-
Scientific Reports Nov 2020The accessory gene regulator (agr) locus of Staphylococcus aureus is a quorum-sensing virulence regulator. Although there are many studies concerning the effect of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The accessory gene regulator (agr) locus of Staphylococcus aureus is a quorum-sensing virulence regulator. Although there are many studies concerning the effect of dysfunctional agr on the outcomes of S. aureus infection, there is no systematic review to date. We systematically searched for clinical studies reporting outcomes of invasive S. aureus infections and the proportion of dysfunctional agr among their causative strains, and we performed a meta-analysis to obtain estimates of the odds of outcomes of invasive S. aureus infection with dysfunctional versus functional agr. Of 289 articles identified by our research strategy, 20 studies were meta-analysed for crude analysis of the impact of dysfunctional agr on outcomes of invasive S. aureus infection. Dysfunctional agr was generally associated with unfavourable outcomes (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66), and the impact of dysfunctional agr on outcome was more prominent in invasive methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infections (OR 1.54, CI 1.20-1.97). Nine studies were meta-analysed for the impact of dysfunctional agr on the 30-day mortality of invasive S. aureus infection. Invasive MRSA infection with dysfunctional agr exhibited higher 30-day mortality (OR 1.40, CI 1.03-1.90) than that with functional agr. On the other hand, invasive MSSA infection with dysfunctional agr exhibited lower 30-day mortality (OR 0.51, CI 0.27-0.95). In the post hoc subgroup analysis by the site of MRSA infection, dysfunctional agr was associated with higher 30-day mortality in MRSA pneumonia (OR 2.48, CI 1.17-5.25). The effect of dysfunctional agr on the outcome of invasive S. aureus infection may vary depending on various conditions, such as oxacillin susceptibility and the site of infection. Dysfunctional agr was generally associated with unfavourable clinical outcomes and its effect was prominent in MRSA and pneumonia. Dysfunctional agr may be applicable for outcome prediction in cases of invasive MRSA infection with hardly eradicable foci such as pneumonia.
Topics: Bacterial Proteins; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Prognosis; Staphylococcal Infections; Virulence Factors
PubMed: 33244173
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-77729-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively.
MAIN RESULTS
Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Female; Fosfomycin; Humans; Imipenem; Levofloxacin; Male; Penicillins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 32407558
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3 -
PloS One 2019To comprehensively determine the prevalence of MRSA in healthy Chinese population, the influencing factors of MRSA colonization and its antibiotic resistance. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To comprehensively determine the prevalence of MRSA in healthy Chinese population, the influencing factors of MRSA colonization and its antibiotic resistance.
METHODS
Articles that studied prevalence or influencing factors of MRSA carriage in healthy Chinese population were retrieved from PubMed, Ovid database, three Chinese electronic databases. The pooled prevalence of MRSA, its antibiotic resistance and influencing factors were analyzed by STATA12.0.
RESULTS
37 studies were included. The pooled prevalence of MRSA was 21.2% (95% CI: 18.5%-23.9%), and the prevalence of S.aureus was 15% (95% CI: 10%-19%), with a significant heterogeneity (MRSA: I2 = 97.6%, P<0.001; S.aureus: I2 = 98.4%, P < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, the pooled prevalence of MRSA was 28% (95%CI: 10%-51%) for Livestock-related workers, 18% (95%CI: 11%-26%) for children, 20% (95%CI: 12%-29%) for healthcare workers, 7% (95%CI: 3%-13%) for community residents. The prevalence of MRSA in studies with oxacillin disk diffusion method (28%, 95%CI: 21%-35%) seemed higher than that with the mecA gene method(12%, 95%CI: 7%-19%). MRSA in studies conducted in Taiwan was more common than in Mainland China and Hong Kong. Similar results were found in meta-regression. Influencing factors for MRSA colonization were noted in seven eligible studies, they included younger age (OR: 3.54, 95% CI: 2.38-5.26; OR: 2.24, 95% CI: 1.73-2.9), attending day care centers (DCCs) (OR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.4-2.72; OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.2-1.95), flu vaccination (OR:1.73, 95% CI: 1.28-2.35), using antibiotics within the past year (OR: 2.05, 95% CI:1.35-3.11), residing in northern Taiwan (OR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.19-1.77), regular visits to health care facility (OR: 23.83, 95% CI: 2.72-209.01), household member working in health care facility (OR: 8.98, 95% CI:1.4-55.63), and contact with livestock (OR: 6.31, 95% CI: 3.44-11.57). Moreover, MRSA was found to be highly resistant to penicillin, ampicillin, erythromycin, and clindamycin, with a pooled resistance ratio of 100, 93, 88, and 75%, respectively. However, no resistance were noted to vancomycin.
CONCLUSION
The pooled prevalence of MRSA was considerably high in health Chinese population. Additionally, these strains showed extreme resistance to penicillin, ampicillin, erythromycin and clindamycin. Public MRSA protection measures and the surveillance of MRSA should be strengthened to reduce the spread of MRSA among hospitals, communities, and livestock.
Topics: Carrier State; Healthy Volunteers; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Odds Ratio; Population Surveillance; Prevalence; Staphylococcal Infections
PubMed: 31647842
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223599