-
Frontiers in Public Health 2024Invasive pneumococcal disease has declined since pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). However, serotype distribution and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Invasive pneumococcal disease has declined since pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). However, serotype distribution and antimicrobial resistance patterns have changed.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the frequency of antimicrobial resistance of from invasive disease in LAC. Articles published between 1 January 2000, and 27 December 2022, with no language restriction, were searched in major databases and gray literature. Pairs of reviewers independently selected extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the studies. The quality of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) studies was evaluated according to WHO recommendations (PROSPERO CRD42023392097).
RESULTS
From 8,600 records identified, 103 studies were included, with 49,660 positive samples of for AMR analysis processed. Most studies were from Brazil (29.1%) and Argentina (18.4%), were cross-sectional (57.3%), reported data on AMR from IPD cases (52.4%), and were classified as moderate risk of bias (50.5%). Resistance to penicillin was 21.7% (95%IC 18.7-25.0, I: 95.9), and for ceftriaxone/cefotaxime it was 4.7% (95%IC 3.2-6.9, I: 96.1). The highest resistance for both penicillin and ceftriaxone/cefotaxime was in the age group of 0 to 5 years (32.1% [95%IC 28.2-36.4, I: 87.7], and 9.7% [95%IC 5.9-15.6, I: 96.9] respectively). The most frequent serotypes associated with resistance were 14 for penicillin and 19A for ceftriaxone/cefotaxime.
CONCLUSION
Approximately one-quarter of invasive pneumococcal disease isolates in Latin America and the Caribbean displayed penicillin resistance, with higher rates in young children. Ongoing surveillance is essential to monitor serotype evolution and antimicrobial resistance patterns following pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction.
Topics: Child; Humans; Child, Preschool; Infant, Newborn; Infant; Streptococcus pneumoniae; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Latin America; Ceftriaxone; Vaccines, Conjugate; Pneumococcal Vaccines; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Pneumococcal Infections; Penicillins; Cefotaxime
PubMed: 38317800
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1337276 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Feb 2024Bloodstream infection of Klebsiella pneumoniae (BSI-KP) were associated with increased mortality. Klebsiella pneumoniae was tested to susceptible to colistin by E-test... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bloodstream infection of Klebsiella pneumoniae (BSI-KP) were associated with increased mortality. Klebsiella pneumoniae was tested to susceptible to colistin by E-test and broth microdilution method in clinical laboratory. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of colistin versus tigecycline, carbapenem monotherapy and combination in the treatment of BSI-KP.
METHODS
Electronic databases such as PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched. The last search was in November 24th, 2022, addressing the colistin, carbapenems and tigecycline monotherapy and combination treatments in patients with BSI-KP. The primary outcomes were 30-day or 28-day mortality. OR where available with 95% CI were pooled in random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Following the outlined search strategy, a total of 658 articles were identified from the initial database searching. Six studies, 17 comparisons were included. However, they all were observational design, lacking high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Moderate or low-quality evidences suggested that colistin monotherapy was associated with an OR = 1.35 (95% CI = 0.62-2.97, P = 0.45, Tau = 0.00, I = 0%) compared with tigecycline monotherapy, OR = 0.81 (95% CI = 0.27-2.45, P = 0.71, Tau = 0.00, I = 0%) compared with carbapenem monotherapy. Compared with combination with tigecycline or carbapenem, Colistin monotherapy resulted in OR of 3.07 (95% CI = 1.34-7.04, P = 0.008, Tau = 0.00, I = 0%) and 0.98 (95%CI = 0.29-3.31, P = 0.98, Tau = 0.00, I = 0% ), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Colistin, carbapenem and tigecycline monotherapy showed similar treatment effects in patients who suffered from BSI-KP. Compared with colistin monotherapy, colistin combined tigecycline therapy might play the synergism effects.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
retrospectively registered.
Topics: Humans; Colistin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Tigecycline; Klebsiella pneumoniae; Carbapenems; Sepsis; Klebsiella Infections; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 38317132
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-024-09024-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID-19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID-19.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The low- to very low-certainty evidence means that we do not know whether favipiravir is efficacious in people with COVID-19 illness, irrespective of severity or admission status. Treatment with favipiravir may result in an overall increase in the incidence of adverse events but may not result in serious adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Amides; Pyrazines
PubMed: 38314855
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015219.pub2 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain Feb 2024To compare the outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, ubrogepant, and zavegepant for the acute management of migraine headaches. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of effectiveness and safety of lasmiditan and CGRP-antagonists for the acute treatment of migraine in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, ubrogepant, and zavegepant for the acute management of migraine headaches.
METHODS
We searched four electronic databases from database inception to August 31, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that report efficacy and safety for the acute treatment of migraine. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane tool, and the certainty of evidence using the CINeMA approach. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses (NMA) to summarise the evidence. Data were analyzed using R-4.3.1.
RESULTS
A total of 18 eligible studies including 10 different types of interventions with 22,429 migraine patients were included. NMA results showed that compared to ubrogepant (25 mg and 50 mg) and zavegepant, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits an elevated probability of achieving pain relief within a 2-hour interval. Similarly, relative to zavegepant, rimegepant (75 mg) and ubrogepant (50 mg and 100 mg) demonstrate an enhanced likelihood of sustaining pain relief over a 24-hour period. Furthermore, in contrast to ubrogepant (25 mg) and lasmiditan (50 mg), rimegepant (75 mg) presents a heightened probability of achieving freedom from photophobia within 2 h. Regarding safety, lasmiditan carries the highest risk of adverse events, which are associated with an increased incidence of adverse effects, including dizziness, somnolence, asthenia, paresthesia, and fatigue.
CONCLUSIONS
In this NMA, a spectrum of evidence ranging from very low to high levels underscores the favorable efficacy and tolerability of rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 100 mg, positioning them as potential candidates for the acute management of migraine. Concurrently, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits notable efficacy, albeit accompanied by an increased susceptibility to adverse events. These findings should still be approached with caution, primarily due to the intrinsic limitations associated with indirect comparisons.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Benzamides; Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide; Migraine Disorders; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Piperidines; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38311738
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-024-01723-4 -
PeerJ 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to explore the potential impact of the route of administration on the efficacy of therapies and occurrence of adverse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The impact of the route of administration on the efficacy and safety of the drug therapy for patent ductus arteriosus in premature infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to explore the potential impact of the route of administration on the efficacy of therapies and occurrence of adverse events when administering medications to premature infants with patent ductus arteriosus (PDA).
METHOD
The protocol for this review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42022324598). We searched relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and the Web of Science databases from March 26, 1996, to January 31, 2022.
RESULTS
A total of six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five observational studies were included for analysis, involving 630 premature neonates in total. Among these infants, 480 were in the ibuprofen group (oral intravenous routes), 78 in the paracetamol group (oral intravenous routes), and 72 in the ibuprofen group (rectal oral routes). Our meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in the rate of PDA closure between the the initial course of oral ibuprofen and intravenous ibuprofen groups (relative risk (RR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.13-1.44]; < 0.0001, = 0%). In contrast, the meta-analysis of paracetamol administration via oral versus intravenous routes showed no significant difference in PDA closure rates (RR = 0.86, 95% CI [0.38-1.91]; = 0.71, = 76%). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of adverse events or the need for surgical intervention among various drug administration methods after the complete course of drug therapy.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis evaluated the safety and effectiveness of different medication routes for treating PDA in premature infants. Our analysis results revealed that compared with intravenous administration, oral ibuprofen may offer certain advantages in closing PDA without increasing the risk of adverse events. Conversely, the use of paracetamol demonstrated no significant difference in PDA closure and the risk of adverse events between oral and intravenous administration.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Ductus Arteriosus, Patent; Ibuprofen; Indomethacin; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Acetaminophen; Infant, Premature
PubMed: 38304184
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.16591 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Jan 2024Liposome bupivacaine (LB) is a long-acting anesthetic to enhance postoperative analgesia. Studies evaluating the efficacy of the LB against an active comparator... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Liposome bupivacaine (LB) is a long-acting anesthetic to enhance postoperative analgesia. Studies evaluating the efficacy of the LB against an active comparator (bupivacaine or placebo) on acute postoperative pain control in hemorrhoidectomy procedures are few and heterogeneous. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LB's analgesic efficacy and side effects to conventional/placebo anesthetic in hemorrhoidectomy patients.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigating the use of LB after haemorrhoidectomy. We searched the literature published from the time of inception of the datasets to August 19, 2022. The electronic databases included English publications in Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Scopus.
RESULTS
A total of 338 patients who underwent a hemorrhoidectomy procedure enrolled in three randomized clinical trials were included. The overall mean age was 45.84 years (SD ± 11.43), and there was a male predominance (53.55% male). In total 194 patients (52.2%) received LB and 144 (47.8%) received either bupivacaine or placebo. Pain scores at 72 h in the LB (199, 266, and 300 mg) were significantly lower than in the bupivacaine HCl group (p = 0.002). Compared to the bupivacaine/placebo group, the time to first use of opioids in the LB group was significantly longer at LB 199 mg (11 h vs. 9 h), LB 266 mg (19 h vs. 9 h), and LB 300 mg (19 h vs. 8 h) (p < 0.05). Moreover, compared to the bupivacaine/epinephrine group, it was significantly lower in the LB 266 mg group (3.7 vs. 10.2 mg) and at LB 300 mg (13 vs. 33 mg) (p < 0.05). Finally, regarding adverse effects, the conventional anesthetic/placebo group reported more pain in bowel movement than LB groups (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.31-5.16).
CONCLUSIONS
Comparing LB to conventional anesthetic/placebo anesthetic for hemorrhoidectomy, we found a statistically significant reduction in pain through 72 h, decreased opioid requirements, and delayed time to first opioid use. Moreover, the conventional anesthetic/placebo group reported more pain in bowel movement than LB groups.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Female; Hemorrhoidectomy; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics; Bupivacaine; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 38294561
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-023-02881-4 -
EBioMedicine Dec 2023Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a common complication of diabetes, associated with important morbidity. Appropriate animal models of DFUs may improve drug development,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a common complication of diabetes, associated with important morbidity. Appropriate animal models of DFUs may improve drug development, and subsequently the success rate of clinical trials. However, while many models have been proposed, they are extremely heterogeneous, and no standard has emerged. We thus propose a systematic review with a network meta-analysis (NMA) to gather direct and indirect evidence, and compare the different mouse models of diabetes-related ulcers.
METHODS
The systematic search was performed in Pubmed and Embase. The main outcomes were wound size measurement at days 3, 7, 11 and 15 (±1 day). The risk of bias and methodological quality of all included studies was assessed by using the Systematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool. Meta-regressions were done on prespecified variables, including mouse strain, type of ulcer, sex, age, and use of a splint.
FINDINGS
We included 295 studies. Among all models, only db/db, ob/ob, streptozotocin (STZ), and STZ + high fat diet mice showed a significantly delayed wound healing, compared with controls, at each time point. Age, sex and ulcer type had influence on wound healing, although not at all time points.
INTERPRETATION
In conclusion, the db/db model is associated with the largest delay in wound healing The STZ model also exhibits significantly decreased wound healing. STZ + high fat diet and ob/ob mice may also be relevant models of diabetes-related ulcers, although the results rely on a more limited number of studies.
FUNDING
This work was funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (grant ANR-18-CE17-0017).
Topics: Animals; Mice; Network Meta-Analysis; Disease Models, Animal; Diabetic Foot; Animal Experimentation; Diet, High-Fat; Streptozocin; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 38251464
DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104856 -
Medicine Jan 2024Apatinib, a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor independently developed by China, has been widely used in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in recent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The long-term efficacy and safety of apatinib are inferior to sorafenib in the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Apatinib, a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor independently developed by China, has been widely used in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in recent years. For more than a decade, sorafenib has been the classic first-line treatment option for patients with advanced HCC. However, the results of clinical studies comparing the efficacy and safety of these 2 drugs are still controversial. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apatinib versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced HCC.
METHODS
Up to August 14, 2023, the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang were searched, and clinical studies of experimental group (apatinib or apatinib plus transarterial chemoembolization [TACE]) versus control group (sorafenib or sorafenib plus TACE) in the first-line treatment of advanced HCC were included. Two researchers evaluated the quality of the included studies and extracted the data. Revman 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies involving 1150 patients were included. Five studies are apatinib alone versus sorafenib alone, and the other 7 studies are apatinib plus TACE versus sorafenib plus TACE. The results of the meta-analysis showed that compared with sorafenib alone, apatinib could improve (OR = 3.06, 95%CI: 1.76-5.31), had no advantage in improving DCR (OR = 1.52, 95%CI: 0.86-2.68) and prolonging PFS (HR = 1.35, 95%CI: 0.94-1.96), and was significantly worse in prolonging OS (HR = 1.43, 95%CI: 1.08-1.88). Similarly, apatinib plus TACE was inferior to sorafenib plus TACE in prolonging OS (HR = 1.15, 95%CI: 1.03-1.28), although it improved ORR (OR = 1.49, 95%CI: 1.03-2.16). In terms of adverse drug events, the overall incidence of adverse events, and the incidence of drug reduction and discontinuation in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P < .05). The incidence of hypertension, proteinuria, and oral mucositis in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < .05).
CONCLUSION
In the setting of first-line treatment of advanced HCC, apatinib has improved short-term efficacy (ORR) compared with sorafenib, but the safety and long-term efficacy of apatinib are inferior to sorafenib.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Chemoembolization, Therapeutic; Liver Neoplasms; Pyridines; Sorafenib
PubMed: 38241568
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036865 -
Medicine Jan 2024Multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli infections are a global health challenge, notably in North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. This systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli infections are a global health challenge, notably in North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness and safety of cefotaxime combined with avibactam, aiming to mitigate these infections' impact and lessen their burden on healthcare systems worldwide.
METHODS
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and PICO frameworks, we conducted a comprehensive literature search across 4 primary databases on May 6, 2023. Studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of cefotaxime and avibactam were included. Key outcomes included treatment success, adverse effects, and microbiological eradication. Quality assessment utilized the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias instrument. Heterogeneity was analyzed using chi-square statistics and the I2 index. Both fixed- and random-effects models were applied as appropriate. Publication bias was rigorously evaluated using Egger linear regression test and funnel plot analysis, ensuring the study's integrity and reliability.
RESULTS
The clinical cure rate derived from 8 studies showed no significant difference between the treatment groups (odds ratio [OR] = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.36, P = .86). Analysis of the bacterial clearance rate from the 5 studies also indicated no significant difference (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.42 to 2.25, P = .36). Notably, a reduced mortality rate favoring the experimental group was observed in 6 studies (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.92, P = .012). Comprehensive sensitivity analyses and the assessment of publication bias strengthened the reliability of the results.
CONCLUSIONS
Ceftazidime combined with avibactam significantly reduced mortality among patients with multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli infections, indicating its potential as a therapeutic option, especially for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. However, extensive large-scale clinical trials are required to validate these findings.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azabicyclo Compounds; Cefotaxime; Ceftazidime; Drug Combinations; Escherichia coli; Escherichia coli Infections; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 38241533
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036938 -
World Journal of Microbiology &... Jan 2024The emergence of multi drug resistant bacterial infections has caused a critical problem with implication on hospitalization and mortality rates. This systematic review... (Review)
Review
The emergence of multi drug resistant bacterial infections has caused a critical problem with implication on hospitalization and mortality rates. This systematic review aims to review the combined antimicrobial effect of nanoparticles attached to the traditionally used antibiotics, to overcome the antibiotic resistance crisis. In this systematic search we focused on preclinical studies that have used animal models, to test and evaluate the effect of nanomaterials added to antibiotics against gram negative bacteria with carbapenem resistance. Where, this newly formed structure has led to significant decrease in bacterial load in animal model serum. Furthermore, by evaluating nanomaterial cytotoxicity and inflammatory markers, promising results were established, where low toxicity indices were presented, supporting the ability of this new pathway to be used as an alternative to abused antibiotics. Our research collected the various data and showed encouraging preclinical one for using nanomaterials with antibiotics. This undeniable route should be considered, due to its ability to contribute to the treatment of multi drug resistant bacterial infections. These findings provide base for future studies and reinforce the need for more evaluation and testing on the safety of nanomaterials against bacterial infections.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Carbapenems; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Nanostructures
PubMed: 38233674
DOI: 10.1007/s11274-024-03894-3