-
Journal of Clinical Tuberculosis and... Jan 2017Fluoroquinolones are among the most commonly used antibiotics for the treatment of respiratory infections. Because fluoroquinolones show bactericidal activity against ,...
BACKGROUND
Fluoroquinolones are among the most commonly used antibiotics for the treatment of respiratory infections. Because fluoroquinolones show bactericidal activity against , there is concern that their use can delay the diagnosis of tuberculosis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether empiric treatment with fluoroquinolones delays the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis in patients with respiratory tract infections.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to assess the delay in days in the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis, among patients who received quinolones, compared to those who received non-fluoroquinolone antibiotics.
METHODS
We included studies of adult patients treated with fluoroquinolones prior to a confirmed diagnosis of tuberculosis. We performed a literature search of 7 databases (including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) with no language restrictions. We calculated an unweighted mean of estimate of difference in delay across all studies. For the studies for which the estimate was available as a mean with standard deviation, a weighted average using a random effects meta-analysis model was estimated.
RESULTS
A total of 3983 citations were identified from the literature search; of these, 17 articles were selected for full-text review. A total of 10 studies were retained for the synthesis. These included 7 retrospective cohort studies and 3 case-control studies. Only one of these studies was from a high TB burden country, South Africa. The most commonly used fluoroquinolones were levofloxacin, gemifloxacin and moxifloxacin. The unweighted average of difference in delay between the fluoroquinolone group and non-fluoroquinolone group was 12.9 days (95% CI 6.1-19.7). When these differences were pooled using a random effects model, the weighted estimate was 10.9 days (95% CI 4.2-17.6). When stratified by acid-fast smear status, the delay was consistently greater in the smear-negative group.
CONCLUSION
Although results are variable, the use of fluoroquinolones in patients with respiratory infections seems to delay the diagnosis of TB by nearly two weeks. Consistent with the International Standards for TB Care, their use should be avoided when tuberculosis is suspected.
PubMed: 31723692
DOI: 10.1016/j.jctube.2016.12.001 -
Clinical Therapeutics Oct 2016In Europe, 4 inhaled antibiotics (tobramycin, colistimethate sodium, aztreonam, and levofloxacin) are currently approved for the treatment of chronic Pseudomonas... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of Inhaled Antibiotics for the Treatment of Chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa Lung Infection in Patients With Cystic Fibrosis: Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
In Europe, 4 inhaled antibiotics (tobramycin, colistimethate sodium, aztreonam, and levofloxacin) are currently approved for the treatment of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa lung infection in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). Levofloxacin inhalation solution (LIS) is the most recently approved inhaled antibiotic for adult patients with CF. A systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative short-term (4 weeks) and long-term (24 weeks) outcomes of these inhaled antibiotics versus LIS.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted on February 16, 2016, using EMBASE and Medline via OvidSP. All randomized controlled trials comparing any of the aforementioned inhaled antibiotics with 4 or 24 weeks of follow-up were evaluated. NMA was performed for the following outcomes: relative and absolute percent changes from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV%) predicted, change in P aeruginosa sputum density, respiratory symptoms score from the CF questionnaire-revised, hospitalization, additional antibiotics use, and study withdrawal rates.
RESULTS
Of the 685 articles identified, 7 unique studies were included in the 4 weeks' NMA and 9 unique studies were included in the 24 weeks' NMA. Aztreonam was predicted to result in the greatest numerically increase in FEV% predicted at 4 weeks, whereas LIS were predicted to be numerically greater than colistimethate sodium, tobramycin inhaled solution (TIS), and tobramycin inhaled powder (TIP). However, all of the 95% credibility intervals (CrIs) of these comparisons included zero. At 24 weeks, none of the treatments was significantly more effective than LIS. The estimates for the mean change from baseline to 24 weeks in relative FEV% versus LIS was -0.55 (95% CrI, -3.91 to 2.80) for TIS, -2.36 (95% CrI, -7.32 to 2.63) for aztreonam, -2.95 (95% CrI, -10.44 to 4.51) for TIP, and -9.66 (95% CrI, -15.01 to -4.33) for placebo. Compared with LIS, the odds ratio for hospitalization at 24 weeks was 1.92 (95% CrI, 1.01-3.30) for TIS, 2.25 (95% CrI, 1.01-4.34) for TIP, and 3.16 (95% CrI, 1.53-5.78) for placebo, all statistically worse than LIS. P aeruginosa sputum density scores, additional use of antipseudomonal antibiotics, and study withdrawal rates were comparable among all inhaled antibiotics at all times.
IMPLICATIONS
Based on this NMA, the analyses for many of the outcomes did not provide significant evidence to indicate that the other approved inhaled antibiotics were more effective than LIS for the treatment of chronic P aeruginosa lung infection in patients with CF. Study withdrawal rates seemed to be comparable among these inhaled antibiotics.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bayes Theorem; Chronic Disease; Cystic Fibrosis; Europe; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Pseudomonas Infections; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Infections
PubMed: 27692977
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.08.014 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jul 2016Approximately half of the world's population is infected with Helicobacter pylori (H.pylori), a bacterium shown to be linked with a series of gastrointestinal diseases.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Approximately half of the world's population is infected with Helicobacter pylori (H.pylori), a bacterium shown to be linked with a series of gastrointestinal diseases. A growing number of systematic reviews (SRs) have been published comparing the effectiveness of different treatments for H.pylori infection but have not reached a consistent conclusion. The objective of this study is to provide an overview of SRs of pharmacological therapies for the eradication of H.pylori.
METHODS
Major electronic databases were searched to identify relevant SRs published between 2002 and February 2016. Studies were considered eligible if they included RCTs comparing different pharmacological regimens for treating patients diagnosed as H.pylori infected and pooled the eradication rates in a meta-analysis. A modified version of the 'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR) was used to assess the methodological quality. A Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the different proton pump inhibitors (PPI) within triple therapy.
RESULTS
30 SRs with pairwise meta-analysis were included. In triple therapy, the NMA ranked the esomeprazole to be the most effective PPI, followed by rabeprazole, while no difference was observed among the three old generations of PPI for the eradication of H.pylori. When comparing triple and bismuth-based therapy, the relative effectiveness appeared to be dependent on the choice of antibiotics within the triple therapy; moxifloxacin or levofloxacin-based triple therapy were both associated with greater effectiveness than bismuth-based therapy as a second-line treatment, while bismuth-based therapy achieved similar or greater eradication rate compared to clarithromycin-based therapy. Inconsistent findings were reported regarding the use of levofloxacin/moxifloxacin in the first-line treatment; this could be due to the varied resistant rate to different antibiotics across regions and populations. Critical appraisal showed a low-moderate level of overall methodological quality of included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis suggests that the new generation of PPIs and use of moxifloxacin or levofloxacin within triple therapy as second-line treatment were associated with greater effectiveness. Given the varied antibiotic resistant rate across regions, the appropriateness of pooling results together in meta-analysis should be carefully considered and the recommendation of the choice of antibiotics should be localized.
Topics: Antacids; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bismuth; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 27460211
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-016-0491-7 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Sep 2016Levofloxacin triple therapy has been used for the first-line and second-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection for more than 10 years. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Levofloxacin triple therapy has been used for the first-line and second-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection for more than 10 years.
AIMS
To systematically review the efficacy of levofloxacin triple therapy in the first- and second-line treatment, and to assess the time trend and factors that might affect its efficacy.
METHODS
Prospective trials reporting the efficacy of levofloxacin triple therapy in either the first-line or second-line treatment of H. pylori infection in adults were searched from the PubMed and Cochrane database from January 2000 to September 2015. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate the cumulative eradication rate and the efficacies in subgroups.
RESULTS
Of the 322 articles identified, a total of 4574 patients from 41 trials, including 16 trials in the first-line treatment and 25 trials in the second-line treatment were eligible for analysis. The cumulative eradication rate was 77.3% (95% confidence intervals, CI: 74.7-79.6) and was 80.7% (95% CI 77.1-83.7) in the first-line treatment and 74.5% (95% CI: 70.9-77.8) in the second-line treatment. The efficacies of levofloxacin triple therapy before 2008, between 2009 and 2011, and after 2012 were 77.4%, 79.6% and 74.8% respectively. The eradication rate was higher when levofloxacin was given once daily (80.6%, 95% CI: 77.1-83.7) than twice daily (73.6%, 95% CI: 69.7-77.2). The efficacy was significantly higher in levofloxacin-susceptible strains than resistant strains (81.1% vs. 36.3%, risk ratio 2.18, 95% CI: 1.6-3, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
The efficacy of levofloxacin triple therapy has been lower than 80% in many countries and it is not recommended when the levofloxacin resistance is higher than 5-10%.
Topics: Adult; Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Databases, Factual; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Levofloxacin; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27363687
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13712 -
PloS One 2015Tuberculosis is a major public health problem especially in developing countries, the comparative efficacy and safety of fluroquinolones (FQs) for adult patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tuberculosis is a major public health problem especially in developing countries, the comparative efficacy and safety of fluroquinolones (FQs) for adult patients with newly diagnosed, sputum-positive tuberculosis remains controversial. We aimed to investigate the benefits and risks of FQs-containing (addition/substitution) regimens in this population.
METHODS
A network meta-analysis was performed to compare FQs (C: ciprofloxacin; O: ofloxacin; Lo: levofloxacin; M: moxifloxacin; G: gatifloxacin) addition/substitution regimen with standard HRZE regimen (ie isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide and ethambutol) in newly diagnosed, sputum-positive tuberculosis. Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched, randomized trials with duration longer than 8 weeks were included. The primary outcome was week-8 sputum negativity, and secondary outcomes included treatment failure, serious adverse events and death from all cause.
RESULTS
Twelve studies comprising 6465 participants were included in the network meta-analysis. Löwenstein-Jensen culture method showed that HRZEM (OR 4.96, 95% CI 2.83-8.67), MRZE (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19-1.84) and HRZM (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08-1.62) had more sputum conversion than HRZE by the eighth week, whereas HRC (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.77) and HRZO (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24-0.92) were worse than HRZE. Moxifloxacin-containing regimens showed more conversion than HRZE by liquid method at the end of two months. But by the end of treatment, FQs-containing regimens didn't show superiority than HRZE on treatment failure. There were no significant differences between any regimens on other outcomes like serious adverse events and all-cause death.
CONCLUSION
This comprehensive network meta-analysis showed that compared with HRZE, moxifloxacin-containing regimens could significantly increase sputum conversion by the eighth week for patients with newly diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis while HRC and HRZO regimens were inferior. But all the FQs-containing regimens did not show superiority in other outcomes (such as treatment failure, serious adverse events and all-cause death). Thus, HRZE is still an effective regimen for this population. Although moxifloxacin-containing regimens have deomonstrated their potential, FQs-containing regimens should be used with great caution to avoid widespread FQs-resistance worldwide.
Topics: Adult; Antitubercular Agents; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Publication Bias; Sputum; Treatment Outcome; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary
PubMed: 26669635
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145066 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Aug 2015To determine the most efficacious treatment for eradication of Helicobacter pylori with the lowest likelihood of some common adverse events among pre-recommended and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the most efficacious treatment for eradication of Helicobacter pylori with the lowest likelihood of some common adverse events among pre-recommended and newer treatment regimens.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase without language or date restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION
Full text reports of randomised controlled trials that compared different eradication treatments for H pylori among adults.
RESULTS
Of the 15,565 studies identified, 143 were eligible and included. Data on 14 kinds of treatments were available. Of 91 possible comparisons for the efficacy outcome, 34 were compared directly and the following treatments performed better: seven days of concomitant treatment (proton pump inhibitor and three kinds of antibiotics administered together), 10 or 14 days of concomitant treatment, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment (standard triple treatment which is probiotic supplemented), 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment (proton pump inhibitor, levofloxacin, and antibiotic administered together), 14 days of hybrid treatment (proton pump inhibitor and amoxicillin used for seven days, followed by a proton pump inhibitor, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and 5-nitroimidazole for another seven days), and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment (five or seven days of a proton pump inhibitor plus amoxicillin, followed by five or seven additional days of a proton pump inhibitor plus clarithromycin and 5-nitroimidazole or amoxicillin). In terms of tolerance, all treatments were considered tolerable, but seven days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment and seven days of levofloxacin based triple treatment ranked best in terms of the proportion of adverse events reported.
CONCLUSION
Comparison of different eradication treatments for H pylori showed that concomitant treatments, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment, 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment, 14 days of hybrid treatment, and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment might be better alternatives for the eradication of H pylori.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clarithromycin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Levofloxacin; Metronidazole; Nitroimidazoles; Probiotics; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 26290044
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h4052 -
Journal of Korean Medical Science Aug 2015The efficacy of seven-day clarithromycin-based standard triple therapy (STT) for Helicobacter pylori has decreased in Korea over the past decade. The aim of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The efficacy of seven-day clarithromycin-based standard triple therapy (STT) for Helicobacter pylori has decreased in Korea over the past decade. The aim of this meta-analysis was to clarify the efficacy of first-line and second-line therapies in Korea. This systematic review will provide an overview of H. pylori eradication and present new therapeutic strategies used in Korea. An extensive search of the literature concerning STT, sequential therapy (SET), concomitant therapy (CT), bismuth-containing quadruple therapy (BCQT) and various other therapies used in Korea was performed. All selected studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eighteen RCTs were eligible for systematic review. The alternative regimens comparing seven-day STT as a first-line therapy include SET, CT, levofloxacin-based therapy (LBT), BCQT, and STT with prolonged duration. The results of the meta-analysis suggest that SET is superior to seven-day STT. The overall eradication rate by intention to treat (ITT) analysis was 69.8% for STT and 79.7% for SET. The overall eradication rate by per-protocol (PP) analysis was 77.0% for STT and 85.0% for SET. The odds ratios for the ITT and PP eradication rate were 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.74) and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.76), respectively. In the subgroup analysis, however, there were no significant differences between SET and STT with prolonged durations. Alternative regimens to seven-day BCQT as second-line therapy include LBT, moxifloxacin-based therapy and 14-day BCQT. The eradication rates of these alternative regimens were not superior to that of the conventional treatment. SET is superior to seven-day STT but not to STT with prolonged duration.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Male; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Prevalence; Republic of Korea; Risk Assessment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26240475
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.8.1001 -
Iranian Journal of Basic Medical... Jan 2015Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is a pathogenic bacterium that colonizes the stomachs of approximately 50% of the world's population. Resistance of H. pylori to... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is a pathogenic bacterium that colonizes the stomachs of approximately 50% of the world's population. Resistance of H. pylori to antibiotics is considered as the main reason for the failure to eradicate this bacterium. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of resistant H. pylori strains to various antimicrobial agents in different areas of Iran.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of literatures on H. pylori antibiotic resistance in Iran was performed within the time span of 1997 to 2013. Data obtained from various studies were tabulated as following, 1) year of research and number strains tested, 2) number of H. pylori positive patients, 3) study place, 4) resistance of H. pylori to various antibiotics as percentage, and 5) methods used for evaluation of antibiotic resistance.
RESULTS
Over the period, a total of 21 studies on H. pylori antibiotic resistance have been conducted in different parts of Iran. In these studies, H. pylori resistance to various antibiotics, including metronidazole, clarithromycin, amoxicillin, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and furazolidone were 61.6%, 22.4%, 16.0%, 12.2%, 21.0%, 5.3% and 21.6%, respectively. We found no study on H. pylori resistance to rifabutin in Iran.
CONCLUSION
Compared to the global average, we noted that the prevalence of H. pylori resistance to metronidazole, clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and tetracycline has been rapidly growing in Iran. This study showed that in order to determine an appropriate drug regimen against H. pylori, information on antibiotic susceptibility of the bacterium within different geographical areas of Iran is required.
PubMed: 25810869
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Accurate and rapid tests for tuberculosis (TB) drug resistance are critical for improving patient care and decreasing the transmission of drug-resistant TB.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Accurate and rapid tests for tuberculosis (TB) drug resistance are critical for improving patient care and decreasing the transmission of drug-resistant TB. Genotype(®)MTBDRsl (MTBDRsl) is the only commercially-available molecular test for detecting resistance in TB to the fluoroquinolones (FQs; ofloxacin, moxifloxacin and levofloxacin) and the second-line injectable drugs (SLIDs; amikacin, kanamycin and capreomycin), which are used to treat patients with multidrug-resistant (MDR-)TB.
OBJECTIVES
To obtain summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl for FQ resistance, SLID resistance and extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB; defined as MDR-TB plus resistance to a FQ and a SLID) when performed (1) indirectly (ie on culture isolates confirmed as TB positive) and (2) directly (ie on smear-positive sputum specimens).To compare summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl for FQ resistance, SLID resistance and XDR-TB by type of testing (indirect versus direct testing).The populations of interest were adults with drug-susceptible TB or drug-resistant TB. The settings of interest were intermediate and central laboratories.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without any language restriction up to 30 January 2014: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Knowledge; MEDION; LILACS; BIOSIS; SCOPUS; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials; the search portal of the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all studies that determined MTBDRsl accuracy against a defined reference standard (culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST), genetic testing or both). We included cross-sectional and diagnostic case-control studies. We excluded unpublished data and conference proceedings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For each study, two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We performed meta-analyses to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of MTBDRsl for FQ resistance, SLID resistance, and XDR-TB. We explored the influence of different reference standards. We performed the majority of analyses using a bivariate random-effects model against culture-based DST as the reference standard.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 unique studies: 14 studies reported the accuracy of MTBDRsl when done directly, five studies when done indirectly and two studies that did both. Of the 21 studies, 15 studies (71%) were cross-sectional and 11 studies (58%) were located in low-income or middle-income countries. All studies but two were written in English. Nine (43%) of the 21 included studies had a high risk of bias for patient selection. At least half of the studies had low risk of bias for the other QUADAS-2 domains.As a test for FQ resistance measured against culture-based DST, the pooled sensitivity of MTBDRsl when performed indirectly was 83.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78.7% to 86.7%) and the pooled specificity was 97.7% (95% CI 94.3% to 99.1%), respectively (16 studies, 1766 participants; 610 confirmed cases of FQ-resistant TB; moderate quality evidence). When performed directly, the pooled sensitivity was 85.1% (95% CI 71.9% to 92.7%) and the pooled specificity was 98.2% (95% CI 96.8% to 99.0%), respectively (seven studies, 1033 participants; 230 confirmed cases of FQ-resistant TB; moderate quality evidence). For indirect testing for FQ resistance, four (0.2%) of 1766 MTBDRsl results were indeterminate, whereas for direct testing 20 (1.9%) of 1033 were MTBDRsl indeterminate (P < 0.001).As a test for SLID resistance measured against culture-based DST, the pooled sensitivity of MTBDRsl when performed indirectly was 76.9% (95% CI 61.1% to 87.6%) and the pooled specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 97.1% to 99.9%), respectively (14 studies, 1637 participants; 414 confirmed cases of SLID-resistant TB; moderate quality evidence). For amikacin resistance, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 87.9% (95% CI 82.1% to 92.0%) and 99.5% (95% CI 97.5% to 99.9%), respectively. For kanamycin resistance, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 66.9% (95% CI 44.1% to 83.8%) and 98.6% (95% CI 96.1% to 99.5%), respectively. For capreomycin resistance, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 79.5% (95% CI 58.3% to 91.4%) and 95.8% (95% CI 93.4% to 97.3%), respectively. When performed directly, the pooled sensitivity for SLID resistance was 94.4% (95% CI 25.2% to 99.9%) and the pooled specificity was 98.2% (95% CI 88.9% to 99.7%), respectively (six studies, 947 participants; 207 confirmed cases of SLID-resistant TB, 740 SLID susceptible cases of TB; very low quality evidence). For indirect testing for SLID resistance, three (0.4%) of 774 MTBDRsl results were indeterminate, whereas for direct testing 53 (6.1%) of 873 were MTBDRsl indeterminate (P < 0.001).As a test for XDR-TB measured against culture-based DST, the pooled sensitivity of MTBDRsl when performed indirectly was 70.9% (95% CI 42.9% to 88.8%) and the pooled specificity was 98.8% (95% CI 96.1% to 99.6%), respectively (eight studies, 880 participants; 173 confirmed cases of XDR-TB; low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In adults with TB, a positive MTBDRsl result for FQ resistance, SLID resistance, or XDR-TB can be treated with confidence. However, MTBDRsl does not detect approximately one in five cases of FQ-resistant TB, and does not detect approximately one in four cases of SLID-resistant TB. Of the three SLIDs, MTBDRsl has the poorest sensitivity for kanamycin resistance. MTBDRsl will miss between one in four and one in three cases of XDR-TB. The diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl is similar when done using either culture isolates or smear-positive sputum. As the location of the resistance causing mutations can vary on a strain-by-strain basis, further research is required on test accuracy in different settings and, if genetic sequencing is used as a reference standard, it should examine all resistance-determining regions. Given the confidence one can have in a positive result, and the ability of the test to provide results within a matter of days, MTBDRsl may be used as an initial test for second-line drug resistance. However, when the test reports a negative result, clinicians may still wish to carry out conventional testing.
Topics: Adult; Antitubercular Agents; Cross-Sectional Studies; Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis; Fluoroquinolones; Genotype; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 25353401
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010705.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) is the third leading cause of death worldwide and the first leading cause of death in low-income countries. Community-acquired... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) is the third leading cause of death worldwide and the first leading cause of death in low-income countries. Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common condition that causes a significant disease burden for the community, particularly in children younger than five years, the elderly and immunocompromised people. Antibiotics are the standard treatment for CAP. However, increasing antibiotic use is associated with the development of bacterial resistance and side effects for the patient. Several studies have been published regarding optimal antibiotic treatment for CAP but many of these data address treatments in hospitalised patients. This is an update of our 2009 Cochrane Review and addresses antibiotic therapies for CAP in outpatient settings.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of different antibiotic treatments for CAP in participants older than 12 years treated in outpatient settings with respect to clinical, radiological and bacteriological outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March week 3, 2014), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2014), CINAHL (2009 to March 2014), Web of Science (2009 to March 2014) and LILACS (2009 to March 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), fully published in peer-reviewed journals, of antibiotics versus placebo as well as antibiotics versus another antibiotic for the treatment of CAP in outpatient settings in participants older than 12 years of age. However, we did not find any studies of antibiotics versus placebo. Therefore, this review includes RCTs of one or more antibiotics, which report the diagnostic criteria and describe the clinical outcomes considered for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (LMB, TJMV) independently assessed study reports in the first publication. In the 2009 update, LMB performed study selection, which was checked by TJMV and MMK. In this 2014 update, two review authors (SP, SM) independently performed and checked study selection. We contacted trial authors to resolve any ambiguities in the study reports. We compiled and analysed the data. We resolved differences between review authors by discussion and consensus.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs in this review update (3352 participants older than 12 years with a diagnosis of CAP); 10 RCTs assessed nine antibiotic pairs (3321 participants) and one RCT assessed four antibiotics (31 participants) in people with CAP. The study quality was generally good, with some differences in the extent of the reporting. A variety of clinical, bacteriological and adverse events were reported. Overall, there was no significant difference in the efficacy of the various antibiotics. Studies evaluating clarithromycin and amoxicillin provided only descriptive data regarding the primary outcome. Though the majority of adverse events were similar between all antibiotics, nemonoxacin demonstrated higher gastrointestinal and nervous system adverse events when compared to levofloxacin, while cethromycin demonstrated significantly more nervous system side effects, especially dysgeusia, when compared to clarithromycin. Similarly, high-dose amoxicillin (1 g three times a day) was associated with higher incidence of gastritis and diarrhoea compared to clarithromycin, azithromycin and levofloxacin.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence from recent RCTs is insufficient to make new evidence-based recommendations for the choice of antibiotic to be used for the treatment of CAP in outpatient settings. Pooling of study data was limited by the very low number of studies assessing the same antibiotic pairs. Individual study results do not reveal significant differences in efficacy between various antibiotics and antibiotic groups. However, two studies did find significantly more adverse events with use of cethromycin as compared to clarithromycin and nemonoxacin when compared to levofloxacin. Multi-drug comparisons using similar administration schedules are needed to provide the evidence necessary for practice recommendations. Further studies focusing on diagnosis, management, cost-effectiveness and misuse of antibiotics in CAP and LRTI are warranted in high-, middle- and low-income countries.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Community-Acquired Infections; Humans; Outpatients; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25300166
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002109.pub4