scholarly journals Is Ceftazidime/Avibactam an Option for Serious Infections Due to Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase- and AmpC-Producing Enterobacterales?: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. e01052-20
Author(s):  
Burcu Isler ◽  
Yukiko Ezure ◽  
Jose Luis García-Fogeda Romero ◽  
Patrick Harris ◽  
Adam G. Stewart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Extended Spectrum ◽  
Specific Outcome ◽  
Abdominal Infections

ABSTRACTCarbapenem-sparing regimens are needed for the treatment of infections caused by extended-spectrum-β-lactamase (ESBL)- and AmpC-producing members of the Enterobacterales. We sought to compare the clinical efficacy of ceftazidime/avibactam and carbapenems against ESBL- and AmpC-producing Enterobacterales species. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing ceftazidime/avibactam with carbapenems for the treatment of ESBL- and AmpC-producing Enterobacterales was conducted. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with ESBL- and AmpC-specific outcome data were compiled. Of the 246 patients infected with an ESBL-producing microorganism in the ceftazidime/avibactam arm, 224 (91%) had a clinical response at test of cure (TOC), versus 240 of 271 (89%) patients in the carbapenem arm (risk ratio [RR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.08; P = 0.45; I2 = 0%). Clinical response rates for AmpC producers in the ceftazidime/avibactam and carbapenem arms were 32/40 (80%) and 37/42 (88%), respectively (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.10; P = 0.35; I2 = 0%). Microbiological response and mortality rates were not reported specifically for ESBL/AmpC producers. Ceftazidime/avibactam may be a carbapenem-sparing option for the treatment of mild to moderate complicated urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales species, and the data are too limited to provide any conclusive recommendations for the AmpC producers. Care should be taken before extrapolating this to severe infections, given that the representation of this population in the reviewed studies was negligible. Ceftazidime/avibactam is a costly drug active against carbapenem-resistant microorganisms and should be used judiciously to preserve its activity against them.

Interventions to Reduce Alcohol Harms in Low and Middle Income Countries: a Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joao Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Alcohol Use ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Brief Motivational Intervention ◽  
Randomized Controlled

BackgroundHarmful alcohol use leads to a large burden of disease and disability which disportionately impacts LMICs. The World Health Organization and the Lancet have issued calls for this burden to be addressed, but issues remain, primarily due to gaps in information. While a variety of interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing alcohol use in HICs, their efficacy in LMICs have yet to be assessed. This systematic review describes the current published literature on alcohol interventions in LMICs and conducts a meta analysis of clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use and harms in LMICs.MethodsIn accordance with PRISMA guidelines we searched the electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus,Web of Science, Cochrane, and Psych Info. Articles were eligible if they evaluated an intervention targeting alcohol-related harm in LMICs. After a reference and citation analysis, we conducted a quality assessment per PRISMA protocol. A meta-analysis was performed on the 39 randomized controlled trials that evaluated an alcohol-related outcome.ResultsOf the 3,801 articles from the literature search, 87 articles from 25 LMICs fit the eligibility and inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 39 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Nine of these studies focused specifically on medication, while the others focused on brief motivational intervention, brain stimulation, AUDIT-based brief interventions, WHO ASSIST-based interventions, group based education, basic screening and interventions, brief psychological or counseling, dyadic relapse prevention, group counseling, CBT, motivational + PTSD based interview, and health promotion/awareness. Conclusion Issues in determining feasible options specific to LMICs arise from unstandardized interventions, unequal geographic distribution of intervention implementation, and uncertain effectiveness over time. Current research shows that brain stimulation, psychotherapy, and brief motivational interviews have the potential to be effective in LMIC settings, but further feasibility testing and efforts to standardize results are necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document