Efficacy of surgical skin preparation with chlorhexidine in alcohol according to the concentration required to prevent surgical site infection: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A combination of chlorhexidine gluconate and alcohol (CHG-alcohol) is recommended for surgical skin preparation to prevent surgical site infection (SSI). Although more than 1 per cent CHG-alcohol is recommended to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections, there is no consensus regarding the concentration of the CHG compound for the prevention of SSI. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Four electronic databases were searched on 5 November 2020. SSI rates were compared between CHG-alcohol and povidone-iodine (PVP-I) according to the concentration of CHG (0.5 per cent, 2.0 per cent, 2.5 per cent, and 4.0 per cent). RESULTS: In total, 106 of 2716 screened articles were retrieved for full-text review. The risk ratios (RRs) of SSI for 0.5 per cent (6 studies) and 2.0 per cent (4 studies) CHG-alcohol were significantly lower than those for PVP-I (RR = 0.71, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.52 to 0.97; RR = 0.52, 95 per cent c.i 0.31 to 0.86 respectively); however, no significant difference was observed in the compounds with a CHG concentration of more than 2.0 per cent. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis is the first study that clarifies the usefulness of an alcohol-based CHG solution with a 0.5 per cent or higher CHG concentration for surgical skin preparation to prevent SSI.

Oral fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for the treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Fidaxomicin (FDX) has received considerable attention as a novel therapeutic alternative agent to vancomycin (VCM) for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). However, the superiority and efficacy profile of FDX are not sufficiently determined by high-quality evidence. This study aimed to clarify the superiority of FDX for CDI treatment through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated the efficacy and safety of FDX and VCM in patients with CDI. Electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Clinicaltrials.gov) were searched for studies published until October 15, 2021. The primary endpoint was global cure. The secondary endpoints were clinical cure, recurrence, and adverse event. Risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Assessment Criteria. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to VCM, FDX was associated with significantly higher global cure rates (RR = 1.18, P < 0.00001; RD = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.07-0.16). In addition, clinical cure rates were comparable between FDX and VCM (P = 0.31). FDX was associated with significantly lower recurrence rates compared to VCM (RR = 0.59, P < 0.0001). In addition, adverse event rates were not significantly different between the drugs (P = 0.41). CONCLUSION: FDX achieves significantly higher global cure rates and lower recurrence rates and is comparable to VCM in clinical cure rates and adverse event rates in patients with CDI. Collectively, FDX is superior to VCM as a therapeutic agent for CDI.