-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric fever) are febrile bacterial illnesses common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric fever) are febrile bacterial illnesses common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends treatment with azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, or ceftriaxone due to widespread resistance to older, first-line antimicrobials. Resistance patterns vary in different locations and are changing over time. Fluoroquinolone resistance in South Asia often precludes the use of ciprofloxacin. Extensively drug-resistant strains of enteric fever have emerged in Pakistan. In some areas of the world, susceptibility to old first-line antimicrobials, such as chloramphenicol, has re-appeared. A Cochrane Review of the use of fluoroquinolones and azithromycin in the treatment of enteric fever has previously been undertaken, but the use of cephalosporins has not been systematically investigated and the optimal choice of drug and duration of treatment are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of cephalosporins for treating enteric fever in children and adults compared to other antimicrobials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 24 November 2021. We also searched reference lists of included trials, contacted researchers working in the field, and contacted relevant organizations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and children with enteric fever that compared a cephalosporin to another antimicrobial, a different cephalosporin, or a different treatment duration of the intervention cephalosporin. Enteric fever was diagnosed on the basis of blood culture, bone marrow culture, or molecular tests.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse. Our secondary outcomes were time to defervescence, duration of hospital admission, convalescent faecal carriage, and adverse effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 RCTs with 2231 total participants published between 1986 and 2016 across Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the Caribbean, with comparisons between cephalosporins and other antimicrobials used for the treatment of enteric fever in children and adults. The main comparisons are between antimicrobials in most common clinical use, namely cephalosporins compared to a fluoroquinolone and cephalosporins compared to azithromycin. Cephalosporin (cefixime) versus fluoroquinolones Clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse may be increased in patients treated with cefixime compared to fluoroquinolones in three small trials published over 14 years ago: clinical failure (risk ratio (RR) 13.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.24 to 55.39; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 4.07, 95% CI 0.46 to 36.41; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 4.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 17.84; 2 trials, 220 participants; low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with cefixime may be longer compared to participants treated with fluoroquinolones (mean difference (MD) 1.74 days, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.98, 3 trials, 425 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus azithromycin Ceftriaxone may result in a decrease in clinical failure compared to azithromycin, and it is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on microbiological failure compared to azithromycin in two small trials published over 18 years ago and in one more recent trial, all conducted in participants under 18 years of age: clinical failure (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.57; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.64, 3 trials, 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone increases or decreases relapse compared to azithromycin (RR 10.05, 95% CI 1.93 to 52.38; 3 trials, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with ceftriaxone may be shorter compared to participants treated with azithromycin (mean difference of -0.52 days, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.12; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus fluoroquinolones It is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on clinical failure, microbiological failure, relapse, and time to defervescence compared to fluoroquinolones in three trials published over 28 years ago and two more recent trials: clinical failure (RR 3.77, 95% CI 0.72 to 19.81; 4 trials, 359 participants; very low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 6.83; 3 trials, 316 participants; very low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.92; 3 trials, 297 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and time to defervescence (MD 2.73 days, 95% CI -0.37 to 5.84; 3 trials, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone decreases convalescent faecal carriage compared to the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.72; 1 trial, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and length of hospital stay may be longer in participants treated with ceftriaxone compared to participants treated with the fluoroquinolone ofloxacin (mean of 12 days (range 7 to 23 days) in the ceftriaxone group compared to a mean of 9 days (range 6 to 13 days) in the ofloxacin group; 1 trial, 47 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on very low- to low-certainty evidence, ceftriaxone is an effective treatment for adults and children with enteric fever, with few adverse effects. Trials suggest that there may be no difference in the performance of ceftriaxone compared with azithromycin, fluoroquinolones, or chloramphenicol. Cefixime can also be used for treatment of enteric fever but may not perform as well as fluoroquinolones. We are unable to draw firm general conclusions on comparative contemporary effectiveness given that most trials were small and conducted over 20 years previously. Clinicians need to take into account current, local resistance patterns in addition to route of administration when choosing an antimicrobial.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Paratyphoid Fever; Typhoid Fever; Cephalosporins; Azithromycin; Ceftriaxone; Cefixime; Fluoroquinolones; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chloramphenicol; Anti-Infective Agents; Monobactams; Ciprofloxacin; Ofloxacin; Recurrence; Pakistan
PubMed: 36420914
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010452.pub2 -
Oman Medical Journal Jan 2022This systematic review explores the effectiveness and safety of a short-term regimen (STR) in treating multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). We use several cohort... (Review)
Review
This systematic review explores the effectiveness and safety of a short-term regimen (STR) in treating multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). We use several cohort studies which were searched using standardized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The keywords were used based on problem, intervention, comparison, and outcome consisted of MDR-TB and STR. Seven cohort studies were selected from 314 studies. The result showed that STR has better therapeutic efficacy and shorter duration than the 2011 World Health Organization regimen for MDR-TB with success rates above 50% in respective studies. The most effective regimen was kanamycin-high-dose isoniazid-clofazimine-ethambutol-prothionamide-pyrazinamide-gatifloxacin in the intensive phase for four months and clofazimine-ethambutol-pyrazinamide-gatifloxacin-prothionamide in the continuation phase for eight months. Gastrointestinal problems, ototoxicity, dysglycemia, and liver problems were the most reported side effects. STR provides good effectiveness in MDR-TB treatment in terms of treatment success rate and short therapy duration.
PubMed: 35211341
DOI: 10.5001/omj.2021.64 -
The Lancet. Global Health Dec 2017Shigella infections are a leading cause of diarrhoeal death among children in low-income and middle-income countries. WHO guidelines reserve antibiotics for treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Shigella infections are a leading cause of diarrhoeal death among children in low-income and middle-income countries. WHO guidelines reserve antibiotics for treating children with dysentery. Reliance on dysentery for identification and management of Shigella infection might miss an opportunity to reduce Shigella-associated morbidity and mortality. We aimed to systematically review and evaluate Shigella-associated and dysentery-associated mortality, the diagnostic value of dysentery for the identification of Shigella infection, and the efficacy of antibiotics for children with Shigella or dysentery, or both.
METHODS
We did three systematic reviews (for mortality, diagnostic value, and antibiotic treatment of Shigella and dysentery), and meta-analyses where appropriate, of studies in resource-limited settings. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS database for studies published before Jan 1, 2017, in English, French, and Spanish. We included studies of human beings with diarrhoea and accepted all study-specific definitions of dysentery. For the mortality and diagnostic value searches, we excluded studies that did not include an effect estimate or data necessary to calculate this estimate. The search for treatment included only randomised controlled trials that were done after Jan 1, 1980, and assessed antibiotics in children (aged <18 years) with dysentery or laboratory-confirmed Shigella. We extracted or calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for relative mortality and did random-effects meta-analysis to arrive at pooled ORs. We calculated 95% CIs assuming a binomial distribution and did random-effects meta-regression of log-transformed sensitivity and specificity estimates for diagnostic value. We assessed the heterogeneity of papers included in these meta-analyses using the I statistic and evaluated publication bias using funnel plots. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017063896).
FINDINGS
3649 papers were identified and 60 studies were included for analyses: 13 for mortality, 27 for diagnostic value, and 20 for treatment. Shigella infection was associated with mortality (pooled OR 2·8, 95% CI 1·6-4·8; p=0·000) whereas dysentery was not associated with mortality (1·3, 0·7-2·3; p=0·37). Between 1977 and 2016, dysentery identified 1·9-85·9% of confirmed Shigella infections, with sensitivity decreasing over time (p=0·04). Ten (50%) of 20 included antibiotic trials were among children with dysentery, none were placebo-controlled, and two (10%) evaluated antibiotics no longer recommended for acute infectious diarrhoea. Ciprofloxacin showed superior microbiological, but not clinical, effectiveness compared with pivmecillinam, and no superior microbiological and clinical effectiveness compared with gatifloxacin. Substantial heterogeneity was reported for meta-analyses of the Shigella-associated mortality studies (I=78·3%) and dysentery-associated mortality studies (I=73·2%). Too few mortality studies were identified to meaningfully test for publication bias. No evidence of publication bias was found in this analysis of studies of diagnostic value.
INTERPRETATION
Current WHO guidelines appear to manage dysentery effectively, but might miss opportunities to reduce mortality among children infected with Shigella who present without bloody stool. Further studies should quantify potential decreases in mortality and morbidity associated with antibiotic therapy for children with non-dysenteric Shigella infection.
FUNDING
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Center for AIDS Research International Core.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Diarrhea; Dysentery, Bacillary; Fluoroquinolones; Gatifloxacin; Guideline Adherence; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shigella; World Health Organization
PubMed: 29132613
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30392-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2013Currently the World Health Organization only recommend fluoroquinolones for people with presumed drug-sensitive tuberculosis (TB) who cannot take standard first-line... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Currently the World Health Organization only recommend fluoroquinolones for people with presumed drug-sensitive tuberculosis (TB) who cannot take standard first-line drugs. However, use of fluoroquinolones could shorten the length of treatment and improve other outcomes in these people. This review summarises the effects of fluoroquinolones in first-line regimens in people with presumed drug-sensitive TB.
OBJECTIVES
To assess fluoroquinolones as substitute or additional components in antituberculous drug regimens for drug-sensitive TB.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; Science Citation Index; Databases of Russian Publications; and metaRegister of Controlled Trials up to 6 March 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antituberculous regimens based on rifampicin and pyrazinamide and containing fluoroquinolones in people with presumed drug-sensitive pulmonary TB.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed the risk of bias in the trials, and extracted data. We used the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and the fixed-effect model when it was appropriate to combine data and no heterogeneity was present. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five RCTs (1330 participants) that met the inclusion criteria. None of the included trials examined regimens of less than six months duration. Fluoroquinolones added to standard regimensA single trial (174 participants) added levofloxacin to the standard first-line regimen. Relapse and treatment failure were not reported. For death, sputum conversion, and adverse events we are uncertain if there is an effect (one trial, 174 participants, very low quality evidence for all three outcomes). Fluoroquinolones substituted for ethambutol in standard regimens Three trials (723 participants) substituted ethambutol with moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin, and ofloxacin into the standard first-line regimen. For relapse, we are uncertain if there is an effect (one trial, 170 participants, very low quality evidence). No trials reported on treatment failure. For death, sputum culture conversion at eight weeks, or serious adverse events we do not know if there was an effect (three trials, 723 participants, very low quality evidence for all three outcomes). Fluoroquinolones substituted for isoniazid in standard regimens A single trial (433 participants) substituted moxifloxacin for isoniazid. Treatment failure and relapse were not reported. For death, sputum culture conversion, or serious adverse events the substitution may have little or no difference (one trial, 433 participants, low quality evidence for all three outcomes). Fluoroquinolines in four month regimensSix trials are currently in progress testing shorter regimens with fluoroquinolones.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Ofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gatifloxacin have been tested in RCTs of standard first-line regimens based on rifampicin and pyrazinamide for treating drug-sensitive TB. There is insufficient evidence to be clear whether addition or substitution of fluoroquinolones for ethambutol or isoniazid in the first-line regimen reduces death or relapse, or increases culture conversion at eight weeks. Much larger trials with fluoroquinolones in short course regimens of four months are currently in progress.
Topics: Antitubercular Agents; Ciprofloxacin; Drug Substitution; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Levofloxacin; Ofloxacin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary
PubMed: 23744519
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004795.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Endophthalmitis is a severe inflammation of the anterior or posterior (or both) chambers of the eye that may be sterile or associated with infection. It is a potentially... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endophthalmitis is a severe inflammation of the anterior or posterior (or both) chambers of the eye that may be sterile or associated with infection. It is a potentially vision-threatening complication of cataract surgery. Prophylactic measures for endophthalmitis are targeted against various sources of infection.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for endophthalmitis following cataract surgery compared with no prophylaxis or other form of prophylaxis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily (January 1946 to December 2016), Embase (January 1980 to December 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to December 2016),the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 6 December 2016. We also searched for additional studies that cited any included trials using the Science Citation Index.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that enrolled adults undergoing cataract surgery (any method and incision type) for lens opacities due to any origin. We included trials that evaluated preoperative antibiotics, intraoperative (intracameral, subconjunctival or systemic), or postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for acute endophthalmitis. We excluded studies that evaluated antiseptic preoperative preparations using agents such as povidone iodine or antibiotics for treating acute endophthalmitis after cataract surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias for each included study, and abstracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
Five studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, including 101,005 adults and 132 endophthalmitis cases. While the sample size was very large, the heterogeneity of the study designs and modes of antibiotic delivery made it impossible to conduct a formal meta-analysis. Interventions investigated included the utility of adding vancomycin and gentamycin to the irrigating solution compared with standard balanced saline solution irrigation alone, use of intracameral cefuroxime with or without topical levofloxacin perioperatively, periocular penicillin injections and topical chloramphenicol-sulfadimidine drops compared with topical antibiotics alone, and mode of antibiotic delivery (subconjunctival versus retrobulbar injections; fixed versus separate instillation of gatifloxacin and prednisolone). The risk of bias among studies was low to unclear due to information not being reported. We identified one ongoing study.Two studies compared any antibiotic with no antibiotic. One study, which compared irrigation with antibiotics in balanced salt solution (BSS) versus BSS alone, was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in endophthalmitis between groups (very low-certainty evidence). One study found reduced risk of endophthalmitis when combining intracameral cefuroxime and topical levofloxacin (risk ratio (RR) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.63; 8106 participants; high-certainty evidence) or using intracameral cefuroxime alone (RR 0.21, CI 0.06 to 0.74; 8110 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared with placebo, and an uncertain effect when using topical levofloxacin alone compared with placebo (RR 0.72, CI 0.32 to 1.61; 8103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Two studies found reduced risk of endophthalmitis when combining antibiotic injections during surgery and topical antibiotics compared with topical antibiotics alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.92 (periocular penicillin and topical chloramphenicol-sulfadimidine; 6618 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.91 (intracameral cefuroxime and topical levofloxacin; 8101 participants; high-certainty evidence)).One study, which compared fixed versus separate instillation of gatifloxacin and prednisolone, was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in endophthalmitis between groups (very low-certainty evidence). Another study found no evidence of a difference in endophthalmitis when comparing subconjunctival versus retrobulbar antibiotic injections (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.32; 77,015 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Two studies reported any visual acuity outcome; one study, which compared fixed versus separate instillation of gatifloxacin and prednisolone, reported only that mean visual acuity was the same for both groups at 20 days postoperation. In the other study, the difference in the proportion of eyes with final visual acuity greater than 20/40 following endophthalmitis between groups receiving intracameral cefuroxime with or without topical levofloxacin compared with no intracameral cefuroxime was uncertain (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.11; 29 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Only one study reported adverse events (1 of 129 eyes had pupillary membrane in front of the intraocular lens and 8 eyes showed posterior capsule opacity). No study reported outcomes related to quality of life or economic outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Multiple measures for preventing endophthalmitis following cataract surgery have been studied. High-certainty evidence shows that injection with cefuroxime with or without topical levofloxacin lowers the chance of endophthalmitis after surgery, and there is moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that using antibiotic eye drops in addition to antibiotic injection probably lowers the chance of endophthalmitis compared with using injections or eye drops alone. Clinical trials with rare outcomes require very large sample sizes and are quite costly to conduct; thus, it is unlikely that many additional clinical trials will be conducted to evaluate currently available prophylaxis. Practitioners should rely on current evidence to make informed decisions regarding prophylaxis choices.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cataract Extraction; Endophthalmitis; Humans; Injections, Intraocular; Ophthalmic Solutions; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Therapeutic Irrigation; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 28192644
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006364.pub3 -
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Feb 2018Therapeutic drug monitoring is useful in the treatment of tuberculosis to assure adequate exposure, minimize antibiotic resistance, and reduce toxicity. Salivary... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Therapeutic drug monitoring is useful in the treatment of tuberculosis to assure adequate exposure, minimize antibiotic resistance, and reduce toxicity. Salivary therapeutic drug monitoring could reduce the risks, burden, and costs of blood-based therapeutic drug monitoring. This systematic review compared human pharmacokinetics of antituberculosis drugs in saliva and blood to determine if salivary therapeutic drug monitoring could be a promising alternative.
METHODS
On December 2, 2016, PubMed and the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge were searched for pharmacokinetic studies reporting human salivary and blood concentrations of antituberculosis drugs. Data on study population, study design, analytical method, salivary Cmax, salivary area under the time-concentration curve, plasma/serum Cmax, plasma/serum area under the time-concentration curve, and saliva-plasma or saliva-serum ratio were extracted. All included articles were assessed for risk of bias.
RESULTS
In total, 42 studies were included in this systematic review. For the majority of antituberculosis drugs, including the first-line drugs ethambutol and pyrazinamide, no pharmacokinetic studies in saliva were found. For amikacin, pharmacokinetic studies without saliva-plasma or saliva-serum ratios were found.
CONCLUSIONS
For gatifloxacin and linezolid, salivary therapeutic drug monitoring is likely possible due to a narrow range of saliva-plasma and saliva-serum ratios. For isoniazid, rifampicin, moxifloxacin, ofloxacin, and clarithromycin, salivary therapeutic drug monitoring might be possible; however, a large variability in saliva-plasma and saliva-serum ratios was observed. Unfortunately, salivary therapeutic drug monitoring is probably not possible for doripenem and amoxicillin/clavulanate, as a result of very low salivary drug concentrations.
Topics: Antitubercular Agents; Drug Monitoring; Humans; Saliva
PubMed: 29120971
DOI: 10.1097/FTD.0000000000000462 -
Medicine Sep 2022Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the serious epidemics that highly threaten the global public health. To explore the treatment effect of Levofloxacin, Moxifloxacin, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The treatment effect of Levofloxacin, Moxifloxacin, and Gatifloxacin contained in the conventional therapy regimen for pulmonary tuberculosis: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the serious epidemics that highly threaten the global public health. To explore the treatment effect of Levofloxacin, Moxifloxacin, and Gatifloxacin contained in the conventional therapy regimen for pulmonary tuberculosis.
METHODS
Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched with the keyword such as "Levofloxacin," "Moxifloxacin," "Gatifloxacin," and "tuberculosis", through June 1992 to 2017. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2 researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the included studies. The Cochrane system was evaluated by RevMan5.2 and the network meta-analysis was performed by Stata 15.
RESULTS
A total of 891 studies were included, with a total of 6565 patients. The results of network meta-analysis showed that Moxifloxacin + conventional therapy (CT) regimen was superior to CT regimen only on the spectrum culture negative. Both Levofloxacin + CT and Moxifloxacin + CT were superior to the CT regimen in treatment success rate. For the adverse events, the Levofloxacin + CT showed much safer results than CT group, while Moxifloxacin + CT had more adverse events than CT group.
CONCLUSION
Levofloxacin, Moxifloxacin, and Gatifloxacin have different superiority, comparing to CT regimen in spectrum culture negative, treatment success rate, and adverse events. Hence, combined utilization of these quinolone is important on the clinical treatment for tuberculosis.
Topics: Antitubercular Agents; Fluoroquinolones; Gatifloxacin; Humans; Levofloxacin; Moxifloxacin; Network Meta-Analysis; Tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary
PubMed: 36197231
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030412 -
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk... 2021The US Food and Drug Administration issued safety warnings about neuropathy in 2013 and dysglycemia in 2018 caused by fluoroquinolone use, mainly based on case reports... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The US Food and Drug Administration issued safety warnings about neuropathy in 2013 and dysglycemia in 2018 caused by fluoroquinolone use, mainly based on case reports and case series. We conducted this systematic review to evaluate the safety of fluoroquinolones in diabetic patients by investigating their dysglycemic and neuropathic effects.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies published from inception till September 2019 evaluating the safety of fluoroquinolones. Efficacy studies of fluoroquinolones reporting these adverse effects were also included. Primary outcomes were hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and neuropathy among patients with or without diabetes and treated with fluoroquinolones compared with placebo or other antibiotics. The Cochrane Collaboration tool for randomized controlled trials and modified Newcastle-Ottawa quality-assessment scale were used for assessment of the included studies.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total of 725 studies were identified in the initial search. After screening of titles and abstracts and full-text review, 16 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The sampled patients were aged 30-78 years. Hyperglycemia was reported in 1,588 patients that received fluoroquinolone among eight studies with 4,663 patients, and hypoglycemia was reported in 2,179 patients that received fluoroquinolones among eleven studies with 6,208 patients. Dysglycemia was not generally associated with diabetes mellitus per se. Nevertheless, patients with more comorbidities, especially those with chronic kidney disease, receiving antidiabetics and/or steroids had more glycemic events when treated with fluoroquinolones.
CONCLUSION
Moxifloxacin was found to be associated the most and ciprofloxacin the least with dysglycemia. fluoroquinolones must be used with great caution among diabetic patients who have comorbidities and are receiving antidiabetics and/or steroids. Further evidence is required from studies on neuropathy caused by fluoroquinolones.
PubMed: 34675522
DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S284171 -
Medicine Nov 2017The association between oral fluoroquinolones (FQs) usage and risk of severe arrhythmia-related events (ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death) remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The association between oral fluoroquinolones (FQs) usage and risk of severe arrhythmia-related events (ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death) remains controversial. Therefore we aimed to quantify this association and to evaluate the effects of FQs on adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes.
METHODS
We retrieved data from the Cochrane Collaboration, PubMed, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases until August 2017. The studies that reported relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations of interest were included. Data were extracted from the eligible articles, and we used a random effects model to calculate the effect estimates.
RESULTS
Of the 16 studies that were included, 7 studies included serious arrhythmias, 3 studies included CV death, and 11 studies included all-cause death. The pooled RRs of FQs use were: 2.29 (95% CI: 1.20-4.36, P = .01) for serious arrhythmias; 1.60 (95% CI: 1.17-2.20, P = .004) for CV death; and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.76-1.37, P = .92) for all-cause death. The RRs associated with serious arrhythmias were 6.27 for gatifloxacin, 4.20 for moxifloxacin, 1.73 for ciprofloxacin, and 1.41 for levofloxacin. Current FQs users showed an increased risk of serious arrhythmias in the subgroup analysis. Treatment with FQs is associated with an absolute risk increase of 160 additional sudden deaths or ventricular arrhythmias, and 43 additional CV deaths per 1 million treatment courses.
CONCLUSION
The use of FQs could increase the risk of serious arrhythmias and CV death but not increase or all-cause death. Moreover, moxifloxacin and levofloxacin showed a higher risk of serious arrhythmias.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Fluoroquinolones; Humans
PubMed: 29095256
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008273 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2011Typhoid and paratyphoid are febrile illnesses, due to a bacterial infection, which remain common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Typhoid and paratyphoid are febrile illnesses, due to a bacterial infection, which remain common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends the fluoroquinolone antibiotics in areas with known resistance to the older first-line antibiotics.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate fluoroquinolone antibiotics for treating children and adults with enteric fever.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched The Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register (February 2011); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to February 2011); EMBASE (1974 to February 2011); and LILACS (1982 to February 2011). We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) in February 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials examining fluoroquinolone antibiotics, in people with blood, stool or bone marrow culture-confirmed enteric fever.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the trial's methodological quality and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Comparative effectiveness has been interpreted in the context of; length of treatment, dose, year of study, known levels of antibiotic resistance, or proxy measures of resistance such as the failure rate in the comparator arm.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-six studies, involving 3033 patients, are included in this review.Fluoroquinolones versus older antibiotics (chloramphenicol, co-trimoxazole, amoxicillin and ampicillin)In one study from Pakistan in 2003-04, high clinical failure rates were seen with both chloramphenicol and co-trimoxazole, although resistance was not confirmed microbiologically. A seven-day course of either ciprofloxacin or ofloxacin were found to be superior. Older studies of these comparisons failed to show a difference (six trials, 361 participants).In small studies conducted almost two decades ago, the fluoroquinolones were demonstrated to have fewer clinical failures than ampicillin and amoxicillin (two trials, 90 participants, RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.57).Fluoroquinolones versus current second-line options (ceftriaxone, cefalexin, and azithromycin)The two studies comparing a seven day course of oral fluoroquinolones with three days of intravenous ceftriaxone were too small to detect important differences between antibiotics should they exist (two trials, 89 participants).In Pakistan in 2003-04, no clinical or microbiological failures were seen with seven days of either ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin or cefixime (one trial, 139 participants). In Nepal in 2005, gatifloxacin reduced clinical failure and relapse compared to cefixime, despite a high prevalence of NaR in the study population (one trial, 158 participants, RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.31).Compared to a seven day course of azithromycin, a seven day course of ofloxacin had a higher rate of clinical failures in populations with both multi-drug resistance (MDR) and nalidixic acid resistance (NaR) enteric fever in Vietnam in 1998-2002 (two trials, 213 participants, RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.94). However, a more recent study from Vietnam in 2004-05, detected no difference between gatifloxacin and azithromycin with both drugs performing well (one trial, 287 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Generally, fluoroquinolones performed well in treating typhoid, and maybe superior to alternatives in some settings. However, we were unable to draw firm general conclusions on comparative contemporary effectiveness given that resistance changes over time, and many studies were small. Policy makers and clinicians need to consider local resistance patterns in choosing a fluoroquinolone or alternative.There is some evidence that the newest fluoroquinolone, gatifloxacin, remains effective in some regions where resistance to older fluoroquinolones has developed. However, the different fluoroquinolones have not been compared directly in trials in these settings.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Norfloxacin; Paratyphoid Fever; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Typhoid Fever
PubMed: 21975746
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004530.pub4