-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Surgical site infections (SSI) can delay wound healing, impair cosmetic outcome and increase healthcare costs. Topical antibiotics are sometimes used to reduce microbial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infections (SSI) can delay wound healing, impair cosmetic outcome and increase healthcare costs. Topical antibiotics are sometimes used to reduce microbial contaminant exposure following surgical procedures, with the aim of reducing SSIs.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this review was to determine whether the application of topical antibiotics to surgical wounds that are healing by primary intention reduces the incidence of SSI and whether it increases the incidence of adverse outcomes (allergic contact dermatitis, infections with patterns of antibiotic resistance and anaphylaxis).
SEARCH METHODS
In May 2015 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies, and bibliographies of relevant publications to identify further eligible trials. There was no restriction of language, date of study or setting. The search was repeated in May 2016 to ensure currency of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials that assessed the effects of topical antibiotics (any formulation, including impregnated dressings) in people with surgical wounds healing by primary intention were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies and independently extracted data. Two authors then assessed the studies for risk of bias. Risk ratios were calculated for dichotomous variables, and when a sufficient number of comparable trials were available, trials were pooled in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 10 RCTs and four quasi-randomised trials with 6466 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six studies involved minor procedures conducted in an outpatient or emergency department setting; eight studies involved major surgery conducted in theatre. Nine different topical antibiotics were included. We included two three-arm trials, two four-arm trials and 10 two-arm trials. The control groups comprised; an alternative topical antibiotic (two studies), topical antiseptic (six studies) and no topical antibiotic (10 studies), which comprised inert ointment (five studies) no treatment (four studies) and one study with one arm of each.The risk of bias of the 14 studies varied. Seven studies were at high risk of bias, five at unclear risk of bias and two at low risk of bias. Most risk of bias concerned risk of selection bias.Twelve of the studies (6259 participants) reported infection rates, although we could not extract the data for this outcome from one study. Four studies (3334 participants) measured allergic contact dermatitis as an outcome. Four studies measured positive wound swabs for patterns of antimicrobial resistance, for which there were no outcomes reported. No episodes of anaphylaxis were reported. Topical antibiotic versus no topical antibioticWe pooled the results of eight trials (5427 participants) for the outcome of SSI. Topical antibiotics probably reduce the risk of SSI in people with surgical wounds healing by primary intention compared with no topical antibiotic (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.87; moderate-quality evidence downgraded once for risk of bias). This equates to 20 fewer SSIs per 1000 patients treated with topical antibiotics (95% CI 7 to 29) and a number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) (i.e. prevention of one SSI) of 50.We pooled the results of three trials (3012 participants) for the outcome of allergic contact dermatitis, however this comparison was underpowered, and it is unclear whether topical antibiotics affect the risk of allergic contact dermatitis (RR 3.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 34.00; very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for imprecision). Topical antibiotic versus antiseptic We pooled the results of five trials (1299 participants) for the outcome of SSI. Topical antibiotics probably reduce the risk of SSI in people with surgical wounds healing by primary intention compared with using topical antiseptics (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence downgraded once for risk of bias). This equates to 43 fewer SSIs per 1000 patients treated with topical antibiotics instead of antiseptics (95% CI 17 to 59) and an NNTB of 24.We pooled the results of two trials (541 participants) for the outcome of allergic contact dermatitis; there was no clear difference in the risk of dermatitis between topical antibiotics and antiseptics, however this comparison was underpowered and a difference cannot be ruled out (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.82; very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of bias and once for imprecision). Topical antibiotic versus topical antibioticOne study (99 participants) compared mupirocin ointment with a combination ointment of neomycin/polymyxin B/bacitracin zinc for the outcome of SSI. There was no clear difference in the risk of SSI, however this comparison was underpowered (very low-quality evidence downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for imprecision).A four-arm trial involved two antibiotic arms (neomycin sulfate/bacitracin zinc/polymyxin B sulphate combination ointment versus bacitracin zinc, 219 participants). There was no clear difference in risk of SSI between the combination ointment and the bacitracin zinc ointment. The quality of evidence for this outcome was low, downgraded once for risk of bias, and once for imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Topical antibiotics applied to surgical wounds healing by primary intention probably reduce the risk of SSI relative to no antibiotic, and relative to topical antiseptics (moderate quality evidence). We are unable to draw conclusions regarding the effects of topical antibiotics on adverse outcomes such as allergic contact dermatitis due to lack of statistical power (small sample sizes). We are also unable to draw conclusions regarding the impact of increasing topical antibiotic use on antibiotic resistance. The relative effects of different topical antibiotics are unclear.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing
PubMed: 27819748
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011426.pub2 -
BMC Nephrology Aug 2016This study was performed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of alternative strategies for the prevention and treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This study was performed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of alternative strategies for the prevention and treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing peritoneal dialysis and colonized by Staphylococcus aureus.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. The literature search involved the following databases: the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, SciELO, and PubMed/Medline. The descriptors were "Staphylococcus aureus," "MRSA," "MSSA," "treatment," "decolonization," "nasal carrier," "colonization," "chronic kidney disease," "dialysis," and "peritoneal dialysis." Randomized controlled trials that exhibited agreement among reviewers as shown by a kappa value of >0.80 were included in the study; methodological quality was evaluated using the STROBE statement. Patients who received various antibiotic treatments (antibiotic group) or topical mupirocin (mupirocin group) were compared with those who received either no treatment or placebo (control group). Patients in the antibiotic group were also compared with those in the mupirocin group.
RESULTS
In total, nine studies involving 839 patients were included in the analysis, 187 (22.3 %) of whom were nasal carriers of S. aureus. The probability of S. aureus infection at the catheter site for peritoneal dialysis was 74 % lower in the mupirocin than control group (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.46; p < 0.001), 56 % lower in the antibiotic than control group (OR, 0.44; 95 % CI, 0.19-0.99; p = 0.048), and 52 % lower in the mupirocin than antibiotic group (OR, 0.48; 95 % CI, 0.21-1.10; p = 0.084). The difference in the probability of S. aureus peritonitis in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis was not statistically significant among the three groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Mupirocin and topical antibiotics were effective for reduction of S. aureus catheter site infection in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis when compared with no treatment or placebo. However, evidence was insufficient to identify the optimal agent, route, or duration of antibiotics to treat peritonitis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Equipment Contamination; Humans; Peritoneal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27527505
DOI: 10.1186/s12882-016-0329-0 -
BMC Nephrology Dec 2014This study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of surveillance for screening and treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing hemodialysis and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of surveillance for screening and treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing hemodialysis and colonized by Staphylococcus aureus.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. The literature search involved the following databases: the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, SciELO, and PubMed/Medline. The descriptors were "Staphylococcus aureus", "MRSA", "MSSA", "treatment", "decolonization", "nasal carrier", "colonization", "chronic kidney disease", "dialysis", and "haemodialysis" or "hemodialysis". Five randomized controlled trials that exhibited agreement among reviewers as shown by a kappa value of >0.80 were included in the study; methodological quality was evaluated using the STROBE statement. Patients who received various treatments (various treatments group) or topical mupirocin (mupirocin group) were compared with those who received either no treatment or placebo (control group). The outcomes were skin infection at the central venous catheter insertion site and bacteremia.
RESULTS
In total, 2374 patients were included in the analysis, 626 (26.4%) of whom were nasal carriers of S. aureus. The probability of S. aureus infection at the catheter site for hemodialysis was 87% lower in the mupirocin group than in the control group (odds ratio [OR], 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-0.34; p<0.001). The risk of bacteremia was 82% lower in the mupirocin group than in the control group (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.08-0.42; p<0.001). No statistically significant difference in bacteremia was observed between the various treatments group (excluding mupirocin) and the control group (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.51-1.15; p=0.20).
CONCLUSIONS
Twenty-six percent of patients undergoing hemodialysis were nasal carriers of S. aureus. Of all treatments evaluated, topical mupirocin was the most effective therapy for the reduction of S. aureus catheter site infection and bacteremia in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteremia; Carrier State; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Central Venous; Humans; Mupirocin; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcal Skin Infections
PubMed: 25519998
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2369-15-202 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2014Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. Two main strategies are used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
In May 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to Week 3 May 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-indexed Citations, 22 May 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 20 2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 May 2013). No language or publication date restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with venous leg ulceration, evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two review authors while working independently.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes was recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one review author and were checked by a second. Data were pooled when appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-five RCTs reporting 53 comparisons and recruiting a total of 4486 participants were included, Many RCTs were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias. Ulcer infection status at baseline and duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Five RCTs reported eight comparisons of systemic antibiotics, and the remainder evaluated topical preparations: cadexomer iodine (11 RCTs reporting 12 comparisons); povidone-iodine (six RCTs reporting seven comparisons); peroxide-based preparations (four RCTs reporting four comparisons); honey-based preparations (two RCTs reporting two comparisons); silver-based preparations (12 RCTs reporting 13 comparisons); other topical antibiotics (three RCTs reporting five comparisons); and other topical antiseptics (two RCTs reporting two comparisons). Few RCTs provided a reliable estimate of time to healing; most reported the proportion of participants with complete healing during the trial period. Systemic antibioticsMore participants were healed when they were prescribed levamisole (normally used to treat roundworm infection) compared with placebo: risk ratio (RR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.62). No between-group differences were detected in terms of complete healing for other comparisons: antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus usual care; ciprofloxacin versus standard care/placebo; trimethoprim versus placebo; ciprofloxacin versus trimethoprim; and amoxicillin versus topical povidone-iodine. Topical antibiotics and antiseptics Cadexomer iodine: more participants were healed when given cadexomer iodine compared with standard care. The pooled estimate from four RCTs for complete healing at four to 12 weeks was RR 2.17 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.60). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected when cadexomer iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; dextranomer; and silver-impregnated dressings.Povidone iodine: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when povidone-iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid; moist or foam dressings according to wound status; and growth factor. Time to healing estimates for povidone-iodine versus dextranomer, and for povidone-iodine versus hydrocolloid, were likely to be unreliable.Peroxide-based preparations: four RCTs reported findings in favour of peroxide-based preparations when compared with usual care for surrogate healing outcomes (change in ulcer area). There was no report of complete healing.Honey-based preparations: no between-group difference in time to healing or complete healing was detected for honey-based products when compared with usual care.Silver-based preparations: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when 1% silver sulphadiazine ointment was compared with standard care/placebo and tripeptide copper complex; or when different brands of silver-impregnated dressings were compared; or when silver-impregnated dressings were compared with non-antimicrobial dressings.Other topical antibiotics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants healed at four weeks when treated with an enzymatic cleanser (a non-antibiotic preparation) compared with a chloramphenicol-containing ointment (additional active ingredients also included in the ointment): RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.99). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected for framycetin sulphate ointment versus enzymatic cleanser; chloramphenicol ointment versus framycetin sulphate ointment; mupirocin ointment versus vehicle; and topical antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus an herbal ointment.Other topical antiseptics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants receiving an antiseptic ointment (ethacridine lactate) had responsive ulcers (defined as > 20% reduction in area) at four weeks when compared with placebo: RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.73). Complete healing was not reported. No between-group difference was detected between chlorhexidine solution and usual care.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At present, no evidence is available to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics in promoting healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, some evidence supports the use of cadexomer iodine. Current evidence does not support the routine use of honey- or silver-based products. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of povidone-iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, chloramphenicol, framycetin, mupirocin, ethacridine or chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should be used only in cases of clinical infection, not for bacterial colonisation.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Humans; Occlusive Dressings; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Varicose Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 24408354
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003557.pub5 -
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Oct 2013Staphylococcus aureus is the pathogen most frequently implicated in infection on orthopedic hardware; various strategies are deployed to limit the risk of transmission... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Relation between nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus and surgical site infection in orthopedic surgery: the role of nasal contamination. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
UNLABELLED
Staphylococcus aureus is the pathogen most frequently implicated in infection on orthopedic hardware; various strategies are deployed to limit the risk of transmission and surgical infection.
OBJECTIVES
The present study is based on a meta-analysis assessing firstly the relationship between nasal carriage of S. aureus and the development of osteo-articular infection and secondly current methods of decolonization.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis showed increased risk of surgical site infection in case of nasal carriage of S. aureus: OR=5.92, 95% CI [1.15-30.39]; P=0.033. For cross-transmission, a scientifically proven reduction in surgical site S. aureus levels is ensured by associated mupirocin and 2% chlorhexidine antiseptic solution in subjects with positive nasal screening results for all surgical procedures taken together; the reduction was not, however, significant in the orthopedic surgery subgroup. The meta-analysis confirmed these findings: OR=0.60, 95% CI [0.34-1.06]; P=0.08.
CONCLUSION
The literature review confirmed that nasal carriage of S. aureus is a major risk factor for surgical site infection. The efficacy of eradication could not be demonstrated for orthopedic surgery as samples were too small. The positive trend found, however, should encourage further studies with sufficient power and risk/benefit should meanwhile be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level 2. Meta-analysis.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Carrier State; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Incidence; Male; Mupirocin; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Nasal Cavity; Orthopedic Procedures; Preoperative Care; Risk Assessment; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 23992764
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.03.030 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2012Impetigo is a common, superficial bacterial skin infection, which is most frequently encountered in children. There is no generally agreed standard therapy, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Impetigo is a common, superficial bacterial skin infection, which is most frequently encountered in children. There is no generally agreed standard therapy, and guidelines for treatment differ widely. Treatment options include many different oral and topical antibiotics as well as disinfectants. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2003.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of treatments for impetigo, including non-pharmacological interventions and 'waiting for natural resolution'.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2010: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2007), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched online trials registries for ongoing trials, and we handsearched the reference lists of new studies found in the updated search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-bullous, bullous, primary, and secondary impetigo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent authors undertook all steps in data collection. We performed quality assessments and data collection in two separate stages.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 57 trials in the first version of this review. For this update 1 of those trials was excluded and 12 new trials were added. The total number of included trials was, thus, 68, with 5578 participants, reporting on 50 different treatments, including placebo. Most trials were in primary impetigo or did not specify this.For many of the items that were assessed for risk of bias, most studies did not provide enough information. Fifteen studies reported blinding of participants and outcome assessors.Topical antibiotic treatment showed better cure rates than placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2. 24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61 to 3.13) in 6 studies with 575 participants. In 4 studies with 440 participants, there was no clear evidence that either of the most commonly studied topical antibiotics (mupirocin and fusidic acid) was more effective than the other (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11).In 10 studies with 581 participants, topical mupirocin was shown to be slightly superior to oral erythromycin (pooled RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13). There were no significant differences in cure rates from treatment with topical versus other oral antibiotics. There were, however, differences in the outcome from treatment with different oral antibiotics: penicillin was inferior to erythromycin, in 2 studies with 79 participants (pooled RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56), and cloxacillin, in 2 studies with 166 participants (pooled RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.08).There was a lack of evidence for the benefit of using disinfectant solutions. When 2 studies with 292 participants were pooled, topical antibiotics were significantly better than disinfecting treatments (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32).The reported number of side-effects was low, and most of these were mild. Side-effects were more common for oral antibiotic treatment compared to topical treatment. Gastrointestinal effects accounted for most of the difference.Worldwide, bacteria causing impetigo show growing resistance rates for commonly used antibiotics. For a newly developed topical treatment, retapamulin, no resistance has yet been reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is good evidence that topical mupirocin and topical fusidic acid are equally, or more, effective than oral treatment. Due to the lack of studies in people with extensive impetigo, it is unclear if oral antibiotics are superior to topical antibiotics in this group. Fusidic acid and mupirocin are of similar efficacy. Penicillin was not as effective as most other antibiotics. There is a lack of evidence to support disinfection measures to manage impetigo.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Erythromycin; Fusidic Acid; Humans; Impetigo; Mupirocin; Penicillins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 22258953
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003261.pub3 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2011Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has a gene that makes it resistant to methicillin as well as to other beta-lactam antibiotics, including... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has a gene that makes it resistant to methicillin as well as to other beta-lactam antibiotics, including flucloxacillin, beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations, cephalosporins, and carbapenems. MRSA can be part of the normal body flora (colonisation), especially in the nose, but it can cause infection. Until recently, MRSA has primarily been a problem associated with exposure to the healthcare system, especially in people with prolonged hospital admissions, with underlying disease, or after antibiotic use. In many countries worldwide, a preponderance of S aureus bloodstream isolates are resistant to methicillin.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatment for MRSA nasal or extra-nasal colonisation? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to January 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 9 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antiseptic body washes, chlorhexidine-neomycin nasal cream, mupirocin nasal ointment, systemic antimicrobials, tea tree oil preparations, and other topical antimicrobials.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Cross Infection; Humans; Incidence; Methicillin Resistance; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Mupirocin; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus; Tea Tree Oil; beta-Lactamase Inhibitors
PubMed: 21477403
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2010End-stage renal disease (ESRD) affects more than 1500 people per million population in countries with a high prevalence, such as Japan, Taiwan, and the US. Approximately... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) affects more than 1500 people per million population in countries with a high prevalence, such as Japan, Taiwan, and the US. Approximately two-thirds of people with ESRD receive haemodialysis, one quarter have kidney transplants, and one tenth receive peritoneal dialysis.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of different doses for peritoneal dialysis? What are the effects of different doses and membrane fluxes for haemodialysis? What are the effects of interventions aimed at preventing secondary complications? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 26 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: cinacalcet, darbepoetin, erythropoietin, haemodialysis (standard-dose, increased-dose), high membrane-flux haemodialysis, increased-dose peritoneal dialysis, low membrane-flux haemodialysis, mupirocin, sevelamer, standard-dose dialysis, and statins.
Topics: Erythropoietin; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; Peritoneal Dialysis; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 21418665
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2008Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is the leading nosocomial (hospital acquired) pathogen in hospitals throughout the world. Traditionally, control of S. aureus has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is the leading nosocomial (hospital acquired) pathogen in hospitals throughout the world. Traditionally, control of S. aureus has been focused on preventing cross-infection between patients, however, it has been shown repeatedly that a large proportion of nosocomial S. aureus infections originate from the patient's own flora. Nasal carriage of S. aureus is now considered a well defined risk factor for subsequent infection in various groups of patients. Local antibiotic treatment with mupirocin ointment is often used to eradicate nasal S. aureus.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether the use of mupirocin nasal ointment in patients with identified S. aureus nasal carriage reduced S. aureus infection rates.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (May 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 2 2008), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2008), EMBASE (1980 to May 2008) and CINAHL (1982 to May 2008). To identify unpublished trials, abstract books from major scientific meetings (ICAAC, ESCMID and SHEA) were handsearched, researchers and manufacturers of mupirocin were contacted and other electronic databases were searched (SIGLE, ASLIB Index, mRCT, USA Clinical Trials).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nasal mupirocin with no treatment or placebo or alternative nasal treatment in the prevention of S. aureus infections in nasal S. aureus carriers were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Titles, abstracts and full-text articles of studies retrieved from the search process were independently assessed by two authors for inclusion. From included studies a data extraction form was made and the quality of the trial was assessed. The primary outcome was the S. aureus infection rate (any site). Secondary outcomes were time to infection, mortality, adverse events and infection rate caused by micro-organisms other than S. aureus.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine RCTs involving 3396 participants met the inclusion criteria. Patient populations varied and several types of nosocomial S. aureus infection were described including bacteraemia, exit-site infections, peritonitis, respiratory tract infections, skin infections, surgical site infections (SSI) and urinary tract infections. After pooling the eight studies that compared mupirocin with placebo or with no treatment, there was a statistically significant reduction in the rate of S. aureus infection associated with intranasal mupirocin (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70).A planned subgroup analysis of surgical trials demonstrated a significant reduction in the rate of nosocomial S. aureus infection rate associated with mupirocin use (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.89) however this effect disappeared if the analysis only included surgical site infections caused by S. aureus (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.04), possibly due to a lack of power. The infection rate caused by micro-organisms other than S. aureus was significantly higher in patients treated with mupirocin compared with control patients (RR 1.38 95% CI 1.118 to 1.72).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people who are nasal carriers of S. aureus, the use of mupirocin ointment results in a statistically significant reduction in S. aureus infections.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Carrier State; Humans; Mupirocin; Nose; Ointments; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 18843708
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006216.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2007End stage renal disease (ESRD) affects over 1500 people per million population in countries with a high prevalence, such as the USA and Japan. Approximately two thirds... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
End stage renal disease (ESRD) affects over 1500 people per million population in countries with a high prevalence, such as the USA and Japan. Approximately two thirds of people with ESRD receive haemodialysis, a quarter have kidney transplants, and a tenth receive peritoneal dialysis.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of different doses and osmotic agents for peritoneal dialysis? What are the effects of different doses and membrane fluxes for haemodialysis? What are the effects of interventions aimed at preventing secondary complications? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to April 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 20 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: cinacalcet, darbepoetin, dextrose solutions, erythropoietin, haemodialysis (standard-dose, increased-dose), high-membrane-flux haemodialysis, icodextrin, increased-dose peritoneal dialysis, low-membrane-flux haemodialysis, mupirocin, sevelamer, and standard-dose dialysis.
Topics: Erythropoietin; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 19450356
DOI: No ID Found