-
SAGE Open Medicine 2022Antimicrobial resistance is one of the serious threats in the world, including Ethiopia. Even though several studies were conducted to estimate common bacteria and their... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Antimicrobial resistance is one of the serious threats in the world, including Ethiopia. Even though several studies were conducted to estimate common bacteria and their antibiotic-resistance profile in Ethiopia, it is difficult to estimate the overall resistant patterns due to the lack of a nationwide study. This systematic review aimed to determine the prevalence of gram-negative bacteria isolates and their antibiotic-resistance profile among pediatrics patients in Ethiopia.
METHODS
A web-based search using PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct, the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, Scopus, Hinari, Sci-Hub, African Journals Online Library, and free-text web searches using Google Scholar was conducted from August to September 16, 2021. Each of the original articles was searched by Boolean search technique using various keywords and was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. The data were extracted using Microsoft Excel format and exported to STATA 14.0 for statistical analyses.
RESULTS
The database search delivered a total of 2,684 studies. After articles were removed by duplications, title, reading the abstract, and assessed for eligibility criteria, 19 articles were included in the systematic review. Of a total of 1372 (16.77%) culture-positive samples, 735 (53.57%) were gram-negative. was the most frequently isolated bacteria followed by species, 139/1372 (10.13%), and 125/1372(9.11%), respectively. More than 66.67% of isolates were resistant to ampicillin except for which was 32.35% (11/34). , species, and species were 100% resistance for cefepime. was 100% resistant to meropenem. were 93.30%, 78.26%, and 63.64% resistant to tetracycline, chloramphenicol, and cotrimoxazole, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Gram-negative bacteria were identified as the common pathogen causing infection in pediatrics and the level of resistance to commonly prescribed antibiotics was significantly higher in Ethiopia. Culture and susceptibility tests and well-designed infection control programs are important measures.
PubMed: 35509958
DOI: 10.1177/20503121221094191 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2022The study aims to comparatively assess the nephrotoxicity of vancomycin when combined with piperacillin-tazobactam (V + PT) or meropenem (V + M) in adult patients...
Comparative Risk of Acute Kidney Injury Following Concurrent Administration of Vancomycin with Piperacillin/Tazobactam or Meropenem: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.
The study aims to comparatively assess the nephrotoxicity of vancomycin when combined with piperacillin-tazobactam (V + PT) or meropenem (V + M) in adult patients hospitalized in general wards or intensive care units. We searched MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Web of Science for observational studies evaluating incidences of AKI in adult patients receiving V + PT or V + M for at least 48 h in general wards or intensive care units. The primary outcome was AKI events, while the secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), and mortality events. The odds ratio (OR), or mean difference for the hospital length of stay, with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) from the inverse variance weighting random-effects model were estimated for the risk of AKI, RRT, and mortality. Of the 112 studies identified, twelve observational studies were included in this meta-analysis with a total of 14,511 patients. The odds of having AKI were significantly higher in patients receiving V + PT compared with V + M (OR = 2.31; 95%CI 1.69-3.15). There were no differences between V + PT and V + M in the hospital length of stay, RRT, or mortality outcomes. Thus, clinicians should be vigilant while using V + PT, especially in patients who are at high risk of AKI.
PubMed: 35453276
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11040526 -
Medicine Dec 2021Antipseudomonal β-lactams have been used for the treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN); however, the efficacy and safety of antipseudomonal β-lactams in pediatric...
BACKGROUND
Antipseudomonal β-lactams have been used for the treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN); however, the efficacy and safety of antipseudomonal β-lactams in pediatric patients remain unclear. The aim of this study was to comprehensively compare the efficacy and side effects of optional antipseudomonal β-lactams for pediatric FN.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from their inception to December 18, 2020. Eligible randomized controlled trials in which pediatric FN patients were treated with an empiric monotherapy of antipseudomonal β-lactams were selected. Data synthesis was performed using WinBUGS 14.0 software and meta packages implemented in R 3.6.2. Random-effects network meta-analysis was performed, and dichotomous data were pooled as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. The primary outcome was treatment success without modification; the secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs), all-cause mortality, and new infections. The GRADE tool was used to assess the quality of the evidence. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO ID CRD42021226763.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies with 2517 patients were included. The results showed no statistically significant difference between the optional antipseudomonal β-lactams in the outcomes of treatment success without modification, all AEs, all-cause mortality, and new infections for pediatric FN. Based on the results of Bayesian rank probability, meropenem was ranked highest among all the treatment options with regard to treatment success without modification benefit; ceftazidime and meropenem were associated with a lower risk of AEs; cefoperazone/sulbactam and piperacillin/tazobactam were associated with a lower risk of mortality, and piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem were associated with a lower risk of new infections. The quality of evidence was moderate.
CONCLUSIONS
Meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam were found to be better with regard to treatment success without modification, with a comparable safety profile. Therefore, our findings support the use of meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam as a treatment option for pediatric FN patients.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ceftazidime; Child; Drug Therapy, Combination; Febrile Neutropenia; Female; Humans; Imipenem; Male; Meropenem; Network Meta-Analysis; Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination; Pseudomonas Infections; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; beta-Lactams
PubMed: 34918626
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027266 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Hospital-acquired pneumonia is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections in children worldwide. Most of our understanding of hospital-acquired pneumonia in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hospital-acquired pneumonia is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections in children worldwide. Most of our understanding of hospital-acquired pneumonia in children is derived from adult studies. To our knowledge, no systematic review with meta-analysis has assessed the benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens in neonates and children with hospital-acquired pneumonia.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registers to February 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials comparing one antibiotic regimen with any other antibiotic regimen for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events; our secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, pneumonia-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and treatment failure. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four randomised clinical trials (84 participants). We assessed all trials as having high risk of bias. We did not conduct any meta-analyses, as the included trials did not compare similar antibiotic regimens. Each of the four trials assessed a different comparison, as follows: cefepime versus ceftazidime; linezolid versus vancomycin; meropenem versus cefotaxime; and ceftobiprole versus cephalosporin. Only one trial reported our primary outcomes of all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Three trials reported our secondary outcome of treatment failure. Two trials primarily included community-acquired pneumonia and hospitalised children with bacterial infections, hence the children with hospital-acquired pneumonia constituted subgroups of the total sample sizes. Where outcomes were reported, the certainty of the evidence was very low for each of the comparisons. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. None of the included trials assessed health-related quality of life, pneumonia-related mortality, or non-serious adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The relative beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the very low certainty of the available evidence. The current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. Randomised clinical trials assessing different antibiotic regimens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in children and neonates are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Hospitals; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pneumonia; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 34727368
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013864.pub2 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2021We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of an extended or continuous infusion (EI/CI) versus short-term infusion (STI) of carbapenems in children with severe... (Review)
Review
We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of an extended or continuous infusion (EI/CI) versus short-term infusion (STI) of carbapenems in children with severe infections. Databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, and SinoMed, were systematically searched from their inceptions to 10 August 2020, for all types of studies (such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrospective studies, and pharmacokinetic or population pharmacokinetic (PK/PPK) studies) comparing EI/CI versus STI in children with severe infection. There was no limitation on language, and a manual search was also conducted. The data were screened, evaluated, extracted, and reviewed by two researchers independently. Quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative analyses of the included studies were performed. Twenty studies (including two RCTs, one case series, six case reports, and 11 PK/PPK studies) were included in this review (CRD42020162845). The RCTs' quality evaluation results revealed a risk of selection and concealment bias. Qualitative analysis of RCTs demonstrated that, compared with STI, an EI (3 to 4 h) of meropenem in late-onset neonatal sepsis could improve the clinical effectiveness and microbial clearance rates, and reduce the rates of mortality; however, the differences in the incidence of other adverse events were not statistically significant. Retrospective studies showed that children undergoing an EI of meropenem experienced satisfactory clinical improvement. In addition, the results of the PK/PPK study showed that an EI (3 or 4 h)/CI of carbapenems in severely infected children was associated with a more satisfactory goal achievement rate (probability of target attainment) and a cumulative fraction of response than STI therapy. In summary, the EI/CI of carbapenems in children with severe infection has a relatively sufficient PK or pharmacodynamic (PD) basis and satisfactory efficacy and safety. However, due to the limited quantity and quality of studies, the EI/CI therapy should not be used routinely in severely infected children. This conclusion should be further verified by more high-quality controlled clinical trials or observational studies based on PK/PD theories.
PubMed: 34572670
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10091088 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Jun 2021Effective treatment of sepsis due to carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CR-GNB) remains a challenge for clinicians worldwide. In recent years, the combination...
BACKGROUND
Effective treatment of sepsis due to carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (CR-GNB) remains a challenge for clinicians worldwide. In recent years, the combination of antibiotics has become the preferred treatment strategy for CR-GNB infection. However, robust evidence to support this approach is lacking. This systematic review aimed at critically evaluating all available antibiotic options for CR-GNB sepsis with particular focus on combination.
METHODS
We systematically searched published literature from January 1945 until December 2018 for observational comparative and non-comparative studies and randomized trials examining any antibiotic option for CR-GNB. Studies were included if reporting microbiologically-confirmed infection caused by Acinetobacter baumannii, Enterobacteriaceae/Klebsiella spp., or Pseudomonas aeruginosa, reporting at least one of the study outcomes, and definitive antibiotic treatment. Carbapenem-resistance was defined as phenotypically-detected in vitro resistance to at least one of the following carbapenems: doripenem, ertapenem, imipenem, meropenem. Each antibiotic regimen was classified as "defined" when at least the molecular class(es) composing the regimen was detailed. Primary outcomes were 30-day and attributable mortality. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) approach was selected for quantitative synthesis to explore feasibility of pooling data on antibiotic regimens.
RESULTS
A total of 6306 records were retrieved and 134 studies including 11,546 patients were included: 54 studies were on Acinetobacter, 52 on Enterobacteriaceae/Klebsiella, 21 on mixed Gram-negative, and 7 on Pseudomonas. Nine (7%) were RCTs; 19 prospective cohorts (14%), 89 (66%) retrospective, and 17 (13%) case series. Forty-one studies (31%) were multicentric. Qualitative synthesis showed an heterogeneous and scattered reporting of key-clinical and microbiological variables across studies. Ninety-two distinct antibiotic regimens were identified with 47 of them (51%, 5863 patients) not reporting any details on numbers, type, dosage and in vitro activity of the included antibiotic molecules. The NMAs could not be performed for any of the selected outcome given the presence of too many disconnected components.
CONCLUSION
The existing evidence is insufficient to allowing for the formulation of any evidence-based therapeutic recommendation for CR-GNB sepsis. Future studies must provide a standardized definition of antibiotic regimen to drive recommendations for using combination of antibiotics that can be reliably applied to clinical practice.
Topics: Acinetobacter baumannii; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Carbapenems; Clinical Studies as Topic; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Drug Therapy, Combination; Enterobacteriaceae; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Humans; Pseudomonas aeruginosa
PubMed: 34107899
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06253-x -
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 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Jun 2021Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI), approved in 2015, is an important first-line option for Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (KPC-E). Although... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI), approved in 2015, is an important first-line option for Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (KPC-E). Although still uncommon, resistance to CAZ-AVI has emerged and may represent a serious cause of concern.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review of clinical and microbiological features of infections and colonisations by CAZ-AVI-resistant KPC-E, focused on the in vivo emergence of CAZ-AVI resistance in different clinical scenarios.
RESULTS
Twenty-three papers were retrieved accounting for 42 patients and 57 isolates, mostly belonging to K. pneumoniae ST258 harbouring D179Y substitution in the KPC enzyme. The USA, Greece and Italy accounted for 80% of cases. In one-third of isolates resistance was not associated with previous CAZ-AVI exposure. Moreover, 20% of the strains were colistin-resistant and 80% were extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producers. The majority of infected patients had severe underlying diseases (39% cancer, 22% solid-organ transplantation) and 37% died. The abdomen, lung and blood were the most involved infection sites. Infections by CAZ-AVI-resistant strains were mainly treated with combination therapy (85% of cases), with meropenem being the most common (65%) followed by tigecycline (30%), gentamicin (25%), colistin (25%) and fosfomycin (10%). Despite the emergence of resistance, 35% of patients received CAZ-AVI.
CONCLUSION
Taken together, these data highlight the need for prompt susceptibility testing including CAZ-AVI for Enterobacterales, at least in critical areas. Resistance to CAZ-AVI is an urgent issue to monitor in order to improve both empirical and targeted CAZ-AVI use as well as the management of patients with infections caused by CAZ-AVI-resistant strains.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azabicyclo Compounds; Ceftazidime; Greece; Humans; Italy; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 33895414
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2021.04.001 -
Revista Do Instituto de Medicina... 2021The aim of this systematic review was to determine the causal role of Erysipelatoclostridium ramosum in specific invasive infections in humans, and to assess the...
The aim of this systematic review was to determine the causal role of Erysipelatoclostridium ramosum in specific invasive infections in humans, and to assess the clinical outcome of antibiotic therapy used to treat them. Several electronic databases were systematically searched for clinical trials, observational studies or individual cases on patients of any age and gender with a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) due to E. ramosum isolated from body fluids or tissues in which it is not normally present. Only reports identifying E. ramosum as the only microorganism isolated from a patient with SIRS were included. This systematic review included 15 studies reporting 19 individual cases in which E. ramosum caused invasive infections in various tissues, mainly in immunocompromised patients. E. ramosum was most often isolated by blood cultures and identified by specific biochemical tests. Severe infections caused by E. ramosum were in most cases effectively treated with antibiotics, except in two patients, one of whom died. More than one isolate of E. ramosum exhibited 100% susceptibility to metronidazole, amoxicillin/clavulanate and piperacillin/tazobactam. On the other hand, individual resistance of this bacterium to penicillin, ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, imipenem and ertapenem was reported. This systematic review confirmed the clinical relevance of E. ramosum as a cause of a number of severe infections mainly in immunocompromised inpatients. Metronidazole and meropenem appear to be the antibiotics of choice that should be used in combination or as monotherapy to treat E. ramosum infections, depending on the type and severity of the infection.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Firmicutes; Gram-Positive Bacteria; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 33852713
DOI: 10.1590/S1678-9946202163030 -
Medicine Feb 2021Meropenem monotherapy vs ceftazidime plus amikacin have been approved for use against febrile neutropenia. To assess the effectiveness and safety of them for empirical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Meropenem monotherapy vs ceftazidime plus amikacin have been approved for use against febrile neutropenia. To assess the effectiveness and safety of them for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials on ceftazidime plus amikacin, or/and monotherapy with meropenem for the treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia were identified by searching Cochrane Library, PubMed, Science Direct, Wiley Online, Science Citation Index, Google (scholar), National Center for Biotechnology Information, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Data on interventions, participants' characteristics and the outcomes of therapy, were extracted for statistical analysis. Seven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria.
RESULT
The treatment with ceftazidime plus amikacin was more effective than meropenem (OR = 1.17; 95% CI 0.93-1.46; 1270 participants). However, the treatment effects of the 2 therapy methods were almost parallel in adults (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.91-1.46; 1130 participants older than 16). Drug-related adverse effects afflicted more patients treated with ceftazidime plus amikacin (OR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.52-1.15; 1445 participants). The common responses were nausea, diarrhea, rash, and increased in serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase and bilirubin.
CONCLUSION
Ceftazidime plus amikacin should be the first choice for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia, and meropenem may be chosen as a last defense against pathogenic bacteria.
Topics: Amikacin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ceftazidime; Drug Therapy, Combination; Febrile Neutropenia; Humans; Meropenem; Neoplasms
PubMed: 33663117
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024883