-
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection... Apr 2022Vibrio cholerae O1/O139 were the predominant circulating serogroups exhibiting multi-drug resistance (MDR) during the cholera outbreak which led to cholera treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Vibrio cholerae O1/O139 were the predominant circulating serogroups exhibiting multi-drug resistance (MDR) during the cholera outbreak which led to cholera treatment failures.
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the weighted pooled resistance (WPR) rates in V. cholerae O1/O139 isolates obtained from environmental samples.
METHODS
We systematically searched the articles in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase (until January 2020). Subgroup analyses were then employed by publication year, geographic areas, and the quality of studies. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA software (ver. 14.0).
RESULTS
A total of 20 studies investigating 648 environmental V. cholerae O1/O139 isolates were analysed. The majority of the studies were originated from Asia (n = 9). In addition, a large number of studies (n = 15 i.e. 71.4%) included in the meta-analysis revealed the resistance to cotrimoxazole and ciprofloxacin. The WPR rates were as follows: cotrimoxazole 59%, erythromycin 28%, tetracycline 14%, doxycycline 5%, and ciprofloxacin 0%. There was increased resistance to nalidixic acid, cotrimoxazole, furazolidone, and tetracycline while a decreased resistance to amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, chloramphenicol, ampicillin, streptomycin, and ceftriaxone was observed during the years 2000-2020. A significant decrease in the doxycycline and ciprofloxacin-resistance rates in V. cholerae O1/O139 isolates was reported over the years 2011-2020 which represents a decrease in 2001-2010 (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Fluoroquinolones, gentamicin, ceftriaxone, doxycycline, kanamycin, and cefotaxime showed the highest effectiveness and the lowest resistance rate. However, the main interest is the rise of antimicrobial resistance in V. cholerae strains especially in low-income countries or endemic areas, and therefore, continuous surveillance, careful appropriate AST, and limitation on improper antibiotic usage are crucial.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ceftriaxone; Cholera; Ciprofloxacin; Doxycycline; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Erythromycin; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination; Vibrio cholerae O1; Vibrio cholerae O139
PubMed: 35468830
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-022-01100-3 -
Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) Jul 2021Most European and American countries recently updated their guidelines on Lyme borreliosis (LB). The aim of this study was to provide a comparative overview of existing... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Most European and American countries recently updated their guidelines on Lyme borreliosis (LB). The aim of this study was to provide a comparative overview of existing guidelines on the treatment of LB in Europe and America and to assess the methodological quality of their elaboration.
METHODS
A systematic search was carried out in MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the national databases of scientific societies from 2014 to 2020. Quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool.
RESULTS
Twelve guidelines were included. The scores for the AGREE II domains (median ± IQR) were: overall assessment 100 ± 22, scope and purpose 85 ± 46, stakeholder involvement 88 ± 48, rigour of development 67 ± 35, clarity of presentation 81 ± 36, applicability 73 ± 52 and editorial independence 79% ± 54%. Cohen's weighted kappa showed a high agreement (K = 0.90, 95%CI 0.84-0.96). Guidelines were quite homogeneous regarding the recommended molecules (mostly doxycycline in the first intention and ceftriaxone in the second intention), their duration (10 to 28 days), and their dosage. The differences were due to the lack of well-conducted comparative trials. The International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) guidelines were the only ones to suggest longer antibiotics based on an expert consensus.
CONCLUSION
European and American guidelines for the treatment of LB were quite homogeneous but based on moderate- to low-evidence studies. Well-conducted comparative trials are needed to assess the best molecules, the optimal duration and the most effective doses.
PubMed: 34451436
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens10080972 -
The Brazilian Journal of Infectious... 2013A number of studies have reported on the effectiveness of sulbactam-based therapies for Acinetobacter baumannii infection; however, there is little evidence that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A number of studies have reported on the effectiveness of sulbactam-based therapies for Acinetobacter baumannii infection; however, there is little evidence that sulbactam-based therapies are more or less effective than alternative therapies. Unfortunately, there is a distinct lack of high quality data (i.e., from randomized controlled trials) available on this issue. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of sulbactam-based and non-sulbactam-based regimens in the treatment of A. baumannii infection.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Biomedical Central, Google Scholar, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Cochrane library, and the Directory of Open Access using the terms "sulbactam and baumannii" or "maxtam and baumannii". Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical studies, and cohort studies were considered for inclusion. The primary outcome was the clinical response rate for sulbactam-based therapy vs comparator therapies.
RESULTS
Four studies (1 prospective, 3 retrospective) were included in the meta-analysis. Sulbactam was given in combination with ampicillin, carbapenem, or cefoperazone (n=112 participants). Comparator drugs included colistin, cephalosporins, anti-pseudomonas penicillins, fluoroquinolones, minocycline/doxycycline, aminoglycosides, tigecycline, polymyxin, imipenem/cilastatin, and combination therapy (n=107 participants). The combined clinical response rate odds ratio did not significantly favor sulbactam-based therapy over comparator therapy (odds ratio=1.054, 95% confidence interval=0.550-2.019, p=0.874), nor did any of the individual study odds ratios.
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence suggests that sulbactam-based therapy may be similarly efficacious to alternative antimicrobial therapies for the treatment of A. baumannii infection. Further research on this issue is warranted given the limited availability of data from high quality/randomized controlled trials.
Topics: Acinetobacter Infections; Acinetobacter baumannii; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Sulbactam; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23602463
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjid.2012.10.029 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2010Leptospirosis is a parasitic disease transmitted by animals. Severe leptospirosis may result in hospitalisation and about five per cent of the patients die. In clinical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Leptospirosis is a parasitic disease transmitted by animals. Severe leptospirosis may result in hospitalisation and about five per cent of the patients die. In clinical practice, penicillin is widely used for treating leptospirosis.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of antibiotics versus placebo or other antibiotic regimens in treating leptospirosis. We addressed the following clinical questions: a) Are treatment regimens with antibiotics more efficient than placebo for leptospirosis? b) Are treatment regimens with antibiotics safe when compared to placebo for leptospirosis? c) Which antibiotic regimen is the most efficient and safest in treating leptospirosis?
SEARCH STRATEGY
Electronic searches and searches of the identified articles were combined.
STUDIES
Randomised clinical trials in which antibiotics were used as treatment for leptospirosis. Language, date, or other restrictions were not applied.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients with clinical manifestations of leptospirosis.
INTERVENTIONS
Any antibiotic regimen compared with a control group (placebo or another antibiotic regimen).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data and methodological quality of each trial were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. The random effects model was used irrespective of significant statistical heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials met inclusion criteria. Allocation concealment and double blind methods were not clearly described in two. Of the patients enrolled, 75 were treated with placebo and 75 with antibiotics: 61 (81.3%) penicillin and 14 (18.6%) doxycycline. The patients assigned to antibiotics compared to placebo showed: a) Mortality: 1% (1/75) versus 4% (3/75); risk difference -2%, 95% confidence interval -8% to 4%. b) Duration of hospital stay (days): weighted mean difference 0.30, 95% confidence interval -1.26 to 1.86. c) Prolonged hospital stay (> seven days): 30% (7/23) versus 74% (14/19); risk difference -43%, 95% confidence interval -70% to -16%. Number needed-to-treat 3, 95% confidence interval 2 to 7. d) Period of disappearance of fever (days): weighted mean difference -4.04, 95% confidence interval -8.65 to 0.58. e) Leptospiruria: 5% (4/75) versus 40% (30/75); risk difference -46%, 95% confidence interval -88% to -3%. Number needed-to-treat 2, 95% confidence interval 1 to 33.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic regimens for treatment of leptospirosis is a form of care for which the evidence is insufficient to provide clear guidelines for practice. The randomised trials suggest that antibiotics could be a useful treatment for leptospirosis. Because of the questionable quality of two of the three trials, the indication for general use of antibiotics is uncertain. However, the evidence suggest that penicillin may cause more good than harm.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Leptospirosis
PubMed: 20091518
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001306.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Various central nervous system-penetrant antibiotics are bactericidal in vitro and in vivo against the causative agent of Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB), Borrelia... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Various central nervous system-penetrant antibiotics are bactericidal in vitro and in vivo against the causative agent of Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB), Borrelia burgdorferi. These antibiotics are routinely used clinically to treat LNB, but their relative efficacy is not clear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antibiotics for the treatment of LNB.
SEARCH METHODS
On 25 October 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched clinical trial registers on 26 October 2016. We reviewed the bibliographies of the randomized trials identified and contacted the authors and known experts in the field to identify additional published or unpublished data. There were no language restrictions when searching for studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized clinical trials of antibiotic treatment of LNB in adults and children that compared any antibiotic treatment, including combinations of treatments, versus any other treatment, placebo, or no treatment. We excluded studies of entities considered as post-Lyme syndrome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified seven randomized studies involving 450 European participants with LNB for inclusion in this systematic review. We found no trials conducted in the United States. Marked heterogeneity among these studies prevented meta-analysis. None of the studies included a placebo control on the initial antibiotic treatment, and only one was blinded. None were delayed-start studies. All were active comparator studies, and most were not adequately powered for non-inferiority comparison. The trials investigated four antibiotics: penicillin G and ceftriaxone in four studies, doxycycline in three studies, and cefotaxime in two studies. One study tested a three-month course of oral amoxicillin versus placebo following initial treatment with intravenous ceftriaxone. One study was limited to children. The trials measured efficacy using heterogeneous physician- or patient-reported outcomes, or both. In some cases cerebrospinal fluid analysis was included as an indirect biomarker of disease and outcome. None of the studies reported on our proposed primary outcome, 'Improvement in a measure of overall disability in the long term (three or more months).' None of the trials revealed any between-group differences in symptom resolution in response to active treatment. In general, treatment was tolerated well. The quality of adverse event reporting, however, was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is mostly low- to very low-quality clinical evidence from a limited number of mostly small, heterogeneous trials with diverse outcome measures, comparing the relative efficacy of central nervous system-penetrant antibiotics for the treatment of LNB. The few existing randomized studies have limited power and lack consistent and well-defined entry criteria and efficacy endpoints. It is not possible to draw firm conclusions on the relative efficacy of accepted antibiotic drug regimens for the treatment of LNB. The majority of people are reported to have good outcomes, and symptoms resolve by 12 months regardless of the antibiotic used. A minority of participants did not improve sufficiently, and some were retreated. These randomized studies provide some evidence that doxycycline, penicillin G, ceftriaxone, and cefotaxime are efficacious in the treatment of European LNB. No evidence of additional efficacy was observed when, in one study, an initial antibiotic treatment with intravenous ceftriaxone was followed by additional longer treatment with oral amoxicillin. There is a lack of evidence identified through our high-quality search strategy on the efficacy of antibiotics for treatment of LNB in the United States.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Borrelia burgdorferi; Cefotaxime; Ceftriaxone; Doxycycline; Humans; Lyme Disease; Lyme Neuroborreliosis; Penicillin G; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27931077
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006978.pub2 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Oct 2022Anthrax is endemic to many countries, including the United States. The causative agent, Bacillus anthracis, poses a global bioterrorism threat. Without effective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Anthrax is endemic to many countries, including the United States. The causative agent, Bacillus anthracis, poses a global bioterrorism threat. Without effective antimicrobial postexposure prophylaxis (PEPAbx) and treatment, the mortality of systemic anthrax is high. To inform clinical guidelines for PEPAbx and treatment of B. anthracis infections in humans, we systematically evaluated animal anthrax treatment model studies.
METHODS
We searched for survival outcome data in 9 scientific search engines for articles describing antimicrobial PEPAbx or treatment of anthrax in animals in any language through February 2019. We performed meta-analyses of efficacy of antimicrobial PEPAbx and treatment for each drug or drug combination using random-effects models. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships were developed for 5 antimicrobials with available pharmacokinetic data. Monte Carlo simulations were used to predict unbound drug exposures in humans.
RESULTS
We synthesized data from 34 peer-reviewed studies with 3262 animals. For PEPAbx and treatment of infection by susceptible B. anthracis, effective monotherapy can be accomplished with fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines, β-lactams (including penicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, and imipenem-cilastatin), and lipopeptides or glycopeptides. For naturally occurring strains, unbound drug exposures in humans were predicted to adequately cover the minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs; those required to inhibit the growth of 50% or 90% of organisms [MIC50 or MIC90]) for ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and doxycycline for both the PEPAbx and treatment targets. Dalbavancin covered its MIC50 for PEPAbx.
CONCLUSIONS
These animal studies show many reviewed antimicrobials are good choices for PEPAbx or treatment of susceptible B. anthracis strains, and some are also promising options for combating resistant strains. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that oral ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and doxycycline are particularly robust choices for PEPAbx or treatment.
Topics: Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Animals; Anthrax; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Bacillus anthracis; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Ciprofloxacin; Doxycycline; Glycopeptides; Humans; Levofloxacin; Lipopeptides; Models, Animal; Tetracyclines; United States; beta-Lactams
PubMed: 36251546
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac591 -
BMC Oral Health Jun 2021Pulpal and periodontal healing are two main concerns of delayed replantation of avulsed teeth. The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of topical...
BACKGROUND
Pulpal and periodontal healing are two main concerns of delayed replantation of avulsed teeth. The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of topical and systemic application of tetracyclines on pulpal and periodontal healing after tooth replantation.
METHODS
A comprehensive electronic search was conducted in six databases. This systematic review was carried out according to Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.
RESULTS
After exclusion of 246 irrelevant papers, 14 animal studies and one human study were included in this review. The human study showed that avulsed permanent teeth treated with doxycycline did not show a better clinical outcome for pulp and periodontal healing compared with treatment with normal saline. As for animal studies, significant more pulpal healing was observed in immature teeth treated with topical doxycycline in two researches, while another one study showed that there is no difference between teeth treated with normal saline and teeth treated with doxycycline. Systemic doxycycline exerted no significant effect on pulpal revascularization illustrated by one research. Only one out of four articles illustrated the positive effect of systemic tetracyclines on periodontal healing. One paper reported that intracanal application of demeclocycline promoted favorable periodontal healing. Two articles showed topical doxycycline contributed to favorable periodontal healing, while five studies showed no significant effect of topical tetracyclines on periodontal healing.
CONCLUSIONS
As a result of data heterogeneity and limitations of the studies, the effect of topical or systemic application of tetracyclines on pulpal and periodontal healing is inconclusive. More studies are required to get more clinically significant conclusions.
Topics: Animals; Dental Pulp; Humans; Periodontal Ligament; Tetracyclines; Tooth Avulsion; Tooth Replantation; Wound Healing
PubMed: 34090399
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01615-y -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2022The aim of this study was to determine the association between fluoroquinolones (FQs) use, the risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection (AAD), and the prognosis of...
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to determine the association between fluoroquinolones (FQs) use, the risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection (AAD), and the prognosis of patients with pre-existing AAD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science on 31 March 2022. Observational studies that evaluated the association of FQs with AAD risk in the general population or FQs with the prognosis of patients with preexisting AAD and presented adjusted effect estimates were included. Two reviewers assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE.
RESULTS
Of the 13 included studies, 11 focused on the association of FQs with AAD incidence, and only one study investigated the association of FQs with the patient with AAD prognosis. FQ use was associated with an increased risk of AAD within 30 days (RR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.11-1.81; very low certainty) and 60 days (RR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.26-1.64; low certainty). Specifically, the association was significant when compared with amoxicillin, azithromycin, doxycycline, or no antibiotic use. Furthermore, patients with preexisting AAD exposure to FQ had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.50-1.73; moderate certainty) and aortic-specific mortality (RR: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.50-2.15; moderate certainty), compared to the non-exposed FQ group within a 60-day risk period.
CONCLUSION
FQs were associated with an increased incidence of AAD in the general population and a higher risk of adverse outcomes in patients with preexisting AAD. Nevertheless, the results may be affected by unmeasured confounding factors. This should be considered by physicians contemplating using FQs in patients with aortic dilation and those at high risk of AAD.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021230171].
PubMed: 36017083
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.949538 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2017Mefloquine is one of four antimalarial agents commonly recommended for preventing malaria in travellers to malaria-endemic areas. Despite its high efficacy, there is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Mefloquine is one of four antimalarial agents commonly recommended for preventing malaria in travellers to malaria-endemic areas. Despite its high efficacy, there is controversy about its psychological side effects.
OBJECTIVES
To summarize the efficacy and safety of mefloquine used as prophylaxis for malaria in travellers.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published on the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase (OVID); TOXLINE (https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/newtoxnet/toxline.htm); and LILACS. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home) for trials in progress, using 'mefloquine', 'Lariam', and 'malaria' as search terms. The search date was 22 June 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (for efficacy and safety) and non-randomized cohort studies (for safety). We compared prophylactic mefloquine with placebo, no treatment, or an alternative recommended antimalarial agent. Our study populations included all adults and children, including pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of trials, extracted and analysed data. We compared dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Prespecified adverse outcomes are included in 'Summary of findings' tables, with the best available estimate of the absolute frequency of each outcome in short-term international travellers. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 RCTs (11,470 participants); 35 cohort studies (198,493 participants); and four large retrospective analyses of health records (800,652 participants). Nine RCTs explicitly excluded participants with a psychiatric history, and 25 cohort studies stated that the choice of antimalarial agent was based on medical history and personal preference. Most RCTs and cohort studies collected data on self-reported or clinician-assessed symptoms, rather than formal medical diagnoses. Mefloquine efficacyOf 12 trials comparing mefloquine and placebo, none were performed in short-term international travellers, and most populations had a degree of immunity to malaria. The percentage of people developing a malaria episode in the control arm varied from 1% to 82% (median 22%) and 0% to 13% in the mefloquine group (median 1%).In four RCTs that directly compared mefloquine, atovaquone-proguanil and doxycycline in non-immune, short-term international travellers, only one clinical case of malaria occurred (4 trials, 1822 participants). Mefloquine safety versus atovaquone-proguanil Participants receiving mefloquine were more likely to discontinue their medication due to adverse effects than atovaquone-proguanil users (RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.31; 3 RCTs, 1438 participants; high-certainty evidence). There were few serious adverse effects reported with mefloquine (15/2651 travellers) and none with atovaquone-proguanil (940 travellers).One RCT and six cohort studies reported on our prespecified adverse effects. In the RCT with short-term travellers, mefloquine users were more likely to report abnormal dreams (RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.04, moderate-certainty evidence), insomnia (RR 4.42, 95% CI 2.56 to 7.64, moderate-certainty evidence), anxiety (RR 6.12, 95% CI 1.82 to 20.66, moderate-certainty evidence), and depressed mood during travel (RR 5.78, 95% CI 1.71 to 19.61, moderate-certainty evidence). The cohort studies in longer-term travellers were consistent with this finding but most had larger effect sizes. Mefloquine users were also more likely to report nausea (high-certainty evidence) and dizziness (high-certainty evidence).Based on the available evidence, our best estimates of absolute effect sizes for mefloquine versus atovaquone-proguanil are 6% versus 2% for discontinuation of the drug, 13% versus 3% for insomnia, 14% versus 7% for abnormal dreams, 6% versus 1% for anxiety, and 6% versus 1% for depressed mood. Mefloquine safety versus doxycyclineNo difference was found in numbers of serious adverse effects with mefloquine and doxycycline (low-certainty evidence) or numbers of discontinuations due to adverse effects (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.87; 4 RCTs, 763 participants; low-certainty evidence).Six cohort studies in longer-term occupational travellers reported our prespecified adverse effects; one RCT in military personnel and one cohort study in short-term travellers reported adverse events. Mefloquine users were more likely to report abnormal dreams (RR 10.49, 95% CI 3.79 to 29.10; 4 cohort studies, 2588 participants, very low-certainty evidence), insomnia (RR 4.14, 95% CI 1.19 to 14.44; 4 cohort studies, 3212 participants, very low-certainty evidence), anxiety (RR 18.04, 95% CI 9.32 to 34.93; 3 cohort studies, 2559 participants, very low-certainty evidence), and depressed mood (RR 11.43, 95% CI 5.21 to 25.07; 2 cohort studies, 2445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The findings of the single cohort study reporting adverse events in short-term international travellers were consistent with this finding but the single RCT in military personnel did not demonstrate a difference between groups in frequencies of abnormal dreams or insomnia.Mefloquine users were less likely to report dyspepsia (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.74; 5 cohort studies, 5104 participants, low certainty-evidence), photosensitivity (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11; 2 cohort studies, 1875 participants, very low-certainty evidence), vomiting (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.27; 4 cohort studies, 5071 participants, very low-certainty evidence), and vaginal thrush (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; 1 cohort study, 1761 participants, very low-certainty evidence).Based on the available evidence, our best estimates of absolute effect for mefloquine versus doxycyline were: 2% versus 2% for discontinuation, 12% versus 3% for insomnia, 31% versus 3% for abnormal dreams, 18% versus 1% for anxiety, 11% versus 1% for depressed mood, 4% versus 14% for dyspepsia, 2% versus 19% for photosensitivity, 1% versus 5% for vomiting, and 2% versus 16% for vaginal thrush.Additional analyses, including comparisons of mefloquine with chloroquine, added no new information. Subgroup analysis by study design, duration of travel, and military versus non-military participants, provided no conclusive findings.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The absolute risk of malaria during short-term travel appears low with all three established antimalarial agents (mefloquine, doxycycline, and atovaquone-proguanil).The choice of antimalarial agent depends on how individual travellers assess the importance of specific adverse effects, pill burden, and cost. Some travellers will prefer mefloquine for its once-weekly regimen, but this should be balanced against the increased frequency of abnormal dreams, anxiety, insomnia, and depressed mood.
Topics: Adult; Antimalarials; Atovaquone; Child; Chloroquine; Doxycycline; Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Malaria, Falciparum; Mefloquine; Primaquine; Proguanil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Travel-Related Illness
PubMed: 29083100
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006491.pub4 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Nov 2023The nasal microbiome represents the main environmental factor of the inflammatory process in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Antibiotics and steroids constitute the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The nasal microbiome represents the main environmental factor of the inflammatory process in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Antibiotics and steroids constitute the mainstay of CRS therapies. However, their impact on microbial communities needs to be better understood. This systematic review summarizes the evidence about antibiotics' and steroids' impact on the nasal microbiota in patients with CRS.
METHODS
The search strategy was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. The authors searched all papers in the three major medical databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) using the PICO tool (population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). The search was carried out using a combination of the key terms "Microbiota" or "Microbiome" and "Chronic Rhinosinusitis".
RESULTS
Overall, 402 papers were identified, and after duplicate removal (127 papers), excluding papers off-topic (154) and for other structural reasons (110), papers were assessed for eligibility; finally, only 11 papers were included and summarized in the present systematic review. Some authors used only steroids, other researchers used only antibiotics, and others used both antibiotics and steroids. With regard to the use of steroids as exclusive medical treatment, topical mometasone and budesonide were investigated. With regard to the use of antibiotics as exclusive medical treatments, clarithromycin, doxycycline, roxithromycin, and amoxicillin clavulanate were investigated. Regarding the use of both antibiotics and steroids, two associations were investigated: systemic prednisone combined with amoxicillin clavulanate and topical budesonide combined with azithromycin.
CONCLUSIONS
The impact that therapies can have on the nasal microbiome of CRS patients is very varied. Further studies are needed to understand the role of the nasal microbiome, prevent CRS, and improve therapeutic tools for personalized medicine tailored to the individual patient.
PubMed: 38003898
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13111583