-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively.
MAIN RESULTS
Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Female; Fosfomycin; Humans; Imipenem; Levofloxacin; Male; Penicillins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 32407558
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3 -
Jornal de Pediatria 2024To investigate the effectiveness of linezolid and vancomycin for the treatment of nosocomial infections in children under 12 years old. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effectiveness of linezolid and vancomycin for the treatment of nosocomial infections in children under 12 years old.
DATA SOURCES
This is a systematic review in which five randomized clinical trials about the effectiveness of linezolid and vancomycin, involving a total of 429 children with nosocomial infections, were evaluated. They were searched in scientific databases: PubMed, Bvs, and SciELO.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The main nosocomial infections that affected children were bacteremia, skin, and soft tissue infections followed by nosocomial pneumonia. Most infections were caused by Gram-positive bacteria, which all studies showed infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus, with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci strains being isolated. Both linezolid and vancomycin showed high therapeutic efficacy against different types of nosocomial infections, ranging from 84.4% to 94% for linezolid and 76.9% to 90% for vancomycin. Patients receiving linezolid had lower rates of rash and red man syndrome compared to those receiving vancomycin. However, despite the adverse reactions, antimicrobials can be safely administered to children to treat nosocomial infections caused by resistant Gram-positive bacteria.
CONCLUSION
Both linezolid and vancomycin showed good efficacy in the treatment of bacterial infections caused by resistant Gram-positive bacteria in hospitalized children. However, linezolid stands out regarding its pharmacological safety. Importantly, to strengthen this conclusion, further clinical trials are needed to provide additional evidence.
Topics: Humans; Linezolid; Cross Infection; Vancomycin; Child; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Child, Preschool; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Infant; Staphylococcal Infections; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections
PubMed: 38145631
DOI: 10.1016/j.jped.2023.08.011 -
Porto Biomedical Journal 2021Enterococci are opportunistic pathogens and are one of the most important bacteria in hospital-acquired infections. Their resistance to antibiotics such as vancomycin... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Enterococci are opportunistic pathogens and are one of the most important bacteria in hospital-acquired infections. Their resistance to antibiotics such as vancomycin has led to life-threatening and difficult-to-treat nosocomial infections. The true prevalence in clinical settings in Nigeria is not well known due to the lack of a comprehensive antibiotic surveillance system. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) in clinical infections in Nigeria.
METHODS
Databases (PubMed, , and Google scholar) were searched following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statements for articles reporting VRE prevalence, and were published before August 5, 2020. Data from the studies were extracted and analyzed using Microsoft Excel and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA 3.0), respectively. The pooled prevalence of VRE was estimated with the random-effects model and the 95% confidence interval (CI). The heterogeneity level was assessed using Cochran Q and tests.
RESULTS
A total of 35 articles were scanned for eligibility, among which 7 were included in the study after fulfilling the eligibility criteria. The studies analyzed a total of 832 enterococci isolates and 90 VRE strains. The prevalence of and in this study are 361 (59.3%) and 248 (40.7%), respectively, among which 41 (63.1%) of the and 24 (36.9%) of the were vancomycin resistant. The pooled prevalence of VRE was estimated at (95% CI; 10.0-53.9%; = 93.50%; < .001). The highest prevalence of VRE was reported from western Nigeria, 14.6% (95% CI; = 97.27; < .001).
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of VRE in Nigeria according to the reports from this study is relatively high. The report of this study should help policymakers to put in place measures that will help curb the spread of VRE and associated resistant genes to other important clinical pathogens like .
PubMed: 33884321
DOI: 10.1097/j.pbj.0000000000000125 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2020Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci (VRE) are on the rise worldwide. Here, we report the first prevalence of VRE in Nigeria using systematic review and meta-analysis.... (Review)
Review
Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci (VRE) are on the rise worldwide. Here, we report the first prevalence of VRE in Nigeria using systematic review and meta-analysis. International databases MedLib, PubMed, International Scientific Indexing (ISI), Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and African journals online (AJOL) were searched. Information was extracted by two independent reviewers, and results were reviewed by the third. Two reviewers independently assessed the study quality using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. OpenMeta analyst was used. The random effect was used, and publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed, and the sources were analysed using the leave-one-out meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression. Nineteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were added to the final meta-analysis, and the study period was from 2009-2018. Of the 2552 isolates tested, 349 were VRE, and was reported the most. The pooled prevalence of VRE in Nigeria was estimated at 25.3% (95% CI; 19.8-30.8%; = 96.26%; < 0.001). Between-study variability was high ( = 0.011; heterogeneity = 96.26% with heterogeneity chi-square (Q) = 480.667, degrees of freedom (df) = 18, and = 0.001). The funnel plot showed no publication bias, and the leave-one-out forest plot did not affect the pooled prevalence. The South-East region had a moderate heterogeneity though not significant ( = 51.15%, = 0.129). Meta-regression showed that all the variables listed contributed to the heterogeneity except for the animal isolate source ( = 0.188) and studies that were done in 2013 ( = 0.219). Adherence to proper and accurate antimicrobial usage, comprehensive testing, and continuous surveillance of VRE are required.
PubMed: 32882963
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics9090565 -
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection... 2018Identifying risk factors predicting acquisition of resistant will aid surveillance and diagnostic initiatives and can be crucial in early and appropriate antibiotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Identifying risk factors predicting acquisition of resistant will aid surveillance and diagnostic initiatives and can be crucial in early and appropriate antibiotic therapy. We conducted a systematic review examining risk factors of acquisition of resistant among hospitalized patients.
METHODS
MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, and Cochrane Central were searched between 2000 and 2016 for studies examining independent risk factors associated with acquisition of resistant , among hospitalized patients. Random effects model meta-analysis was conducted when at least three or more studies were sufficiently similar.
RESULTS
Of the 54 eligible articles, 28 publications (31studies) examined multi-drug resistant (MDR) or extensively drug resistant (XDR) and 26 publications (29 studies) examined resistant The acquisition of MDR , as compared with non-MDR , was significantly associated with intensive care unit (ICU) admission (3 studies: summary adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.2) or use of quinolones (4 studies: summary adjusted OR 3.59). Acquisition of MDR or XDR compared with susceptible was significantly associated with prior hospital stay (4 studies: summary adjusted OR 1.90), use of quinolones (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 4.34), or use of carbapenems (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 13.68). The acquisition of MDR compared with non- was significantly associated with prior use of cephalosporins (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 3.96), quinolones (4 studies: summary adjusted OR 2.96), carbapenems (6 studies: summary adjusted OR 2.61), and prior hospital stay (4 studies: summary adjusted OR 1.74). The acquisition of carbapenem-resistant compared with susceptible , was statistically significantly associated with prior use of piperacillin-tazobactam (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 2.64), vancomycin (3 studies: summary adjusted OR 1.76), and carbapenems (7 studies: summary adjusted OR 4.36).
CONCLUSIONS
Prior use of antibiotics and prior hospital or ICU stay was the most significant risk factors for acquisition of resistant . These findings provide guidance in identifying patients that may be at an elevated risk for a resistant infection and emphasize the importance of antimicrobial stewardship and infection control in hospitals.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae; Carbapenems; Cephalosporins; Critical Care; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Female; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Male; Middle Aged; Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination; Pseudomonas Infections; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Quinolones; Risk Factors; Vancomycin
PubMed: 29997889
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-018-0370-9 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2021Vancomycin is commonly used as a treatment for neonatal infections. However, there is a lack of consensus establishing the optimal vancomycin therapeutic regimen and... (Review)
Review
Vancomycin is commonly used as a treatment for neonatal infections. However, there is a lack of consensus establishing the optimal vancomycin therapeutic regimen and defining the most appropriate PK/PD parameter correlated with the efficacy. A recent guideline recommends AUC-guided therapeutic dosing in treating serious infections in neonates. However, in clinical practice, trough serum concentrations are commonly used as a surrogate PKPD index for AUC24. Despite this, target serum concentrations in a neonatal population remain poorly defined. The objective is to describe the relationship between therapeutic regimens and the achievement of clinical or pharmacokinetic outcomes in the neonatal population. The review was carried out following PRISMA guidelines. A bibliographic search was manually performed for studies published on PubMed and EMBASE. Clinical efficacy and/or target attainment and the safety of vancomycin treatment were evaluated through obtaining serum concentrations. A total of 476 articles were identified, of which 20 met the inclusion criteria. All of them evaluated the target attainment, but only two assessed the clinical efficacy. The enormous variability concerning target serum concentrations is noteworthy, which translates into a difficulty in determining which therapeutic regimen achieves the best results. Moreover, there are few studies that analyze clinical efficacy results obtained after reaching predefined trough serum concentrations, this information being essential for clinical practice.
PubMed: 33805874
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10040347 -
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection... Jun 2021Vancomycin‑resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA) is a serious public health challenging concern worldwide. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vancomycin‑resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA) is a serious public health challenging concern worldwide.
OBJECTIVES
Therefore, the objective of present study of 62 published studies was to evaluate the prevalence of VRSA based on different years, areas, isolate source, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and the genetic determinants.
METHODS
We searched the relevant articles that focused on the prevalence rates of VRSA in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science from 2000 to 2019. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA software (version 14.0).
RESULTS
The prevalence of VRSA was 2% before 2006, 5% in 2006-2014, and 7% in 2015-2020 that showed a 3.5-fold increase in the frequency of VRSA between before 2006 and 2020 years. The prevalence of VRSA was 5% in Asia, 1% in Europe, 4% in America, 3% in South America, and 16% in Africa. The frequencies of VRSA isolated from clinical, non-clinical, and mixed samples were 6%, 7%, and 14%, respectively. The prevalence of VRSA was 12% using disk diffusion agar method, 7% using MIC-base methods, and 4% using mixed-methods. The prevalence of vanA, vanB, and vanC1 positive were 71%, 26%, and 4% among VRSA strains. The most prevalent genotype was staphylococcal cassette chromosomemec (SCCmec) II, which accounted for 57% of VRSA. The most prevalent staphylococcal protein A (spa) types were t002, t030, and t037.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of VRSA has been increasing in recent years particularly in Africa/Asia than Europe/America. The most prevalent of genetic determinants associated with VRSA were vanA and SCCmec II. This study clarifies that the rigorous monitoring of definite antibiotic policy, regular surveillance/control of nosocomial-associated infections and intensive surveillance of vancomycin-resistance are required for preventing emergence and further spreading of VRSA.
Topics: Africa; Asia; Europe; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; North America; Prevalence; South America; Staphylococcal Infections; Vancomycin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 34193295
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-021-00967-y -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022The decision of vancomycin dosage for central nervous system (CNS) infections is still a challenge because its bactericidal nature in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has not... (Review)
Review
The decision of vancomycin dosage for central nervous system (CNS) infections is still a challenge because its bactericidal nature in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has not been confirmed by human studies. This study systematically reviewed the literatures on vancomycin in patients with meningitis, ventriculitis, and CNS device-associated infections, to assess efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics to better serve as a practical reference. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched using terms vancomycin, Glycopeptides, meningitis, and central nervous system infections. Data were extracted including characteristics of participants, causative organism(s), administration, dosage, etc., The clinical response, microbiological response, adverse events and pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed. Nineteen articles were included. Indications for vancomycin included meningitis, ventriculitis, and intracranial device infections. No serious adverse effects of intravenous (IV) and intraventricular (IVT) vancomycin have been reported. Dosages of IV and IVT vancomycin ranged from 1000-3000 mg/day and 2-20 mg/day. Duration of IV and IVT vancomycin therapy most commonly ranged from 3-27 days and 2-21 days. Therapeutic drug monitoring was conducted in 14 studies. Vancomycin levels in CSF in patients using IV and IVT vancomycin were varied widely from 0.06 to 22.3 mg/L and 2.5-292.9 mg/L. No clear relationships were found between vancomycin CSF levels and efficacy or toxicity. Using vancomycin to treat CNS infections appears effective and safe based on current evidence. However, the optimal regimens are still unclear. Higher quality clinical trials are required to explore the vancomycin disposition within CNS.
PubMed: 36467047
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1056148 -
Hospital Pediatrics Apr 2020Vancomycin is a medication with potential for significant harm with both overdosing and underdosing. Obesity may affect vancomycin pharmacokinetics and is increasingly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Vancomycin is a medication with potential for significant harm with both overdosing and underdosing. Obesity may affect vancomycin pharmacokinetics and is increasingly common among children.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to determine if children with overweight or obesity have increased vancomycin trough concentrations with total body weight (TBW) dosing compared with children with normal weight.
DATA SOURCES
We conducted a search of Medline and Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations from 1952 (the year vancomycin was discovered) to November 2017.
STUDY SELECTION
Search terms included vancomycin, body weight, and body composition terms and were limited to children. Studies were reviewed and screened by ≥2 reviewers.
DATA EXTRACTION
The primary outcome was vancomycin level. Data were extracted by 2 reviewers. We performed quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale.
RESULTS
We identified 271 records. After abstract and full-text screening, we identified 7 studies for full review. Six of the 7 studies used a matched case-control design, although there was significant variation in study methodology. Four of the 7 studies were included in a meta-analysis, which revealed a small but significant difference in vancomycin trough levels between children with normal weight and children with overweight or obesity when dosed by using TBW ( = 521; mean difference 2.2 U [95% confidence interval: 1.0-3.4]).
CONCLUSIONS
High-quality data to guide vancomycin dosing in children with obesity are lacking. More studies evaluating dosing strategies in children with obesity are warranted because using TBW to dose vancomycin may lead to higher vancomycin concentrations and potential toxicity.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Humans; Overweight; Pediatric Obesity; Vancomycin
PubMed: 32213528
DOI: 10.1542/hpeds.2019-0287 -
Orthopaedic Surgery Nov 2017Intra-site prophylactic vancomycin in spine surgery is an effective method of decreasing the incidence of postsurgical wound infection. However, there are differences in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Intra-site prophylactic vancomycin in spine surgery is an effective method of decreasing the incidence of postsurgical wound infection. However, there are differences in the prophylactic programs used for various spinal surgeries. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of using intra-wound vancomycin during spinal surgery and to explore the effects of dose-dependence and the method of administration in a subgroup analysis. A total of 628 citations or studies were searched in PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, and Google Scholar that were published before August 2016 with the terms "local vancomycin", "intra-wound vancomycin", "intraoperative vancomycin", "intra-site vancomycin", "topical vancomycin", "spine surgery", and "spinal surgery". Finally, 19 retrospective cohort studies and one prospective case study were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The odds of developing postsurgical wound infection without prophylactic local vancomycin use were 2.83-fold higher than the odds of experiencing wound infection with the use of intra-wound vancomycin (95% confidence interval, 2.03-3.95; P = 0.083; I = 32.2%). The subgroup analysis including the dosage and the method of administration, revealed different results compared to previous research. The value of I in the 1-g group was 27.2%, which was much lower than in the 2-g group (I = 57.6%). At the same time, the value of I was 0.0% (P = 0.792, OR = 2.70) when vancomycin powder was directly sprinkled into all layers of the wound. However, there is high heterogenicity (I = 60.0%, P = 0.007, OR = 2.83) when vancomycin powder is not exposed to the bone graft and instrumentation. There are differences found with the method of local application of vancomycin for reducing postoperative wounds and further studies are necessary, including investigations focusing on the dose-dependent effects during spinal or the topical pharmacokinetic and other orthopaedic surgeries.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Models, Statistical; Orthopedic Procedures; Spine; Surgical Wound Infection; Treatment Outcome; Vancomycin
PubMed: 29178308
DOI: 10.1111/os.12356