Different Antibiotic Regimens For Treatment Research Articles

Antibiotics for treating scrub typhus.

BackgroundScrub typhus, an important cause of acute fever in Asia, is caused by Orientia tsutsugamushi, an obligate intracellular bacterium. Antibiotics currently used to treat scrub typhus include tetracyclines, chloramphenicol, macrolides, and rifampicin.ObjectivesTo assess and compare the effects of different antibiotic regimens for treatment of scrub typhus.Search methodsWe searched the following databases up to 8 January 2018: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library (2018, Issue 1); MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT). We checked references and contacted study authors for additional data. We applied no language or date restrictions.Selection criteriaRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi‐RCTs comparing antibiotic regimens in people with the diagnosis of scrub typhus based on clinical symptoms and compatible laboratory tests (excluding the Weil‐Felix test).Data collection and analysisFor this update, two review authors re‐extracted all data and assessed the certainty of evidence. We meta‐analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes when appropriate, and elsewhere tabulated data to facilitate narrative analysis.Main resultsWe included six RCTs and one quasi‐RCT with 548 participants; they took place in the Asia‐Pacific region: Korea (three trials), Malaysia (one trial), and Thailand (three trials). Only one trial included children younger than 15 years (N = 57). We judged five trials to be at high risk of performance and detection bias owing to inadequate blinding. Trials were heterogenous in terms of dosing of interventions and outcome measures. Across trials, treatment failure rates were low.Two trials compared doxycycline to tetracycline. For treatment failure, the difference between doxycycline and tetracycline is uncertain (very low‐certainty evidence). Doxycycline compared to tetracycline may make little or no difference in resolution of fever within 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.44, 55 participants; one trial; low‐certainty evidence) and in time to defervescence (116 participants; one trial; low‐certainty evidence). We were unable to extract data for other outcomes.Three trials compared doxycycline versus macrolides. For most outcomes, including treatment failure, resolution of fever within 48 hours, time to defervescence, and serious adverse events, we are uncertain whether study results show a difference between doxycycline and macrolides (very low‐certainty evidence). Macrolides compared to doxycycline may make little or no difference in the proportion of patients with resolution of fever within five days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.10; 185 participants; two trials; low‐certainty evidence). Another trial compared azithromycin versus doxycycline or chloramphenicol in children, but we were not able to disaggregate date for the doxycycline/chloramphenicol group.One trial compared doxycycline versus rifampicin. For all outcomes, we are uncertain whether study results show a difference between doxycycline and rifampicin (very low‐certainty evidence). Of note, this trial deviated from the protocol after three out of eight patients who had received doxycycline and rifampicin combination therapy experienced treatment failure.Across trials, mild gastrointestinal side effects appeared to be more common with doxycycline than with comparator drugs.Authors' conclusionsTetracycline, doxycycline, azithromycin, and rifampicin are effective treatment options for scrub typhus and have resulted in few treatment failures. Chloramphenicol also remains a treatment option, but we could not include this among direct comparisons in this review.Most available evidence is of low or very low certainty. For specific outcomes, some low‐certainty evidence suggests there may be little or no difference between tetracycline, doxycycline, and azithromycin as treatment options. Given very low‐certainty evidence for rifampicin and the risk of inducing resistance in undiagnosed tuberculosis, clinicians should not regard this as a first‐line treatment option. Clinicians could consider rifampicin as a second‐line treatment option after exclusion of active tuberculosis.Further research should consist of additional adequately powered trials of doxycycline versus azithromycin or other macrolides, trials of other candidate antibiotics including rifampicin, and trials of treatments for severe scrub typhus. Researchers should standardize diagnostic techniques and reporting of clinical outcomes to allow robust comparisons.11 April 2019Up to dateAll studies incorporated from most recent searchAll eligible published studies found in the last search (8 Jan, 2018) were included and four ongoing studies have been identified (see 'Characteristics of ongoing studies' section)

Su1945 Comparison of Different Antibiotic Regimens for Treatment of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth Syndrome

Su1945 Comparison of Different Antibiotic Regimens for Treatment of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth Syndrome

Antibiotic regimens for suspected late onset sepsis in newborn infants

Late onset neonatal sepsis (systemic infection after 48 hours of age) continues to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Early treatment with antibiotics is essential as infants can deteriorate rapidly. It is not clear which antibiotic regimen is most suitable for initial treatment of suspected late onset sepsis. To compare the effectiveness and adverse effects of different antibiotic regimens for treatment of suspected late onset sepsis in newborn infants. The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. This includes electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 - Dec 2004), EMBASE (1980 - Dec 2004) and CINAHL (1982 - Dec 2004), electronic abstracts of Pediatric Academic Society meetings (1996 - Dec 2004) and previous reviews including cross references (all articles referenced). Randomised and quasi randomised controlled trials comparing different initial antibiotic regimens in neonates with suspected late onset sepsis were evaluated. Both reviewer authors screened abstracts and papers against the inclusion criteria, appraised the quality of and extracted data from papers. For dichotomous outcomes, treatment effect was expressed as relative risk and risk difference with 95% confidence intervals. NNT was calculated for outcomes for which there was a statistically significant reduction in risk difference. Thirteen studies were identified as possibly eligible for inclusion. The majority of studies were excluded as they did not separate data for early and late onset infection. Two studies are still awaiting assessment. Only one small study, in 24 neonates, was included in this review. It compared beta-lactam therapy with a combination of beta lactam plus aminoglycoside. The study did not meet our prespecified criteria for good methodological quality. In babies with suspected infection there was no significant difference in mortality (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.23) or treatment failure (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.23). Antibiotic resistance was assessed and there were no cases in either group. There is inadequate evidence from randomised trials in favour of any particular antibiotic regimen for the treatment of suspected late onset neonatal sepsis. The available evidence is not of high quality. Although suspected sepsis and antibiotic use is common, quality research is required to specifically address both narrow and broad spectrum antibiotic use for late onset neonatal sepsis. Future research also needs to assess cost effectiveness and the impact of antibiotics in different settings such as developed or developing countries and lower gestational age groups.

Penetration of cefotaxime and desacetylcefotaxime into brain abscesses in humans

Since clinical trials comparing the efficacies of different antibiotic regimens for treatment of brain abscesses are difficult to perform, the choice of antibiotics must rely on the antibacterial spectrum and the ability of the drug to penetrate into the abscess fluid. The aim of this investigation was to study the ability of cefotaxime and its active metabolite desacetylcefotaxime to penetrate into brain abscesses. Eight patients were given 3 g of cefotaxime intravenously every 8 h. Abscess fluid samples, obtained at surgery at various times after dosing, and blood samples were analyzed for their concentrations of cefotaxime and desacetylcefotaxime by using a newly developed microbiological assay. The brain abscess concentrations of cefotaxime and desacetylcefotaxime were 1.9 +/- 1.7 and 4.0 +/- 2.2 mg/liter, respectively. Simultaneous concentrations in plasma were 2.0 +/- 1.0 and 3.9 +/- 1.8 mg/liter, respectively. With increasing time following cefotaxime dosing there was a significant increase in the abscess:plasma concentration ratio of desacetylcefotaxime. Since both cefotaxime and desacetylcefotaxime penetrate well into the brain abscess, reaching concentrations above the MIC for probable bacteria except gram-negative anaerobes, it is concluded that cefotaxime in combination with metronidazole may be used as an alternative in the treatment of brain abscesses.