scholarly journals Ceftaroline Efficacy and Safety in Treatment of Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infection: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shao-Huan Lan ◽  
Shen-Peng Chang ◽  
Chih-Cheng Lai ◽  
Li-Chin Lu ◽  
Chien-Ming Chao
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Cure ◽  
Clinical Cure Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Cure Rate ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Complicated Skin

This study aims to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of ceftaroline for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) in adult patients through meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane databases were searched up to April 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated ceftaroline and other comparators for treating cSSSIs in adult patients were included. The primary outcome was the clinical cure rate, whereas the secondary outcomes were clinical failure rate, microbiological eradication rate, relapse rate, and risk of an adverse event (AE). Five RCTs were included. Overall, ceftaroline had a clinical cure rate similar to comparators in the treatment of cSSSIs in the modified intent-to-treat population (risk ratio (RR), 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.97–1.04; I2 = 0%) and in the clinically evaluable population (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97–1.03; I2 = 0%). In addition, no significant difference was observed between ceftaroline and comparators for the treatment of infection with Staphylococcus aureus (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98–1.05; I2 = 0%), methicillin-resistant S. aureus (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94–1.05; I2 = 0%), methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96–1.06; I2 = 26%), Streptococcus spp. (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.92–1.24; I2 = 73%), and Gram-negative bacteria (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83–1.08; I2 = 0%). Furthermore, ceftaroline had a similar rate of microbiological eradication (92.2% vs. 92.6%, RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97–1.03; I2 = 9%) and relapse (6.9% vs. 9.1%, RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.14–1.74; I2 = 0%) as comparators. Finally, the risks of treatment-emergent AEs (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88–1.05; I2 = 0%), serious AEs (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.63–1.68; I2 = 0%), and discontinuation of study drug due to an AE (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.50–1.49; I2 = 34%) did not differ significantly between ceftaroline and comparators. In conclusion, the clinical efficacy of ceftaroline is as high as that of comparators in the treatment of cSSSIs in adult patients, and this antibiotic is well tolerated like the comparators.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Ceftaroline for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 824 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shao-Huan Lan ◽  
Shen-Peng Chang ◽  
Chih-Cheng Lai ◽  
Li-Chin Lu ◽  
Chien-Ming Chao
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Cure ◽  
Clinical Cure Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Community Acquired Pneumonia ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Cure Rate ◽  
Mitt Population ◽  
Randomized Controlled

This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of ceftaroline with those of ceftriaxone for treating community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and clinicalTrials.gov databases were searched until April 2019. This meta-analysis only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated ceftaroline and ceftriaxone for the treatment of CAP. The primary outcome was the clinical cure rate, and the secondary outcome was the risk of adverse events (AEs). Five RCTs were included. Overall, at the test of cure (TOC), the clinical cure rate of ceftaroline was superior to the rates of ceftriaxone for the treatment of CAP (modified intent-to-treat population (MITT) population, odds ratio (OR) 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31–1.99, I2 = 0%; clinically evaluable (CE) population, OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.07–1.78, I2 = 14%). Similarly, the clinical cure rate of ceftaroline was superior to that of ceftriaxone at the end of therapy (EOT) (MITT population, OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.16–2.11, I2 = 0%; CE population, OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.15–2.33, I2 = 0%). For adult patients, the clinical cure rate of ceftaroline remained superior to that of ceftriaxone at TOC (MITT population, OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.34–2.06, I2 = 0%; CE population, OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08–1.80, I2 = 30%) and at EOT (MITT population, OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20–2.24, I2 = 0%; CE population, OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.15–2.36, I2 = 0%). Ceftaroline and ceftriaxone did not differ significantly in the risk of serious AEs, treatment-emergent AEs, and discontinuation of the study drug owing to an AE. In conclusion, the clinical efficacy of ceftaroline is similar to that of ceftriaxone for the treatment of CAP. Furthermore, this antibiotic is as tolerable as ceftriaxone.

scholarly journals Comparing Several Treatments with Antibiotics for CommunityAcquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fusheng Bai ◽  
Xinming Li
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Clinical Cure ◽  
Clinical Cure Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Cure Rate ◽  
Ceftaroline Fosamil ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background: We aimed to review relevant randomized controlled trials to assess the relative clinical effects of antibiotic treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Methods: In this meta-analysis, we identified relevant studies from PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase using appropriate keywords. Key pertinent sources in the literature were also reviewed and all articles published through Oct 2019 were considered for inclusion. For each study, we assessed the risk ratios (RRs) or mean difference combined with the 95% confidence interval (CI) to assess and synthesize outcomes. Results: Overall, 36 studies were consistent with the meta-analysis, involving 17,076 patients. There was no significant difference in the mortality after subgroup analysis: individualized treatment vs. standard treatment; β-lactams plus macrolides vs. β-lactam and/or fluoroquinolone; ceftaroline fosamil vs. ceftriaxone; combination therapy vs. monotherapy or high-dose vs. low-dose. The drug-related adverse event incidence was significantly higher in the ceftriaxone group than in the other drug groups (P<0.05) and also higher in the tigecyline group than in the levofloxacin group (P<0.05). Compared with ceftriaxone, ceftaroline fosamil significantly increased the clinical cure rate at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit in the clinically evaluable population, modified intent-to-treat efficacy (MITTE) population, microbiologically evaluable (ME) population and the microbiological MITTE (mMITTE) population (all P<0.05). Compared with ceftriaxone, ceftaroline fosamil significantly increased the clinical cure rate at the TOC visit in the mMITTE population of Gram positiveStreptococcus pneumoniae (P<0.05) and multidrug-resistant S. pneumoniae (P<0.05). Conclusion: There was a limited number of included studies in the subgroup analysis, but it will still be necessary to conduct more high-quality randomized controlled trials to confirm the clinical efficacy of different antibiotics used to treat CAP.

scholarly journals Berberine for diarrhea in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175628482096129
Author(s):  
Mingkun Yu ◽  
Xuejing Jin ◽  
Changhao Liang ◽  
Fanlong Bu ◽  
Deng Pan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Cure ◽  
Clinical Cure Rate ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cure Rate ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background: Diarrhea is a ubiquitous digestive system disease, leading to loss of fluid and electrolytes, and may be life-threatening, especially in children and adults who are immunosuppressed or malnourished. Berberine has a broad-spectrum antibiotic activity and is very widely used to treat diarrhea in China. No systematic review has been carried out to evaluate the evidence presented in clinical trials. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of berberine in diarrhea treatment among children and adults. Methods: Seven databases and two clinical trial registries were searched on 1 September 2019. Randomized controlled trials were included, where participants were diagnosed (first diagnosed) as having diarrhea according to clear diagnostic criteria. Berberine alone or in combination with Western medication as intervention were included. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on children or adults, acute or persistent diarrhea, infectious or noninfectious and treatment courses. Primary outcomes were clinical cure rate and duration of diarrhea. The GRADE tool was used to assess the quality of evidence. Results: A total of 38 randomized controlled trials were included involving 3948 participants (including 27 trials on 2702 children) were included. Compared with antibiotics, berberine plus antibiotics showed better results in both adults and in children in general, especially when given for 7 days or 3 days in acute infectious diarrhea of children. Compared with the control groups, using berberine alone or in combination with montmorillonite, probiotics, and vitamin B increased the clinical cure rate of diarrhea. The use of berberine alone or berberine combined with montmorillonite reduced the duration of hospitalization. Using berberine had significantly better laboratory indicators (isoenzyme, inflammatory factors, myocardial enzyme, and fecal trait) and fewer systemic symptoms than the no berberine groups. Overall, 22 of 27 trials on children used berberine as an enema. No deaths and serious adverse events were reported. The quality of evidence of included trials was moderate to low or very low. The impact of different dosages, frequencies and treatment durations on the outcomes was not evaluated due to insufficient number of trials. Conclusion: This review demonstrated that berberine was generally effective in improving clinical cure rates and shortening the duration of diarrhea compared with control groups. No severe adverse event was reported. However, there is still a lack of high-quality evidence for evaluating the efficacy and safety of berberine. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42020151001 (available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ).

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation for treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 030006052110066
Author(s):  
Hua Zhang ◽  
Bo Wang ◽  
Jie He ◽  
Zhongju Du
Keyword(s):  
Radiofrequency Ablation ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Methods A literature review was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Review, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of all retrieved studies. The research was reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure the reliability and verity of the results. The statistical analysis was performed using STATA version 13.0. Results Nine randomized controlled trials were collected for the data extraction and meta-analysis. Significant differences in the pain score at 4, 12, and 24 weeks were found between patients treated with radiofrequency ablation and those treated with placebo. Furthermore, the use of radiofrequency ablation was associated with an improved outcome of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. No serious adverse events were observed in any patients who underwent radiofrequency ablation. Conclusion Radiofrequency ablation is efficacious and safe for reducing pain and improving knee function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, without increasing the risk of adverse effects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document