scholarly journals Antibiotic treatment duration for patients with bloodstream infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuting Li ◽  
Juan Yang ◽  
Hongmei Yang ◽  
Jianxing Guo ◽  
Dong Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Antibiotic Treatment ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Source Control ◽  
Short Course ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Long Course

Abstract Objectives: The optimal duration of therapy for primary bloodstream infection (BSI) and BSI secondary to major organ system infections has been poorly defined. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of short (≤10 days)and long course(>10 days) of antibiotic treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with BSI.Methods: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials(RCTs) and cohort studies from inception to the 1st of October 2020. We included studies involving patients with BSI. All authors reported our primary outcome of all-cause mortality and clearly comparing short versus long course of antibiotic treatment with clinically relevant secondary outcomes(source control and relapse). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI).Results: Six studies including 3593 patients were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the all-cause mortality between two groups (OR=1.10; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.48; P=0.52; Chi2=7.57; I2=34%) . Secondary outcomes demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in the source control(OR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.10; P=0.18; Chi2=2.68; I2=25%)and relapse(OR=1.20; 95%CI,0.71 to 2.01; P=0.49; Chi2=0.26; I2=0%) between two groups. Conclusions: Short course of antibiotic treatment is not associated with either an increased risk of mortality or an increased odds of relapse compared with longer antibiotic treatment course for BSI. Furthermore, short course of antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to long course in terms of source control. Further large-scale RCTs are still required to confirm these results.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Antibiotic Treatment Duration for Bacteremia Due to Enterobacteriaceae

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giannoula S. Tansarli ◽  
Nikolaos Andreatos ◽  
Elina E. Pliakos ◽  
Eleftherios Mylonakis
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Antibiotic Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Short Course ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Studies ◽  
Long Course

ABSTRACT The duration of antibiotic therapy for bacteremia due to Enterobacteriaceae is not well defined. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes with shorter- versus longer-course treatment. We performed a systematic search of the PubMed and EMBASE databases through May 2018. Studies presenting comparative outcomes between patients receiving antibiotic treatment for ≤10 days (“short-course”) and those treated for >10 days (“long-course”) were considered eligible. Four retrospective cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial comprising 2,865 patients met the inclusion criteria. The short- and long-course antibiotic treatments did not differ in 30-day all-cause mortality (1,374 patients; risk ratio [RR] = 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.43), 90-day all-cause mortality (1,750 patients; RR = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.66), clinical cure (1,080 patients; RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.08), or relapse at 90 days (1,750 patients; RR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.67). In patients with bacteremia due to Enterobacteriaceae, the short- and long-course antibiotic treatments did not differ significantly in terms of clinical outcomes. Further well-designed studies are needed before treatment for 10 days or less is adopted in clinical practice.

Comparison of Intermittent versus Continuous Superior Venal Caval Oxygen Saturation Monitoring in Early Goal Directed Therapy in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jhuma Mondal Sankar ◽  
Rashmi Ranjan Das ◽  
Udhaya Vijaya Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Septic Shock ◽  
Continuous Monitoring ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Goal Directed Therapy ◽  
Early Goal Directed Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality

AbstractEarly goal directed therapy (EGDT) is a bundle of care (monitoring ScvO2 and lactate along with clinical parameters and instituting therapy) that has shown to improve outcomes in patients with septic shock. We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies to compare intermittent versus continuous monitoring of ScvO2. We did major database searches till August 2020. Hospitalized children (>2 months age) and adults with septic shock were included. The intervention was “intermittent ScvO2 monitoring,” and the comparator was “continuous ScvO2 monitoring.” The primary outcome is “all-cause mortality.” Of 564 citations, 3 studies (n = 541) including both children and adults were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the “overall/all-cause mortality” (two randomized controlled trials; 258 participants) between the “intermittent” and “continuous” ScvO2 monitoring groups (relative risk [RR]: 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8–1.24). However, a single observational study (283 participants) showed a significant increase in mortality in the intermittent group (RR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.03–2.05). The GRADE evidence generated for “overall/all-cause mortality” was of “moderate certainty.” To conclude, the present meta-analysis did not find any significant difference between “intermittent” and “continuous” ScvO2 monitoring in patients with septic shock.

scholarly journals Short-Course Antibiotic Treatment Is Not Inferior to a Long-Course One in Acute Cholangitis: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedek Tinusz ◽  
László Szapáry ◽  
Bence Paládi ◽  
Judit Tenk ◽  
Zoltán Rumbus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Antibiotic Treatment ◽  
Acute Cholangitis ◽  
Short Course ◽  
Long Course

Comparison between Intravenous Iron and Oral Iron Preparations for the Treatment of Anemia of Chronic Kidney Disease - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 3748-3748
Author(s):  
Anat Gafter-Gvili ◽  
Benaya Rozen-Zvi ◽  
Mical Paul ◽  
Leonard Leibovici ◽  
Gafter Uzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Iron ◽  
Dialysis Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Iron Preparation ◽  
Iv Iron

Abstract Background: There is confounding data regarding the best method of iron supplementation in chronic kidney disease (CKD), without a consistent approach in clinical practice. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) iron versus oral iron in patients treated for anemia of CKD. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing IV iron preparation with oral iron preparation for the treatment of anemia in patients with CKD (stage III, IV and V). The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, conference proceedings and references were searched until 2007. Primary outcomes: absolute hemoglobin (Hb) level or change in Hb level from baseline at two months or at end of study; all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes: need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) in predialysis patient and adverse events. Weighted mean differences (WMD) for outcomes with continuous variables and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated and pooled. Results: Our search yielded 11 trials which compared IV iron preparations (iron sucrose, iron gluconate or iron dextran) to oral iron. Compared to oral iron, there was a significant rise in Hb level in the IV iron treated hemodialysis patients (WMD 1.17; 95%CI 0.19–2.15, fig). Significant heterogeneity was observed due to different baseline Hb values and baseline iron status, different dosages of oral iron, and different dosages of erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA). For predialysis patients, there was a small but significant difference in the Hb level favoring the IV iron group (WMD 0.28; 95% CI 0.15–0.4, fig). For both groups effect estimates were not influenced by ESA administration. In predialysis patients, there was no significant difference in the risk for requiring RRT during the trial between the different groups (RR 0.63; 95%CI 0.25–1.65). Data on all-cause mortality were sparse (RR 0.54; 95%CI 0.09–3.13, 3 trials) and there was no difference in adverse events (RR 0.9; 95%CI 0.65–1.24) between the IV and oral treated patients. However, discontinuations of treatment were more common (RR 3.27; 95%CI 1.15–9.26) for the IV iron treated patients. Conclusions: Our review demonstrates that dialysis patients treated with IV iron have better Hb response than patients treated with oral iron. For predialysis patients, this effect is very small. IV iron should be preferred in the treatment of anemia in dialysis patients. In predialysis patients the slight advantage in Hb response should be weighed against the inconvenience and cost of IV iron treatment.

scholarly journals Efficiency and safety of ondansetron in preventing postanaesthesia shivering

2016 ◽  
Vol 98 (6) ◽  
pp. 358-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
k He ◽  
H Zhao ◽  
HC Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Lower Risk ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Introduction Shivering is one of the most frequent complications of operation during the postanaesthesia period. Ondansetron has been proved to be valid in preventing postanaesthesia shivering (PAS) in several studies. However, its efficiency and safety are still disputable. We therefore performed an updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for evaluation and to clarify this issue. Methods A literature search using the PubMed, Embase™ and Cochrane Library databases was performed (from inception to January 2015). RCTs that evaluated the efficiency and safety of ondansetron in the prevention of PAS were included in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome measure was incidence of PAS, and secondary outcomes included subgroup analysis and the side effects of ondansetron. Results A total of 8 RCTs containing 905 subjects were identified as suitable for this review. Compared with placebo, ondansetron was associated with a significant reduction of PAS (relative risk [RR]: 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19–0.58, p=0.0001) while no difference was detected between ondansetron and pethidine (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.41–1.94, p=0.78). There was no significant difference between ondansetron and placebo or pethidine in terms of risk of bradycardia but ondansetron was associated with a lower risk of hypotension (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.08–0.79, p=0.020) than placebo. There was no difference in hypotension when ondansetron was compared with pethidine. Conclusions Ondansetron can prevent PAS effectively and reduce the risk of hypotension.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness and Safety of Acupuncture for Patients with Chronic Urticaria: A Systematic Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qin Yao ◽  
Shanshan Li ◽  
Xiaoxu Liu ◽  
Zongshi Qin ◽  
Zhishun Liu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Chronic Urticaria ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Symptom Improvement ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background. Acupuncture might have effectiveness in relieving the symptoms of chronic urticaria. There are currently no systematic reviews of acupuncture for chronic urticaria published in English.Objective. We conducted a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for chronic urticaria.Methods. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials were performed. The primary outcome was global symptom improvement.Results. We included 6 studies with 406 participants. Three trials showed significant difference between acupuncture and drugs in global symptom improvement (relative risk 1.37; 95% CI 1.11–1.70;P=0.003). As an adjuvant to medication, acupuncture was also beneficial for global symptom improvement (relative risk 1.77; 95% CI 1.41–2.22;P<0.01). There were no severe adverse events related to acupuncture.Limitations. Some methodological limitations were observed. The overall risk of bias in the 6 included trials was high and all included RCTs were conducted in China and published in Chinese. Besides, the lack of proper control groups and the use of different rating methods and cut-offs in the included trials also made the evidence of this review limited.Conclusions. Acupuncture might be effective and safe for chronic urticaria in relieving symptoms, based on a low level of evidence. To draw a reliable conclusion, more high quality trials are needed in the future. This trial is registered with PROSPEROCRD42015015702.

scholarly journals Short-course vasoconstrictors are adequate for esophageal variceal bleeding after endoscopic variceal ligation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (3) ◽  
pp. 003685042110317
Author(s):  
Jen-Hao Yeh ◽  
Gin-Ho Lo ◽  
Ru-Yi Huang ◽  
Chih-Wen Lin ◽  
Wen-Lun Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Variceal Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Endoscopic Variceal Ligation ◽  
Esophageal Variceal ◽  
Esophageal Variceal Bleeding ◽  
Short Course ◽  
Significant Difference

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with vasoconstrictors has been recommended for acute esophageal variceal bleeding. However, the optimal duration of vasoconstrictors after EVL is controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the efficacy of short-course vasoconstrictors (≤3 days) versus standard combination (3–5 days). A comprehensive literature review was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases with subsequent meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were 5-day rebleeding, mortality, and treatment failure rates. A risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval is used for outcome comparison. Nine randomized studies with 838 patients were included. The initial hemostasis (96.8% vs 97.4%, p = 0.919), 5-day rebleeding (11.2% vs 8.3%, RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.62–1.76), mortality (0 vs 1.3%, RR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.10–2.39), and treatment failure (7.4% vs 5.9%, RR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.48–2.49) were similar in both groups. Subgroup analysis suggested EVL alone had no significant difference of 5-day re-bleeding (15.9% vs 7.1%, RR = 2.25, 95% CI = 0.87–5.77), mortality (0 vs 0.7%, RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.08–6.03), treatment failure (9.6% vs 6.7%, RR = 1.43, 95% CI = 0.54–3.75) compared to standard combination. Clinical heterogeneity was found for the rebleeding rate for the subgroup during sensitivity analysis. EVL with short-course vasoconstrictors is highly efficacious for esophageal variceal bleeding. Further studies are required to determine the genuine need of subsequent vasoconstrictor after successful EVL.

scholarly journals 195. Duration of Therapy for Streptococcal Bacteremia

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S205-S205
Author(s):  
John M Boulos ◽  
Valeria Fabre ◽  
Kate Dzintars ◽  
Kate Dzintars ◽  
George Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Therapy ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Hospital Readmission ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Short Course ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Long Course

Abstract Background Shorter durations have shown similar clinical outcomes as longer durations for uncomplicated (source-controlled) Gram-negative bloodstream infections (BSI). There is limited data on the outcomes of patients with non-pneumococcal streptococcal BSI receiving shorter durations of therapy compared to usual durations. Methods This was a retrospective, multicenter study of adults hospitalized between January 2018 and March 2019 with ≥ 1 blood culture positive for Streptococcus spp. Exposed patients were those who received ≤ 10 days of antibiotics (i.e., short course therapy) and unexposed patients were those who received 11-21 days of antibiotics (i.e., prolonged course therapy). Patients were excluded if they had S. pneumoniae BSI, suspected contamination, did not receive or complete therapy, or treated for &gt; 21 days. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent bacteremia with the same pathogen, hospital readmission, or all-cause mortality, all within 30 days from completing therapy. The odds of achieving the primary outcome was compared between exposed and unexposed patients using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 176 patients met eligibility criteria. 35 (20%) received a short course (median 8 days) and 141 (80%) received a prolonged course (median 15 days) of antibiotic therapy. Baseline characteristics were similar between short and long course groups. The most common pathogens were viridans group streptococci (22%) and S. agalactiae (23%). The most common BSI source was skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) (40%). The primary outcome occurred in 26% (9/35) and 23% (33/141) of patients in the short course and prolonged course groups, respectively (p = 0.774). The proportion of patients in the short course and prolonged course groups who experienced recurrent BSI, hospital readmission, or all-cause mortality were also non-significant. After adjusting for receipt of an infectious diseases consult, Pitt bacteremia score, and SSTI source, the adjusted odds of meeting the composite outcome remained unchanged (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 0.55 – 3.61, p = 0.466). Table 1. Cohort Characteristics Table 2. Source/Microbiology Table 3. Outcomes Conclusion Approximately a week of antibiotic therapy may be associated with similar clinical outcomes as longer antibiotics courses in patients with uncomplicated streptococcal BSI. Disclosures Kate Dzintars, PharmD, Nothing to disclose Sara E. Cosgrove, MD, MS, Basilea (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant Pranita Tamma, MD, MHS, Nothing to disclose

The Effect of β-Blockers for Burn Patients on Clinical Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 088506662094018
Author(s):  
Nasreen Hassoun-Kheir ◽  
Oryan Henig ◽  
Tomer Avni ◽  
Leonard Leibovici ◽  
Mical Paul
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Β Blocker ◽  
Β Blockers

Objectives: To assess the effects and safety of β-blockers in hospitalized patients with burns. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. A broad search was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing β-blockers to control in hospitalized patients with burns. The primary outcome was 3-month all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were clinical patient-relevant end points. We subgrouped results by children/adults and burn severity. Risk of bias was assessed using the individual domain approach. Results: Four RCTs reported in 11 publications were included. Primary outcome of mortality was assessed in children (2 trials, n = 424) and adults (2 trials, n = 148) with severe burns. No significant difference was found between propranolol and control for mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.48-1.39, 4 trials with broad confidence intervals in adults and children), sepsis (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.46-1.43, 2 trials), and survivors’ length of stay (absolute mean difference = 2.53, 95% CI = −2.58–7.63, 3 trials). There was no significant difference in bradycardia (RR = 1.33, 95% CI = 0.77-2.3, 2 trials), hypotension (RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 0.73-2.17, 3 trials), or cardiac arrhythmia (RR: 2.97, 95% CI: 0.12-71.87, 1 trial). The evidence was graded as very low certainty, due to trial’s internal risk of bias, imprecision, and possible selective reporting. Conclusions: No sufficient evidence was found to support or refute an advantage for β-blocker use in children or adults after burns. Additional studies are needed to create a consensus and formulate practice guidelines on the optimal β-blocker to use, indications for initiation, and duration of treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document