-
JAMA Network Open Jul 2022The proportion of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) infections has changed, and it differs according to geographical region. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The proportion of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) infections has changed, and it differs according to geographical region.
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the global patterns, including the temporal trends, regional variations, and variant types, in the proportion of MRMP infections in this systematic review and meta-anaysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for observational studies from inception to September 10, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Observational studies reporting the proportion of MRMP infections were screened independently by 2 authors. The presence of MRMP infection was defined as any case of M pneumoniae infection positive for any variants associated with macrolide resistance identified using respiratory samples.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by 2 reviewers. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was used. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate the proportion of MRMP infections.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The global patterns in the proportion of MRMP infections were estimated, and the temporal trends and variant types of MRMP infection with regional differences were investigated.
RESULTS
This study included 153 studies from 150 articles (27 408 samples in 26 countries) in the meta-analysis. The global patterns in the proportion of MRMP infections showed an increasing trend with regional differences. The proportion of MRMP infections was highest in the Western Pacific regions (53.4%; 95% CI, 47.4%-60.3%), followed by the South East Asian region (9.8%; 95% CI, 0.8%-100%), the region of the Americas (8.4%; 95% CI, 6.1%-11.6%), and the European region (5.1%; 95% CI, 3.3%-8.0%). The most commonly identified variant of MRMP infection was A2063G (96.8%; 95% CI, 95.8%-97.7%), followed by A2064G (4.8%; 95% CI, 3.5%-6.7%). The proportion of MRMP infections was the highest in studies including only children (37.0%; 95% CI, 29.8%-46.1%), followed by those including only adults (15.9%; 95% CI, 6.4%-39.7%) and those including both children and adults (16.7%; 95% CI, 10.1%-27.6%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study provides global trends in the proportion of MRMP infections and suggests that strategies to prevent the spread of MRMP infection and to treat MRMP infections are needed to decrease disease burden.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Macrolides; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Pneumonia, Mycoplasma; United States
PubMed: 35816304
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.20949 -
Emerging Infectious Diseases Jul 2020A high prevalence rate of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) has been reported in Asia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A high prevalence rate of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) has been reported in Asia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of macrolide resistance on the manifestations and clinical judgment during M. pneumoniae infections. We found no difference in clinical severity between MRMP and macrolide-sensitive Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MSMP) infections. However, in the pooled data, patients infected with MRMP had a longer febrile period (1.71 days), length of hospital stay (1.61 day), antibiotic drug courses (2.93 days), and defervescence time after macrolide treatment (2.04 days) compared with patients infected with MSMP. The risk of fever lasting for >48 hours after macrolide treatment was also significantly increased (OR 21.24), and an increased proportion of patients was changed to second-line treatment (OR 4.42). Our findings indicate diagnostic and therapeutic challenges after the emergence of MRMP. More precise diagnostic tools and clearly defined treatment should be appraised in the future.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Asia; Child; Community-Acquired Infections; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Macrolides; Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Pneumonia, Mycoplasma
PubMed: 32568052
DOI: 10.3201/eid2607.200017 -
International Journal of Environmental... Sep 2022One of the public health issues faced worldwide is antibiotic resistance (AR). During the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, AR has increased. Since some studies... (Review)
Review
One of the public health issues faced worldwide is antibiotic resistance (AR). During the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, AR has increased. Since some studies have stated AR has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and others have stated otherwise, this study aimed to explore this impact. Seven databases-PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL-were searched using related keywords to identify studies relevant to AR during COVID-19 published from December 2019 to May 2022, according to PRISMA guidelines. Twenty-three studies were included in this review, and the evidence showed that AR has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The most commonly reported resistant Gram-negative bacteria was , followed by , , and . and were highly resistant to tested antibiotics compared with and . Moreover, showed high resistance to colistin. Commonly reported Gram-positive bacteria were and . The resistance of to ampicillin, erythromycin, and Ciprofloxacin was high. Self-antibiotic medication, empirical antibiotic administration, and antibiotics prescribed by general practitioners were the risk factors of high levels of AR during COVID-19. Antibiotics' prescription should be strictly implemented, relying on the Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) and guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) or Ministry of Health (MOH).
Topics: Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ciprofloxacin; Colistin; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Erythromycin; Escherichia coli; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Pandemics; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36231256
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191911931 -
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology Aug 2023Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a chronic, bilateral corneal and conjunctival problem which typically presents in young individuals. VKC is characterized by... (Review)
Review
Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a chronic, bilateral corneal and conjunctival problem which typically presents in young individuals. VKC is characterized by itching, photophobia, white mucous discharge, lacrimation, foreign body sensation, and pain due to corneal involvement of shield ulcers. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis is categorized within ocular diseases. The diagnosis is clinical, as no sure biomarkers pathognomonic of the disease have yet been identified. The VKC therapy relies on different types of drugs, from antihistamines and topical steroids to cyclosporine or tacrolimus eye drops. In extremely rare cases, there is also the need for surgical treatment for the debridement of ulcers, as well as for advanced glaucoma and cataracts, caused by excessive prolonged use of steroid eye drops. We performed a systematic review of the literature, according to PRISMA guideline recommendations. We searched the PubMed database from January 2016 to June 2023. Search terms were Vernal, Vernal keratoconjunctivitis, and VKC. We initially identified 211 articles. After the screening process, 168 studies were eligible according to our criteria and were included in the review. In this study, we performed a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive overview of currently available diagnostic methods, management of VKC, and its treatments.
Topics: Humans; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Ulcer; Cyclosporine; Tacrolimus; Ophthalmic Solutions
PubMed: 37658939
DOI: 10.1007/s12016-023-08970-4 -
Gut Microbes 2021Antibiotics in childhood have been linked with diseases including asthma, juvenile arthritis, type 1 diabetes, Crohn's disease and mental illness. The underlying... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Antibiotics in childhood have been linked with diseases including asthma, juvenile arthritis, type 1 diabetes, Crohn's disease and mental illness. The underlying mechanisms are thought related to dysbiosis of the gut microbiome. We conducted a systematic review of the association between antibiotics and disruption of the pediatric gut microbiome. Searches used MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. Eligible studies: association between antibiotics and gut microbiome dysbiosis; children 0-18 years; molecular techniques of assessment; outcomes of microbiome richness, diversity or composition. Quality assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analysis where possible. A total of 4,668 publications identified: 12 in final analysis (5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 5 cohort studies, 2 cross-sectional studies). Microbiome richness was measured in 3 studies, species diversity in 6, and species composition in 10. Quality of evidence was good or fair. 5 studies found a significant reduction in diversity and 3 a significant reduction in richness. Macrolide exposure was associated with reduced richness for twice as long as penicillin. Significant reductions were seen in (5 studies) and (2 studies), and significant increases in Proteobacteria such as (4 studies). A meta-analysis of RCTs of the effect of macrolide (azithromycin) exposure on the gut microbiome found a significant reduction in alpha-diversity (Shannon index: mean difference -0.86 (95% CI -1.59, -0.13). Antibiotic exposure was associated with reduced microbiome diversity and richness, and with changes in bacterial abundance. The potential for dysbiosis in the microbiome should be taken into account when prescribing antibiotics for children.: CRD42018094188.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Child; Child, Preschool; Dysbiosis; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn
PubMed: 33651651
DOI: 10.1080/19490976.2020.1870402 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Sep 2021Mycoplasma pneumoniae is a common pathogen that causes community-acquired pneumonia in school-age children. Macrolides are considered a first-line treatment for M.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones for the treatment of macrolide-refractory Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Mycoplasma pneumoniae is a common pathogen that causes community-acquired pneumonia in school-age children. Macrolides are considered a first-line treatment for M. pneumoniae infection in children, but macrolide-refractory M. pneumoniae (MRMP) strains have become more common. In this study, we assessed the efficacy of tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones in MRMP treatment in children through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Two reviewers individually searched 10 electronic databases (Medline/Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and core Korean, Chinese, and Japanese journals) for papers published from January 1, 1990 to March 8, 2018. The following data for each treatment group were extracted from the selected studies: intervention (tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones/comparator), patient characteristics (age and sex), and outcomes (fever duration, hospital stay length, treatment success rate, and defervescence rates 24, 48, and 72 h after starting treatment).
RESULTS
Eight studies involving 537 participants were included. Fever duration and hospital stay length were shorter in the tetracycline group than in the macrolide group (weighted mean difference [WMD] = - 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 2.55 to - 0.36, P = 0.009; and WMD = - 3.33, 95% CI: - 4.32 to - 2.35, P < 0.00001, respectively). The therapeutic efficacy was significantly higher in the tetracycline group than in the macrolide group (odds ratio [OR]: 8.80, 95% CI: 3.12-24.82). With regard to defervescence rate, patients in the tetracycline group showed significant improvement compared to those in the macrolide group (defervescence rate after 24 h, OR: 5.34, 95% CI: 1.81-15.75; after 48 h, OR 18.37, 95% CI: 8.87-38.03; and after 72 h, OR: 40.77, 95% CI: 6.15-270.12). There were no differences in fever improvement within 24 h in patients in the fluoroquinolone group compared to those in the macrolide group (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.25-5.00), although the defervescence rate was higher after 48 h in the fluoroquinolone group (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.41-5.51).
CONCLUSION
Tetracyclines may shorten fever duration and hospital stay length in patients with MRMP infection. Fluoroquinolones may achieve defervescence within 48 h in patients with MRMP infection. However, these results should be carefully interpreted as only a small number of studies were included, and they were heterogeneous.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Macrolides; Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Pneumonia, Mycoplasma; Tetracyclines
PubMed: 34563128
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06508-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Atopic dermatitis (AD) (or atopic eczema) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects children and adults and has an important impact on quality of life.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) (or atopic eczema) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects children and adults and has an important impact on quality of life. Topical corticosteroids (TCS) are the first-line therapy for this condition; however, they can be associated with significant adverse effects when used chronically. Tacrolimus ointment (in its 2 manufactured strengths of 0.1% and 0.03%) might be an alternative treatment. Tacrolimus, together with pimecrolimus, are drugs called topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical tacrolimus for moderate and severe atopic dermatitis compared with other active treatments.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 3 June 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 5, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), and the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT database). We searched six trials registers and checked the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We contacted specialists in the field for unpublished data.A separate search for adverse effects of topical tacrolimus was undertaken in MEDLINE and EMBASE on 30 July 2013. We also scrutinised the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites for adverse effects information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (both children and adults) using topical tacrolimus at any dose, course duration, and follow-up time compared with other active treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened and examined the full text of selected studies for compliance with eligibility criteria, risk of bias, and data extraction. Our three prespecified primary outcomes were physician's assessment, participant's self-assessment of improvement, and adverse effects. Our secondary outcomes included assessment of improvement of the disease by validated or objective measures, such as SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis), the EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index), and BSA (Body Surface Area) scores.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 studies, with 5885 participants. The variability of drug doses, outcomes, and follow-up periods made it difficult to carry out meta-analyses.A single trial showed that tacrolimus 0.1% was better than low-potency TCS by the physician's assessment (risk ratio (RR) 3.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.14 to 4.45, 1 study, n = 371, moderate-quality evidence). It was also marginally better than low-potency TCS on face and neck areas and moderate-potency TCS on the trunk and extremities by the physician's assessment (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.49, 1 study, n = 972, moderate level of evidence) and for some of the secondary outcomes. Compared with pimecrolimus 1%, people treated with tacrolimus were almost twice as likely to improve by the physician's assessment (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.42, 2 studies, n = 506, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with the lower concentration of 0.03%, the tacrolimus 0.1% formulation reduced the risk of not having an improvement by 18% as evaluated by the physician's assessment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92, 6 studies, n = 1640, high-quality evidence). Tacrolimus 0.1% compared with moderate-to-potent TCS showed no difference by the physician's assessment, and 2 secondary outcomes (1 study, 377 participants) and a marginal benefit favouring tacrolimus 0.1% was found by the participant's assessment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.29, 1 study, n = 974, low quality of evidence) and SCORAD.Based on data from 2 trials, tacrolimus 0.03% was superior to mild TCS for the physician's assessment (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.96 to 3.38, 2 studies, n = 790, moderate-quality evidence) and the participant's self-assessment (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.90, 1 study, n = 416, moderate quality of evidence). One trial showed moderate benefit of tacrolimus 0.03% compared with pimecrolimus 1% on the physician's assessment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.98, 1 study, n = 139, low-quality evidence), but the effects were equivocal when evaluating BSA. In the comparison of tacrolimus 0.03% with moderate-to-potent corticosteroids, no difference was found in most of the outcomes measured (including physician's and participant's assessment and also for the secondary outcomes), but in two studies, a marginal benefit favouring the corticosteroid group was found for the EASI and BSA scores.Burning was more frequent in those using calcineurin inhibitors than those using corticosteroid tacrolimus 0.03% (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.96 to 3.14, 5 studies, 1883 participants, high-quality evidence), but no difference was found for skin infections. Symptoms observed were mild and transient. The comparison between the two calcineurin inhibitors (pimecrolimus and tacrolimus) showed the same overall incidence of adverse events, but with a small difference in the frequency of local effects.Serious adverse events were rare; occurred in both the tacrolimus and corticosteroid groups; and in most cases, were considered to be unrelated to the treatment. No cases of lymphoma were noted in the included studies nor in the non-comparative studies. Cases were only noted in spontaneous reports, cohorts, and case-control studies. Systemic absorption was rarely detectable, only in low levels, and this decreased with time. Exception is made for diseases with severe barrier defects, such as Netherton's syndrome, lamellar ichthyosis, and a few others, with case reports of a higher absorption. We evaluated clinical trials; case reports; and in vivo, in vitro, and animal studies; and didn't find any evidence that topical tacrolimus could cause skin atrophy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Tacrolimus 0.1% was better than low-potency corticosteroids, pimecrolimus 1%, and tacrolimus 0.03%. Results were equivocal when comparing both dose formulations to moderate-to-potent corticosteroids. Tacrolimus 0.03% was superior to mild corticosteroids and pimecrolimus. Both tacrolimus formulations seemed to be safe, and no evidence was found to support the possible increased risk of malignancies or skin atrophy with their use. The reliability and strength of the evidence was limited by the lack of data; thus, findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. We did not evaluate costs.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 26132597
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009864.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Rosacea is a common chronic skin condition affecting the face, characterised by flushing, redness, pimples, pustules and dilated blood vessels. The eyes are often... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rosacea is a common chronic skin condition affecting the face, characterised by flushing, redness, pimples, pustules and dilated blood vessels. The eyes are often involved and thickening of the skin with enlargement (phymas), especially of the nose, can occur in some people. A range of treatment options are available but it is unclear which are most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of treatments for rosacea.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches, to July 2014, of: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and Science Citation Index (from 1988). We searched five trials registers and checked reference lists for further relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in people with moderate to severe rosacea.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses were carried out independently by two authors.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 106 studies, comprising 13,631 participants. Sample sizes of 30-100 and study duration of two to three months were most common. More women than men were included, mean age of 48.6 years, and the majority had papulopustular rosacea, followed by erythematotelangiectatic rosacea.A wide range of comparisons (67) were evaluated. Topical interventions: metronidazole, azelaic acid, ivermectin, brimonidine or other topical treatments. Systemic interventions: oral antibiotics, combinations with topical treatments or other systemic treatments, i.e. isotretinoin. Several studies evaluated laser or light-based treatment.The majority of studies (57/106) were assessed as 'unclear risk of bias', 37 'high risk ' and 12 'low risk'. Twenty-two studies provided no usable or retrievable data i.e. none of our outcomes were addressed, no separate data reported for rosacea or limited data in abstracts.Eleven studies assessed our primary outcome 'change in quality of life', 52 studies participant-assessed changes in rosacea severity and almost all studies addressed adverse events, although often only limited data were provided. In most comparisons there were no statistically significant differences in number of adverse events, most were mild and transient. Physician assessments including investigators' global assessments, lesion counts and erythema were evaluated in three-quarters of the studies, but time needed for improvement and duration of remission were incompletely or not reported.The quality of the body of evidence was rated moderate to high for most outcomes, but for some outcomes low to very low.Data for several outcomes could only be pooled for topical metronidazole and azelaic acid. Both were shown to be more effective than placebo in papulopustular rosacea (moderate quality evidence for metronidazole and high for azelaic acid). Pooled data from physician assessments in three trials demonstrated that metronidazole was more effective compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 3.02). Four trials provided data on participants' assessments, illustrating that azelaic acid was more effective than placebo (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.63). The results from three studies were contradictory on which of these two treatments was most effective.Two studies showed a statistically significant and clinically important improvement in favour of topical ivermectin when compared to placebo (high quality evidence). Participants' assessments in these studies showed a RR of 1.78 (95% CI 1.50 to 2.11) and RR of 1.92 (95% CI 1.59 to 2.32),which were supported by physicians' assessments. Topical ivermectin appeared to be slightly more effective than topical metronidazole for papulopustular rosacea, based on one study, for improving quality of life and participant and physician assessed outcomes (high quality evidence for these outcomes).Topical brimonidine in two studies was more effective than vehicle in reducing erythema in rosacea at all time points over 12 hours (high quality evidence). At three hours the participants' assessments had a RR of 2.21 (95% CI 1.52 to 3.22) and RR of 2.00 (95% CI 1.33 to 3.01) in favour of brimonidine. Physicians' assessments confirmed these data. There was no rebound or worsening of erythema after treatment cessation.Topical clindamycin phosphate combined with tretinoin was not considered to be effective compared to placebo (moderate quality evidence).Topical ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion demonstrated effectiveness and improved quality of life for people with ocular rosacea (low quality evidence).Of the comparisons assessing oral treatments for papulopustular rosacea there was moderate quality evidence that tetracycline was effective but this was based on two old studies of short duration. Physician-based assessments in two trials indicated that doxycycline appeared to be significantly more effective than placebo (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.47 and RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.12 to 4.99) (high quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in effectiveness between 100 mg and 40 mg doxycycline, but there was evidence of fewer adverse effects with the lower dose (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.54) (low quality evidence). There was very low quality evidence from one study (assessed at high risk of bias) that doxycycline 100 mg was as effective as azithromycin. Low dose minocycline (45 mg) was effective for papulopustular rosacea (low quality evidence).Oral tetracycline was compared with topical metronidazole in four studies and showed no statistically significant difference between the two treatments for any outcome (low to moderate quality evidence).Low dose isotretinoin was considered by both the participants (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.43) and physicians (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.36) to be slightly more effective than doxycycline 50-100 mg (high quality evidence).Pulsed dye laser was more effective than yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser based on one study, and it appeared to be as effective as intense pulsed light therapy (both low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was high quality evidence to support the effectiveness of topical azelaic acid, topical ivermectin, brimonidine, doxycycline and isotretinoin for rosacea. Moderate quality evidence was available for topical metronidazole and oral tetracycline. There was low quality evidence for low dose minocycline, laser and intense pulsed light therapy and ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion for ocular rosacea. Time needed to response and response duration should be addressed more completely, with more rigorous reporting of adverse events. Further studies on treatment of ocular rosacea are warranted.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Brimonidine Tartrate; Cyclosporine; Dermatologic Agents; Dicarboxylic Acids; Doxycycline; Female; Humans; Ivermectin; Male; Metronidazole; Middle Aged; Ophthalmic Solutions; Quinoxalines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rosacea; Tetracycline
PubMed: 25919144
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003262.pub5 -
Revista Do Instituto de Medicina... 2021The aim of this study was to establish an evidence-based guideline for the antibiotic treatment of Corynebacterium striatum infections. Several electronic databases were...
The aim of this study was to establish an evidence-based guideline for the antibiotic treatment of Corynebacterium striatum infections. Several electronic databases were systematically searched for clinical trials, observational studies or individual cases on patients of any age and gender with systemic inflammatory response syndrome, harboring C. striatum isolated from body fluids or tissues in which it is not normally present. C. striatum had to be identified as the only causative agent of the invasive infection, and its isolation from blood, body fluids or tissues had to be confirmed by one of the more advanced diagnostic methods (biochemical methods, mass spectrometry and/or gene sequencing). This systematic review included 42 studies that analyzed 85 individual cases with various invasive infections caused by C. striatum. More than one isolate of C. striatum exhibited 100% susceptibility to vancomycin, linezolid, teicoplanin, piperacillin-tazobactam, amoxicillin-clavulanate and cefuroxime. On the other hand, some strains of this bacterium showed a high degree of resistance to fluoroquinolones, to the majority majority of β-lactams, aminoglycosides, macrolides, lincosamides and cotrimoxazole. Despite the antibiotic treatment, fatal outcomes were reported in almost 20% of the patients included in this study. Gene sequencing methods should be the gold standard for the identification of C. striatum, while MALDI-TOF and the Vitek system can be used as alternative methods. Vancomycin should be used as the antibiotic of choice for the treatment of C. striatum infections, in monotherapy or in combination with piperacillin-tazobactam. Alternatively, linezolid, teicoplanin or daptomycin may be used in severe infections, while amoxicillin-clavulanate may be used to treat mild infections caused by C. striatum.
Topics: Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Corynebacterium; Corynebacterium Infections; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 34161555
DOI: 10.1590/S1678-9946202163049 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).
MAIN RESULTS
We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Ivermectin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 35726131
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3