Dataset Information

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Safety of Antistaphylococcal Penicillins Compared to Cefazolin.

ABSTRACT: Recent studies and experience suggest that cefazolin might be equally as effective as antistaphylococcal penicillins for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA), with a better safety profile and lower cost. The objective of these meta-analyses was to compare the safeties of antistaphylococcal penicillins and cefazolin. The PubMed, Embase, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases and websites for clinical trial registries through 23 June 2017 were searched. In addition, recent abstracts from infectious disease and pharmacy conferences were reviewed. We estimated Peto odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. One analysis focused on hospitalized patients, and the other focused on outpatients. Eleven retrospective studies of hospitalized patients and three retrospective studies of outpatients were included. In hospitalized patients, lower rates of nephrotoxicity (Peto OR, 0.225; 95% CI, 0.127 to 0.513), acute interstitial nephritis (Peto OR, 0.189; 95% CI, 0.053 to 0.675), hepatotoxicity (Peto OR, 0.160; 95% CI, 0.066 to 0.387), and drug discontinuation due to adverse reactions (Peto OR, 0.192; 95% CI, 0.089 to 0.414) were found with cefazolin. In outpatients, lower rates of nephrotoxicity (Peto OR, 0.372; 95% CI, 0.192 to 0.722), hepatotoxicity (Peto OR, 0.313; 95% CI, 0.156 to 0.627), and hypersensitivity reactions (Peto OR, 0.372; 95% CI, 0.201 to 0.687) were observed with cefazolin. Compared to antistaphylococcal penicillins, cefazolin was associated with significant reductions in nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity in hospitalized patients and outpatients. Additionally, cefazolin was associated with lower likelihoods of discontinuation due to side effects in hospitalized patients and hypersensitivity reactions in outpatients. Cefazolin should be considered a first-line option for patients with MSSA infections for which efficacy is presumed to be similar to that of antistaphylococcal penicillin therapy.

SUBMITTER: Eljaaly K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5913998 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceCefazolin is the preoperative antibiotic of choice because it is safer and more efficacious than second-line alternatives. Surgical patients labeled as having penicillin allergy are less likely to prophylactically receive cefazolin and more likely to receive clindamycin or vancomycin, which results in higher rates of surgical site infections.ObjectiveTo examine the incidence of dual allergy to cefazolin and natural penicillins.Data sourcesMEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched without language restrictions for relevant articles published from database inception until July 31, 2020.Study selectionIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, a search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed for articles published from database inception to July 31, 2020, for studies that included patients who had index allergies to a natural penicillin and were tested for tolerability to cefazolin or that included patients who had index allergies to cefazolin and were tested for tolerability to a natural penicillin. A total of 3228 studies were identified and 2911 were screened for inclusion.Data extraction and synthesisData were independently extracted by 2 authors. Bayesian meta-analysis was used to estimate the frequency of allergic reactions.Main outcomes and measuresDual allergy to cefazolin and a natural penicillin.ResultsSeventy-seven unique studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding 6147 patients. Cefazolin allergy was identified in 44 participants with a history of penicillin allergy, resulting in a dual allergy meta-analytical frequency of 0.7% (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.1%-1.7%; I2 = 74.9%). Such frequency was lower for participants with unconfirmed (0.6%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-1.3%; I2 = 54.3%) than for those with confirmed penicillin allergy (3.0%; 95% CrI, 0.01%-17.0%; I2 = 88.2%). Thirteen studies exclusively assessed surgical patients (n = 3884), among whom 0.7% (95% CrI, 0%-3.3%; I2 = 85.5%) had confirmed allergy to cefazolin. Low heterogeneity was observed for studies of patients with unconfirmed penicillin allergy who had been exposed to perioperative cefazolin (0.1%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-0.3%; I2 = 13.1%). Penicillin allergy was confirmed in 16 participants with a history of cefazolin allergy, resulting in a meta-analytical frequency of 3.7% (95% CrI, 0.03%-13.3%; I2 = 64.4%). The frequency of penicillin allergy was 4.4% (95% CrI, 0%-23.0%; I2 = 75%) for the 8 studies that exclusively assessed surgical patients allergic to cefazolin.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that most patients with a penicillin allergy history may safely receive cefazolin. The exception is patients with confirmed penicillin allergy in whom additional care is warranted.

Project description:IntroductionMethicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) is a common cause of infection in humans. Beta-lactam antibiotics are the preferred agents, with anti-staphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) or the first-generation cephalosporin, cefazolin, favored by clinicians. Recent studies comparing the two strategies suggest similar outcomes between the agents. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore differences between cefazolin and ASPs for the treatment of MSSA infections.MethodsWe performed a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) of observational or cohort studies using a random-effects model. Two blinded reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, risk of bias, and data extraction. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included clinical failure, infection recurrence, and antibiotic discontinuation due to adverse events. Subgroup analyses were conducted for the primary outcome by type of ASP, studies with a high percentage of deep-seated infections, and studies of low to moderate risk of bias.ResultsAfter performing a comprehensive search of the literature, and screening for study inclusion, 19 studies (13,390 patients) were included in the final meta-analysis. Fifteen of the 19 studies (79%) were judged as having a low or moderate risk of bias. Use of cefazolin was associated with lower all-cause mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.91, p = 0.006, I2 = 28%], clinical failure (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%), and antibiotic discontinuation due to adverse events (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.16-0.39, p < 0.001, I2 = 23%). Infection recurrence was higher in the cefazolin patients (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.93, p = 0.03, I2 = 0%).ConclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of cefazolin was associated with significant reductions in all-cause mortality, clinical failure, and discontinuation due to adverse events, but was associated with an increased risk of infection recurrence.FundingUniversity of Florida Open Access Publishing Fund funded the Rapid Service Fees.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (study ID: CRD42018106442).

Project description:BackgroundLow molecular weight heparins (LMWH) have been extensively studied and became the treatment of choice for several indications including pulmonary embolism. While their efficacy in hemodialysis is considered similar to unfractionated heparin (UFH), their safety remains controversial mainly due to a risk of bioaccumulation in patients with renal impairment. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of LMWH when compared to UFH for extracorporeal circuit (ECC) anticoagulation.MethodsWe used Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Trip database and NICE to retrieve relevant studies with no language restriction. We looked for controlled experimental trials comparing LMWH to UFH for ECC anticoagulation among end-stage renal disease patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Studies were kept if they reported at least one of the following outcomes: bleeding, lipid profile, cardiovascular events, osteoporosis or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Two independent reviewers conducted studies selection, quality assessment and data extraction with discrepancies solved by a third reviewer. Relative risk and 95% CI was calculated for dichotomous outcomes and mean weighted difference (MWD) with 95% CI was used to pool continuous variables.ResultsSeventeen studies were selected as part of the systematic. The relative risk for total bleeding was 0.76 (95% CI 0.26-2.22). The WMD calculated for total cholesterol was -28.70 mg/dl (95% CI -51.43 to -5.98), a WMD for triglycerides of -55.57 mg/dl (95% CI -94.49 to -16.66) was estimated, and finally LDL-cholesterol had a WMD of -14.88 mg/dl (95% CI -36.27 to 6.51).ConclusionsLMWH showed to be at least as safe as UFH for ECC anticoagulation in chronic hemodialysis. The limited number of studies reporting on osteoporosis and HIT does not allow any conclusion for these outcomes. Larger studies are needed to evaluate properly the safety of LMWH in chronic hemodialysis.

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Dataset Information

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Safety of Antistaphylococcal Penicillins Compared to Cefazolin.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets