Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.700
Filtrar
1.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD003610, 2021 02 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33704780

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide with approximately 7.4 million deaths each year. People with established coronary heart disease have a high risk of subsequent cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Antibiotics might prevent such outcomes due to their antibacterial, antiinflammatory, and antioxidative effects. However, a randomised clinical trial and several observational studies have suggested that antibiotics may increase the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. Furthermore, several non-Cochrane Reviews, that are now outdated, have assessed the effects of antibiotics for coronary heart disease and have shown conflicting results. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methodology has assessed the effects of antibiotics for coronary heart disease. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the benefits and harms of antibiotics compared with placebo or no intervention for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and BIOSIS in December 2019 in order to identify relevant trials. Additionally, we searched TRIP, Google Scholar, and nine trial registries in December 2019. We also contacted 11 pharmaceutical companies and searched the reference lists of included trials, previous systematic reviews, and other types of reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in adult participants (≥18 years). Trials were included irrespective of setting, blinding, publication status, publication year, language, and reporting of our outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse event according to the International Conference on Harmonization - Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP), and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden cardiac death. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up. Additionally, we extracted outcome data at 24±6 months follow-up. We assessed the risks of systematic errors using Cochrane 'Rosk of bias' tool. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated absolute risk reduction (ARR) or increase (ARI) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) if the outcome result showed a beneficial or harmful effect, respectively. The certainty of the body of evidence was assessed by GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 trials randomising a total of 26,638 participants (mean age 61.6 years), with 23/38 trials reporting data on 26,078 participants that could be meta-analysed. Three trials were at low risk of bias and the 35 remaining trials were at high risk of bias. Trials assessing the effects of macrolides (28 trials; 22,059 participants) and quinolones (two trials; 4162 participants) contributed with the vast majority of the data. Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed that antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention seemed to increase the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; P = 0.07; I2 = 0%; ARI 0.48%; NNTH 208; 25,774 participants; 20 trials; high certainty of evidence), stroke (RR 1.14; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.29; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%; ARI 0.73%; NNTH 138; 14,774 participants; 9 trials; high certainty of evidence), and probably also cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.25; P = 0.11; I2= 0%; 4674 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). Little to no difference was observed when assessing the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.03; P = 0.23; I2 = 0%; 25,523 participants; 17 trials; high certainty of evidence). No evidence of a difference was observed when assessing sudden cardiac death (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.31; P = 0.41; I2 = 0%; 4520 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). Meta-analyses at 24±6 months follow-up showed that antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention increased the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; P = 0.007; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.26%; NNTH 79 (95% CI 335 to 42); 9517 participants; 6 trials; high certainty of evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.91; P = 0.001; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.12%; NNTH 89 (95% CI 261 to 49); 9044 participants; 5 trials; high certainty of evidence), and probably also sudden cardiac death (RR 1.77; 95% CI 1.28 to 2.44; P = 0.0005; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.9%; NNTH 53 (95% CI 145 to 28); 4520 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). No evidence of a difference was observed when assessing the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11; P = 0.53; I2 = 43%; 9457 participants; 5 trials; moderate certainty of evidence) and stroke (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52; P = 0.24; I2 = 0%; 9457 participants; 5 trials; high certainty of evidence). Meta-analyses of trials at low risk of bias differed from the overall analyses when assessing cardiovascular mortality at maximum follow-up. For all other outcomes, meta-analyses of trials at low risk of bias did not differ from the overall analyses. None of the trials specifically assessed serious adverse event according to ICH-GCP. No data were found on quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our present review indicates that antibiotics (macrolides or quinolones) for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease seem harmful when assessing the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke at maximum follow-up and all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and sudden cardiac death at 24±6 months follow-up. Current evidence does, therefore, not support the clinical use of macrolides and quinolones for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Future trials on the safety of macrolides or quinolones for the secondary prevention in patients with coronary heart disease do not seem ethical. In general, randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of antibiotics, especially macrolides and quinolones, need longer follow-up so that late-occurring adverse events can also be assessed.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Doença das Coronárias/prevenção & controle , Prevenção Secundária/métodos , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Doenças Cardiovasculares/mortalidade , Causas de Morte , Doença das Coronárias/mortalidade , Morte Súbita Cardíaca/epidemiologia , Humanos , Macrolídeos/efeitos adversos , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Infarto do Miocárdio/epidemiologia , Quinolonas/efeitos adversos , Quinolonas/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/epidemiologia
2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 3: CD004406, 2021 03 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33728634

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although their effectiveness increases in people with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. This is an update of a review first published in 2010, and updated in 2013, 2016, and 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing clinical relapse (i.e. recurrence of symptoms after initial resolution); and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 3 September 2020: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), Embase Elsevier (from 1974), and Web of Science Thomson Reuters (from 2010). We also searched clinical trial registers on 3 September 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics, and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications and/or adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes. We have reported the intention-to-treat analysis, and also performed an analysis of evaluable participants to explore the robustness of the intention-to-treat results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 trials reported in 18 publications (5839 randomised participants): six trials compared penicillin with cephalosporins; six compared penicillin with macrolides; three compared penicillin with carbacephem; one compared penicillin with sulphonamides; one compared clindamycin with ampicillin; and one compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All participants had confirmed acute GABHS tonsillopharyngitis, and ages ranged from one month to 80 years. Nine trials included only, or predominantly, children. Most trials were conducted in an outpatient setting. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both; heterogeneity; and wide confidence intervals. Cephalosporins versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference in symptom resolution (at 2 to 15 days) for cephalosporins versus penicillin (odds ratio (OR) for absence of symptom resolution 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12; 5 trials; 2018 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results of the sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants differed (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 5 trials; 1660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; 4 trials; 1386 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence showed no difference in reported adverse events. Macrolides versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference between macrolides and penicillin for resolution of symptoms (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; 6 trials; 1728 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants resulted in an OR of 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.09; 6 trials; 1159 participants). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be different (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.03; 6 trials; 802 participants; low-certainty evidence).  Azithromycin versus amoxicillin Based on one unpublished trial in children, we are uncertain if resolution of symptoms is better with azithromycin in a single dose versus amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; 1 trial; 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis for per-protocol analysis resulted in an OR of 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; 1 trial; 482 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain if there was a difference in relapse between groups (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; 1 trial; 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were more common with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; 1 trial; 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Carbacephem versus penicillin There is low-certainty evidence that compared with penicillin, carbacephem may provide better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14.3; 3 trials; 795 participants). Studies did not report on long-term complications, so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better in preventing serious but rare complications.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if there are clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Low-certainty evidence in children suggests that carbacephem may be more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the other comparisons in this review. Data on complications were too scarce to draw conclusions. These results do not demonstrate that other antibiotics are more effective than penicillin in the treatment of GABHS pharyngitis. All studies were conducted in high-income countries with a low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is a need for trials in low-income countries and Aboriginal communities, where the risk of complications remains high.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Faringite/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções Estreptocócicas/tratamento farmacológico , Streptococcus pyogenes , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Amoxicilina/efeitos adversos , Amoxicilina/uso terapêutico , Ampicilina/efeitos adversos , Ampicilina/uso terapêutico , Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Azitromicina/efeitos adversos , Azitromicina/uso terapêutico , Cefalosporinas/efeitos adversos , Cefalosporinas/uso terapêutico , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Clindamicina/efeitos adversos , Clindamicina/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Lactente , Macrolídeos/efeitos adversos , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Penicilinas/efeitos adversos , Penicilinas/uso terapêutico , Faringite/microbiologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Infecções Estreptocócicas/microbiologia , Sulfonamidas/efeitos adversos , Sulfonamidas/uso terapêutico , Adulto Jovem
3.
BMJ ; 372: n107, 2021 02 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33568349

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the use of macrolide antibiotics in pregnancy and the risk of major birth defects. DESIGN: Nationwide, register based cohort study. SETTING: Denmark, 1997-2016. PARTICIPANTS: Of 1 192 539 live birth pregnancies, pregnancies during which macrolides had been used (13 019) were compared with those during which penicillin (that is, phenoxymethylpenicillin) had been used (matched in a 1:1 ratio on propensity scores). Other comparative groups were pregnancies when macrolides had been used recently but before pregnancy (matched 1:1) and pregnancies where no antibiotics had been used (matched 1:4). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Association with an outcome of any major birth defect and specific subgroups of birth defects were assessed by relative risk ratios and absolute risk differences. RESULTS: In matched comparisons, 457 infants were born with major birth defects to women who had used macrolides during pregnancy (35.1 per 1000 pregnancies) compared with 481 infants (37.0 per 1000 pregnancies) to women who had used penicillin (relative risk ratio 0.95; 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.08), corresponding to an absolute risk difference of -1.8 (95% confidence interval -6.4 to 2.7) per 1000 pregnancies. The risk of major birth defects was not significantly increased for women who had used macrolides during pregnancy compared with those who had used macrolides recently but before becoming pregnant (relative risk ratio 1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.14); absolute risk difference -0.1 (95% confidence interval -4.8 to 4.7) per 1000 pregnancies) or compared with women who did not use any antibiotics (1.05 (0.95 to 1.17); 1.8 (-1.7 to 5.3) per 1000 pregnancies). For all three comparative group analyses and in the analyses of use of individual macrolides, no significant increased risk of specific subgroups of birth defects associated with the use of macrolides was found. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide cohort study, the use of macrolide antibiotics in pregnancy was not associated with an increased risk of major birth defects. Analyses of the associated risk of 12 specific subgroups of birth defects with the use of macrolides in pregnancy were not significant.


Assuntos
Anormalidades Induzidas por Medicamentos/epidemiologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Penicilina V/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Idade Gestacional , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Gravidez , Pontuação de Propensão , Sistema de Registros
4.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD013198, 2021 01 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33448349

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation. Acute exacerbations punctuate the natural history of COPD and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality and disease progression. Chronic airflow limitation is caused by a combination of small airways (bronchitis) and parenchymal destruction (emphysema), which can impact day-to-day activities and overall quality of life. In carefully selected patients with COPD, long-term, prophylactic use of antibiotics may reduce bacterial load, inflammation of the airways, and the frequency of exacerbations. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of different prophylactic antibiotics on exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events in people with COPD in three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs), and to provide rankings of identified antibiotics. SEARCH METHODS: To identify eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and clinical trials registries. We conducted the most recent search on 22 January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs with a parallel design of at least 12 weeks' duration evaluating long-term administration of antibiotics prophylactically compared with other antibiotics, or placebo, for patients with COPD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This Cochrane Review collected and updated pair-wise data from two previous Cochrane Reviews. Searches were updated and additional studies included. We conducted three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs) within a Bayesian framework to assess three outcomes: exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events. For quality of life, we collected data from St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Using previously validated methods, we selected the simplest model that could adequately fit the data for every analysis. We used threshold analysis to indicate which results were robust to potential biases, taking into account each study's contributions to the overall results and network structure. Probability ranking was performed for each antibiotic class for exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Characteristics of studies and participants Eight trials were conducted at multiple sites that included hospital clinics or academic health centres. Seven were single-centre trials conducted in hospital clinics. Two trials did not report settings. Trials durations ranged from 12 to 52 weeks. Most participants had moderate to severe disease. Mean age ranged from 64 years to 73 years, and more males were recruited (51% to 100%). Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ranged from 0.935 to 1.36 L. Most participants had previous exacerbations. Data from 12 studies were included in the NMAs (3405 participants; 16 treatment arms including placebo). Prophylactic antibiotics evaluated were macrolides (azithromycin and erythromycin), tetracyclines (doxycyclines), quinolones (moxifloxacin) and macrolides plus tetracyclines (roxithromycin plus doxycycline). Risk of bias and threshold analysis Most studies were at low risk across domains, except detection bias, for which only seven studies were judged at low risk. In the threshold analysis for exacerbations, all comparisons in which one antibiotic was compared with another were robust to sampling variation, especially macrolide comparisons. Comparisons of classes with placebo were sensitive to potential bias, especially macrolide versus placebo, therefore, any bias in the comparison was likely to favour the active class, so any adjustment would bring the estimated relative effect closer to the null value, thus quinolone may become the best class to prevent exacerbations. Exacerbations Nine studies were included (2732 participants) in this NMA (exacerbations analysed as time to first exacerbation or people with one or more exacerbations). Macrolides and quinolones reduced exacerbations. Macrolides had a greater effect in reducing exacerbations compared with placebo (macrolides: hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.60 to 0.75; quinolones: HR 0.89, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.04), resulting in 127 fewer people per 1000 experiencing exacerbations on macrolides. The difference in exacerbations between tetracyclines and placebo was uncertain (HR 1.29, 95% CrI 0.66 to 2.41). Macrolides ranked first (95% CrI first to second), with quinolones ranked second (95% CrI second to third). Tetracyclines ranked fourth, which was lower than placebo (ranked third). Contributing studies were considered as low risk of bias in a threshold analysis. Quality of life (SGRQ) Seven studies were included (2237 participants) in this NMA. SGRQ scores improved with macrolide treatment compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: mean difference (MD) -2.30, 95% CrI -3.61 to -0.99), but the mean difference did not reach the minimally clinical important difference (MCID) of 4 points. Tetracyclines and quinolones did not improve quality of life any more than placebo, and we did not detect a difference between antibiotic classes. Serious adverse events Nine studies were included (3180 participants) in the NMA. Macrolides reduced the odds of a serious adverse event compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% CrI 0.62 to 0.93). There was probably little to no difference in the effect of quinolone compared with placebo or tetracycline plus macrolide compared with placebo. There was probably little to no difference in serious adverse events between quinolones or tetracycline plus macrolide. With macrolide treatment 49 fewer people per 1000 experienced a serious adverse event compared with those given placebo. Macrolides ranked first, followed by quinolones. Tetracycline did not rank better than placebo. Drug resistance Ten studies reported drug resistance. Results were not combined due to variation in outcome measures. All studies concluded that prophylactic antibiotic administration was associated with the development of antimicrobial resistance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This NMA evaluated the safety and efficacy of different antibiotics used prophylactically for COPD patients. Compared to placebo, prolonged administration of macrolides (ranked first) appeared beneficial in prolonging the time to next exacerbation, improving quality of life, and reducing serious adverse events. No clear benefits were associated with use of quinolones or tetracyclines. In addition, antibiotic resistance was a concern and could not be thoroughly assessed in this review. Given the trade-off between effectiveness, safety, and risk of antibiotic resistance, prophylactic administration of antibiotics may be best reserved for selected patients, such as those experiencing frequent exacerbations. However, none of the eligible studies excluded patients with previously isolated non-tuberculous mycobacteria, which would contraindicate prophylactic administration of antibiotics, due to the risk of developing resistant non-tuberculous mycobacteria.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Antibioticoprofilaxia/métodos , Carga Bacteriana/efeitos dos fármacos , Progressão da Doença , Metanálise em Rede , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Idoso , Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Antibioticoprofilaxia/efeitos adversos , Teorema de Bayes , Viés , Feminino , Volume Expiratório Forçado , Humanos , Macrolídeos/efeitos adversos , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/complicações , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/microbiologia , Qualidade de Vida , Quinolonas/efeitos adversos , Quinolonas/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Tetraciclinas/efeitos adversos , Tetraciclinas/uso terapêutico , Resultado do Tratamento
5.
Biosci Trends ; 14(6): 467-468, 2021 Jan 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33390423

RESUMO

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that struck in late 2019 and early 2020 is a serious threat to human health. Since there are no approved drugs that satisfactorily treat this condition, all efforts at drug design and/or clinical trials are warranted and reasonable. Drug repurposing is a well-known strategy that seeks to deploy existing licensed drugs for newer indications and that provides the quickest possible transition from the bench to the bedside to meet therapeutic needs. At present, several existing licensed drugs such as chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, and remdesivir have been used because of their potential efficacy in inhibiting COVID-19. Recently, antibiotics such as tetracyclines and macrolides have been reported to be effective against COVID-19. A combination of tetracyclines and macrolides may be a potential treatment for COVID-19 because there are some differences in the mechanism of action of tetracyclines and macrolides.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Tetraciclina/uso terapêutico , Quimioterapia Combinada , Humanos
6.
J Formos Med Assoc ; 120(1 Pt 1): 281-291, 2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32948415

RESUMO

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Despite the high prevalence of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections, reports on severe life-threatening M. pneumoniae pneumonia (MPP) in children are limited. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled pediatric patients with PCR-positive MPP requiring ICU admission in a children's hospital in Taipei, Taiwan from Jun 2010 to October 2019. Clinical manifestations and laboratory data of severe MPP were analyzed. Macrolide susceptibility was determined by genotyping, and its relationship with clinical manifestations was also analyzed. RESULTS: Approximately 5% (34/658) children hospitalized for MPP required ICU admission. Compared with non-ICU cases (n = 291), ICU cases (n = 34) were associated with more underlying conditions, more pleural effusion, longer fever duration, longer hospital stay, the requirement of second-line antibiotic treatment, and delayed effective and second-line antibiotic treatment. Macrolide resistance was similar in ICU and non-ICU groups (53% vs 53%; p = 0.986). In severe MPP, patients requiring endotracheal intubation were associated with more septic shock, empyema, ARDS, prolonged fever after effective antibiotic treatment, delayed second-line and effective antibiotic treatment. In 18 of the 22 patients with pleural fluid analysis, the pleural effusion was alkaline (pH > 7.7) and lymphocyte-predominant. CONCLUSION: M. pneumoniae infection can cause severe life-threatening pneumonia in children. Delayed effective and second-line antibiotic treatments are associated with severe life-threatening MPP.


Assuntos
Mycoplasma pneumoniae , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Criança , Cuidados Críticos , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Humanos , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Pneumonia por Mycoplasma/tratamento farmacológico , Pneumonia por Mycoplasma/epidemiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Taiwan/epidemiologia
7.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci ; 24(24): 13089-13097, 2020 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33378062

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Recently, two influential articles that reported the association of (hydroxy)chloroquine or angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality were retracted due to significant methodological issues. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the same clinical issues through an improved research method and to find out the differences from the retracted papers. We systematically reviewed pre-existing literature, and compared the results with those of the retracted papers to gain a novel insight. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We extracted common risk factors identified in two retracted papers, and conducted relevant publication search until June 26, 2020 in PubMed. Then, we analyzed the risk factors for COVID-19 mortality and compared them to those of the retracted papers. RESULTS: Our systematic review demonstrated that most demographic and clinical risk factors for COVID-19 mortality were similar to those of the retracted papers. However, while the retracted paper indicated that both (hydroxy)chloroquine monotherapy and combination therapy with macrolide were associated with higher risk of mortality, our study showed that only combination therapy of hydroxychloroquine and macrolide was associated with higher risk of mortality (odds ratio 2.33; 95% confidence interval 1.63-3.34). In addition, our study demonstrated that use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with reduced risk of mortality (0.77; 0.65-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: When analyzing the same clinical issues with the two retracted papers through a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and relevant cohort studies, we found out that (hydroxy)chloroquine monotherapy was not associated with higher risk of mortality, and that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs was associated with reduced risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients.


Assuntos
Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/uso terapêutico , Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina/uso terapêutico , Inibidores Enzimáticos/uso terapêutico , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapêutico , Retratação de Publicação como Assunto , Grupo com Ancestrais do Continente Africano/estatística & dados numéricos , Fatores Etários , Grupo com Ancestrais do Continente Asiático/estatística & dados numéricos , /epidemiologia , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/epidemiologia , Bases de Dados Factuais , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiologia , Quimioterapia Combinada , Insuficiência Cardíaca/epidemiologia , Humanos , Hipertensão/epidemiologia , Hospedeiro Imunocomprometido/imunologia , Disseminação de Informação , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Obesidade/epidemiologia , Escores de Disfunção Orgânica , Fatores de Proteção , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/epidemiologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Fatores de Risco , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Fatores Sexuais , Fumar/epidemiologia
8.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(51): e23747, 2020 Dec 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33371133

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia (MPP) is a common respiratory disease in children. Its incidence rate is increasing year by year. The drug resistance rate of macrolide antibiotics and other conventional treatment methods is higher, and there are limitations in clinical application. Traditional Chinese patent medicine (TCPM) is a powerful weapon to treat this disease. At present, there is no comparison of the safety and effectiveness of multiple TCPMs in the treatment of MPP in children. Therefore, we take the method of network meta-analysis to systematically compare the efficacy of various TCPMs in the treatment of this disease. METHODS: We will conduct comprehensive searches of Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journals Database, Chinese BioMedical Literature, Wanfang Database, and other electronic databases. The time frame is set from the establishment of the database to October 2020. All randomized controlled trials that meet the inclusion criteria will be included in this study. The 2 researchers will independently screen the literature according to the inclusion criteria, extract the data, and assess the bias risk of the included study. We will evaluate all the obtained data and evidence through Bayesian network meta-analysis, and use Stata 15.0 to process and analyze the data. RESULTS: Through this study, we will evaluate the efficacy and safety of a variety of TCPMs for the treatment of MPP in children. CONCLUSION: The purpose of this study is to provide a strong reference for clinical application of TCPMs in the treatment of MPP in children, and to provide an important basis for clinicians to make correct judgments and put forward accurate treatment plans. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not involve any human or animal experiments and therefore does not require ethical approval. INPLASY REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY 2020100108.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Medicamentos de Ervas Chinesas/uso terapêutico , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Pneumonia por Mycoplasma/tratamento farmacológico , Adolescente , Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Medicamentos de Ervas Chinesas/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Macrolídeos/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Mycoplasma pneumoniae , Metanálise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Projetos de Pesquisa
9.
Medwave ; 20(11): e8074, 2020 Dec 14.
Artigo em Espanhol, Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33361755

RESUMO

Objective: This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for treating patients with COVID-19. Design: A living, systematic review. Database: We conducted searches in the centralized repository L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. Today it is maintained through regular searches in 39 databases. Methods: We included randomized trials evaluating the effect of macrolides as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomized trials evaluating macrolides in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19 were searched in case we found no direct evidence from randomized trials. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Measures included all-cause mortality; the need for invasive mechanical ventilation; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, length of hospital stay, respiratory failure, serious adverse events, time to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negativity. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. Results: The search in the L·OVE platform retrieved 424 references. We considered 260 as potentially eligible and were reviewed in full texts. We included one randomized clinical trial that evaluated the use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine compared to hydroxychloroquine alone in hospitalized patients with COVID 19. The estimates for all outcomes evaluated resulted in insufficient power to draw conclusions. The quality of the evidence for the main outcomes was low to very low. Conclusions: Macrolides in the management of patients with COVID 19 showed no beneficial effects compared to standard of care. The evidence for all outcomes is inconclusive. Larger trials are needed to determine the effects of macrolides on pulmonary and other outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020181032 Protocol preprint DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/rvp59.


Assuntos
/tratamento farmacológico , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , /mortalidade , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Respiração Artificial/estatística & dados numéricos , Resultado do Tratamento
10.
Medwave ; 20(11)31-12-2020.
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS | ID: biblio-1146034

RESUMO

OBJETIVO Proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el papel de los macrólidos para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. DIDEÑO Revisión Sistemática Viva. BASE DE DATOS: La búsqueda de evidencia se realizó en el repositorio centralizado L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) COVID-19; una plataforma que mapea las preguntas PICO para identificar la evidencia en la base de datos Epistemonikos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L·OVE se adaptó para ampliar el rango de evidencia que cubre y hoy se mantiene a través de búsquedas regulares en 39 bases de datos. MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron estudios experimentales que evaluaban el efecto de los macrólidos, como monoterapia o en combinación con otros fármacos, versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con sospecha o confirmación de COVID-19. Se buscó identificar experimentos clínicos aleatorizados que evaluaran macrólidos en infecciones causadas por otros coronavirus, como MERS-CoV y SARS-CoV. Dos revisores examinaron de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo. Se evaluó el efecto de los macrólidos sobre la mortalidad por todas las causas; necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva; oxigenación por membrana extracorpórea, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, insuficiencia respiratoria, eventos adversos graves, tiempo hasta la negatividad de la RT-PCR del SARS-CoV-2. La certeza de la evidencia para cada desenlace se evaluó siguiendo la aproximación GRADE. Esta revisión se mantendrá viva y disponible abiertamente durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Se someterán actualizaciones de su publicación cada vez que cambien las conclusiones o cuando haya actualizaciones sustanciales. RESULTADOS: Se identificó un experimento clínico aleatorio que evaluó el uso de azitromicina en combinación con hidroxicloroquina en comparación con el uso de hidroxicloroquina sola, en pacientes hospitalizados por COVID 19. Las estimaciones para todos los resultados evaluados resultaron en un poder estadístico insuficiente para llegar a conclusiones válidas. La calidad de la evidencia para los resultados principales fue baja a muy baja. CONCLUSIONES: El uso de macrólidos en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID 19 no ha mostrado efectos beneficiosos en comparación con el tratamiento estándar. La evidencia para todos los desenlaces no es concluyente. Se necesitan estudios sobre un mayor número de pacientes con COVID 19, para determinar los efectos del uso de macrólidos sobre los desenlaces relacionados con la enfermedad.


OBJECTIVE This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for treating patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: a living, systematic review. DATABASE: We conducted searches in the centralized repository L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. Today it is maintained through regular searches in 39 databases.METHODS: We included randomized trials evaluating the effect of macrolides ­ as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs ­ versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomized trials evaluating macrolides in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19 were searched in case we found no direct evidence from randomized trials. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Measures included all-cause mortality; the need for invasive mechanical ventilation; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, length of hospital stay, respiratory failure, serious adverse events, time to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negativity. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: The search in the L·OVE platform retrieved 424 references. We considered 260 as potentially eligible and were reviewed in full texts. We included one randomized clinical trial that evaluated the use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine compared to hydroxychloroquine alone in hospitalized patients with COVID 19. The estimates for all outcomes evaluated resulted in insufficient power to draw conclusions. The quality of the evidence for the main outcomes was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Macrolides in the management of patients with COVID 19 showed no beneficial effects compared to standard of care. The evidence for all outcomes is inconclusive. Larger trials are needed to determine the effects of macrolides on pulmonary and other outcomes in COVID-19 patients.


Assuntos
Humanos , Pneumonia Viral/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Pneumonia Viral/mortalidade , Respiração Artificial/estatística & dados numéricos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Betacoronavirus/isolamento & purificação
11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33375251

RESUMO

In this study, we investigated the trends and patterns of antibiotic consumption (macrolides and lincosamides) in China's healthcare institutions from 2015 to 2017. The China Drug Supply Information Platform (CDSIP) was officially launched in 2015. We collected records from this national centralized bidding procurement system between 2015 and 2017. The use of J01F antibiotics (macrolides or lincosamides) was calculated in a defined daily dose per 1000 inhabitants per day (DID).Purchase data from 70,366 national medical facilities included in the CDSIP were collected. The procurement data of 66,007 medical facilities have not changed over 3 years. There is a slight decline in the consumption of J01F antibiotics, which decreased from 3.03 DID in 2015 to 2.91 DID in 2017. Azithromycin (20.6%) was the most commonly used antibiotic in 2017 among all classes, followed by clindamycin (17.9%) and erythromycin (13.7%). Parenteral antibiotics accounted for 32.0% of total antibiotic consumption and 59.6% of total antibiotics expenditure in 2017. The overall consumption of most antibiotics decreased slightly over the 3-yearstudy period. This may be owing to China's health-related policies in the past few years. A gap still exists in antibiotic use between regions and dosage forms. Further studies are needed to optimize antibiotic prescribing and reduce antibiotic resistance.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Uso de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Lincosamidas/uso terapêutico , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , China , Assistência à Saúde , Uso de Medicamentos/tendências
12.
BMC Infect Dis ; 20(1): 950, 2020 Dec 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33308173

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance in M. genitalium is a growing clinical problem. We investigated the mutations associated with macrolide and fluoroquinolone resistance, two commonly used medical regimens for treatment in China. Our aim is to analyze the prevalence and diversity of mutations among M. genitalium-positive clinical specimens in Guangzhou, south China. METHODS: A total of 154 stored M. genitalium positive specimens from men and women attending a STI clinic were tested for macrolide and fluoroquinolone mutations. M. genitalium was detected via TaqMan MGB real-time PCR. Mutations associated with macrolide resistance were detected using primers targeting region V of the 23S rRNA gene. Fluoroquinolone resistant mutations were screened via primers targeting topoisomerase IV (parC) and DNA gyrase (gyrA). RESULTS: 98.7% (152/154), 95.5% (147/154) and 90.3% (139/154) of M. genitalium positive samples produced sufficient amplicon for detecting resistance mutations in 23S rRNA, gyrA and parC genes, respectively. 66.4% (101/152), 0.7% (1/147) and 77.7% (108/139) samples manifested mutations in 23S rRNA, gyrA and parC genes, respectively. A2072G (59/101, 58.4%) and S83I (79/108, 73.1%) were highly predominating in 23S rRNA and parC genes, respectively. Two samples had amino acid substitutions in gyrA (M95I and A96T, respectively). Two samples had two amino acid substitutions in parC (S83I + D87Y). 48.6% (67/138) of samples harbored both macrolide and fluoroquinolone resistance-associated mutations. The most common combination of mutations was A2072G (23S rRNA) and S83I (parC) (40/67, 59.7%). One sample had three amino acid changes in 23S rRNA, gyrA and parC genes (A2072G + A96T + S83I). CONCLUSIONS: The high antimicrobial resistance rate of M. genitalium in Guangzhou is a very worrying problem and suggests that antimicrobial resistance testing and the development of new antibiotic regimens are crucially needed.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana Múltipla/genética , Fluoroquinolonas/uso terapêutico , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Mutação , Infecções por Mycoplasma/tratamento farmacológico , Mycoplasma genitalium/genética , Doenças Bacterianas Sexualmente Transmissíveis/tratamento farmacológico , China/epidemiologia , DNA Girase/genética , DNA Topoisomerase IV/genética , DNA Bacteriano/genética , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana Múltipla/efeitos dos fármacos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Infecções por Mycoplasma/epidemiologia , Infecções por Mycoplasma/microbiologia , Mycoplasma genitalium/isolamento & purificação , Prevalência , RNA Ribossômico 23S/genética , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase em Tempo Real , Estudos Retrospectivos , Doenças Bacterianas Sexualmente Transmissíveis/epidemiologia , Doenças Bacterianas Sexualmente Transmissíveis/microbiologia
13.
N Engl J Med ; 383(20): 1941-1950, 2020 11 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33176084

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Mass distribution of azithromycin to preschool children twice yearly for 2 years has been shown to reduce childhood mortality in sub-Saharan Africa but at the cost of amplifying macrolide resistance. The effects on the gut resistome, a reservoir of antimicrobial resistance genes in the body, of twice-yearly administration of azithromycin for a longer period are unclear. METHODS: We investigated the gut resistome of children after they received twice-yearly distributions of azithromycin for 4 years. In the Niger site of the MORDOR trial, we enrolled 30 villages in a concurrent trial in which they were randomly assigned to receive mass distribution of either azithromycin or placebo, offered to all children 1 to 59 months of age every 6 months for 4 years. Rectal swabs were collected at baseline, 36 months, and 48 months for analysis of the participants' gut resistome. The primary outcome was the ratio of macrolide-resistance determinants in the azithromycin group to those in the placebo group at 48 months. RESULTS: Over the entire 48-month period, the mean (±SD) coverage was 86.6±12% in the villages that received placebo and 83.2±16.4% in the villages that received azithromycin. A total of 3232 samples were collected during the entire trial period; of the samples obtained at the 48-month monitoring visit, 546 samples from 15 villages that received placebo and 504 from 14 villages that received azithromycin were analyzed. Determinants of macrolide resistance were higher in the azithromycin group than in the placebo group: 7.4 times as high (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0 to 16.7) at 36 months and 7.5 times as high (95% CI, 3.8 to 23.1) at 48 months. Continued mass azithromycin distributions also selected for determinants of nonmacrolide resistance, including resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics, an antibiotic class prescribed frequently in this region of Africa. CONCLUSIONS: Among villages assigned to receive mass distributions of azithromycin or placebo twice yearly for 4 years, antibiotic resistance was more common in the villages that received azithromycin than in those that received placebo. This trial showed that mass azithromycin distributions may propagate antibiotic resistance. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02047981.).


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/administração & dosagem , Azitromicina/administração & dosagem , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana/efeitos dos fármacos , Microbioma Gastrointestinal/efeitos dos fármacos , Macrolídeos/farmacologia , Administração Massiva de Medicamentos , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Azitromicina/farmacologia , Mortalidade da Criança , Pré-Escolar , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana/genética , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Metagenoma , Níger , Análise de Sequência de DNA
14.
Antivir Chem Chemother ; 28: 2040206620961712, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32972196

RESUMO

Macrolides are a large group of antibiotics characterised by the presence of a macro-lactone ring of variable size. The prototype of macrolide antibiotics, erythromycin was first produced by Streptomyces and associated species more than half a century ago; other related drugs were developed. These drugs have been shown to have several pharmacological properties: in addition to their antibiotic activity, they possess some anti-inflammatory properties and have been also considered against non-bacterial infections. In this review, we analysed the available clinical evidences regarding the potential anti-viral activity of macrolides, by focusing on erythromycin, clarithromycin and azithromycin. Overall, there is no significant evidences so far that macrolides might have a direct benefit on most of viral infections considered in this review (RSV, Influenza, coronaviruses, Ebola and Zika viruses). However, their clinical benefit cannot be ruled out without further and focused clinical studies. Macrolides may improve the clinical course of viral respiratory infections somehow, at least through indirect mechanisms relying on some and variable anti-inflammatory and/or immunomodulatory effects, in addition to their well-known antibacterial activity.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Antivirais/farmacologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Macrolídeos/farmacologia , Pneumonia Viral/tratamento farmacológico , Animais , Antibacterianos/farmacocinética , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Antivirais/farmacocinética , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Betacoronavirus/efeitos dos fármacos , Humanos , Macrolídeos/farmacocinética , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Pandemias
15.
Ann Emerg Med ; 76(3S): S37-S45, 2020 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32928460

RESUMO

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine the association between use of specific cephalosporins and macrolides and hospital length of stay in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who are admitted with acute chest syndrome, and determine treatment risk factors for acute chest syndrome-related 30-day readmission. METHODS: Patients admitted to 48 US hospitals within the Pediatric Health Information System between January 2008 and December 2016 with associated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) or ICD-10 diagnoses of SCD and acute chest syndrome were included. Primary outcomes were hospital length of stay and acute chest syndrome-related and all-cause 30-day readmission. Data were analyzed with t tests, ANOVA, and bivariable and multivariable linear and logistic regressions. RESULTS: In 21,126 visits (representing 8,856 patients), median age was 11.2 years (interquartile range 6.1 to 16.5 years), 53.5% were male patients, and 77.2% had hemoglobin SS genotype. Median length of stay was 4 days (interquartile range 2 to 6 days; mean 4.76 days [SD 4.62 days]). Ceftriaxone alone (length of stay 4.75 days [SD 4.66 days]; P<.001) or the combination of ceftriaxone and azithromycin (length of stay 4.84 days [SD 4.74 days]; P<.001) was associated with the shortest length of stay and a reduced risk of acute chest syndrome-related readmission (ceftriaxone odds ratio [OR] 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27 to 0.35; ceftriaxone+azithromycin OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.24). Albuterol (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98) and RBC transfusion (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83) were also associated with decreased rates of acute chest syndrome-related 30-day readmission. All-cause 30-day readmission rate was 16.7% (95% CI 16.2% to 17.3%). CONCLUSION: Guideline-compliant therapy for acute chest syndrome could preferentially include ceftriaxone and azithromycin. All-cause 30-day readmission for acute chest syndrome is lower than that reported for all-cause readmissions for SCD and more consistent with rates of readmission for pneumonia in the general population.


Assuntos
Síndrome Torácica Aguda/tratamento farmacológico , Anemia Falciforme/tratamento farmacológico , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Readmissão do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Síndrome Torácica Aguda/etiologia , Adolescente , Anemia Falciforme/complicações , Cefalosporinas/uso terapêutico , Criança , Feminino , Humanos , Modelos Lineares , Modelos Logísticos , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Estados Unidos
16.
Exp Parasitol ; 217: 107961, 2020 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32777223

RESUMO

Scabies is considered one of the commonest dermatological diseases that has a global health burden. Current treatment with ivermectin (IVM) is insufficient and potential drug resistance was noticed. Moxidectin (MOX), with a better pharmacological profile may be a promising alternative. The efficacy of moxidectin against Sarcoptes scabiei was assessed both in vitro and in vivo in comparison with ivermectin. For the in vitro assay, both drugs were used in two concentrations (50 µg/ml and 100 µg/ml). For the in vivo assay, twenty rabbits infected with Sarcoptes scabiei were divided into three groups: untreated, moxidectin-treated and ivermectin-treated with the same dose of 0.3 mg/kg once. Another four rabbits were used as a normal control non-infected group. Treatment efficacy was evaluated by clinical assessment, parasitological evaluation and histopathological examination of skin samples using Hematoxylin and eosin and toluidine blue for mast cell staining. Immune response was also assessed by immunohistochemical staining of CD3 T cells in skin samples. Our results showed that moxidectin had a high efficacy (100%) in killing mites when used in both concentrations (50 µg/ml, 100 µg/ml) in the in vitro assay. Concerning the in vivo assay, on day 14 post-treatment, all MOX-treated rabbits were mite-free with full clinical cure by the end of the study (D21) showing (100%) reduction of mites count. Also, marked improvement in the epidermis with absence of mites in skin samples were shown. Poor clinical and parasitological improvements were noted in the ivermectin-treated rabbits, when given as a single dose with a percentage reduction (60.67%) in the 2nd week and progressive increase in lesions and mites count in the 3rd week post-treatment. Regarding the immune response, MOX-treated group showed mild infiltration with both mast cells and CD3 T cells in comparison to severe infiltration with both types of cells in the untreated and IVM-treated group. On conclusion, our results demonstrated that a single dose of MOX was more effective than IVM, supporting MOX as a valuable therapeutic approach for scabies therapy.


Assuntos
Acaricidas/farmacologia , Macrolídeos/farmacologia , Sarcoptes scabiei/efeitos dos fármacos , Escabiose/tratamento farmacológico , Acaricidas/uso terapêutico , Animais , Biópsia por Agulha , Orelha Externa/efeitos dos fármacos , Orelha Externa/parasitologia , Orelha Externa/patologia , Imuno-Histoquímica , Ivermectina/farmacologia , Ivermectina/uso terapêutico , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Coelhos , Pele/parasitologia , Pele/patologia
17.
PLoS One ; 15(8): e0237130, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32760107

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly spreading global pandemic. The clinical characteristics of COVID-19 have been reported; however, there is limited research investigating the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in the Middle East. This study aims to investigate the clinical, radiological and therapeutic characteristics of patients diagnosed with COVID19 in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: This study is a retrospective single-centre case series study. We extracted data for patients who were admitted to the Al-Noor Specialist Hospital with a PCR confirming SARS-COV-2 between 12th and 31st of March 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to describe patients' characteristics. Continuous data were reported as mean ± SD. Chi-squared test/Fisher test were used as appropriate to compare proportions for categorical variables. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were hospitalised for COVID-19 during the study period. The mean age was 46.1 years (SD: 15.3 years). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (28.8%, n = 42) and diabetes mellitus (26.0%, n = 38). Regarding the severity of the hospitalised patients, 105 patients (70.0%) were mild, 29 (19.3%) were moderate, and 16 patients (10.7%) were severe or required ICU care. CONCLUSION: This case series provides clinical, radiological and therapeutic characteristics of hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/patologia , Pneumonia Viral/patologia , Adulto , Idoso , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Betacoronavirus/isolamento & purificação , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico por imagem , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Infecções por Coronavirus/virologia , Complicações do Diabetes , Feminino , Hospitalização , Humanos , Hipertensão/complicações , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/diagnóstico por imagem , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Pneumonia Viral/virologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Arábia Saudita , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Tórax/diagnóstico por imagem
18.
BMC Infect Dis ; 20(1): 633, 2020 Aug 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32847534

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cases of refractory Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia have been increasing recently; however, whether viral coinfection or macrolide-resistant M. infection contribute to the development of refractory M. pneumoniae pneumonia remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the impacts of viral coinfection and macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae infection on M. pneumoniae pneumonia in hospitalized children and build a model to predict a severe disease course. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs or sputum specimens were collected from patients with community-acquired pneumonia meeting our protocol who were admitted to Shanghai Children's Medical Center from December 1, 2016, to May 31, 2019. The specimens were tested with the FilmArray Respiratory Panel, a multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay that detects 16 viruses, Bordetella pertussis, M. pneumoniae, and Chlamydophila pneumoniae. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify the risk factors for adenovirus coinfection and macrolide-resistant mycoplasma infection. RESULTS: Among the 107 M. pneumoniae pneumonia patients, the coinfection rate was 56.07%, and 60 (60/107, 56.07%) patients were infected by drug-resistant M. pneumoniae. Adenovirus was the most prevalent coinfecting organism, accounting for 22.43% (24/107). The classification tree confirmed that viral coinfection was more common in patients younger than 3 years old. Adenovirus coinfection and drug-resistant M. pneumoniae infection occurred more commonly in patients with refractory M. pneumoniae pneumonia (P = 0.019; P = 0.001). A prediction model including wheezing, lung consolidation and extrapulmonary complications was used to predict adenovirus coinfection. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the prediction model was 0.795 (95% CI 0.679-0.893, P < 0.001). A prolonged fever duration after the application of macrolides for 48 h was found more commonly in patients infected by drug-resistant M. pneumoniae (P = 0.002). A fever duration longer than 7 days was an independent risk factor for drug-resistant Mycoplasma infection (OR = 3.500, 95% CI = 1.310-9.353, P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of refractory M. pneumoniae pneumonia is associated with adenovirus coinfection and infection by drug-resistant M. pneumoniae. A prediction model combining wheezing, extrapulmonary complications and lung consolidation can be used to predict adenovirus coinfection in children with M. pneumoniae pneumonia. A prolonged fever duration indicates drug-resistant M. pneumoniae infection, and a reasonable change in antibiotics is necessary.


Assuntos
Infecções por Adenoviridae/epidemiologia , Adenoviridae/genética , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Coinfecção/epidemiologia , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Mycoplasma pneumoniae/genética , Pneumonia por Mycoplasma/tratamento farmacológico , Pneumonia por Mycoplasma/epidemiologia , Infecções por Adenoviridae/virologia , Adolescente , Criança , Pré-Escolar , China/epidemiologia , Coinfecção/virologia , Infecções Comunitárias Adquiridas/tratamento farmacológico , Feminino , Hospitalização , Humanos , Lactente , Masculino , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase Multiplex , Mycoplasma pneumoniae/efeitos dos fármacos , Pneumonia por Mycoplasma/virologia , Prevalência , Prognóstico , Resultado do Tratamento
19.
Lancet Respir Med ; 8(6): 619-630, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32526189

RESUMO

Critical illness is associated with immune dysregulation, characterised by concurrent hyperinflammation and immune suppression. Hyperinflammation can result in collateral tissue damage and organ failure, whereas immune suppression has been implicated in susceptibility to secondary infections and reactivation of latent viruses. Macrolides are a class of bacteriostatic antibiotics that are used in the intensive care unit to control infections or to alleviate gastrointestinal dysmotility. Yet macrolides also have potent and wide-ranging immunomodulatory properties, which might have the potential to correct immune dysregulation in patients who are critically ill without affecting crucial antimicrobial defences. In this Review, we provide an overview of preclinical and clinical studies that point to the beneficial effects of macrolides in acute diseases relevant to critical care, and we discuss the possible underlying mechanisms of their immunomodulatory effects. Further studies are needed to explore the therapeutic potential of macrolides in critical illness, to identify subgroups of patients who might benefit from treatment, and to develop novel non-antibiotic macrolide derivatives with improved immunomodulatory properties.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Imunomodulação/efeitos dos fármacos , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Humanos , Macrolídeos/farmacologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...