-
Infected hepatic echinococcosis. Clinical, therapeutic, and prognostic aspects. A systematic review.Annals of Hepatology 2021Infected hepatic echinococcosis (IHE), defined as a cystic infection, and the development of a liver abscess may be a complication in the natural history of hepatic...
Infected hepatic echinococcosis (IHE), defined as a cystic infection, and the development of a liver abscess may be a complication in the natural history of hepatic echinococcosis. The aim of this study was to review the evidence available related to clinical, therapeutic, and prognostic aspects of IHE. We conducted a systematic review. Trip Database, BIREME-BVS, SciELO, LILACS, IBECS, PAHO-WHO; WoS, EMBASE, SCOPUS and PubMed were consulted. Studies related to IHE in humans, without language restriction, published between 1966 and 2020 were considered. Variables studied were publication year, geographical origin of the samples, number of patients, therapeutic and prognosis aspects, and methodological quality (MQ) for each article. Descriptive statistics was applied. Subsequently, weighted averages (WA) of the MQ of each article were calculated for each variable of interest. 960 related articles were identified; 47 fulfilled selection criteria, including 486 patients with a median age of 48 years, 51.6% being male. The largest proportion of articles were from Spain, India, and Greece (36.1%). Mean cyst diameter was 14.1 cm, and main location was right liver lobe (74.0%). WA for morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and follow-up were 28.5%, 7.4%, 8.5 days and 14.8 months, respectively. The most common causative microorganisms of superinfection isolated were Enterobacteriaceae. An association with cholangitis was reported in 13.4% of cases. Mean MQ of the 47 articles included was 7.6 points. We can conclude that the information related to IHE is scarce and scattered throughout articles of small casuistry and poor quality, and consequently does not provide strong evidence.
Topics: Echinococcosis, Hepatic; Humans; Prognosis
PubMed: 32835861
DOI: 10.1016/j.aohep.2020.07.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2014Optimal antibiotic treatment for sepsis is imperative. Combining a beta lactam antibiotic with an aminoglycoside antibiotic may provide certain advantages over beta... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Optimal antibiotic treatment for sepsis is imperative. Combining a beta lactam antibiotic with an aminoglycoside antibiotic may provide certain advantages over beta lactam monotherapy.
OBJECTIVES
Our objectives were to compare beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in patients with sepsis and to estimate the rate of adverse effects with each treatment regimen, including the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11); MEDLINE (1966 to 4 November 2013); EMBASE (1980 to November 2013); LILACS (1982 to November 2013); and conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (1995 to 2013). We scanned citations of all identified studies and contacted all corresponding authors. In our previous review, we searched the databases to July 2004.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing any beta lactam monotherapy versus any combination of a beta lactam with an aminoglycoside for sepsis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure, superinfections and adverse events. Two review authors independently collected data. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed-effect model. We extracted outcomes by intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 69 trials that randomly assigned 7863 participants. Twenty-two trials compared the same beta lactam in both study arms, while the remaining trials compared different beta lactams using a broader-spectrum beta lactam in the monotherapy arm. In trials comparing the same beta lactam, we observed no difference between study groups with regard to all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.30) and clinical failure (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29). In studies comparing different beta lactams, we observed a trend for benefit with monotherapy for all-cause mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01) and a significant advantage for clinical failure (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84). No significant disparities emerged from subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including assessment of participants with Gram-negative infection. The subgroup of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections was underpowered to examine effects. Results for mortality were classified as low quality of evidence mainly as the result of imprecision. Results for failure were classified as very low quality of evidence because of indirectness of the outcome and possible detection bias in non-blinded trials. We detected no differences in the rate of development of resistance. Nephrotoxicity was significantly less frequent with monotherapy (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.39). We found no heterogeneity for all these comparisons.We included a small subset of studies addressing participants with Gram-positive infection, mainly endocarditis. We identified no difference between monotherapy and combination therapy in these studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The addition of an aminoglycoside to beta lactams for sepsis should be discouraged. All-cause mortality rates are unchanged. Combination treatment carries a significant risk of nephrotoxicity.
Topics: Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Cause of Death; Drug Therapy, Combination; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; beta-Lactams
PubMed: 24395715
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003344.pub3 -
Critical Care Explorations Apr 2024We postulate that corticosteroid-related side effects in critically ill patients are similar across sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
We postulate that corticosteroid-related side effects in critically ill patients are similar across sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). By pooling data across all trials that have examined corticosteroids in these three acute conditions, we aim to examine the side effects of corticosteroid use in critical illness.
DATA SOURCES
We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention library of COVID research, CINAHL, and Cochrane center for trials.
STUDY SELECTION
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared corticosteroids to no corticosteroids or placebo in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.
DATA EXTRACTION
We summarized data addressing the most described side effects of corticosteroid use in critical care: gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, superinfections/secondary infections, neuropsychiatric effects, and neuromuscular weakness.
DATA SYNTHESIS
We included 47 RCTs ( = 13,893 patients). Corticosteroids probably have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk [RR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.34; absolute risk increase [ARI], 0.3%; moderate certainty) or secondary infections (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05; absolute risk reduction, 0.5%; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.45; ARI, 1.4%; low certainty) or neuropsychiatric events (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.74; ARI, 0.5%; low certainty). Conversely, they increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.31; ARI, 5.4%; high certainty) and probably increase the risk of hypernatremia (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.29-1.96; ARI, 2.3%; moderate certainty).
CONCLUSIONS
In ARDS, sepsis, and CAP, corticosteroids are associated with hyperglycemia and probably with hypernatremia but likely have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding or secondary infections. More data examining effects of corticosteroids, particularly on neuropsychiatric outcomes and neuromuscular weakness, would clarify the safety of this class of drugs in critical illness.
PubMed: 38567382
DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000001071 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2010Pancreatic necrosis may complicate severe acute pancreatitis, and is detectable by computed tomography (CT). If it becomes infected mortality increases, but the use of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic necrosis may complicate severe acute pancreatitis, and is detectable by computed tomography (CT). If it becomes infected mortality increases, but the use of prophylactic antibiotics raises concerns about antibiotic resistance and fungal infection.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis complicated by CT proven pancreatic necrosis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Searches were updated in November 2008, in The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2008), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Conference proceedings and references from found articles were also searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotics versus placebo in acute pancreatitis with CT proven necrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Primary outcomes were mortality and pancreatic infection rates. Secondary end-points included non pancreatic infection, all sites infection, operative rates, fungal infections, and antibiotic resistance. Subgroup analyses were performed for antibiotic regimen (beta-lactam, quinolone, and imipenem).
MAIN RESULTS
Seven evaluable studies randomised 404 patients. There was no statistically significant effect on reduction of mortality with therapy: 8.4% versus controls 14.4%, and infected pancreatic necrosis rates: 19.7% versus controls 24.4%. Non-pancreatic infection rates and the incidence of overall infections were not significantly reduced with antibiotics: 23.7% versus 36%; 37.5% versus 51.9% respectively. Operative treatment and fungal infections were not significantly different. Insufficient data were provided concerning antibiotic resistance.With beta-lactam antibiotic prophylaxis there was less mortality (9.4% treatment, 15% controls), and less infected pancreatic necrosis (16.8% treatment group, 24.2% controls) but this was not statistically significant. The incidence of non-pancreatic infections was non-significantly different (21% versus 32.5%), as was the incidence of overall infections (34.4% versus 52.8%), and operative treatment rates. No significant differences were seen with quinolone plus imidazole in any of the end points measured. Imipenem on its own showed no difference in the incidence of mortality, but there was a significant reduction in the rate of pancreatic infection (p=0.02; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.84).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No benefit of antibiotics in preventing infection of pancreatic necrosis or mortality was found, except for when imipenem (a beta-lactam) was considered on its own, where a significantly decrease in pancreatic infection was found. None of the studies included in this review were adequately powered. Further better designed studies are needed if the use of antibiotic prophylaxis is to be recommended.
Topics: Acute Disease; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bacterial Infections; Humans; Necrosis; Pancreas; Pancreatitis; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Superinfection
PubMed: 20464721
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002941.pub3 -
Revista Espanola de Quimioterapia :... Mar 2005The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of using different antibiotics on the risk of acquiring a bacterial or fungal superinfection in hospital-acquired... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of using different antibiotics on the risk of acquiring a bacterial or fungal superinfection in hospital-acquired infections. A systematic review of the literature using the PubMed (Medline) database from January 1990 to December 2003 was performed. We selected only those studies with at least 25 patients in each arm in which the clinical efficacy of several antibiotics (third generation cephalosporins, fluorquinolones, piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenems) were evaluated for the treatment of severe infections, and which specifically reported the rate of superinfection. The microorganisms most frequently implicated in the development of superinfection were: Candida spp. (42.3%), Enterococcus spp. (18.8%), enterobacteria (13.8%), Staphylococcus spp. (9.5%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (6.6%), and Clostridium difficile (4.1%). The antibiotic most frequently related to superinfection was ciprofloxacin (38.1%), followed by cefotaxime (23.3%), imipenem (12%), meropenem (10.2%), and cefepime (6.1%). The lowest percentage of superinfection was observed with the use of piperacillin-tazobactam (5.4%).
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Risk Factors; Superinfection
PubMed: 15915231
DOI: No ID Found -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2024The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention. Scant data are available on the impact of bacterial superinfection and... (Review)
Review
The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention. Scant data are available on the impact of bacterial superinfection and antibiotic administration on the outcome of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We conducted a literature review from 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2024 to assess the current burden of bacterial infection and the evidence for antibiotic use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Published articles providing data on antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients were identified through computerized literature searches with the search terms [(antibiotic) AND (COVID-19)] or [(antibiotic treatment) AND (COVID-19)]. PubMed and SCOPUS databases were searched from 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2024. No attempt was made to obtain information about unpublished studies. English language restriction was applied. The quality of the included studies was evaluated by the tool recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Both quantitative and qualitative information were summarized by means of textual descriptions. Five hundred fifty-one studies were identified, and twenty-nine studies were included in this systematic review. Of the 29 included studies, 18 studies were on the prevalence of bacterial infection and antibiotic use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients; 4 studies reported on the efficacy of early antibiotic use in COVID-19; 4 studies were on the use of sepsis biomarkers to improve antibiotic use; 3 studies were on the efficacy of antimicrobial stewardship programs and predictive models among COVID-19-hospitalized patients. The quality of included studies was high in 35% and medium in 62%. High rates of hospital-acquired infections were reported among COVID-19 patients, ranging between 7.5 and 37.7%. A high antibiotic resistance rate was reported among COVID-19 patients developing hospital-acquired infections, with a high in-hospital mortality rate. The studies evaluating multi-faceted antimicrobial stewardship interventions reported efficacy in decreasing antibiotic consumption and lower in-hospital mortality.
PubMed: 38927211
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics13060545 -
Avicenna Journal of Medicine 2019The role of the combination of glucocorticosteroids and mineralocorticosteroids in treating septic shock is not well-defined. The aim of this study was to perform a...
Combination of low-dose glucocorticosteroids and mineralocorticoids as adjunct therapy for adult patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies.
BACKGROUND
The role of the combination of glucocorticosteroids and mineralocorticosteroids in treating septic shock is not well-defined. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials and observational studies assessing the effect of low-dose hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone on patients with septic shock.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were reviewed. A random effect model meta-analysis was used and -square was used to assess the heterogeneity. Short-term mortality was chosen as our primary end point. A subgroup analysis was performed including only the randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS
A total of 10,550 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Administration of the steroid combination was associated with improved short-term mortality (odds ratio, 0.78, confidence interval, 0.64-0.96), intensive care unit mortality, and shock reversal, without increase in steroid-related side effects, such as secondary infection or gastrointestinal hemorrhage.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that use of the combination of glucocorticosteroids and mineralocorticosteroids has a beneficial impact on short-term mortality, intensive care unit mortality, and shock reversal, without increasing the incidence of gastrointestinal hemorrhage or superinfection in patients with septic shock, when used as an adjunct treatment to the established standard of care.
PubMed: 31903388
DOI: 10.4103/ajm.AJM_97_19 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021Corticosteroids are a common option used in sepsis treatment. However, the efficacy and potential risk of corticosteroids in septic patients have not been well assessed.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Corticosteroids are a common option used in sepsis treatment. However, the efficacy and potential risk of corticosteroids in septic patients have not been well assessed. This review was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched from inception to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of corticosteroids on patients with sepsis were included. The quality of outcomes in the included articles was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. The data were pooled by using risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD). The random-effects model was used to evaluate the pooled MD or RR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Fifty RCTs that included 12,304 patients with sepsis were identified. Corticosteroids were not associated with the mortality in 28-day (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.02; evidence rank, moderate) and long-term mortality (>60 days) (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.05) in patients with sepsis (evidence rank, low). However, corticosteroids may exert a significant effect on the mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97), in-hospital (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99; evidence rank, moderate) in patients with sepsis or septic shock (evidence rank, low). Furthermore, corticosteroids probably achieved a tiny reduction in the length of hospital stay and ICU. Corticosteroids were associated with a higher risk of hypernatremia and hyperglycemia; furthermore, they appear to have no significant effect on superinfection and gastroduodenal bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids had no significant effect on the 28-day and long-term mortality; however, they decreased the ICU and hospital mortality. The findings suggest that the clinical corticosteroids may be an effective therapy for patients with sepsis during the short time.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://inplasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/INPLASY-Protocol-1074-4.pdf.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Sepsis
PubMed: 34484209
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.709155 -
Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2023The COVID-19 pandemic raised concerns about the potential for co-infection or over-infection with other respiratory infections, as they can complicate the diagnosis,... (Review)
Review
The COVID-19 pandemic raised concerns about the potential for co-infection or over-infection with other respiratory infections, as they can complicate the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of the disease. This is also a challenge for forensic pathologists, who may come across cases where the presence of co-infection or over-infection is suspected or confirmed, and it is important that they take this into account when determining the cause of death. The aim of this systematic review is to analyse the prevalence of each specific pathogen co-infecting or over-infecting patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. In total, 575 studies were selected from the Scopus and Pub-Med online databases and 8 studies were included in a meta-analysis. Male gender, advanced age and nursing home care are risk factors associated with the development of co-infection, whereas age, tachypnoea, hypoxaemia and bacterial infection are predictors of mortality. Overall, however, having a SARS-CoV-2 infection does not represent a real risk for the development of co-infections/super-infections.
PubMed: 37242315
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens12050646 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2013Intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics are indicated for the treatment of severe infections. However, the emergence of infections caused by multi-drug resistant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics are indicated for the treatment of severe infections. However, the emergence of infections caused by multi-drug resistant organisms in conjunction with a lack of novel antibiotics has prompted the investigation of alternative dosing strategies to improve clinical efficacy and tolerability. To optimise pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic antibiotic parameters, continuous antibiotic infusions have been compared to traditional intermittent antibiotic infusions.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of continuous intravenous administration of concentration-dependent and time-dependent antibiotics to traditional intermittent intravenous administration in adults with severe acute bacterial infections.
SEARCH METHODS
The following electronic databases were searched in September 2012: The Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S). The reference lists of all relevant material, the Internet and the trials registry www.clinicaltrials.gov for completed and ongoing trials were also searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials in adults with a bacterial infection requiring intravenous antibiotic therapy comparing continuous versus intermittent infusions of antibiotics were included. Both time-dependent and concentration-dependent antibiotics were considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three independent authors performed data extraction for the included studies. All data was cross-checked and disagreements resolved by consensus. An intention to treat analysis was conducted using a random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria with a combined total of over 1,600 patients. The majority of included studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk of bias with regard to randomisation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, management of incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other potential threats to validity. No studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for all methodological quality items assessed. There were no differences in all-cause mortality (n=1241, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 - 1.20, p=0.45), infection recurrence (n=398, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.35 - 4.19, p=0.76), clinical cure (n=975, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 - 1.08, p=0.98), and superinfection post-therapy (n=813, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.60 - 1.94, p=0.79). There were no differences in safety outcomes including adverse events (n=575, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 - 1.12, p=0.63), serious adverse events (n=871, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.80 - 2.30, p=0.26), and withdrawal due to adverse events (n=871, RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.52 - 7.95, p=0.31). A difference was observed in the subgroup analyses of clinical cure in septic versus non-septic patients, where intermittent antibiotic infusions were favoured for clinical cure in septic patients. However, this effect was not consistent between random-effects and fixed-effects analyses. No differences were found in sensitivity analyses conducted.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There were no differences in mortality, infection recurrence, clinical cure, superinfection post-therapy, and safety outcomes when comparing continuous infusions of intravenous antibiotics to traditional intermittent infusions of antibiotics. However, the wide confidence intervals suggest that beneficial or harmful effects cannot be ruled out for all outcomes. Therefore, the current evidence is insufficient to recommend the widespread adoption of continuous infusion antibiotics in the place of intermittent infusions of antibiotics. Further large prospective randomised trials, with consistent and complete reporting of clinical outcome measures, conducted with concurrent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies in special populations are required to determine whether adoption of continuous antibiotic infusions is warranted in specific circumstances.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence
PubMed: 23543565
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008481.pub2