-
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Aug 2022Precise estimates of mortality in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) are important to convey prognosis and guide the design of interventional studies. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Precise estimates of mortality in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) are important to convey prognosis and guide the design of interventional studies.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate all-cause mortality in SAB and explore mortality change over time.
DATA SOURCES
The MEDLINE and Embase databases, as well as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were searched from January 1, 1991 to May 7, 2021.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Human observational studies on patients with S. aureus bloodstream infection were included.
PARTICIPANTS
The study analyzed data of patients with a positive blood culture for S. aureus.
METHODS
Two independent reviewers extracted study data and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A generalized, linear, mixed random effects model was used to pool estimates.
RESULTS
A total of 341 studies were included, describing a total of 536,791 patients. From 2011 onward, the estimated mortality was 10.4% (95% CI, 9.0%-12.1%) at 7 days, 13.3% (95% CI, 11.1%-15.8%) at 2 weeks, 18.1% (95% CI, 16.3%-20.0%) at 1 month, 27.0% (95% CI, 21.5%-33.3%) at 3 months, and 30.2% (95% CI, 22.4%-39.3%) at 1 year. In a meta-regression model of 1-month mortality, methicillin-resistant S. aureus had a higher mortality rate (adjusted OR (aOR): 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06 per 10% increase in methicillin-resistant S. aureus proportion). Compared with prior to 2001, more recent time periods had a lower mortality rate (aOR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.03 for 2001-2010; aOR: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97 for 2011 onward).
CONCLUSIONS
SAB mortality has decreased over the last 3 decades. However, more than one in four patients will die within 3 months, and continuous improvement in care remains necessary.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteremia; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Sepsis; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 35339678
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.03.015 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2023Vancomycin (VCM) and daptomycin (DAP) are standard therapies for methicillin-resistant (MRSA) bacteremia, despite concerns regarding clinical utility and growing... (Review)
Review
Vancomycin (VCM) and daptomycin (DAP) are standard therapies for methicillin-resistant (MRSA) bacteremia, despite concerns regarding clinical utility and growing resistance. Linezolid (LZD) affords superior tissue penetration to VCM or DAP and has been successfully used as salvage therapy for persistent MRSA bacteremia, indicating its utility as a first-choice drug against MRSA bacteremia. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the effectiveness and safety of LZD with VCM, teicoplanin (TEIC), or DAP in patients with MRSA bacteremia. We evaluated all-cause mortality as the primary effectiveness outcome, clinical and microbiological cure, hospital length of stay, recurrence, and 90-day readmission rates as secondary effectiveness outcomes, and drug-related adverse effects as primary safety outcomes. We identified 5328 patients across 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 pooled analysis of 5 RCTs, 1 subgroup analysis (1 RCT), and 5 case-control and cohort studies (CSs). Primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes were comparable between patients treated with LZD versus VCM, TEIC, or DAP in RCT-based studies and CSs. There was no difference in adverse event incidence between LZD and comparators. These findings suggest that LZD could be a potential first-line drug against MRSA bacteremia as well as VCM or DAP.
PubMed: 37107059
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12040697 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Mar 2020Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most common pathogens causing nosocomial and community-acquired infections associated with high morbidity and mortality. Mupirocin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most common pathogens causing nosocomial and community-acquired infections associated with high morbidity and mortality. Mupirocin has been increasingly used for treatment of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infections. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of mupirocin-resistant S. aureus (MuRSA), mupirocin-resistant MRSA (MuRMRSA), high-level MuRSA (HLMuRSA) and high-level MuRMRSA (HLMuRMRSA) worldwide.
METHODS
Online databases including Medline, Embase and Web of Science were searched (2000-2018) to identify studies addressing the prevalence of MuRSA, MuRMRSA, HLMuRSA and HLMuRMRSA. STATA v. software was used to interpret the data.
RESULTS
Of the 2243 records identified from the databases, 30 and 63 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria for MuRSA and MuRMRSA, respectively. Finally, 27 and 60 studies were included separately for HLMuRSA and HLMuRMRSA, respectively. The analyses revealed pooled and averaged prevalences of MuRSA, MuRMRSA, HLMuRSA and HLMuRMRSA of 7.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.2-9.0%], 13.8% (95% CI 12.0-15.6%), 8.5% (95% CI 6.3-10.7%) and 8.1% (95% CI 6.8-9.4%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Overall, these results show a global increase in the prevalence of HLMuRSA and HLMuRMRSA among clinical S. aureus isolates over time. However, there was only a significant increase in the prevalence of MuRMRSA compared with the other categories, especially MuRSA. Since mupirocin remains the most effective antibiotic for MSSA and MRSA decolonisation both in patients and healthcare personnel, a reduction of its effectiveness presents a risk for invasive infection. Monitoring of mupirocin resistance development remains critical.
Topics: Community-Acquired Infections; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Mupirocin; Population Surveillance; Prevalence; Staphylococcal Infections
PubMed: 31442624
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2019.07.032 -
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Sep 2016Coinfecting bacterial pathogens are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in influenza. However, there remains a paucity of literature on the magnitude of coinfection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Coinfecting bacterial pathogens are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in influenza. However, there remains a paucity of literature on the magnitude of coinfection in influenza patients.
METHOD
A systematic search of MeSH, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and PubMed was performed. Studies of humans in which all individuals had laboratory confirmed influenza, and all individuals were tested for an array of common bacterial species, met inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies including 3215 participants met all inclusion criteria. Common etiologies were defined from a subset of eight articles. There was high heterogeneity in the results (I(2) = 95%), with reported coinfection rates ranging from 2% to 65%. Although only a subset of papers were responsible for observed heterogeneity, subanalyses and meta-regression analysis found no study characteristic that was significantly associated with coinfection. The most common coinfecting species were Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus, which accounted for 35% (95% CI, 14%-56%) and 28% (95% CI, 16%-40%) of infections, respectively; a wide range of other pathogens caused the remaining infections. An assessment of bias suggested that lack of small-study publications may have biased the results.
CONCLUSIONS
The frequency of coinfection in the published studies included in this review suggests that although providers should consider possible bacterial coinfection in all patients hospitalized with influenza, they should not assume all patients are coinfected and be sure to properly treat underlying viral processes. Further, high heterogeneity suggests additional large-scale studies are needed to better understand the etiology of influenza bacterial coinfection.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Coinfection; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Influenza, Human; Male; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Middle Aged; Pneumococcal Infections; Staphylococcal Infections; Streptococcus pneumoniae; Young Adult
PubMed: 27232677
DOI: 10.1111/irv.12398 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Mar 2023COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two intersecting global public health crises. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two intersecting global public health crises.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AMR across health care settings.
DATA SOURCE
A search was conducted in December 2021 in WHO COVID-19 Research Database with forward citation searching up to June 2022.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY
Studies evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on AMR in any population were included and influencing factors were extracted. Reporting of enhanced infection prevention and control and/or antimicrobial stewardship programs was noted.
METHODS
Pooling was done separately for Gram-negative and Gram-positive organisms. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
Of 6036 studies screened, 28 were included and 23 provided sufficient data for meta-analysis. The majority of studies focused on hospital settings (n = 25, 89%). The COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with a change in the incidence density (incidence rate ratio 0.99, 95% CI: 0.67-1.47) or proportion (risk ratio 0.91, 95% CI: 0.55-1.49) of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci cases. A non-statistically significant increase was noted for resistant Gram-negative organisms (i.e. extended-spectrum beta-lactamase, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem or multi-drug resistant or carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Acinetobacter baumannii, incidence rate ratio 1.64, 95% CI: 0.92-2.92; risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI: 0.91-1.29). The absence of reported enhanced infection prevention and control and/or antimicrobial stewardship programs initiatives was associated with an increase in gram-negative AMR (risk ratio 1.11, 95% CI: 1.03-1.20). However, a test for subgroup differences showed no statistically significant difference between the presence and absence of these initiatives (p 0.40).
CONCLUSION
The COVID-19 pandemic may have hastened the emergence and transmission of AMR, particularly for Gram-negative organisms in hospital settings. But there is considerable heterogeneity in both the AMR metrics used and the rate of resistance reported across studies. These findings reinforce the need for strengthened infection prevention, antimicrobial stewardship, and AMR surveillance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; COVID-19; Carbapenems
PubMed: 36509377
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.12.006 -
European Journal of Integrative Medicine Oct 2016The therapeutic use of animals has been debated for decades, and its use explored in a variety of settings and populations. However, there is no uniformity on naming... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The therapeutic use of animals has been debated for decades, and its use explored in a variety of settings and populations. However, there is no uniformity on naming these interventions. Evidence based knowledge is essential to implement effective strategies in hospital. This review focused on the use of animal programs for hospitalized patients, and considered the potential risks.
METHODS
The following databases were searched: PubMed, Scopus, PsychInfo, Ebsco Animals, PROQUEST, Web of Science, CINAHL, and MEDLINE, and PRISMA guidelines were adhered to.
RESULTS
Out of 432 articles were identified 36 articles suitable for inclusion into the review. Data was heterogeneous in terms of age of patient, health issue, animals used and the length of interactions, which made comparison problematic. Studies on children, psychiatric and elderly patients were the most common. The animal-intervention programs suggested various benefits such as reducing stress, pain and anxiety. Other outcomes considered were changes in vital signs, and nutritional intake. Most studies used dogs, but other animals were effectively employed. The major risks outlined were allergies, infections and animal-related accidents. Zoonosis was a possible risk, as well as common infections as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus. The implementation of simple hygiene protocols was effective at minimizing risk. The literature suggested that the benefits outweighed by far the risks.
CONCLUSION
The human relationship with animals can be useful and relatively safe for inpatients with various problems. Moreover, the implementation of security precautions and the careful selection of patients should minimize the risks, particularly those infection-related. Many aspects remain unclear, further studies are required.
PubMed: 32362955
DOI: 10.1016/j.eujim.2016.05.005 -
JAMA Dermatology Sep 2019The optimum antibiotic treatment for cellulitis and erysipelas lacks consensus. The available trial data do not demonstrate the superiority of any agent, and data are...
IMPORTANCE
The optimum antibiotic treatment for cellulitis and erysipelas lacks consensus. The available trial data do not demonstrate the superiority of any agent, and data are limited on the most appropriate route of administration or duration of therapy.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic therapy for non-surgically acquired cellulitis.
DATA SOURCES
The following databases were searched to June 28, 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, issue 5), Medline (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Information System (LILACS) (from 1982). In addition, 5 trials databases and the reference lists of included studies were searched. Further searches of PubMed and Google Scholar were undertaken from June 28, 2016, to December 31, 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials comparing different antibiotics, routes of administration, and treatment durations were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
For data collection and analysis, the standard methodological procedures of the Cochrane Collaboration were used. For dichotomous outcomes, the risk ratio and its 95% CI were calculated. A summary of findings table was created for the primary end points, adopting the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the proportion of patients cured, improved, recovered, or symptom-free or symptom-reduced at the end of treatment, as reported by the trial. The secondary outcome was any adverse event.
RESULTS
A total of 43 studies with a total of 5999 evaluable participants, whose age ranged from 1 month to 96 years, were included. Cellulitis was the primary diagnosis in only 15 studies (35%), and in other studies the median (interquartile range) proportion of patients with cellulitis was 29.7% (22.9%-50.3%). Overall, no evidence was found to support the superiority of any 1 antibiotic over another, and antibiotics with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus did not add an advantage. Use of intravenous antibiotics over oral antibiotics and treatment duration of longer than 5 days were not supported by evidence.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, only low-quality evidence was found for the most appropriate agent, route of administration, and duration of treatment for patients with cellulitis; future trials need to use a standardized set of outcomes, including severity scoring, dosing, and duration of therapy.
PubMed: 31188407
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0884 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Health care-associated infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene is regarded as an effective preventive measure. This is an update of a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Health care-associated infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene is regarded as an effective preventive measure. This is an update of a previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the short- and long-term success of strategies to improve compliance to recommendations for hand hygiene, and to determine whether an increase in hand hygiene compliance can reduce rates of health care-associated infection.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. We conducted the searches from November 2009 to October 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) that evaluated any intervention to improve compliance with hand hygiene using soap and water or alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR), or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias for each included study. Meta-analysis was not possible, as there was substantial heterogeneity across studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and present the results narratively in a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 26 studies: 14 randomised trials, two non-randomised trials and 10 ITS studies. Most studies were conducted in hospitals or long-term care facilities in different countries, and collected data from a variety of healthcare workers. Fourteen studies assessed the success of different combinations of strategies recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to improve hand hygiene compliance. Strategies consisted of the following: increasing the availability of ABHR, different types of education for staff, reminders (written and verbal), different types of performance feedback, administrative support, and staff involvement. Six studies assessed different types of performance feedback, two studies evaluated education, three studies evaluated cues such as signs or scent, and one study assessed placement of ABHR. Observed hand hygiene compliance was measured in all but three studies which reported product usage. Eight studies also reported either infection or colonisation rates. All studies had two or more sources of high or unclear risks of bias, most often associated with blinding or independence of the intervention.Multimodal interventions that include some but not all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (five studies; 56 centres) and may slightly reduce infection rates (three studies; 34 centres), low certainty of evidence for both outcomes.Multimodal interventions that include all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines may slightly reduce colonisation rates (one study; 167 centres; low certainty of evidence). It is unclear whether the intervention improves hand hygiene compliance (five studies; 184 centres) or reduces infection (two studies; 16 centres) because the certainty of this evidence is very low.Multimodal interventions that contain all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines plus additional strategies may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (six studies; 15 centres; low certainty of evidence). It is unclear whether this intervention reduces infection rates (one study; one centre; very low certainty of evidence).Performance feedback may improve hand hygiene compliance (six studies; 21 centres; low certainty of evidence). This intervention probably slightly reduces infection (one study; one centre) and colonisation rates (one study; one centre) based on moderate certainty of evidence.Education may improve hand hygiene compliance (two studies; two centres), low certainty of evidence.Cues such as signs or scent may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (three studies; three centres), low certainty of evidence.Placement of ABHR close to point of use probably slightly improves hand hygiene compliance (one study; one centre), moderate certainty of evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
With the identified variability in certainty of evidence, interventions, and methods, there remains an urgent need to undertake methodologically robust research to explore the effectiveness of multimodal versus simpler interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance, and to identify which components of multimodal interventions or combinations of strategies are most effective in a particular context.
Topics: Clostridioides difficile; Clostridium Infections; Cross Infection; Hand Disinfection; Health Personnel; Humans; Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient; Interrupted Time Series Analysis; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Staphylococcal Infections
PubMed: 28862335
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005186.pub4 -
Pharmacotherapy Sep 2022Vancomycin is commonly used to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections and is known to cause nephrotoxicity. Previous Vancomycin Consensus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Vancomycin is commonly used to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections and is known to cause nephrotoxicity. Previous Vancomycin Consensus Guidelines recommended targeting trough concentrations but the 2020 Guidelines suggest monitoring vancomycin area under the curve (AUC) given the reduced risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) at similar levels of efficacy. This meta-analysis compares vancomycin-induced AKI incidence using AUC-guided dosing strategies versus trough-based monitoring. Literature was queried from Medline (Ovid), Web of Science, and Google Scholar from database inception through November 5, 2021. Interventional or observational studies reporting the incidence of vancomycin-induced AKI between AUC- and trough-guided dosing strategies were included. In the primary analysis, the Vancomycin Consensus Guidelines definition for AKI was used if reported; otherwise, the Risk, Injury, and Failure; and Loss, and End-stage kidney disease (RIFLE) or Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) definitions were used. The incidence of nephrotoxicity was evaluated between the two strategies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model, and odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Subgroup analyses for adjusted ORs and AKI definitions were performed. Heterogeneity was identified using Cochrane's Q test and I statistics. A total of 10 studies with 4231 patients were included. AUC-guided dosing strategies were associated with significantly less vancomycin-induced AKI than trough-guided strategies [OR 0.625, 95% CI (0.469-0.834), p = 0.001; I = 25.476]. A subgroup analysis of three studies reporting adjusted ORs yielded similar results [OR 0.475, 95% CI (0.261-0.863), p = 0.015]. Stratification by AKI definition showed a significant reduction in AKI with the Vancomycin Consensus Guidelines definition [OR 0.552, 95% CI (0.341-0.894), p = 0.016] but failed to find significance in the alternative definitions. Area under the curve-guided dosing strategies are associated with a lower incidence of vancomycin-induced AKI versus trough-guided dosing strategies (GRADE, low). Limitations included the variety of AKI definitions and the potential for confounding bias.
Topics: Humans; Acute Kidney Injury; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Area Under Curve; Electrolytes; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Retrospective Studies; Vancomycin
PubMed: 35869689
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2722 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Mar 2021American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines suggest that linezolid (LZD) is preferred over vancomycin (VCM) for treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines suggest that linezolid (LZD) is preferred over vancomycin (VCM) for treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia. We conducted a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis to compare VCM and LZD efficacy against proven MRSA pneumonia.
METHODS
We searched EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed up to November 2019. The outcomes of the meta-analysis were mortality, clinical cure, microbiological evaluation, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1239 patients and eight retrospective cohort or case-control studies (CSs) with a total 6125 patients were identified. Clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates were significantly increased in patients treated with LZD in RCTs (clinical cure: risk ratio (RR) = 0.81, 95% confidential interval (CI) = 0.71-0.92; microbiological eradication: RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.62-0.81) and CSs (clinical cure: odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.18-0.69). However, mortality was comparable between patients treated with VCM and LZD in RCTs (RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.88-1.32) and CSs (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.94-1.53). Likewise, there was no significant difference in adverse events between VCM and LZD in CSs (thrombocytopenia: OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.50-1.82; nephrotoxicity: OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 0.85-3.45).
CONCLUSIONS
According to our meta-analysis of RCTs and CSs conducted worldwide, we found robust evidence to corroborate the IDSA guidelines for the treatment of proven MRSA pneumonia.
Topics: Acetamides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Linezolid; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Oxazolidinones; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 33401013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2020.12.009