Dataset Information

Identification and management of Shigella infection in children with diarrhoea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Shigella infections are a leading cause of diarrhoeal death among children in low-income and middle-income countries. WHO guidelines reserve antibiotics for treating children with dysentery. Reliance on dysentery for identification and management of Shigella infection might miss an opportunity to reduce Shigella-associated morbidity and mortality. We aimed to systematically review and evaluate Shigella-associated and dysentery-associated mortality, the diagnostic value of dysentery for the identification of Shigella infection, and the efficacy of antibiotics for children with Shigella or dysentery, or both.

Methods

We did three systematic reviews (for mortality, diagnostic value, and antibiotic treatment of Shigella and dysentery), and meta-analyses where appropriate, of studies in resource-limited settings. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS database for studies published before Jan 1, 2017, in English, French, and Spanish. We included studies of human beings with diarrhoea and accepted all study-specific definitions of dysentery. For the mortality and diagnostic value searches, we excluded studies that did not include an effect estimate or data necessary to calculate this estimate. The search for treatment included only randomised controlled trials that were done after Jan 1, 1980, and assessed antibiotics in children (aged <18 years) with dysentery or laboratory-confirmed Shigella. We extracted or calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for relative mortality and did random-effects meta-analysis to arrive at pooled ORs. We calculated 95% CIs assuming a binomial distribution and did random-effects meta-regression of log-transformed sensitivity and specificity estimates for diagnostic value. We assessed the heterogeneity of papers included in these meta-analyses using the I² statistic and evaluated publication bias using funnel plots. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017063896).

Findings

3649 papers were identified and 60 studies were included for analyses: 13 for mortality, 27 for diagnostic value, and 20 for treatment. Shigella infection was associated with mortality (pooled OR 2·8, 95% CI 1·6-4·8; p=0·000) whereas dysentery was not associated with mortality (1·3, 0·7-2·3; p=0·37). Between 1977 and 2016, dysentery identified 1·9-85·9% of confirmed Shigella infections, with sensitivity decreasing over time (p=0·04). Ten (50%) of 20 included antibiotic trials were among children with dysentery, none were placebo-controlled, and two (10%) evaluated antibiotics no longer recommended for acute infectious diarrhoea. Ciprofloxacin showed superior microbiological, but not clinical, effectiveness compared with pivmecillinam, and no superior microbiological and clinical effectiveness compared with gatifloxacin. Substantial heterogeneity was reported for meta-analyses of the Shigella-associated mortality studies (I²=78·3%) and dysentery-associated mortality studies (I²=73·2%). Too few mortality studies were identified to meaningfully test for publication bias. No evidence of publication bias was found in this analysis of studies of diagnostic value.

Interpretation

Current WHO guidelines appear to manage dysentery effectively, but might miss opportunities to reduce mortality among children infected with Shigella who present without bloody stool. Further studies should quantify potential decreases in mortality and morbidity associated with antibiotic therapy for children with non-dysenteric Shigella infection.

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Center for AIDS Research International Core.

SUBMITTER: Tickell KD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5695759 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate existing evidence for the use of probiotics in preventing antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) in adults.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data sourcesWe performed a literature search of the electronic databases CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, MEDLINE (Ovid) and Web of Science from database inception to May 2021 as well as hand searching of trial registries and reference lists of related reviews.Study selectionTwo reviewers identified whether RCTs met the following inclusion criteria: adult population to whom antibiotics were administered; a probiotic intervention; a placebo, alternative dose, alternative probiotic strain or no treatment control; and incidence of AAD as the outcome.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently collected data and assessed risk of bias using preconstructed data extraction forms. We used a random effects model for all analyses. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate species-specific and dose-specific response.ResultsForty-two studies (11,305 participants) were included in this review. The pooled analysis suggests that co-administration of probiotics with antibiotics reduces the risk of AAD in adults by 37% (risk ratio (RR)=0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.73), p<0.00001). The overall quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria was found to be moderate. In subgroup analyses, high dose compared with low dose of the same probiotic demonstrated a positive protective effect (RR 0.54 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.76), p<0.01), and only certain species, mainly of the lactobacillus and bifidobacteria genera, were found to be effective. Studies with a low baseline AAD risk did not show any difference in risk but studies with moderate or high baseline AAD risk demonstrated a significant risk reduction.ConclusionsProbiotics are effective for preventing AAD. Secondary analyses of higher dosages and certain species have shown increased effectiveness. Our results may not be applicable in clinical scenarios of lower baseline AAD risk.

Project description:Childhood acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, so, immunostimulants have been used as a preventative measure. Despite this, there is no updated evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of immunostimulant drugs for this purpose. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of immunostimulants in preventing ARTIs in children based on the most recent scientific evidence. Data sources such as PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Google Scholar, and Scopus were searched from 1965 to 10 January 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immunostimulants administered by any method, with placebo to prevent ARTIs on children under 18 years of age without immunodeficiencies, anatomical, genetic, or allergic conditions. In order to analyze data from the studies, we used Review Manager 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020), assessed the certainty of the evidence with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and assessed the quality and risk of bias of the studies using the RoB tool 1.0. Further, outcomes were combined and analyzed using meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis. Throughout the review, we included 72 placebo-controlled clinical trials involving 12,229 children. The meta-analyses, however, included only 38 studies (52.8%) with 4643 children (38% of the total) with data on mean number of ARTIs. These studies demonstrated a reduction in the ARTIs (MD -1.12 [95%CI -1.39 to -0.85]) and ratio of means of ARTIs (0.61 [95%CI 0.54-0.69]), corresponding to a percentage reduction of 39% (95%CI, 46%-31%) with moderate-quality data. Nevertheless, since there was considerable to substantial heterogeneity and bias was unclear in all domains in 32 out of 72 trials, the quality of the evidence for efficacy was deemed low. Only 14 trials reported adverse events. The review indicates that immunostimulants reduce the incidence of ARTIs by 40% on average in susceptible children, despite low-quality evidence, heterogeneity, and the possibility of publication bias. However, further studies are needed to establish immunostimulants' safety and efficacy profiles. This review was conducted without the support of any funding and has no registered number.