-
Critical Care (London, England) Nov 2017Cefepime is a widely used antibiotic with neurotoxicity attributed to its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exhibit concentration-dependent ϒ-aminobutyric... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cefepime is a widely used antibiotic with neurotoxicity attributed to its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exhibit concentration-dependent ϒ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) antagonism. Neurotoxic symptoms include depressed consciousness, encephalopathy, aphasia, myoclonus, seizures, and coma. Data suggest that up to 15% of ICU patients treated with cefepime may experience these adverse effects. Risk factors include renal dysfunction, excessive dosing, preexisting brain injury, and elevated serum cefepime concentrations. We aimed to characterize the clinical course of cefepime neurotoxicity and response to interventions.
METHODS
A librarian-assisted search identified publications describing cefepime-associated neurotoxicity from January 1980 to February 2016 using the CINAHL and MEDLINE databases. Search terms included cefepime, neurotoxicity, encephalopathy, seizures, delirium, coma, non-convulsive status epilepticus, myoclonus, confusion, aphasia, agitation, and death. Two reviewers independently assessed identified articles for eligibility and used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) for data reporting.
RESULTS
Of the 123 citations identified, 37 (representing 135 patient cases) were included. Patients had a median age of 69 years, commonly had renal dysfunction (80%) and required intensive care (81% of patients with a reported location). All patients exhibited altered mental status, with reduced consciousness (47%), myoclonus (42%), and confusion (42%) being the most common symptoms. All 98 patients (73% of cohort) with electroencephalography had abnormalities, including non-convulsive status epilepticus (25%), myoclonic status epilepticus (7%), triphasic waves (40%), and focal sharp waves (39%). As per Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dosing guidance, 48% of patients were overdosed; however, 26% experienced neurotoxicity despite appropriate dosing. Median cefepime serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations were 45 mg/L (n = 21) and 13 mg/L (n = 4), respectively. Symptom improvement occurred in 89% of patients, and 87% survived to hospital discharge. The median delay from starting the drug to symptom onset was 4 days, and resolution occurred a median of 2 days after the intervention, which included cefepime discontinuation, antiepileptic administration, or hemodialysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity is challenging to recognize in the critically ill due to widely varying symptoms that are common in ICU patients. This adverse reaction can occur despite appropriate dosing, usually resolves with drug interruption, but may require additional interventions such as antiepileptic drug administration or dialysis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cefepime; Cephalosporins; Consciousness Disorders; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Seizures
PubMed: 29137682
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-017-1856-1 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Apr 2022These ESCMID guidelines address the targeted antibiotic treatment of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales (3GCephRE) and carbapenem-resistant...
European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guidelines for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (endorsed by European society of intensive care medicine).
SCOPE
These ESCMID guidelines address the targeted antibiotic treatment of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales (3GCephRE) and carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, focusing on the effectiveness of individual antibiotics and on combination versus monotherapy.
METHODS
An expert panel was convened by ESCMID. A systematic review was performed including randomized controlled trials and observational studies, examining different antibiotic treatment regimens for the targeted treatment of infections caused by the 3GCephRE, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Treatments were classified as head-to-head comparisons between individual antibiotics and between monotherapy and combination therapy regimens, including defined monotherapy and combination regimens only. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, preferably at 30 days and secondary outcomes included clinical failure, microbiological failure, development of resistance, relapse/recurrence, adverse events and length of hospital stay. The last search of all databases was conducted in December 2019, followed by a focused search for relevant studies up until ECCMID 2021. Data were summarized narratively. The certainty of the evidence for each comparison between antibiotics and between monotherapy and combination therapy regimens was classified by the GRADE recommendations. The strength of the recommendations for or against treatments was classified as strong or conditional (weak).
RECOMMENDATIONS
The guideline panel reviewed the evidence per pathogen, preferably per site of infection, critically appraising the existing studies. Many of the comparisons were addressed in small observational studies at high risk of bias only. Notably, there was very little evidence on the effects of the new, recently approved, β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors on infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Most recommendations are based on very-low- and low-certainty evidence. A high value was placed on antibiotic stewardship considerations in all recommendations, searching for carbapenem-sparing options for 3GCephRE and limiting the recommendations of the new antibiotics for severe infections, as defined by the sepsis-3 criteria. Research needs are addressed.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Carbapenems; Communicable Diseases; Critical Care; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Humans
PubMed: 34923128
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.11.025 -
JAMA Network Open Oct 2020Acetaminophen (paracetamol) and ibuprofen are the most widely prescribed and available over-the-counter medications for management of fever and pain in children. Despite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Acetaminophen (paracetamol) and ibuprofen are the most widely prescribed and available over-the-counter medications for management of fever and pain in children. Despite the common use of these medications, treatment recommendations for young children remain divergent.
OBJECTIVE
To compare acetaminophen with ibuprofen for the short-term treatment of fever or pain in children younger than 2 years.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic search of the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry from inception to March 2019, with no language limits.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies of any design that included children younger than 2 years and directly compared acetaminophen with ibuprofen, reporting antipyretic, analgesic, and/or safety outcomes were considered. There were no limits on length of follow-up.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline, 2 authors independently extracted data and assessed quality. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects method if I2 was less than 50% and using a random-effects method if I2 was 50% or greater.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcomes were fever or pain within 4 hours of treatment onset. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events, kidney impairment, gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatotoxicity, severe soft tissue infection, empyema, and asthma and/or wheeze.
RESULTS
Overall, 19 studies (11 randomized; 8 nonrandomized) of 241 138 participants from 7 countries and various health care settings (hospital-based and community-based) were included. Compared with acetaminophen, ibuprofen resulted in reduced temperature at less than 4 hours (4 studies with 435 participants; standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.08-0.67; P = .01; I2 = 49%; moderate quality evidence) and at 4 to 24 hours (5 studies with 879 participants; SMD, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.03-0.45; P = .03; I2 = 57%; moderate-quality evidence) and less pain at 4 to 24 hours (2 studies with 535 participants; SMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.03-0.37; P = .02; I2 = 25%; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events were uncommon. Acetaminophen and ibuprofen appeared to have similar serious adverse event profiles (7 studies with 27 932 participants; ibuprofen vs aceteminophen: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.33; P = .50, I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this study, use of ibuprofen vs acetaminophen for the treatment of fever or pain in children younger than 2 years was associated with reduced temperature and less pain within the first 24 hours of treatment, with equivalent safety.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child, Preschool; Female; Fever; Humans; Ibuprofen; Infant; Male; Pain
PubMed: 33125495
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22398 -
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... Mar 2023To summarize the evidence in terms of efficacy and safety of head-to-head studies of high-intensity statins regardless of the underlying population. A systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To summarize the evidence in terms of efficacy and safety of head-to-head studies of high-intensity statins regardless of the underlying population. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to summarize the effect sizes in randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that compared high-intensity statins. Based on 44 articles, similar effectiveness was observed across the statins in reducing LDL levels from baseline. All statins were observed to have similar adverse drug reactions (ADRs), although higher dosages were associated with more ADRs. Based on a pooled quantitative analysis of atorvastatin 80 mg versus rosuvastatin 40 mg, rosuvastatin was statistically more effective in reducing LDL. This review further confirms that high-intensity statins reduce LDL by ≥50%, favoring rosuvastatin over atorvastatin. Additional data are needed to confirm the clinical significance on cardiovascular outcomes using real-world studies.
Topics: Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Atorvastatin; Cohort Studies
PubMed: 36847307
DOI: 10.57264/cer-2022-0163 -
Pain Physician Jul 2017Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) is a cannabimimetic compound that has been investigated as an analgesic agent in animal models and clinical trials. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) is a cannabimimetic compound that has been investigated as an analgesic agent in animal models and clinical trials.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of PEA for treating pain in randomized, controlled trials.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
This meta-analysis examined all randomized, controlled trials involving the effect of PEA on pain score.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Embase for randomized, active or placebo-controlled trials of PEA for the treatment of acute or chronic pain. Our primary outcome was the weighted mean difference in visual analog pain scales of PEA treatment compared to inactive controls.
RESULTS
We identified 10 studies including data from 786 patients who received PEA and 512 controls for inclusion in our systematic review. Eight trials included an inactive control group and were included in the meta-analysis. PEA was associated with significantly greater pain reduction compared to inactive control conditions (WMD = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.19 - 2.87, z = 4.75, P < 0.001). Use of placebo control, presence of blinding, allowance for concomitant treatments, and duration or dose of PEA treatment did not affect the measured efficacy of PEA. All-cause dropout was non-significantly reduced in the PEA group compared to inactive control conditions (RR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.10 - 1.26, z = -1.60, P = 0.11).
LIMITATIONS
This meta-analysis relied on a relatively small number of trials across a variety of conditions causing pain with differing trial designs. Overall quality of the underlying studies and assessment of side effects were often poor.
CONCLUSIONS
PEA may be a useful treatment for pain and is generally well tolerated in research populations. Further, well-designed, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are needed to provide reliable estimates of its efficacy and to identify less serious adverse events associated with this compound.
KEY WORDS
PEA, palmidrol, palmitoylethanolamide, efficacy, pain, pain management, meta-analysis.
Topics: Acute Pain; Amides; Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Ethanolamines; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Palmitic Acids
PubMed: 28727699
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Postpartum endometritis occurs when vaginal organisms invade the endometrial cavity during the labor process and cause infection. This is more common following cesarean... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postpartum endometritis occurs when vaginal organisms invade the endometrial cavity during the labor process and cause infection. This is more common following cesarean birth. The condition warrants antibiotic treatment.
OBJECTIVES
Systematically, to review treatment failure and other complications of different antibiotic regimens for postpartum endometritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized trials of different antibiotic regimens after cesarean birth or vaginal birth; no quasi-randomized trials were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
The review includes a total of 42 trials, and 40 of these trials contributed data on 4240 participants.Regarding the primary outcomes, seven studies compared clindamycin plus an aminoglycoside versus penicillins and showed fewer treatment failures (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.90). There were more treatment failures in those treated with an aminoglycoside plus penicillin when compared to those treated with gentamycin/clindamycin (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.46). There were more treatment failures (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.74) and wound infections (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.28) in those treated with second or third generation cephalosporins (excluding cephamycins) versus those treated with clindamycin plus gentamycin. In four studies comparing once-daily with thrice-daily dosing of gentamicin, there were fewer failures with once-daily dosing. There were more treatment failures (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.72) and wound infections (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.02) in those treated with a regimen with poor activity against penicillin-resistant anaerobic bacteria as compared to those treated with a regimen with good activity against penicillin-resistant anaerobic bacteria. There were no differences between groups with respect to severe complications and no trials reported any maternal deaths.Regarding the secondary outcomes, three studies that compared continued oral antibiotic therapy after intravenous therapy with no oral therapy, found no differences in recurrent endometritis or other outcomes. Four trials that compared clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus cephalosporins identified fewer wound infections in those treated with clindamycin plus an aminoglycoside (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.93). There were no differences between groups for the outcomes of allergic reactions. The overall risk of bias was unclear in the most of the studies. The quality of the evidence using GRADE comparing clindamycin and an aminoglycoside with another regimen (compared with cephalosporins or penicillins) was low to very low for therapeutic failure, severe complications, wound infection and allergic reaction.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The combination of clindamycin and gentamicin is appropriate for the treatment of endometritis. Regimens with good activity against penicillin-resistant anaerobic bacteria are better than those with poor activity against penicillin-resistant anaerobic bacteria. There is no evidence that any one regimen is associated with fewer side-effects. Following clinical improvement of uncomplicated endometritis which has been treated with intravenous therapy, the use of additional oral therapy has not been proven to be beneficial.
Topics: Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cephalosporins; Clindamycin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Endometritis; Female; Gentamicins; Humans; Penicillins; Postpartum Period; Puerperal Infection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 25922861
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001067.pub3 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Mar 2023COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two intersecting global public health crises. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two intersecting global public health crises.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AMR across health care settings.
DATA SOURCE
A search was conducted in December 2021 in WHO COVID-19 Research Database with forward citation searching up to June 2022.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY
Studies evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on AMR in any population were included and influencing factors were extracted. Reporting of enhanced infection prevention and control and/or antimicrobial stewardship programs was noted.
METHODS
Pooling was done separately for Gram-negative and Gram-positive organisms. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
Of 6036 studies screened, 28 were included and 23 provided sufficient data for meta-analysis. The majority of studies focused on hospital settings (n = 25, 89%). The COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with a change in the incidence density (incidence rate ratio 0.99, 95% CI: 0.67-1.47) or proportion (risk ratio 0.91, 95% CI: 0.55-1.49) of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci cases. A non-statistically significant increase was noted for resistant Gram-negative organisms (i.e. extended-spectrum beta-lactamase, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem or multi-drug resistant or carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Acinetobacter baumannii, incidence rate ratio 1.64, 95% CI: 0.92-2.92; risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI: 0.91-1.29). The absence of reported enhanced infection prevention and control and/or antimicrobial stewardship programs initiatives was associated with an increase in gram-negative AMR (risk ratio 1.11, 95% CI: 1.03-1.20). However, a test for subgroup differences showed no statistically significant difference between the presence and absence of these initiatives (p 0.40).
CONCLUSION
The COVID-19 pandemic may have hastened the emergence and transmission of AMR, particularly for Gram-negative organisms in hospital settings. But there is considerable heterogeneity in both the AMR metrics used and the rate of resistance reported across studies. These findings reinforce the need for strengthened infection prevention, antimicrobial stewardship, and AMR surveillance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; COVID-19; Carbapenems
PubMed: 36509377
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.12.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among people who have received the standard of care (Stupp protocol) for primary treatment of the disease; and to prepare a brief economic commentary on the available evidence.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 2005 to December 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; Issue 12, 2019). Economic searches included the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) up to 2015 (database closure) and MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to December 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies (NRSs) evaluating effectiveness of treatments for progressive/recurrent GBM. Eligible studies included people with progressive or recurrent GBM who had received first line radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. We conducted network meta-analyses (NMA) and ranked treatments according to effectiveness for each outcome using the random-effects model and Stata software (version 15). We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 42 studies: these comprised 34 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 non-randomised studies (NRSs) involving 5236 participants. We judged most RCTs to be at a low risk of bias and NRSs at high risk of bias. Interventions included chemotherapy, re-operation, re-irradiation and novel therapies either used alone or in combination. For first recurrence, we included 11 interventions in the network meta-analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS), and eight in the NMA for progression-free survival (PFS). Lomustine (LOM; also known as CCNU) was the most common comparator and was used as the reference treatment. No studies in the NMA evaluated surgery, re-irradiation, PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine), TMZ re-challenge or best supportive care. We could not perform NMA for second or later recurrence due to insufficient data. Quality-of-life data were sparse. First recurrence (NMA findings) Median OS across included studies in the NMA ranged from 5.5 to 12.6 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged from 1.5 months to 4.2 months. We found no high-certainty evidence that any treatments tested were better than lomustine. These treatments included the following. Bevacizumab plus lomustine: Evidence suggested probably little or no difference in OS between bevacizumab (BEV) combined with lomustine (LOM) and LOM monotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), although BEV + LOM may improve PFS (HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab monotherapy: Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76) and PFS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; low-certainty evidence) between BEV and LOM monotherapies; more evidence on BEV is needed. Regorafenib (REG): REG may improve OS compared with LOM (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). Evidence on PFS was very low certainty and more evidence on REG is needed. Temozolomide (TMZ) plus Depatux-M (ABT414): For OS, low-certainty evidence suggested that TMZ plus ABT414 may be more effective than LOM (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92) and may be more effective than BEV (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence). This may be due to the TMZ component only and more evidence is needed. Fotemustine (FOM): FOM and LOM may have similar effects on OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.57, low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab and irinotecan (IRI): Evidence on BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM for both OS and PFS is very uncertain and there is probably little or no difference between BEV + IRI versus BEV monotherapy (OS: HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; moderate-certainty evidence). When treatments were ranked for OS, FOM ranked first, BEV + LOM second, LOM third, BEV + IRI fourth, and BEV fifth. Ranking does not take into account the certainty of the evidence, which also suggests there may be little or no difference between FOM and LOM. Other treatments Three studies evaluated re-operation versus no re-operation, with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy, and these suggested possible survival advantages with re-operation within the context of being able to select suitable candidates for re-operation. A cannabinoid treatment in the early stages of evaluation, in combination with TMZ, merits further evaluation. Second or later recurrence Limited evidence from three heterogeneous studies suggested that radiotherapy with or without BEV may have a beneficial effect on survival but more evidence is needed. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the best radiotherapy dosage. Other evidence suggested that there may be little difference in survival with tumour-treating fields compared with physician's best choice of treatment. We found no reliable evidence on best supportive care. Severe adverse events (SAEs) The BEV+LOM combination was associated with significantly greater risk of SAEs than LOM monotherapy (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.66, high-certainty evidence), and ranked joint worst with cediranib + LOM (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.90; high-certainty evidence). LOM ranked best and REG ranked second best. Adding novel treatments to BEV was generally associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events compared with BEV alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For treatment of first recurrence of GBM, among people previously treated with surgery and standard chemoradiotherapy, the combination treatments evaluated did not improve overall survival compared with LOM monotherapy and were often associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events. Limited evidence suggested that re-operation with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy may be suitable for selected candidates. Evidence on second recurrence is sparse. Re-irradiation with or without bevacizumab may be of value in selected individuals, but more evidence is needed.
Topics: Brain Neoplasms; Glioblastoma; Humans; Lomustine; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 34559423
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013579.pub2 -
PloS One 2021It has been a matter of much debate whether the co-administration of furosemide and albumin can achieve better diuresis and natriuresis than furosemide treatment alone.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It has been a matter of much debate whether the co-administration of furosemide and albumin can achieve better diuresis and natriuresis than furosemide treatment alone. There is inconsistency in published trials regarding the effect of this combination therapy. We, therefore, conducted this meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of furosemide and albumin co-administration and the factors potentially influencing the diuretic effect of such co-administration.
METHODS
In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched the PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases. Prospective studies with adult populations which comparing the effect of furosemide and albumin co-administration with furosemide alone were included. The outcomes including diuretic effect and natriuresis effect measured by hourly urine output and hourly urine sodium excretion from both groups were extracted. Random effect model was applied for conducting meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity of treatment effects.
RESULTS
By including 13 studies with 422 participants, the meta-analysis revealed that furosemide with albumin co-administration increased urine output by 31.45 ml/hour and increased urine excretion by 1.76 mEq/hour in comparison to furosemide treatment alone. The diuretic effect of albumin and furosemide co-administration was better in participants with low baseline serum albumin levels (< 2.5 g/dL) and high prescribed albumin infusion doses (> 30 g), and the effect was more significant within 12 hours after administration. Diuretic effect of co-administration was better in those with baseline Cr > 1.2 mg/dL and natriuresis effect of co-administration was better in those with baseline eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2.
CONCLUSION
Co-administration of furosemide with albumin might enhance diuresis and natriuresis effects than furosemide treatment alone but with high heterogeneity in treatment response. According to the present meta-analysis, combination therapy might provide advantages compared to the furosemide therapy alone in patients with baseline albumin levels lower than 2.5 g/dL or in patients receiving higher albumin infusion doses or in patients with impaired renal function. Owing to high heterogeneity and limited enrolled participants, further parallel randomized controlled trials are warranted to examine our outcome.
REGISTRATION
PROSEPRO ID: CRD42020211002; https://clinicaltrials.gov/.
Topics: Albumins; Diuretics; Drug Combinations; Furosemide; Humans; Nephrotic Syndrome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34851962
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260312 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Mar 2021American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines suggest that linezolid (LZD) is preferred over vancomycin (VCM) for treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines suggest that linezolid (LZD) is preferred over vancomycin (VCM) for treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia. We conducted a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis to compare VCM and LZD efficacy against proven MRSA pneumonia.
METHODS
We searched EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed up to November 2019. The outcomes of the meta-analysis were mortality, clinical cure, microbiological evaluation, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1239 patients and eight retrospective cohort or case-control studies (CSs) with a total 6125 patients were identified. Clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates were significantly increased in patients treated with LZD in RCTs (clinical cure: risk ratio (RR) = 0.81, 95% confidential interval (CI) = 0.71-0.92; microbiological eradication: RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.62-0.81) and CSs (clinical cure: odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.18-0.69). However, mortality was comparable between patients treated with VCM and LZD in RCTs (RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.88-1.32) and CSs (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.94-1.53). Likewise, there was no significant difference in adverse events between VCM and LZD in CSs (thrombocytopenia: OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.50-1.82; nephrotoxicity: OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 0.85-3.45).
CONCLUSIONS
According to our meta-analysis of RCTs and CSs conducted worldwide, we found robust evidence to corroborate the IDSA guidelines for the treatment of proven MRSA pneumonia.
Topics: Acetamides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Linezolid; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Oxazolidinones; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 33401013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2020.12.009