-
Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2022Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease that has become a public health problem, especially in vulnerable populations. A systematic review and time-free meta-analysis... (Review)
Review
Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease that has become a public health problem, especially in vulnerable populations. A systematic review and time-free meta-analysis of the publications on the molecular detection of syphilis and mutations associated with antibiotic resistance, CORE group, and syphilis genotypes in PubMed databases, Scielo, and Cochrane was performed, and the last search was conducted in June 2022. Proportions were calculated, and standard errors and confidence intervals were reported for all results of interest. We included 41 articles for quantitative extraction and data synthesis. An increase was observed in the proportion of subjects diagnosed with syphilis and the presence of the A2058G mutation during the 2018−2021 period compared to 2006 (70% 95%CI 50−87 vs. 58% 95%CI 12−78), and we observed that the greater the proportion of the population participating in men who have sex with men (MSM) (<50% and >50%) syphilis increased (78% 95%CI 65−90 vs. 33% 95%CI 19−49). In conclusion, we suggest that there are a set of characteristics that are contributing to the resurgence of syphilis and the selective pressure of bacteria. The MSM population could be a vulnerable factor for this scenario and the global presence of A2058G and A2059G mutations that confer resistance to macrolides.
PubMed: 36558880
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11121546 -
Transplantation Jan 2023Chronic kidney disease (CKD) after lung transplantation is common and limits the survival of transplant recipients. The calcineurin inhibitors (CNI), cyclosporine A, and...
Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Inhibitors and Kidney Function After Thoracic Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Management of Lung Transplant Recipients.
BACKGROUND
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) after lung transplantation is common and limits the survival of transplant recipients. The calcineurin inhibitors (CNI), cyclosporine A, and tacrolimus being the cornerstone of immunosuppression are key mediators of nephrotoxicity. The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, sirolimus and everolimus, are increasingly used in combination with reduced CNI dosage after lung transplantation.
METHODS
This systematic review examined the efficacy and safety of mTOR inhibitors after lung transplantation and explored their effect on kidney function.
RESULTS
mTOR inhibitors are often introduced to preserve kidney function. Several clinical trials have demonstrated improved kidney function and efficacy of mTOR inhibitors. The potential for kidney function improvement and preservation increases with early initiation of mTOR inhibitors and low target levels for both mTOR inhibitors and CNI. No defined stage of CKD for mTOR inhibitor initiation exists, nor does severe CKD preclude the improvement of kidney function under mTOR inhibitors. Baseline proteinuria may negatively predict the preservation and improvement of kidney function. Discontinuation rates of mTOR inhibitors due to adverse effects increase with higher target levels.
CONCLUSIONS
More evidence is needed to define the optimal immunosuppressive regimen incorporating mTOR inhibitors after lung transplantation. Not only the indication criteria for the introduction of mTOR inhibitors are needed, but also the best timing, target levels, and possibly discontinuation criteria must be defined more clearly. Current evidence supports the notion of nephroprotective potential under certain conditions.
Topics: Sirolimus; Graft Rejection; MTOR Inhibitors; Kidney Transplantation; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Immunosuppressive Agents; TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases; Lung Transplantation; Kidney
PubMed: 36508646
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000004336 -
PloS One 2022The emergence of COVID-19 overwhelmed tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control, resulting in a decrease in TB detection rate and an increase in TB deaths. Furthermore,...
BACKGROUND
The emergence of COVID-19 overwhelmed tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control, resulting in a decrease in TB detection rate and an increase in TB deaths. Furthermore, the temporary immunosuppressive effects, lung inflammation, and the corticosteroids used to treat COVID-19, may play a direct role in immunosuppression, leading to reactivation of either previous infection or latent TB or the development of new TB. Thus, the aim of this study was to review TB incidence in individuals who recovered from COVID-19.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of available databases for previously published studies that reported TB in COVID-19 survivors. The PRISMA checklist was used to guide the review, and the JBI checklist was used to evaluate the study's quality. The descriptive data were summarized.
RESULTS
Data were extracted from 21 studies conducted in 13 countries having 33 cases. The median age was 44 years (range; 13.5-80), and more than half (18, 54.5%) were males. Twelve patients immigrated from TB endemic settings. All 17 patients assessed for HIV were seronegative, and all 11 patients assessed for BCG vaccination status were vaccinated. The majority (20, 69%) of patients had some type of comorbidity with diabetes (12/29) and hypertension (9/29) being the most common. Four patients (30.77%) had a history of TB. Corticosteroids were used to treat COVID-19 in 62.5% (10) of individuals. Dexamethasone, remdesivir, azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and enoxaparin were the most commonly used drugs to treat COVID-19. The most common TB symptoms were fever, cough, weight loss, dyspnea, and fatigue. Twenty, eleven, and two patients developed pulmonary, extrapulmonary, and disseminated/miliary TB respectively. It may take up to seven months after COVID-19 recovery to develop tuberculosis. Data on the final treatment outcome was found for 24 patients, and five patients died during the anti-TB treatment period.
CONCLUSION
Tuberculosis after recovering from COVID-19 is becoming more common, potentially leading to a TB outbreak in the post-COVID-19 era. The immunosuppressive nature of the disease and its treatment modalities may contribute to post COVID-19 TB. Thus, we recommend a further study with a large sample size. Furthermore, we recommend feasibility studies to assess and treat latent TB in COVID-19 patients residing in TB endemic counties since treatment of latent TB is done only in TB non-endemic countries.
Topics: Male; Humans; Adult; Female; Latent Tuberculosis; COVID-19; Hydroxychloroquine; Azithromycin; Tuberculosis, Miliary
PubMed: 36441785
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277807 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric fever) are febrile bacterial illnesses common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric fever) are febrile bacterial illnesses common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends treatment with azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, or ceftriaxone due to widespread resistance to older, first-line antimicrobials. Resistance patterns vary in different locations and are changing over time. Fluoroquinolone resistance in South Asia often precludes the use of ciprofloxacin. Extensively drug-resistant strains of enteric fever have emerged in Pakistan. In some areas of the world, susceptibility to old first-line antimicrobials, such as chloramphenicol, has re-appeared. A Cochrane Review of the use of fluoroquinolones and azithromycin in the treatment of enteric fever has previously been undertaken, but the use of cephalosporins has not been systematically investigated and the optimal choice of drug and duration of treatment are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of cephalosporins for treating enteric fever in children and adults compared to other antimicrobials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 24 November 2021. We also searched reference lists of included trials, contacted researchers working in the field, and contacted relevant organizations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and children with enteric fever that compared a cephalosporin to another antimicrobial, a different cephalosporin, or a different treatment duration of the intervention cephalosporin. Enteric fever was diagnosed on the basis of blood culture, bone marrow culture, or molecular tests.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse. Our secondary outcomes were time to defervescence, duration of hospital admission, convalescent faecal carriage, and adverse effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 RCTs with 2231 total participants published between 1986 and 2016 across Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the Caribbean, with comparisons between cephalosporins and other antimicrobials used for the treatment of enteric fever in children and adults. The main comparisons are between antimicrobials in most common clinical use, namely cephalosporins compared to a fluoroquinolone and cephalosporins compared to azithromycin. Cephalosporin (cefixime) versus fluoroquinolones Clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse may be increased in patients treated with cefixime compared to fluoroquinolones in three small trials published over 14 years ago: clinical failure (risk ratio (RR) 13.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.24 to 55.39; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 4.07, 95% CI 0.46 to 36.41; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 4.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 17.84; 2 trials, 220 participants; low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with cefixime may be longer compared to participants treated with fluoroquinolones (mean difference (MD) 1.74 days, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.98, 3 trials, 425 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus azithromycin Ceftriaxone may result in a decrease in clinical failure compared to azithromycin, and it is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on microbiological failure compared to azithromycin in two small trials published over 18 years ago and in one more recent trial, all conducted in participants under 18 years of age: clinical failure (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.57; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.64, 3 trials, 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone increases or decreases relapse compared to azithromycin (RR 10.05, 95% CI 1.93 to 52.38; 3 trials, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with ceftriaxone may be shorter compared to participants treated with azithromycin (mean difference of -0.52 days, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.12; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus fluoroquinolones It is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on clinical failure, microbiological failure, relapse, and time to defervescence compared to fluoroquinolones in three trials published over 28 years ago and two more recent trials: clinical failure (RR 3.77, 95% CI 0.72 to 19.81; 4 trials, 359 participants; very low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 6.83; 3 trials, 316 participants; very low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.92; 3 trials, 297 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and time to defervescence (MD 2.73 days, 95% CI -0.37 to 5.84; 3 trials, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone decreases convalescent faecal carriage compared to the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.72; 1 trial, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and length of hospital stay may be longer in participants treated with ceftriaxone compared to participants treated with the fluoroquinolone ofloxacin (mean of 12 days (range 7 to 23 days) in the ceftriaxone group compared to a mean of 9 days (range 6 to 13 days) in the ofloxacin group; 1 trial, 47 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on very low- to low-certainty evidence, ceftriaxone is an effective treatment for adults and children with enteric fever, with few adverse effects. Trials suggest that there may be no difference in the performance of ceftriaxone compared with azithromycin, fluoroquinolones, or chloramphenicol. Cefixime can also be used for treatment of enteric fever but may not perform as well as fluoroquinolones. We are unable to draw firm general conclusions on comparative contemporary effectiveness given that most trials were small and conducted over 20 years previously. Clinicians need to take into account current, local resistance patterns in addition to route of administration when choosing an antimicrobial.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Paratyphoid Fever; Typhoid Fever; Cephalosporins; Azithromycin; Ceftriaxone; Cefixime; Fluoroquinolones; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chloramphenicol; Anti-Infective Agents; Monobactams; Ciprofloxacin; Ofloxacin; Recurrence; Pakistan
PubMed: 36420914
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010452.pub2 -
Microbiology Spectrum Dec 2022Parenteral penicillin is the first-line regimen for treating syphilis. However, allergic reactions and poor drug tolerance still present challenging problems with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Different Stages of Syphilis: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies.
Parenteral penicillin is the first-line regimen for treating syphilis. However, allergic reactions and poor drug tolerance still present challenging problems with respect to use of this antibiotic. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ceftriaxone, erythromycin, minocycline, tetracycline, and doxycycline for syphilis treatment, compared with penicillin, to determine which antibiotic could be a better substitute for penicillin. This study included 17 articles, comprising 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 observational studies and involving 4,485 syphilis patients. Estimated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs) were used to compare the serological response rates. At the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, the serological response rates were compared by direct meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Based on direct meta-analysis, the serological response rates at the 3- and 24-month follow-ups were compared. Our NMA showed a higher serological response rate for ceftriaxone than for penicillin at the 6-month follow-up (RR of 1.12, 95% CI of 1.02 to 1.23). Ceftriaxone was equally effective as penicillin for syphilis in terms of serological response rates, and it was a better substitute for penicillin than ceftriaxone, erythromycin, minocycline, tetracycline, or doxycycline. However, more large-scale, high-quality, double-blind trials are still needed to determine whether ceftriaxone can safely replace penicillin for the treatment of syphilis when necessary. Parenteral penicillin is the first-line regimen for syphilis treatment. However, allergic reactions and poor drug tolerance still present emerging threatening problems with respect to use of this antibiotic. Our results showed a higher serological response rate for ceftriaxone than for penicillin at the 6-month follow-up. Sufficient data are not available for demonstrating significant differences in the efficacy of the other four antibiotics (erythromycin, minocycline, tetracycline, and doxycycline) for treating syphilis. In the clinical treatment of syphilis in patients who are allergic to penicillin or for whom penicillin is not available, ceftriaxone appears to be a better alternative treatment. This meta-analysis provides a reference for clinical treatment of syphilis. Currently, a lack of sufficient evidence to guide antibiotic treatment of syphilis exists, and a need for more high-quality RCTs is still present. This network meta-analysis can lay a foundation for further research.
Topics: Humans; Syphilis; Ceftriaxone; Doxycycline; Minocycline; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Penicillins; Tetracycline; Erythromycin; Hypersensitivity; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36377935
DOI: 10.1128/spectrum.02977-22 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis (NIIPPU) represent a heterogenous collection of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders isolated to or concentrated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis (NIIPPU) represent a heterogenous collection of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders isolated to or concentrated in the posterior structures of the eye. Because NIIPPU is typically a chronic condition, people with NIIPPU frequently require treatment with steroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy. Methotrexate, mycophenolate, cyclosporine, azathioprine, and tacrolimus are non-biologic, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) which have been used to treat people with NIIPPU.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of selected DMARDs (methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, and azathioprine) in the treatment of NIIPPU in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, most recently on 16 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selected DMARDs (methotrexate, mycophenolate, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, and azathioprine) with placebo, standard of care (topical steroids, with or without oral steroids), or with each other.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs with a total of 601 participants in this review. DMARDs versus control Two studies compared an experimental DMARD (cyclosporine A or enteric-coated mycophenolate [EC-MPS]) plus oral steroid with steroid monotherapy. We did not pool these results into a meta-analysis because the dose of cyclosporine used was much higher than that used in current clinical practice. The evidence is very uncertain about whether EC-MPS plus low-dose oral steroid results in a higher proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation over steroid monotherapy (risk ratio [RR] 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 7.17; 1 study, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was reported separately for right and left eyes. The evidence for improvement (lower logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) indicates better vision) between the groups is very uncertain (mean difference [MD] -0.03 and -0.10, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.90 and -0.27 to 0.07 for right and left, respectively; 1 study, 82 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for the following outcomes: proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity, with confirmed macular edema, or achieving steroid-sparing control. The evidence for the proportion of participants requiring cessation of medication in the DMARD versus control group is very uncertain (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.11 to 60.51; 1 study, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Methotrexate versus mycophenolate We were able to combine two studies into a meta-analysis comparing methotrexate versus mycophenolate mofetil. Methotrexate probably results in a slight increase in the proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation, including steroid-sparing control, compared to mycophenolate at six months (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.50; 2 studies, 261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Change in BCVA was reported per eye and the treatments likely result in little to no difference in change in vision (MD 0.01 logMAR higher [worse] for methotrexate versus mycophenolate; 2 studies, 490 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). No data were available for the proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the proportion of participants with confirmed macular edema between methotrexate versus mycophenolate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.30; 2 studies, 35 eyes; very low-certainty). Methotrexate versus mycophenolate may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants requiring cessation of medication (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.27; 2 studies, 296 participants; low-certainty evidence). Steroids with or without azathioprine versus cyclosporine A Four studies compared steroids with or without azathioprine (oral steroids, intravenous [IV] steroids, or azathioprine) to cyclosporine A. We excluded two studies from the meta-analysis because the participants were treated with 8 mg to 15 mg/kg/day of cyclosporine A, a significantly higher dose than is utilized today because of concerns for nephrotoxicity. The remaining two studies were conducted in all Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease (VKH) populations and compared cyclosporine A to azathioprine or IV pulse-dose steroids. The evidence is very uncertain for whether the steroids with or without azathioprine or cyclosporine A influenced the proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; 2 studies, 112 participants; very low-certainty evidence), achieving steroid-sparing control (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or requiring cessation of medication (RR 0.85, 95% 0.21 to 3.45; 2 studies, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for improvement in BCVA (MD 0.04 logMAR lower [better] with the steroids with or without azathioprine versus cyclosporine A; 2 studies, 91 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available (with current cyclosporine A dosing) for the proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity or with confirmed macular edema. Studies not included in synthesis We were unable to include three studies in any of the comparisons (in addition to the aforementioned studies excluded based on historic doses of cyclosporine A). One was a dose-response study comparing cyclosporine A to cyclosporine G, a formulation which was never licensed and is not clinically available. We excluded another study from meta-analysis because it compared cyclosporine A and tacrolimus, considered to be of the same class (calcineurin inhibitors). We were unable to combine the third study, which examined tacrolimus monotherapy versus tacrolimus plus oral steroid, with any group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a paucity of data regarding which DMARD is most effective or safe in NIIPPU. Studies in general were small, heterogenous in terms of their design and outcome measures, and often did not compare different classes of DMARD with each other. Methotrexate is probably slightly more efficacious than mycophenolate in achieving control of inflammation, including steroid-sparing control (moderate-certainty evidence), although there was insufficient evidence to prefer one medication over the other in the VKH subgroup (very low-certainty evidence). Methotrexate may result in little to no difference in safety outcomes compared to mycophenolate.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Macular Edema; Cyclosporine; Mycophenolic Acid; Tacrolimus; Azathioprine; Methotrexate; Steroids; Immunosuppressive Agents; Panuveitis; Inflammation; Antirheumatic Agents
PubMed: 36315029
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014831.pub2 -
Frontiers in Microbiology 2022The aim of this study was to estimate the antimicrobial resistance in microorganisms present in periodontal diseases.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to estimate the antimicrobial resistance in microorganisms present in periodontal diseases.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. The MEDLINE (PubMed/Ovid), EMBASE, BVS, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were searched from January 2011 to December 2021 for observational studies which evaluated the antimicrobial resistance in periodontal diseases in permanent dentition. Studies that allowed the antimicrobial consumption until the time of sample collection, studies that used laboratory acquired strains, studies that only characterized the microbial strain present, assessment of cellular morphological changes, sequencing system validation, and time series were excluded. Six reviewers, working in pairs and independently, selected titles, abstracts, and full texts extracting data from all studies that met the eligibility criteria: characteristics of patients, diagnosis of infection, microbial species assessed, antimicrobial assessed, identification of resistance genes, and virulence factors. "The Joanna Briggs Institute" critical appraisal for case series was adapted to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies ( = 2.039 patients) were included. and species were the most cited microorganisms in the included studies, and the virulence factors were related to The antimicrobial reported with the highest frequency of resistance in the included studies was ampicillin (39.5%) and ciprofloxacin showed the lowest frequency of resistance (3.4%). The most cited genes were related to macrolides. The quality of the included studies was considered critically low.
CONCLUSION
No evidence was found regarding the profile of antimicrobial resistance in periodontal diseases, requiring further research that should focus on regional population studies to address this issue in the era of increasing antimicrobial resistance.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The knowledge about the present microorganism in periodontal diseases and their respective antimicrobial resistance profiles should guide dentists in prescribing complementary therapy for these infections.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013158], identifier [CRD42018077810].
PubMed: 36262326
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.961986 -
Nutrients Oct 2022() is the most prevalent etiology of gastritis worldwide. management depends mainly on antibiotics, especially the triple therapy formed of clarithromycin,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and Safety of Polaprezinc-Based Therapy versus the Standard Triple Therapy for Eradication: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
() is the most prevalent etiology of gastritis worldwide. management depends mainly on antibiotics, especially the triple therapy formed of clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and proton pump inhibitors. Lately, many antibiotic-resistant strains have emerged, leading to a decrease in the eradication rates of Polaprezinc (PZN), a mucosal protective zinc-L-carnosine complex, may be a non-antibiotic agent to treat without the risk of resistance. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a PZN-based regimen for the eradication of This study used a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, PubMed, and Google Scholar until 25 July 2022. We used the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes presented with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We registered our protocol in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022349231. We included 3 trials with a total of 396 participants who were randomized to either PZN plus triple therapy ( = 199) or triple therapy alone (control) ( = 197). Pooled OR found a statistical difference favoring the PZN arm in the intention to treat and per protocol eradication rates (OR: 2.01 with 95% CI [1.27, 3.21], 0.003) and (OR: 2.65 with 95% CI [1.55, 4.54], 0.0004), respectively. We found no statistical difference between the two groups regarding the total adverse events (OR: 1.06 with 95% CI [0.55, 2.06], 0.85). PZN, when added to the triple therapy, yielded a better effect concerning the eradication rates of with no difference in adverse event rates, and thus can be considered a valuable adjuvant for the management of However, the evidence is still scarce, and larger trials are needed to confirm or refute our findings.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Carnosine; Clarithromycin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Organometallic Compounds; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zinc Compounds
PubMed: 36235778
DOI: 10.3390/nu14194126 -
International Journal of Environmental... Sep 2022One of the public health issues faced worldwide is antibiotic resistance (AR). During the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, AR has increased. Since some studies... (Review)
Review
One of the public health issues faced worldwide is antibiotic resistance (AR). During the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, AR has increased. Since some studies have stated AR has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and others have stated otherwise, this study aimed to explore this impact. Seven databases-PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL-were searched using related keywords to identify studies relevant to AR during COVID-19 published from December 2019 to May 2022, according to PRISMA guidelines. Twenty-three studies were included in this review, and the evidence showed that AR has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The most commonly reported resistant Gram-negative bacteria was , followed by , , and . and were highly resistant to tested antibiotics compared with and . Moreover, showed high resistance to colistin. Commonly reported Gram-positive bacteria were and . The resistance of to ampicillin, erythromycin, and Ciprofloxacin was high. Self-antibiotic medication, empirical antibiotic administration, and antibiotics prescribed by general practitioners were the risk factors of high levels of AR during COVID-19. Antibiotics' prescription should be strictly implemented, relying on the Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) and guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) or Ministry of Health (MOH).
Topics: Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ciprofloxacin; Colistin; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Erythromycin; Escherichia coli; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Pandemics; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36231256
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191911931 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Apr 2023We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze the efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) in the treatment of below-the-knee (BTK)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze the efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) in the treatment of below-the-knee (BTK) arterial disease.
METHODS
An electronic literature search was conducted from inception to July 24, 2021. Retrospective, prospective, and randomized studies that had used SESs to treat BTK arterial disease and had reported the primary patency, technical success, target lesion revascularization, and/or mortality were included. Meta-analyses of the proportions were conducted to derive pooled summary statistics of the outcomes. Where Kaplan-Meier curves were provided for primary patency, a meta-analysis of the individual patient data was conducted via a graphic reconstruction tool to estimate primary patency at various follow-up points. For studies comparing SESs and bare metal stents (BMSs), a two-stage meta-analysis was performed to compare the 6-month primary patency of SESs vs BMSs.
RESULTS
Ten studies across 13 publications, including 995 patients, were retrieved for analysis. In the meta-analysis of proportions, across six studies (n = 339 patients), the pooled 6-month primary patency was 87.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81.6%-92.1%). Across seven studies (n = 283 patients), the pooled 6-month mortality was 5.4% (95% CI, 1.4%-11.2%). An individual patient data analysis of three studies (n = 282 patients) yielded a primary patency rate of 95.2% (95% CI, 92.7%-97.8%), 82.8% (95% CI, 78.3%-87.6%), 79.8% (95% CI, 75.0%-85.0%), and 79.8% (95% CI, 75.0%-85.0%) at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. The 12-month target lesion revascularization rate across four studies (n = 324 patients) was 9.6% (95% CI, 6.4%-13.4%). In the two-stage meta-analysis of 6-month primary patency across three studies (n = 168 patients), the use of SESs was significantly favored over BMSs (risk ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.12-1.46; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
The overall evidence suggests that the use of SESs appears to be safe and offers favorable outcomes for BTK arterial disease compared with BMSs.
Topics: Humans; Drug-Eluting Stents; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Sirolimus; Stents; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Diseases
PubMed: 36183989
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.09.022