eight weeks; they reported lower scores with NB-UVB. One trial reported HRQoL at six weeks (MD 2.9, 95% CI -9.57 to 15.37; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 30 to 150). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events over 12 weeks (13 participants). No trials reported IGA. NB-UVB versus PUVA We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to PUVA (8-methoxypsoralen in bath plus UVA) to be very low certainty for all reported outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (64.1% reduction with NB-UVB versus 65.7% reduction with PUVA; 1 trial, 10 participants, 20 sides). There was no evidence of a difference in marked improvement or complete remission after six weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.89; 1 trial, 9/10 participants with both treatments). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events in 10 participants over six weeks. The trials did not report patient-reported symptoms or HRQoL. UVA1 versus PUVA There was very low-certainty evidence, due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, that PUVA (oral 5-methoxypsoralen plus UVA) reduced physician-assessed signs more than UVA1 after three weeks (MD 11.3, 95% CI -0.21 to 22.81; 1 trial, 40 participants; scale: 0 to 103). The trial did not report patient-reported symptoms, IGA, HRQoL, or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were no eligible trials for the key comparisons of UVA1 or PUVA compared with no treatment. Adverse events Reported adverse events included low rates of phototoxic reaction, severe irritation, UV burn, bacterial superinfection, disease exacerbation, and eczema herpeticum.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to placebo or no treatment, NB-UVB may improve physician-rated signs, patient-reported symptoms, and IGA after 12 weeks, without a difference in withdrawal due to adverse events. Evidence for UVA1 compared to NB-UVB or PUVA, and NB-UVB compared to PUVA was very low certainty. More information is needed on the safety and effectiveness of all aspects of phototherapy for treating AE.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eczema; Female; Humans; Male; Phototherapy; Quality of Life; Ultraviolet Therapy
PubMed: 34709669
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013870.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Pneumonia is the most common hospital-acquired infection affecting patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, current national guidelines for the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pneumonia is the most common hospital-acquired infection affecting patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, current national guidelines for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) are several years old and the diagnosis of pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients (VAP) has been subject to considerable recent attention. The optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for HAP in the critically ill is uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of short versus prolonged-course antibiotics for HAP in critically ill adults, including patients with VAP.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to June 2015), MEDLINE in-process and other non-indexed citations (5 June 2015), EMBASE (2010 to June 2015), LILACS (1982 to June 2015) and Web of Science (1955 to June 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a fixed 'short' duration of antibiotic therapy with a 'prolonged' course for HAP (including patients with VAP) in critically ill adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors conducted data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified six relevant studies involving 1088 participants. This included two new studies published after the date of our previous review (2011). There was substantial variation in participants, in the diagnostic criteria used to define an episode of pneumonia, in the interventions and in the reported outcomes. We found no evidence relating to patients with a high probability of HAP who were not mechanically ventilated. For patients with VAP, overall a short seven- or eight-day course of antibiotics compared with a prolonged 10- to 15-day course increased 28-day antibiotic-free days (two studies; N = 431; mean difference (MD) 4.02 days; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.26 to 5.78) and reduced recurrence of VAP due to multi-resistant organisms (one study; N = 110; odds ratio (OR) 0.44; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.95), without adversely affecting mortality and other recurrence outcomes. However, for cases of VAP specifically due to non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli (NF-GNB), recurrence was greater after short-course therapy (two studies, N = 176; OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.14 to 4.16), though mortality outcomes were not significantly different. One study found that a three-day course of antibiotic therapy for patients with suspected HAP but a low Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) was associated with a significantly lower risk of superinfection or emergence of antimicrobial resistance, compared with standard (prolonged) course therapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of a small number of studies and appreciating the lack of uniform definition of pneumonia, we conclude that for patients with VAP not due to NF-GNB a short, fixed course (seven or eight days) of antibiotic therapy appears not to increase the risk of adverse clinical outcomes, and may reduce the emergence of resistant organisms, compared with a prolonged course (10 to 15 days). However, for patients with VAP due to NF-GNB, there appears to be a higher risk of recurrence following short-course therapy. These findings do not differ from those of our previous review and are broadly consistent with current guidelines. There are few data from RCTs comparing durations of therapy in non-ventilated patients with HAP, but on the basis of a single study, short-course (three-day) therapy for HAP appears not to be associated with worse clinical outcome, and may reduce the risk of subsequent infection or the emergence of resistant organisms when there is low probability of pneumonia according to the CPIS.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Critical Illness; Cross Infection; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Pneumonia; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 26301604
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007577.pub3 -
Cureus Mar 2022The prevalence, incidence, and characteristics of bacterial infections in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 are not well understood... (Review)
Review
The prevalence, incidence, and characteristics of bacterial infections in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 are not well understood and have been raised as an important knowledge gap. Therefore, our study focused on the most common opportunistic infections/secondary infections/superinfections in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Eligible studies were identified using PubMed/Medline since inception to June 25, 2021. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. Statistical analysis was conducted in Review Manager 5.4.1. A random-effect model was used when heterogeneity was seen to pool the studies, and the result was reported as inverse variance and the corresponding 95% confidence interval. We screened 701 articles comprising 22 cohort studies which were included for analysis. The pooled prevalence of opportunistic infections/secondary infections/superinfections was 16% in COVID-19 patients. The highest prevalence of secondary infections was observed among viruses at 33%, followed by bacteria at 16%, fungi at 6%, and 25% among the miscellaneous group/wrong outcome. Opportunistic infections are more prevalent in critically ill patients. The isolated pathogens included Epstein-Barr virus, , , , , and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Large-scale studies are required to better identify opportunistic/secondary/superinfections in COVID-19 patients.
PubMed: 35505698
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.23687 -
The Journal of Antimicrobial... Sep 2011Tigecycline is a novel glycylcycline that exhibits broad-spectrum antibacterial activity. Recently, the US FDA issued a warning concerning increased mortality with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tigecycline is a novel glycylcycline that exhibits broad-spectrum antibacterial activity. Recently, the US FDA issued a warning concerning increased mortality with tigecycline in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs that compared tigecycline with any other antibiotic regimen for the treatment of any infection. A comprehensive search, without publication status or other restrictions, was conducted. The primary outcome was overall 30 day mortality. The secondary outcome included clinical and microbiological failure, superinfections and adverse events (AEs). The trials' risks of bias and their effects on results were assessed. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Individual trials' relative risks (RRs) were pooled using a fixed effect meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Fifteen trials (7654 patients) were included. Overall mortality was higher with tigecycline compared with other regimens [RR 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.64, without heterogeneity]. The type of infection assessed and the trials' reported risks of bias did not affect this result. Clinical failure was significantly higher with tigecycline (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.27) and non-statistically significant higher rates of microbiological failure were demonstrated (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.30). Development of septic shock was significantly more frequent with tigecycline (RR 7.01, 95% CI 1.27-38.66). Superinfections were significantly more common with tigecycline and so were AEs, including all AEs and AEs requiring discontinuation.
CONCLUSIONS
In the light of the increased mortality, probably explained by decreased clinical and microbiological efficacy, clinicians should avoid tigecycline monotherapy in the treatment of severe infections and reserve it as a last-resort drug.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Confidence Intervals; Humans; Minocycline; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shock, Septic; Tigecycline; Treatment Failure; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21685488
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkr242 -
PloS One 2021The recovery of other pathogens in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported, either at the time of a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis (co-infection) or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The recovery of other pathogens in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported, either at the time of a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis (co-infection) or subsequently (superinfection). However, data on the prevalence, microbiology, and outcomes of co-infection and superinfection are limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the occurrence of co-infections and superinfections and their outcomes among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We searched literature databases for studies published from October 1, 2019, through February 8, 2021. We included studies that reported clinical features and outcomes of co-infection or superinfection of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. We followed PRISMA guidelines, and we registered the protocol with PROSPERO as: CRD42020189763.
RESULTS
Of 6639 articles screened, 118 were included in the random effects meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of co-infection was 19% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%-25%, I2 = 98%) and that of superinfection was 24% (95% CI: 19%-30%). Pooled prevalence of pathogen type stratified by co- or superinfection were: viral co-infections, 10% (95% CI: 6%-14%); viral superinfections, 4% (95% CI: 0%-10%); bacterial co-infections, 8% (95% CI: 5%-11%); bacterial superinfections, 20% (95% CI: 13%-28%); fungal co-infections, 4% (95% CI: 2%-7%); and fungal superinfections, 8% (95% CI: 4%-13%). Patients with a co-infection or superinfection had higher odds of dying than those who only had SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio = 3.31, 95% CI: 1.82-5.99). Compared to those with co-infections, patients with superinfections had a higher prevalence of mechanical ventilation (45% [95% CI: 33%-58%] vs. 10% [95% CI: 5%-16%]), but patients with co-infections had a greater average length of hospital stay than those with superinfections (mean = 29.0 days, standard deviation [SD] = 6.7 vs. mean = 16 days, SD = 6.2, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Our study showed that as many as 19% of patients with COVID-19 have co-infections and 24% have superinfections. The presence of either co-infection or superinfection was associated with poor outcomes, including increased mortality. Our findings support the need for diagnostic testing to identify and treat co-occurring respiratory infections among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Topics: Bacterial Infections; COVID-19; Coinfection; Hospitalization; Humans; Mycoses; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Superinfection; Treatment Outcome; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 33956882
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251170 -
Transactions of the Royal Society of... Oct 2023Strongyloidiasis is a parasitosis representing a significant public health problem in tropical countries. It is often asymptomatic in immunocompetent individuals but its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Strongyloidiasis is a parasitosis representing a significant public health problem in tropical countries. It is often asymptomatic in immunocompetent individuals but its mortality rate increases to approximately 87% in severe forms of the disease. We conducted a systematic review, including case reports and case series, of Strongyloides hyperinfection and dissemination from 1998 to 2020 searching PubMed, EBSCO and SciELO. Cases that met the inclusion criteria of the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist were analysed. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test and Student's t-test and a Bonferroni correction for all the significant values. A total of 339 cases were included in this review. The mortality rate was 44.83%. The presence of infectious complications, septic shock and a lack of treatment were risk factors for a fatal outcome. Eosinophilia and ivermectin treatment were associated with an improved outcome.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Strongyloidiasis; Strongyloides stercoralis; Superinfection; Ivermectin
PubMed: 37300462
DOI: 10.1093/trstmh/trad032 -
Infection Ecology & Epidemiology 2023The use of steroids has been proposed as a pharmacological approach to treat the SARS-CoV-2 infection to improve outcomes. However, there are doubts about safety... (Review)
Review
The use of steroids has been proposed as a pharmacological approach to treat the SARS-CoV-2 infection to improve outcomes. However, there are doubts about safety against the development of superinfections and their worse outcomes. To establish the relative frequency of superinfection associated with using steroids in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis using PRISMA standards in 5 databases (PubMed/Scopus/Cochrane/EMBASE/Google Scholar). The search was carried out between February 2020 and May 2023. The search terms were 'steroids' or 'superinfection' 'and' followed by 'SARS-CoV-2' or 'COVID-19'. We found 77 studies, but only 10 with 3539 patients were included in the systematic review. All patients developed severe disease. The documented OR for superinfection through the meta-analysis was 1.437 (95% IC 0.869-2.378) with a p-value of 0.158 without showing a risk attributed to steroids and the development of superinfections. In the Funnel-plot analysis, no publication biases were found. No relationship was found between using steroids and superinfection in patients with SARS-CoV-2.
PubMed: 38187166
DOI: 10.1080/20008686.2023.2277000 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases May 2007Cefepime is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with enhanced coverage against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. We did a systematic review of randomised trials that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cefepime is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with enhanced coverage against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. We did a systematic review of randomised trials that compared cefepime with another beta-lactam antibiotic, alone or with the addition of a non-beta-lactam antibiotic to both study groups. We searched Central, PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, new US Food and Drug Administration drug applications, conference proceedings, and references of the included studies. Two reviewers independently did the search and data extraction. 57 trials were included. All-cause mortality-the primary outcome-was higher with cefepime than other beta-lactams (risk ratio [RR] 1.26 [95% CI 1.08-1.49]). Sensitivity analyses by the trials' methodological quality revealed higher RRs for trials reporting adequate allocation-sequence generation (1.52 [1.20-1.92]) and allocation concealment (1.36 [1.09-1.70]). Baseline risk factors for mortality were similar. No significant differences between groups in treatment failure, superinfection, or adverse events were found. This Review provides evidence and offers possible explanations for increased mortality among patients treated with cefepime in randomised trials.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cefepime; Cephalosporins; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 17448937
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(07)70109-3