-
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease and is used in more than 200,000 such patients globally. However, its value... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease and is used in more than 200,000 such patients globally. However, its value is often limited by the development of infections such as peritonitis and exit-site and tunnel infections. Multiple strategies have been developed to reduce the risk of peritonitis including antibiotics, topical disinfectants to the exit site and antifungal agents. However, the effectiveness of these strategies has been variable and are based on a small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The optimal preventive strategies to reduce the occurrence of peritonitis remain unclear.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of antimicrobial strategies used to prevent peritonitis in PD patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 4 October 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs or quasi-RCTs in patients receiving chronic PD, which evaluated any antimicrobial agents used systemically or locally to prevent peritonitis or exit-site/tunnel infection were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-nine studies, randomising 4435 patients, were included. Twenty additional studies have been included in this update. The risk of bias domains were often unclear or high; risk of bias was judged to be low in 19 (49%) studies for random sequence generation, 12 (31%) studies for allocation concealment, 22 (56%) studies for incomplete outcome reporting, and in 12 (31%) studies for selective outcome reporting. Blinding of participants and personnel was considered to be at low risk of bias in 8 (21%) and 10 studies (26%) for blinding of outcome assessors. It should be noted that blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in many of the studies because of the nature of the intervention or control treatment.The use of oral or topical antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment, had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 191 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.04) and the risk of peritonitis (5 studies, 395 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.19).The use of nasal antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.87) and the risk of peritonitis (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.31).Pre/perioperative intravenous vancomycin compared with no treatment may reduce the risk of early peritonitis (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61) but has an uncertain effect on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.32).The use of topical disinfectant compared with standard care or other active treatment (antibiotic or other disinfectant) had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (8 studies, 973 patients, low quality evidence, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33) and the risk of peritonitis (6 studies, 853 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06).Antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin/fluconazole compared with placebo/no treatment may reduce the risk of fungal peritonitis occurring after a patient has had an antibiotic course (2 studies, 817 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63).No intervention reduced the risk of catheter removal or replacement. Most of the available studies were small and of suboptimal quality. Only six studies enrolled 200 or more patients.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this update, we identified limited data from RCTs and quasi-RCTs which evaluated strategies to prevent peritonitis and exit-site/tunnel infections. This review demonstrates that pre/peri-operative intravenous vancomycin may reduce the risk of early peritonitis and that antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin or fluconazole reduces the risk of fungal peritonitis following an antibiotic course. However, no other antimicrobial interventions have proven efficacy. In particular, the use of nasal antibiotic to eradicate Staphylococcus aureus, had an uncertain effect on the risk of peritonitis and raises questions about the usefulness of this approach. Given the large number of patients on PD and the importance of peritonitis, the lack of adequately powered and high quality RCTs to inform decision making about strategies to prevent peritonitis is striking.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Antifungal Agents; Catheter-Related Infections; Device Removal; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Mupirocin; Mycoses; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 28390069
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004679.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Despite the health benefits of breastfeeding, initiation and duration rates continue to fall short of international guidelines. Many factors influence a woman's decision... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite the health benefits of breastfeeding, initiation and duration rates continue to fall short of international guidelines. Many factors influence a woman's decision to wean; the main reason cited for weaning is associated with lactation complications, such as mastitis. Mastitis is an inflammation of the breast, with or without infection. It can be viewed as a continuum of disease, from non-infective inflammation of the breast to infection that may lead to abscess formation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of preventive strategies (for example, breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies) on the occurrence or recurrence of non-infective or infective mastitis in breastfeeding women post-childbirth.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing mastitis in postpartum breastfeeding women. Quasi-randomised controlled trials and trials reported only in abstract form were eligible. We attempted to contact the authors to obtain any unpublished results, wherever possible. Interventions for preventing mastitis may include: probiotics, specialist breastfeeding advice and holistic approaches. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 trials (3034 women). Nine trials (2395 women) contributed data. Generally, the trials were at low risk of bias in most domains but some were high risk for blinding, attrition bias, and selective reporting. Selection bias (allocation concealment) was generally unclear. The certainty of evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and to imprecision (low numbers of women participating in the trials). Conflicts of interest on the part of trial authors, and the involvement of industry funders may also have had an impact on the certainty of the evidence. Most trials reported our primary outcome of incidence of mastitis but there were almost no data relating to adverse effects, breast pain, duration of breastfeeding, nipple damage, breast abscess or recurrence of mastitis. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may reduce the risk of mastitis more than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.75; 2 trials; 399 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if probiotics reduce the risk of breast pain or nipple damage because the certainty of evidence is very low. Results for the biggest of these trials (639 women) are currently unavailable due to a contractual agreement between the probiotics supplier and the trialists. Adverse effects were reported in one trial, where no woman in either group experienced any adverse effects. Antibiotics versus placebo or usual care The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and usual care or placebo (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.34; 3 trials; 429 women; low-certainty evidence). The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and fusidic acid ointment (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.81; 1 trial; 36 women; low-certainty evidence) or mupirocin ointment (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.05 to 3.89; 1 trial; 44 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. None of the trials reported adverse effects. Topical treatments versus breastfeeding advice The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.22; 1 trial; 40 women; low-certainty evidence) and mupirocin ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; 1 trial; 48 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. One trial (42 women) compared topical treatments to each other. The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid and mupirocin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.00; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Specialist breastfeeding education versus usual care The risk of mastitis (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.95; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.37; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Anti-secretory factor-inducing cereal versus standard cereal The risk of mastitis (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.72; 1 trial; 29 women; low-certainty evidence) and recurrence of mastitis (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.03 to 4.57; 1 trial; 7 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Acupoint massage versus routine care Acupoint massage probably reduces the risk of mastitis compared to routine care (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78;1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.23; 1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment versus routine care Breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may reduce risk of mastitis (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.21; 1 trial; 300 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence that acupoint massage is probably better than routine care, probiotics may be better than placebo, and breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may be better than routine care for preventing mastitis. However, it is important to note that we are aware of at least one large trial investigating probiotics whose results have not been made public, therefore, the evidence presented here is incomplete. The available evidence regarding other interventions, including breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies, suggests these may be little better than routine care for preventing mastitis but our conclusions are uncertain due to the low certainty of the evidence. Future trials should recruit sufficiently large numbers of women in order to detect clinically important differences between interventions and results of future trials should be made publicly available.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Breast Feeding; Edible Grain; Female; Fusidic Acid; Humans; Massage; Mastitis; Mupirocin; Neuropeptides; Ointments; Patient Education as Topic; Placebos; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32987448
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007239.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2012Impetigo is a common, superficial bacterial skin infection, which is most frequently encountered in children. There is no generally agreed standard therapy, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Impetigo is a common, superficial bacterial skin infection, which is most frequently encountered in children. There is no generally agreed standard therapy, and guidelines for treatment differ widely. Treatment options include many different oral and topical antibiotics as well as disinfectants. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2003.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of treatments for impetigo, including non-pharmacological interventions and 'waiting for natural resolution'.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2010: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2007), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched online trials registries for ongoing trials, and we handsearched the reference lists of new studies found in the updated search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-bullous, bullous, primary, and secondary impetigo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent authors undertook all steps in data collection. We performed quality assessments and data collection in two separate stages.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 57 trials in the first version of this review. For this update 1 of those trials was excluded and 12 new trials were added. The total number of included trials was, thus, 68, with 5578 participants, reporting on 50 different treatments, including placebo. Most trials were in primary impetigo or did not specify this.For many of the items that were assessed for risk of bias, most studies did not provide enough information. Fifteen studies reported blinding of participants and outcome assessors.Topical antibiotic treatment showed better cure rates than placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2. 24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61 to 3.13) in 6 studies with 575 participants. In 4 studies with 440 participants, there was no clear evidence that either of the most commonly studied topical antibiotics (mupirocin and fusidic acid) was more effective than the other (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11).In 10 studies with 581 participants, topical mupirocin was shown to be slightly superior to oral erythromycin (pooled RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13). There were no significant differences in cure rates from treatment with topical versus other oral antibiotics. There were, however, differences in the outcome from treatment with different oral antibiotics: penicillin was inferior to erythromycin, in 2 studies with 79 participants (pooled RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56), and cloxacillin, in 2 studies with 166 participants (pooled RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.08).There was a lack of evidence for the benefit of using disinfectant solutions. When 2 studies with 292 participants were pooled, topical antibiotics were significantly better than disinfecting treatments (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32).The reported number of side-effects was low, and most of these were mild. Side-effects were more common for oral antibiotic treatment compared to topical treatment. Gastrointestinal effects accounted for most of the difference.Worldwide, bacteria causing impetigo show growing resistance rates for commonly used antibiotics. For a newly developed topical treatment, retapamulin, no resistance has yet been reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is good evidence that topical mupirocin and topical fusidic acid are equally, or more, effective than oral treatment. Due to the lack of studies in people with extensive impetigo, it is unclear if oral antibiotics are superior to topical antibiotics in this group. Fusidic acid and mupirocin are of similar efficacy. Penicillin was not as effective as most other antibiotics. There is a lack of evidence to support disinfection measures to manage impetigo.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Erythromycin; Fusidic Acid; Humans; Impetigo; Mupirocin; Penicillins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 22258953
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003261.pub3 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2010End-stage renal disease (ESRD) affects more than 1500 people per million population in countries with a high prevalence, such as Japan, Taiwan, and the US. Approximately... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) affects more than 1500 people per million population in countries with a high prevalence, such as Japan, Taiwan, and the US. Approximately two-thirds of people with ESRD receive haemodialysis, one quarter have kidney transplants, and one tenth receive peritoneal dialysis.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of different doses for peritoneal dialysis? What are the effects of different doses and membrane fluxes for haemodialysis? What are the effects of interventions aimed at preventing secondary complications? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 26 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: cinacalcet, darbepoetin, erythropoietin, haemodialysis (standard-dose, increased-dose), high membrane-flux haemodialysis, increased-dose peritoneal dialysis, low membrane-flux haemodialysis, mupirocin, sevelamer, standard-dose dialysis, and statins.
Topics: Erythropoietin; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; Peritoneal Dialysis; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 21418665
DOI: No ID Found -
Neuromodulation : Journal of the... Jul 2023Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus) is the foremost bacterial cause of surgical-site infection (SSI) and is a common source of neuromodulation SSI. Endogenous colonization... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus) is the foremost bacterial cause of surgical-site infection (SSI) and is a common source of neuromodulation SSI. Endogenous colonization is an independent risk factor for SSI; however, this risk has been shown to diminish with screening and decolonization.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase data bases from inception to January 1, 2022, for the purposes of identifying all studies reporting on the use of S aureus swabbing and/or decolonization before neuromodulation procedures. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using the metaphor package in R to calculate odds ratios (OR).
RESULTS
Five observational cohort studies were included after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The average study duration was 6.6 ± 3.8 years. Three studies included nasal screening as a prerequisite for subsequent decolonization. Type of neuromodulation included spinal cord stimulation in two studies, deep brain stimulation in two studies, intrathecal baclofen in one study, and sacral neuromodulation in one study. Overall, 860 and 1054 patients were included in a control or intervention (ie, screening and/or decolonization) group, respectively. A combination of nasal mupirocin ointment and a body wash, most commonly chlorhexidine gluconate soap, was used to decolonize throughout. Overall infection rates were observed at 59 of 860 (6.86%) and ten of 1054 (0.95%) in the control and intervention groups, respectively. Four studies reported a significant difference. The OR for intervention (screen and/or decolonization) vs no intervention was 0.19 (95% CI, 0.09-0.37; p < 0.001). Heterogeneity between studies was nonsignificant (I = 0.43%, τ = 0.00).
CONCLUSIONS
Preoperative S aureus swabbing and decolonization resulted in significantly decreased odds of infection in neuromodulation procedures. This measure may represent a worthwhile tool to reduce neuromodulation SSI, warranting further investigation.
Topics: Humans; Staphylococcus aureus; Mupirocin; Staphylococcal Infections; Surgical Wound Infection; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 36198512
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurom.2022.07.013 -
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection... 2018Mupirocin is widely used for nasal decolonization of to prevent subsequent staphylococcal infection in patients and healthcare personnel. However, the prolonged and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mupirocin is widely used for nasal decolonization of to prevent subsequent staphylococcal infection in patients and healthcare personnel. However, the prolonged and unrestricted use has led to the emergence of mupirocin-resistant (mupR) . The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the prevalence, phenotypic and molecular characteristics, and geographic spread of mupR in Africa.
METHODS
We examined five electronic databases (EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, ISI Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Scopus) for relevant English articles on screening for mupR from various samples in Africa. In addition, we performed random effects meta-analysis of proportions to determine the pooled prevalence of mupR in Africa. The search was conducted until 3 August 2016.
RESULTS
We identified 43 eligible studies of which 11 (26%) were obtained only through Google Scholar. Most of the eligible studies (28/43; 65%) were conducted in Nigeria (10/43; 23%), Egypt (7/43; 16%), South Africa (6/43; 14%) and Tunisia (5/43; 12%). Overall, screening for mupR was described in only 12 of 54 (22%) African countries. The disk diffusion method was the widely used technique (67%; 29/43) for the detection of mupR in Africa. The -positive isolates were identified in five studies conducted in Egypt ( = 2), South Africa ( = 2), and Nigeria ( = 1). Low-level resistance (LmupR) and high-level resistance (HmupR) were both reported in six human studies from South Africa ( = 3), Egypt ( = 2) and Libya ( = 1). Data on mupR-MRSA was available in 11 studies from five countries, including Egypt, Ghana, Libya, Nigeria and South Africa. The pooled prevalence (based on 11 human studies) of mupR in Africa was 14% (95% CI =6.8 to 23.2%). The proportion of -positive in Africa ranged between 0.5 and 8%. Furthermore, the frequency of isolates that exhibited LmupR, HmupR and mupR-MRSA in Africa were 4 and 47%, 0.5 and 38%, 5 and 50%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of mupR in Africa (14%) is worrisome and there is a need for data on administration and use of mupirocin. The disk diffusion method which is widely utilized in Africa could be an important method for the screening and identification of mupR . Moreover, we advocate for surveillance studies with appropriate guidelines for screening mupR in Africa.
Topics: Africa; Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Proteins; Cattle; Cattle Diseases; Databases, Bibliographic; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Mupirocin; Sheep; Sheep Diseases; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 30147868
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-018-0382-5 -
BMC Nephrology Dec 2014This study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of surveillance for screening and treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing hemodialysis and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of surveillance for screening and treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing hemodialysis and colonized by Staphylococcus aureus.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. The literature search involved the following databases: the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, SciELO, and PubMed/Medline. The descriptors were "Staphylococcus aureus", "MRSA", "MSSA", "treatment", "decolonization", "nasal carrier", "colonization", "chronic kidney disease", "dialysis", and "haemodialysis" or "hemodialysis". Five randomized controlled trials that exhibited agreement among reviewers as shown by a kappa value of >0.80 were included in the study; methodological quality was evaluated using the STROBE statement. Patients who received various treatments (various treatments group) or topical mupirocin (mupirocin group) were compared with those who received either no treatment or placebo (control group). The outcomes were skin infection at the central venous catheter insertion site and bacteremia.
RESULTS
In total, 2374 patients were included in the analysis, 626 (26.4%) of whom were nasal carriers of S. aureus. The probability of S. aureus infection at the catheter site for hemodialysis was 87% lower in the mupirocin group than in the control group (odds ratio [OR], 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-0.34; p<0.001). The risk of bacteremia was 82% lower in the mupirocin group than in the control group (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.08-0.42; p<0.001). No statistically significant difference in bacteremia was observed between the various treatments group (excluding mupirocin) and the control group (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.51-1.15; p=0.20).
CONCLUSIONS
Twenty-six percent of patients undergoing hemodialysis were nasal carriers of S. aureus. Of all treatments evaluated, topical mupirocin was the most effective therapy for the reduction of S. aureus catheter site infection and bacteremia in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteremia; Carrier State; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Central Venous; Humans; Mupirocin; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcal Skin Infections
PubMed: 25519998
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2369-15-202 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2007End stage renal disease (ESRD) affects over 1500 people per million population in countries with a high prevalence, such as the USA and Japan. Approximately two thirds... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
End stage renal disease (ESRD) affects over 1500 people per million population in countries with a high prevalence, such as the USA and Japan. Approximately two thirds of people with ESRD receive haemodialysis, a quarter have kidney transplants, and a tenth receive peritoneal dialysis.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of different doses and osmotic agents for peritoneal dialysis? What are the effects of different doses and membrane fluxes for haemodialysis? What are the effects of interventions aimed at preventing secondary complications? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to April 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 20 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: cinacalcet, darbepoetin, dextrose solutions, erythropoietin, haemodialysis (standard-dose, increased-dose), high-membrane-flux haemodialysis, icodextrin, increased-dose peritoneal dialysis, low-membrane-flux haemodialysis, mupirocin, sevelamer, and standard-dose dialysis.
Topics: Erythropoietin; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 19450356
DOI: No ID Found -
Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine May 2021The purpose of the present study was to provide a systematic literature review and pool evidence on the efficacy of mupirocin-based decolonization protocol in reducing...
Role of targeted and universal mupirocin-based decolonization for preventing surgical-site infections in patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
The purpose of the present study was to provide a systematic literature review and pool evidence on the efficacy of mupirocin-based decolonization protocol in reducing surgical-site infections (SSIs) in patients undergoing cardiothoracic (CT) surgery based on their (.) carrier state. The PubMed, Embase, Ovid, BioMed Central, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies comparing mupirocin-based decolonization with controls for reducing SSIs in patients following CT surgery. Studies were grouped based on the targeted population of intervention, i.e. carriers or all patients. A total of 17 studies were included. Of these, 8 studies used targeted mupirocin-based decolonization, while universal decolonization was performed in 9 studies. The results were conflicting for studies performing targeted decolonization and it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis due to non-homogenous studies. Pooled analysis of 34,859 patients indicated that universal mupirocin-based decolonization significantly reduced the risk of all SSIs [risk ratio (RR): 0.54; 95% CI: 0.40,0.75; I=73.35%]. The intervention significantly reduced the risk of superficial SSIs (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25,0.55; I=0%) but not of deep SSIs (RR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.19,1.09; I=80.67%). The results indicated a significantly reduced risk of SSIs (SA-SSIs) with mupirocin-based decolonization (RR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.32,0.61; I=0%) but not for methicillin-resistant (MRSA-SSIs; RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.05,1.28; I=79.07%). Evidence on the role of targeted mupirocin-based decolonization to reduce SSIs after CT surgery was non-coherent and inconclusive. Analysis of low-quality retrospective studies suggested that universal mupirocin-based decolonization may reduce all SSIs, superficial SSIs and SA-SSIs, but not deep SSIs or MRSA-SSIs in patients after CT surgery.
PubMed: 33747157
DOI: 10.3892/etm.2021.9860