Dataset Information

Antibiotics for uncomplicated skin abscesses: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To assess the impact of adjunctive antibiotic therapy on uncomplicated skin abscesses. DESIGN:Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY SELECTION:A BMJ Rapid Recommendation panel provided input on design, important outcomes and the interpretation of the results. Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included a comparison of antibiotics against no antibiotics or a comparison of different antibiotics in patients with uncomplicated skin abscesses, and reported outcomes prespecified by the linked guideline panel. REVIEW METHODS:Reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed random-effects meta-analyses that compared antibiotics with no antibiotics, along with a limited number of prespecified subgroup hypotheses. We also performed network meta-analysis with a Bayesian framework to compare effects of different antibiotics. Quality of evidence was assessed with The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS:Fourteen RCTs including 4198 patients proved eligible. Compared with no antibiotics, antibiotics probably lower the risk of treatment failure (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.90; low quality), recurrence within 1 month (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77; moderate quality), hospitalisation (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.94; moderate quality) and late recurrence (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.85; moderate quality). However, relative to no use, antibiotics probably increase the risk of gastrointestinal side effects (trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX): OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.58; moderate quality; clindamycin: OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.88; high quality) and diarrhoea (clindamycin: OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.89; high quality). Cephalosporins did not reduce the risk of treatment failure compared with placebo (moderate quality). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with uncomplicated skin abscesses, moderate-to-high quality evidence suggests TMP-SMX or clindamycin confer a modest benefit for several important outcomes, but this is offset by a similar risk of adverse effects. Clindamycin has a substantially higher risk of diarrhoea than TMP-SMX. Cephalosporins are probably not effective.

SUBMITTER: Wang W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5829937 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent (1999) World Health Organization guidelines recommend giving routine antibiotics (AB) for all children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM), even if they have uncomplicated disease with no clinically obvious infections. We examined the evidence behind this recommendation.Methods and findingsOVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, GLOBAL-HEALTH, CINAHL, POPLINE, AFRICA-WIDE-NiPAD, and LILACS were searched for AB efficacy, bacterial resistance, and infection rates in SAM. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Three randomised controlled trials (RCT), five Cochrane reviews, and 37 observational studies were identified. One cohort-study showed no increase in nutritional-cure and mortality in uncomplicated SAM where no AB were used. (p>0.05). However, an unpublished RCT in this setting did show mortality benefits. Another RCT did not show superiority of ceftriaxone over amoxicilllin for these same outcomes, but adressed SAM children with and without complications (p?=?0.27). Another RCT showed no difference between amoxicillin and cotrimoxazole efficacies for pneumonia in underweight, but not SAM. Our meta-analysis of 12 pooled susceptibility-studies for all types of bacterial isolates, including 2767 stricly SAM children, favoured amoxicillin over cotrimoxazole for susceptibility medians: 42% (IQR 27-55%) vs 22% (IQR 17-23%) and population-weighted-means 52.9% (range 23-57%) vs 35.4% (range 6.7-42%). Susceptibilities to second-line AB were better, above 80%. Prevalence of serious infections in SAM, pooled from 24 studies, ranged from 17% to 35.2%. No study infered any association of infection prevalence with AB regimens in SAM.ConclusionsThe evidence underlying current antibiotic recommendations for uncomplicated SAM is weak. Susceptibility-studies favour amoxicillin over cotrimoxazole. However, given that these antibiotics have side-effects, costs, and risks as well as benefits, their routine use needs urgent testing. With reliable monitoring, we believe that there is sufficient equipoise for placebo controlled RCTs, the only robust way to demonstrate true efficacy.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) carry significant economic burden, as well as morbidity and mortality, especially when caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Several new MRSA-active antibiotics have been developed, including semisynthetic glycopeptides (telavancin, dalbavancin and oritavancin). Of these, dalbavancin and oritavancin offer extended dosing intervals. METHODS:We performed a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost analysis to compare the newer glycopeptides to standard care and to each other for the treatment of complicated SSTIs (cSSTI). A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We also developed a model to evaluate the costs associated with dalbavancin and oritavancin from the third-party payer perspective. RESULTS:Seven RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Network meta-analyses suggested that the clinical response to telavancin, dalbavancin and oritavancin was similar to standard care (odds ratio (OR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-1.33; OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52-1.18; and OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85-1.33, respectively). Head-to-head comparisons showed no difference in clinical response between oritavancin and dalbavancin (OR 1.36; 95% CI 0.85-2.18), oritavancin and telavancin (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.72-1.31) or dalbavancin and telavancin (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.45-1.13). Telavancin had a higher incidence of overall adverse events compared to standard care (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.10-1.61). Compared to telavancin, there were fewer overall adverse events with dalbavancin (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.45-0.76) and oritavancin (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.55-0.92). Studies were of high quality overall. Our cost analyses demonstrated that dalbavancin and oritavancin were less costly compared to standard care under baseline assumptions and many scenarios evaluated. The use of dalbavancin could save third-party payers $1442 to $4803 per cSSTI, while the use of oritavancin could save $3571 to $6932 per cSSTI. CONCLUSIONS:Dalbavancin and oritavancin demonstrate efficacy and safety comparable to standard care in well-designed RCTs and result in cost savings when standard care is treatment that covers MRSA.

Project description:BackgroundUncomplicated skin abscesses are common, yet the appropriate management of the condition in the era of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is unclear.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, prospective, double-blind trial involving outpatient adults and children. Patients were stratified according to the presence of a surgically drainable abscess, abscess size, the number of sites of skin infection, and the presence of nonpurulent cellulitis. Participants with a skin abscess 5 cm or smaller in diameter were enrolled. After abscess incision and drainage, participants were randomly assigned to receive clindamycin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), or placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome was clinical cure 7 to 10 days after the end of treatment.ResultsWe enrolled 786 participants: 505 (64.2%) were adults and 281 (35.8%) were children. A total of 448 (57.0%) of the participants were male. S. aureus was isolated from 527 participants (67.0%), and MRSA was isolated from 388 (49.4%). Ten days after therapy in the intention-to-treat population, the cure rate among participants in the clindamycin group was similar to that in the TMP-SMX group (221 of 266 participants [83.1%] and 215 of 263 participants [81.7%], respectively; P=0.73), and the cure rate in each active-treatment group was higher than that in the placebo group (177 of 257 participants [68.9%], P<0.001 for both comparisons). The results in the population of patients who could be evaluated were similar. This beneficial effect was restricted to participants with S. aureus infection. Among the participants who were initially cured, new infections at 1 month of follow-up were less common in the clindamycin group (15 of 221, 6.8%) than in the TMP-SMX group (29 of 215 [13.5%], P=0.03) or the placebo group (22 of 177 [12.4%], P=0.06). Adverse events were more frequent with clindamycin (58 of 265 [21.9%]) than with TMP-SMX (29 of 261 [11.1%]) or placebo (32 of 255 [12.5%]); all adverse events resolved without sequelae. One participant who received TMP-SMX had a hypersensitivity reaction.ConclusionsAs compared with incision and drainage alone, clindamycin or TMP-SMX in conjunction with incision and drainage improves short-term outcomes in patients who have a simple abscess. This benefit must be weighed against the known side-effect profile of these antimicrobials. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00730028 .).

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the potential beneficial and adverse effects of routine ureteric stent placement after ureteroscopy.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesCochrane controlled trials register (2006 issue 2), Embase, and Medline (1966 to 31 March 2006), without language restrictions. Review methods We included all randomised controlled trials that reported various outcomes with or without stenting after ureteroscopy. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. Meta-analyses used both fixed and random effects models with dichotomous data reported as relative risk and continuous data as a weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsNine randomised controlled trials (reporting 831 participants) were identified. The incidence of lower urinary tract symptoms was significantly higher in participants who had a stent inserted (relative risk 2.25, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 4.43, for dysuria; 2.00, 1.11 to 3.62, for frequency or urgency) after ureteroscopy. There was no significant difference in postoperative requirement for analgesia, urinary tract infections, stone free rate, and ureteric strictures in the two groups. Because of marked heterogeneity, formal pooling of data was not possible for some outcomes such as flank pain. A pooled analysis showed a reduced likelihood of unplanned medical visits or admission to hospital in the group with stents (0.53, 0.17 to 1.60), although this difference was not significant. None of the trials reported on health related quality of life. Cost reported in three randomised controlled trials favoured the group without stents. The overall quality of trials was poor and reporting of outcomes inconsistent.ConclusionsPatients with stents after ureteroscopy have significantly higher morbidity in the form of irritative lower urinary symptoms with no influence on stone free rate, rate of urinary tract infection, requirement for analgesia, or long term ureteric stricture formation. Because of the marked heterogeneity and poor quality of reporting of the included trials, the place of stenting in the management of patients after uncomplicated ureteroscopy remains unclear.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend empiric antibiotics as first-line treatment for uncomplicated UTI. Despite proven benefits in treatment, antibiotic resistance rates remain on the rise. This meta-analysis aims to determine whether non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can serve as an effective and safe option in the treatment of uncomplicated lower UTI among non-pregnant women compared to antibiotics.MethodsA systematic literature search in PUBMED, CENTRAL, and ACP databases from inception to April 2021 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials that compare the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus antibiotics in non-pregnant women ≥18 years old with uncomplicated lower urinary tract infection. Primary outcomes were symptom resolution of UTI by Day 3 or 4 of intervention, and upper UTI complications. Secondary outcomes include persistence of positive urine culture despite treatment and need for another rescue antibiotic. Random and fixed-effects model for dichotomous data using Mantel-Haenszel and Peto odds method were reported at 95% CI followed by sensitivity analysis for substantial heterogeneity.ResultsFour RCTs involving 1165 patients were analyzed. The probability of having a symptom resolution by Day 3 or 4 with NSAID use is only less than three-fourths of that with antibiotic treatment (RR: 0.69, 95% CIs [0.55, 0.86], p = 0.0008, I2 = 73%, moderate certainty of evidence). The odds of developing upper UTI complications with use of NSAIDs are 6.49 to 1 for antibiotics (Peto OR: 6.49, 95% CIs [3.02, 13.92], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty of evidence). Secondary analysis showed that the NSAID group is 2.77x more likely to have persistence of a positive microbiologic urine culture than the antibiotic group (RR: 2.77, 95% CIs [1.95, 3.94], p < 0.00001, I2 = 36%, moderate certainty of evidence). Treatment with NSAIDs are three times more likely to use a secondary or rescue antibiotic due to persistent or worsening symptoms as compared to antibiotics (RR: 3.16, 95% CIs [2.24, 4.44], p < 0.00001, I2 = 47%, low certainty of evidence).ConclusionAntibiotic treatment was more effective than use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute uncomplicated lower urinary tract infection with an overall moderate certainty of evidence.

Dataset Information

Antibiotics for uncomplicated skin abscesses: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets