Antibiotic regimens for the empirical treatment of newborn infants with necrotising enterocolitis.

BACKGROUND: Although the exact aetiology of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) remains unknown, research suggests that it is multifactorial; suspected pathophysiological mechanisms include immaturity, intestinal ischaemia, disruption of intestinal mucosal integrity, formula feeding, hyperosmolar load to the intestine, infection and bacterial translocation. Various antibiotic regimens have been widely used in the treatment of NEC. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of different antibiotic regimens on mortality and the need for surgery in neonates with NEC. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were made of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2012), Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, MEDLINE (1966 to February 2012), EMBASE (1980 to February 2012) and CINAHL (1982 to February 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials where antibiotic regimens were used for treatment of NEC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eligibility of studies for inclusion was assessed independently by each review author. The criteria and standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group were used to assess the methodological quality of the included trials. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials met the inclusion criteria. Faix 1988 randomised 42 premature infants with radiological diagnosis of NEC. Infants were randomised to receive either intravenous ampicillin and gentamicin or ampicillin, gentamicin and clindamycin. Hansen 1980 randomised 20 infants with NEC to receive intravenous ampicillin and gentamicin with or without enteral gentamicin.In the study by Faix 1988, there were no statistical differences in mortality (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.83) or bowel perforation (RR 2.20; 95% CI 0.45 to 10.74) between the two groups although there was a trend towards higher rate of strictures in the group that received clindamycin (RR 7.20; 95% CI 0.97 to 53.36).The Hansen 1980 study showed no statistically significant difference in death, bowel perforation or development of strictures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to recommend a particular antibiotic regimen for the treatment of NEC. There were concerns about adverse effects following the usage of clindamycin, related to the development of strictures. To address this issue a large randomised controlled trial needs to be performed.

Efficacy and safety of a nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene 0.1% and clindamycin 1% combination in acne vulgaris: a randomized, open label, active-controlled, multicentric, phase IV clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris is a very common skin disease with a significant detrimental effect on the quality of life of the patients. AIMS: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of a nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene and clindamycin combination with its conventional formulation in the treatment of acne vulgaris of the face. It was a prospective, randomized, open label, active-controlled, multicentric, clinical trial. METHODS: Eligible patients suffering from acne vulgaris of the face were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with a nano-emulsion gel or conventional gel formulation of adapalene 0.1% and clindamycin (as phosphate) 1% combination for 12 weeks. Total, inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts, with grading of acne severity were carried out on a monthly basis. Safety assessments were done to determine the comparative local and systemic tolerability. Two-tailed significance testing was carried out with appropriate statistical tests, and P-values < 0.05 were considered as significant. RESULTS: 209/212 patients enrolled in the study were eligible for efficacy and safety assessments in both nano-emulsion gel (118/119 patients) and conventional gel (91/93 patients) groups. Significantly better reductions in total (79.7% vs. 62.7%), inflammatory (88.7% vs. 71.4%) and noninflammatory (74.9% vs. 58.4%) lesions were reported with the nano-emulsion gel as compared to the conventional gel (P < 0.001 for all). Mean acne severity score also reduced significantly more with the nano-emulsion formulation (1.9 ± 0.9 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0; P < 0.001) than the comparator. Significantly lower incidence and lesser intensity of adverse events like local irritation (4.2% vs. 19.8%; P < 0.05) and erythema (0.8% vs. 9.9%; P < 0.05) were recorded with the nano-emulsion gel. CONCLUSIONS: The nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene and clindamycin combination appears to be more efficacious and better tolerated than the conventional formulation for the treatment of acne vulgaris in Indian patients. Further studies can elucidate the comparative treatment benefits of this nano-emulsion gel formulation.