-
Arab Journal of Urology Mar 2021: To systematically review the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) in urology. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
: To systematically review the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) in urology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, Scopus, Web of science and Cochrane Library online databases were searched in February 2019. Experimental and clinical studies, which included the placement of a DES or dilatation with DCB for investigating their potential use in the urinary tract for the management of ureteric or urethral pathologies, were included. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the current use of DES and DCB in urology.
RESULTS
A total of 29 articles were included in the systematic review. A total of 10 studies tested DES or DCB containing anti-proliferative agents (paclitaxel, zotarolimus, sirolimus, halofugione). Antibiotic agent-containing DES were tested in nine studies (triclosan, quinolones, teicoplanin, nitrofurantoin, silver sulfadiazine). A total of eight studies investigated the release of anti-inflammatory agents by DES (ketorolac, indomethacin, EW-7197). Another group studied heparin-eluting stents.
CONCLUSION
Despite the inconclusive outcomes of the three randomised controlled trials, drug-coated/eluting devices constitute a promising field in urology for the prevention of complications associated with conventional stents including pain and encrustation. Pre-clinical and studies have shown their ability to mitigate inflammation, inhibit re-stenosis and improve pain as indicated by declined use of anti-inflammatory drugs.: DES: drug-eluting stents; DCB: drug-coated balloons; DCS: drug-coated stents; HF: halofungione; MCP-1: monocyte chemoattractant protein 1; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PTCA: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; RANTES: regulated on activation, normal T-cell expressed and secreted; RCT: randomised controlled trial; USSQ, Ureteric Stent Symptoms Questionaire.
PubMed: 34104496
DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2021.1885948 -
Parasite Epidemiology and Control Nov 2020The preferred treatment for management of toxoplasmosis is the combined use of pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine. However, there are a wide number of adverse side effects... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The preferred treatment for management of toxoplasmosis is the combined use of pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine. However, there are a wide number of adverse side effects with these medications. Recent research has focused on the use of chitosan for the treatment of infections. This review was performed to obtain a better understanding of the and effects of chitosan on strains.
METHODS
The current study was carried out according to the PRISMA guideline and registered in the CAMARADES-NC3Rs Preclinical Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Facility (SyRF) database. The search was performed in five scientific databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar, with date limits of 1992 to December 2019. The search was restricted to articles published in the English language. The words and terms searched were "", "Chitosan", "nanoparticles" and "anti-toxoplasmosis" with AND or OR.
RESULTS
Of 2500 manuscripts, 9 met the eligibility criteria for review. All studies used the RH strain of , with Me49 and PRU each included in one study. Five studies (56%) were performed , one study and 3 studies included and tests.
CONCLUSION
Considering the low toxicity and the high inhibitory potency of chitosan against , chitosan nanoparticles show potential as an alternative treatment for .
PubMed: 33163635
DOI: 10.1016/j.parepi.2020.e00189 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Burn injuries are an important health problem. They occur frequently in the head and neck region. The face is the area central to a person's identity that provides our...
BACKGROUND
Burn injuries are an important health problem. They occur frequently in the head and neck region. The face is the area central to a person's identity that provides our most expressive means of communication. Topical interventions are currently the cornerstone of treatment of burns to the face.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical interventions on wound healing in people with facial burns of any depth.
SEARCH METHODS
In December 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of topical treatment for facial burns were eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
In this first update, we included 12 RCTs, comprising 507 participants. Most trials included adults admitted to specialised burn centres after recent burn injuries. Topical agents included antimicrobial agents (silver sulphadiazine (SSD), Aquacel-Ag, cerium-sulphadiazine, gentamicin cream, mafenide acetate cream, bacitracin), non-antimicrobial agents (Moist Exposed Burn Ointment (MEBO), saline-soaked dressings, skin substitutes (including bioengineered skin substitute (TransCyte), allograft, and xenograft (porcine Xenoderm), and miscellaneous treatments (growth hormone therapy, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor hydrogel (rhGMCS)), enzymatic debridement, and cream with Helix Aspersa extract). Almost all the evidence included in this review was assessed as low or very low-certainty, often because of high risk of bias due to unclear randomisation procedures (i.e. sequence generation and allocation concealment); lack of blinding of participants, providers and sometimes outcome assessors; and imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates or both, often in single studies. Topical antimicrobial agents versus topical non-antimicrobial agents There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between antimicrobial agents and non-antimicrobial agents (SSD and MEBO) in time to complete wound healing (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.85, 1 study, 39 participants). Topical antimicrobial agents may make little or no difference to the proportion of wounds completely healed compared with topical non-antimicrobial agents (comparison SSD and MEBO, risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29; 1 study, 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in wound infection (comparison topical antimicrobial agent (Aquacel-Ag) and MEBO; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.21; 1 study, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported change in wound surface area over time or partial wound healing. There is low-certainty evidence for the secondary outcomes scar quality and patient satisfaction. Two studies assessed pain but it was incompletely reported. Topical antimicrobial agents versus other topical antimicrobial agents It is uncertain whether topical antimicrobial agents make any difference in effects as the evidence is low to very low-certainty. For primary outcomes, there is low-certainty evidence for time to partial (i.e. greater than 90%) wound healing (comparison SSD versus cerium SSD: mean difference (MD) -7.10 days, 95% CI -16.43 to 2.23; 1 study, 142 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence regarding whether topical antimicrobial agents make a difference to wound infection (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.17; 1 study, 15 participants). There is low to very low-certainty evidence for the proportion of facial burns requiring surgery, pain, scar quality, adverse effects and length of hospital stay. Skin substitutes versus topical antimicrobial agents There is low-certainty evidence that a skin substitute may slightly reduce time to partial (i.e. greater than 90%) wound healing, compared with a non-specified antibacterial agent (MD -6.00 days, 95% CI -8.69 to -3.31; 1 study, 34 participants). We are uncertain whether skin substitutes in general make any other difference in effects as the evidence is very low certainty. Outcomes included wound infection, pain, scar quality, adverse effects of treatment and length of hospital stay. Single studies showed contrasting low-certainty evidence. A bioengineered skin substitute may slightly reduce procedural pain (MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.05 to -2.95; 34 participants) and background pain (MD -2.00, 95% CI -3.05 to -0.95; 34 participants) compared with an unspecified antimicrobial agent. In contrast, a biological dressing (porcine Xenoderm) might slightly increase pain in superficial burns (MD 1.20, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.75; 15 participants (30 wounds)) as well as deep partial thickness burns (MD 3.00, 95% CI 2.34 to 3.66; 10 participants (20 wounds)), compared with antimicrobial agents (Physiotulle Ag (Coloplast)). Miscellaneous treatments versus miscellaneous treatments Single studies show low to very low-certainty effects of interventions. Low-certainty evidence shows that MEBO may slightly reduce time to complete wound healing compared with saline soaked dressing (MD -1.7 days, 95% CI -3.32 to -0.08; 40 participants). In addition, a cream containing Helix Aspersa may slightly increase the proportion of wounds completely healed at 14 days compared with MEBO (RR 4.77, 95% CI 1.87 to 12.15; 43 participants). We are uncertain whether any miscellaneous treatment in the included studies makes a difference in effects for the outcomes wound infection, scar quality, pain and patient satisfaction as the evidence is low to very low-certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is mainly low to very low-certainty evidence on the effects of any topical intervention on wound healing in people with facial burns. The number of RCTs in burn care is growing, but the body of evidence is still hampered due to an insufficient number of studies that follow appropriate evidence-based standards of conducting and reporting RCTs.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Infective Agents; Bias; Burns; Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium; Facial Injuries; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin, Artificial; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32725896
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008058.pub3 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... May 2020The safety profile of antimicrobials used during pregnancy is one important consideration in the decision on how to treat and provide postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for...
BACKGROUND
The safety profile of antimicrobials used during pregnancy is one important consideration in the decision on how to treat and provide postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for plague during pregnancy.
METHODS
We searched 5 scientific literature databases for primary sources on the safety of 9 antimicrobials considered for plague during pregnancy (amikacin, gentamicin, plazomicin, streptomycin, tobramycin, chloramphenicol, doxycycline, sulfadiazine, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole [TMP-SMX]) and abstracted data on maternal, pregnancy, and fetal/neonatal outcomes.
RESULTS
Of 13 052 articles identified, 66 studies (case-control, case series, cohort, and randomized studies) and 96 case reports were included, totaling 27 751 prenatal exposures to amikacin (n = 9), gentamicin (n = 345), plazomicin (n = 0), streptomycin (n = 285), tobramycin (n = 43), chloramphenicol (n = 246), doxycycline (n = 2351), sulfadiazine (n = 870), and TMP-SMX (n = 23 602). Hearing or vestibular deficits were reported in 18/121 (15%) children and 17/109 (16%) pregnant women following prenatal streptomycin exposure. First trimester chloramphenicol exposure was associated with an elevated risk of an undescended testis (odds ratio [OR] 5.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-28.7). Doxycycline was associated with cardiovascular malformations (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.7) in 1 study and spontaneous abortion (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.9-4.1) in a separate study. First trimester exposure to TMP-SMX was associated with increased risk of neural tube defects (pooled OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.4-4.3), spontaneous abortion (OR 3.5, 95% CI 2.3-5.6), preterm birth (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1), and small for gestational age (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.2). No other statistically significant associations were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
For most antimicrobials reviewed, adverse maternal/fetal/neonatal outcomes were not observed consistently. Prenatal exposure to streptomycin and TMP-SMX was associated with select birth defects in some studies. Based on limited data, chloramphenicol and doxycycline may be associated with adverse pregnancy or neonatal outcomes; however, more data are needed to confirm these associations. Antimicrobials should be used for treatment and PEP of plague during pregnancy; the choice of antimicrobials may be influenced by these data as well as information about the risks of plague during pregnancy.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Anti-Infective Agents; Child; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Male; Plague; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination
PubMed: 32435799
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz1231 -
JAC-antimicrobial Resistance Mar 2020Catheter infections remain one of the most persistent adverse events causing significant morbidity, economic impact and mortality. Several strategies have been proposed... (Review)
Review
The potential for developing new antimicrobial resistance from the use of medical devices containing chlorhexidine, minocycline, rifampicin and their combinations: a systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Catheter infections remain one of the most persistent adverse events causing significant morbidity, economic impact and mortality. Several strategies have been proposed to reduce these infections including the use of catheters embedded with antibiotics and/or antiseptics. One reoccurring challenge is the fear that antimicrobial medical devices will induce resistance. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence for induced antimicrobial resistance caused by exposure to antimicrobial medical devices.
METHODS
Four electronic databases [MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Scopus] were screened for studies published between 1983 and 2019 regarding assessment of microbial resistance with use of medical devices containing chlorhexidine, minocycline, rifampicin or combinations thereof. Development of new resistance, selection for tolerant organisms and 'no change in resistance' were assessed.
RESULTS
Forty-four publications, grouped by study type and stratified by drug assessed, were included for analyses. The majority of studies found no change in resistance after exposure to antimicrobial medical devices (13 , 2 , 20 clinical). Development of new resistance was commonly reported with the use of rifampicin as a single agent and only reported in one study assessing the minocycline/rifampicin combination (M/R); however, the increase in MIC was well below clinical relevance.
CONCLUSIONS
Emergence of new resistance to combinations of M/R, minocycline/rifampicin/chlorhexidine (M/R/CH) and chlorhexidine/silver sulfadiazine (CHXSS) was rare. No clinical trials confirmed its occurrence and some refuted it. The risk of development of new resistance to these antimicrobial combinations appears more fear-based than substantiated by clinical and experimental evidence but warrants continued surveillance.
PubMed: 34222960
DOI: 10.1093/jacamr/dlaa002