Effectiveness Of Different Antibiotic Regimens Research Articles

Are We Hitting the Target?: The Effectiveness of Distinct Antibiotic Regimens in Pediatric Appendectomies.

Currently, a range of different antibiotics are administered perioperatively during appendectomy surgery in the pediatric population. One reason for the lack of a uniform treatment regimen is the paucity of large studies on microbiologic data and susceptibility patterns. A retrospective, monocentric study on antibiotic susceptibility, including 1258 pediatric patients undergoing appendectomy from 2012 to 2020 was performed. Predictors for prolonged length of stay (LOS) and complications were determined using regression analysis, and objective criteria for broad-spectrum antibiotic regimens were identified. Simulations of the effectiveness of different antibiotic regimens against identified bacterial susceptibility results were conducted. The most important predictors for prolonged LOS and an increased incidence of infectious complications are elevated preoperative C-reactive protein levels, high intraoperative severity gradings and insufficient primary antibiotic treatment. Based on our results, a simple antibiotic treatment, consisting of cefuroxime-metronidazole (C-M) or ampicillin-sulbactam (AS), is sufficient in around 85% of all patients; both options being equally efficient. In severe appendicitis, the likelihood of resistance is 31% and 32% for C-M and AS, respectively. For piperacillin-tazobactam and C-M-tobramycin, the incidence of bacterial resistance decreases to 12%. Resistance is reduced to 8% for AS-tobramycin treatment. The patient populations benefiting most from an extended antibiotic regimen are those with a high intraoperative severity grading. Evidence suggests that an insufficient antibiotic regimen is associated with a prolonged LOS and a higher rate of infectious complications, justifying the expansion of a simple antibiotic regimen in cases of severe intraabdominal findings. In all other cases, a simple antibiotic treatment with AS is recommended.

Antibiotics for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children.

Hospital-acquired pneumonia is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections in children worldwide. Most of our understanding of hospital-acquired pneumonia in children is derived from adult studies. To our knowledge, no systematic review with meta-analysis has assessed the benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens in neonates and children with hospital-acquired pneumonia. To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registers to February 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included randomised clinical trials comparing one antibiotic regimen with any other antibiotic regimen for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children. Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events; our secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, pneumonia-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and treatment failure. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up. We included four randomised clinical trials (84 participants). We assessed all trials as having high risk of bias. We did not conduct any meta-analyses, as the included trials did not compare similar antibiotic regimens. Each of the four trials assessed a different comparison, as follows: cefepime versus ceftazidime; linezolid versus vancomycin; meropenem versus cefotaxime; and ceftobiprole versus cephalosporin. Only one trial reported our primary outcomes of all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Three trials reported our secondary outcome of treatment failure. Two trials primarily included community-acquired pneumonia and hospitalised children with bacterial infections, hence the children with hospital-acquired pneumonia constituted subgroups of the total sample sizes. Where outcomes were reported, the certainty of the evidence was very low for each of the comparisons. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. None of the included trials assessed health-related quality of life, pneumonia-related mortality, or non-serious adverse events. The relative beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the very low certainty of the available evidence. The current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. Randomised clinical trials assessing different antibiotic regimens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in children and neonates are warranted.

Clinical evaluation of antibiotic regimens in patients with surgically verified parapharyngeal abscess: a prospective observational study.

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of parapharyngeal abscess (PPA) and characterize patients, who suffered potentially preventable complications (defined as death, abscess recurrence, spread of infection, or altered antibiotic treatment because of insufficient progress). Sixty adult patients with surgically verified PPA were prospectively enrolled at five Danish Ear-nose-throat departments. Surgical treatment included internal incision (100%), external incision (13%), and tonsillectomy (88%). Patients were treated with penicillin G ± metronidazole (n = 39), cefuroxime ± metronidazole (n = 16), or other antibiotics (n = 5). Compared to penicillin-treated patients, cefuroxime-treated patients were hospitalized for longer (4.5 vs 3.0days, p = 0.007), were more frequently admitted to intensive care (56 vs 15%, p = 0.006), underwent external incision more frequently (31 vs 5%, p = 0.018), and suffered more complications (50 vs 18%, p = 0.022), including re-operation because of abscess recurrence (44 vs 3%, p < 0.001). Nine patients suffered potentially preventable complications. These patients displayed significantly higher C-reactive protein levels, received antibiotics prior to admission more frequently, underwent external incision more commonly, and were admitted to intensive care more frequently compared to other patients. The majority of patients with PPA were effectively managed by abscess incision, tonsillectomy, and penicillin G ± metronidazole. Cefuroxime-treated patients were more severely ill at time of admission and had worse outcome compared to penicillin-treated patients. We recommend penicillin G + metronidazole as standard treatment for patients with PPA, but in cases with more risk factors for potentially preventable complications, we recommend aggressive surgical and broadened antibiotic therapy, e.g. piperacillin-tazobactam.

Impact of Early Empiric Antibiotic Regimens on the Gut Microbiota in Very Low Birth Weight Preterm Infants: An Observational Study.

Frequent use of antibiotics in preterm infants disturbs their gut microbial balance. In this preliminary observational study, we investigated the effect of different antibiotic regimens, administered during the first week of life, on microbial composition and diversity in very low birth weight (VLBW) preterm infants. We performed fecal sampling of breastfed VLBW infants on days 7, 14, and 30. After excluding stool samples from infants who received probiotics or who were administered antibiotics beyond the age of 7 days, we compared gut microbiota profiles between infants receiving a combination of ampicillin and gentamicin for 3 days (AG group, n = 10) and those receiving a combination of ampicillin and cefotaxime for 7 days (AC group, n = 14) using 16S ribosomal DNA community profiling. We also assessed the changes over time in each group. Compared to the AG group, Enterococcus species were significantly more abundant in the AC group (P = 0.002), especially in 7-day samples (12.3 vs. 0.6%, respectively, P = 0.032). No difference was observed at phylum and genus level over time within each group. Species richness in the AC group decreased significantly in the 14-day (P = 0.038) and 30-day (P = 0.03) samples compared to that in the 7-day sample. The same was observed for microbial evenness; in contrast, no significant difference in Shannon index and beta-diversity was detected between the two groups. Controlling for relevant confounding variables did not change the results. In conclusion, different antibiotic regimens affect the early development of gut microbiota in VLBW preterm infants. Prolonged use of ampicillin and cefotaxime might result in overabundance of Enterococcus. However, given that no significant differences were observed in 1-month samples, bacterial genera appear to continue colonizing the gastrointestinal tract despite previous exposure to antibiotics. The clinical relevance of these findings should be elucidated by further studies.

Antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis.

Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the third leading cause of neonatal mortality globally constituting 13% of overall neonatal mortality. Despite the high burden of neonatal sepsis, high-quality evidence in diagnosis and treatment is scarce. Possibly due to the diagnostic challenges of sepsis and the relative immunosuppression of the newborn, many neonates receive antibiotics for suspected sepsis. Antibiotics have become the most used therapeutics in neonatal intensive care units. The last Cochrane Review was updated in 2004. Given the clinical importance, an updated systematic review assessing the effects of different antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis is needed. To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis. We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase Ovid; CINAHL; LILACS; Science Citation Index EXPANDED and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 12 March 2021. We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. We included RCTs comparing different antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis. We included participants from birth to 72 hours of life at randomisation. Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and our secondary outcomes were: serious adverse events, respiratory support, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, necrotising enterocolitis, and ototoxicity. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up. We included five RCTs (865 participants). All trials were at high risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence according to GRADE was very low. The included trials assessed five different comparisons of antibiotics. We did not conduct any meta-analyses due to lack of relevant data. Of the five included trials one trial compared ampicillin plus gentamicin with benzylpenicillin plus gentamicin; one trial compared piperacillin plus tazobactam with amikacin; one trial compared ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid with piperacillin plus gentamicin; one trial compared piperacillin with ampicillin plus amikacin; and one trial compared ceftazidime with benzylpenicillin plus gentamicin. None of the five comparisons found any evidence of a difference when assessing all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, or necrotising enterocolitis; however, none of the trials were near an information size that could contribute significantly to the evidence of the comparative benefits and risks of any particular antibiotic regimen. None of the trials assessed respiratory support or ototoxicity. The benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the lack of well-powered trials and the high risk of systematic errors. Current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. Large RCTs assessing different antibiotic regimens in early-onset neonatal sepsis with low risk of bias are warranted.

Antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis

BACKGROUND Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the third leading cause of neonatal mortality globally constituting 13% of overall neonatal mortality. Despite the high burden of neonatal sepsis, high-quality evidence in diagnosis and treatment is scarce. Due to the diagnostic challenges of sepsis and the relative immunosuppression of the newborn, many neonates receive antibiotics for suspected sepsis. Antibiotics have become the most used therapeutics in neonatal intensive care units, and observational studies in high-income countries suggest that 83% to 94% of newborns treated with antibiotics for suspected sepsis have negative blood cultures. The last Cochrane Review was updated in 2005. There is a need for an updated systematic review assessing the effects of different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis. OBJECTIVES To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase Ovid; CINAHL; LILACS; Science Citation Index EXPANDED and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 12 March 2021. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs comparing different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis. We included participants older than 72 hours of life at randomisation, suspected or diagnosed with neonatal sepsis, meningitis, osteomyelitis, endocarditis, or necrotising enterocolitis. We excluded trials that assessed treatment of fungal infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and our secondary outcomes were: serious adverse events, respiratory support, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, necrotising enterocolitis, and ototoxicity. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up. MAIN RESULTS We included five RCTs (580 participants). All trials were at high risk of bias, and had very low-certainty evidence. The five included trials assessed five different comparisons of antibiotics. We did not conduct a meta-analysis due to lack of relevant data. Of the five included trials one trial compared cefazolin plus amikacin with vancomycin plus amikacin; one trial compared ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid with flucloxacillin plus gentamicin; one trial compared cloxacillin plus amikacin with cefotaxime plus gentamicin; one trial compared meropenem with standard care (ampicillin plus gentamicin or cefotaxime plus gentamicin); and one trial compared vancomycin plus gentamicin with vancomycin plus aztreonam. None of the five comparisons found any evidence of a difference when assessing all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, or necrotising enterocolitis; however, none of the trials were near an information size that could contribute significantly to the evidence of the comparative benefits and risks of any particular antibiotic regimen. None of the trials assessed respiratory support or ototoxicity. The benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the lack of well-powered trials and the high risk of systematic errors. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. RCTs assessing different antibiotic regimens in late-onset neonatal sepsis with low risks of bias are warranted.

A Real-World Study Comparing Various Antimicrobial Regimens for Bloodstream Infections Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli in a Tertiary Hospital, Shanghai, China, from 2010 to 2017.

BackgroundWe conducted a real-world analysis of the effectiveness of different antibiotic regimens for bloodstream infections (BSIs) caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacilli (CR-GNB) in a Chinese population.MethodsA retrospective observational study was conducted between January 2010 and December 2017. Patients with BSIs caused by CR-GNB confirmed by in vitro susceptibility tests were enrolled, and patient medical record data on antimicrobial agents and microbiological and clinical outcomes were extracted.ResultsA total of 175 individuals were included; 127 individuals (72.6%) received combination therapy (two or more antibiotics), while 48 individuals (27.4%) received monotherapy (single antibiotic). The all-cause 28-day mortality was 20.0%. Treatment success or presumed success rates were very similar between the monotherapy and combination therapy groups (58.3% versus 59.1%; P = 0.931). Combination therapy had a higher success rate trend than monotherapy in septic shock patients (40.7% versus 18.2%; P = 0.268). Improved therapeutic effects were observed in the active agent-containing group, although the differences were not significant.ConclusionCombination therapy likely has better therapeutic effects on critical BSIs caused by CR-GNB than monotherapy. Choosing a proper active agent in an antimicrobial regime is relatively crucial to the ultimate treatment outcome.

Antibiotic treatment for Burkholderia cepacia complex in people with cystic fibrosis experiencing a pulmonary exacerbation.

Chronic pulmonary infection is a hallmark of lung disease in cystic fibrosis. Infections dominated by organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex, a group of at least 18 closely-related species of gram-negative bacteria, are particularly difficult to treat. These infections may be associated with a fulminant necrotising pneumonia. Burkholderia cepacia complex bacteria are resistant to many common antibiotics and able to acquire resistance against many more. Following patient segregation in cystic fibrosis medical care, the more virulent epidemic strains are not as frequent, and new infections are more likely to be with less virulent environmentally-acquired strains. Although evidence-based guidelines exist for treating respiratory exacerbations involving Pseudomonas aeruginosa, these cannot be extended to Burkholderia cepacia complex infections. This review, which is an update of a previous review, aims to assess the available trial evidence for the choice and application of treatments for these infections. To assess the effectiveness and safety of different antibiotic regimens in people with cystic fibrosis experiencing an exacerbation and chronically infected with organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of latest search: 29 May 2019. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of treatments for exacerbations of pulmonary symptoms in people with cystic fibrosis chronically infected with organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. No relevant trials were identified. No trials were included in this review. Burkholderia cepacia complex infections present a significant challenge for people with cystic fibrosis and their clinicians. The incidence is likely to increase as the cystic fibrosis population ages; and managing and treating these infections will become more important. There is a lack of trial evidence to guide decision making and no conclusions can be drawn from this review about the optimal antibiotic regimens for people with cystic fibrosis who have chronic Burkholderia cepacia complex infections. Clinicians must continue to assess each person individually, taking into account in vitro antibiotic susceptibility data, previous clinical responses and their own experience. Multicentre randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of different antibiotic regimens in people with cystic fibrosis infected with organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex.

The Effect of Different Antibiotic Regimens on Bacterial Resistance: A Systematic Review.

Background and objectives: Infections caused by resistant bacteria are a growing public health problem that is linked to many different causes, among them the antibiotics’ incorrect use plays an important role. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) the most dangerous behaviors are the early interruption of antibiotic therapy and the use of molecules without appropriate prescription. The authors conducted a systematic review to assess if antibiotic prescription with different regimens is connected to the onset of bacterial resistance. Methods: The authors performed an electronic and manual literature search on four databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials) from their inception to 15 June 2019. The date of the last search was 27 November 2019. Any article comparing cultural or genic analysis of resistance in patients that took antibiotics with at least two different regimens was included. No language restrictions were applied. Risk of bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration’s tool whereas case-control and cohort studies were evaluated through the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Results: The initial search resulted in a total of 1744 titles. After careful evaluation of all results, only three studies satisfied the outcome of the present review. From the qualitative analysis of data, it emerges that even if antibiotics are administered for a shorter period than the conventional one the species that inhabit the oral cavity can adapt quickly and express genes of antibiotic resistance. Additional evidence from this analysis is that not only does the proportion of resistant bacteria increase in the oral cavity, but also in more distant districts such as the intestine. Conclusions: Despite the great number of studies retrieved by electronic databases only few studies investigated the target of this review. The reason for this evidence is that it is not ethical to investigate and compare different antibiotic regimens, shorter or longer than the appropriate one. This evidence is applicable both to prophylactic administrations and to those aimed at treating infections. Besides this, the WHO affirms that, in the absence of infective complications, the prescription of antibiotic after every type of surgical intervention cannot be admitted and that studies dealing with antibiotic regimens that do not comply with drug’s pharmacodynamics characteristics cannot be ethically admitted. PROSPERO acknowledgement of receipt [149149].

Antibiotic regimens for neonatal sepsis - a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis

BackgroundSepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among neonates and infants. Antibiotics are a central part of the first line treatment for sepsis in neonatal intensive care units worldwide. However, the evidence on the clinical effects of the commonly used antibiotic regimens for sepsis in neonates remains scarce. This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy and harms of antibiotic regimens for neonatal sepsis.MethodsElectronic searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ZETOC and clinical trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov and ISRCTN). We will include randomised controlled trials of different antibiotic regimens for sepsis of neonates and infants. Eligible interventions will be any antibiotic regimen. Two reviewers will independently screen, select, and extract data. The methodological quality of individual studies will be appraised following Cochrane methodology. Primary outcomes will be ‘all-cause mortality’ and ‘serious adverse events’. Secondary outcomes will be ‘need for respiratory support’, ‘need for circulatory support’, ‘neurodevelopmental impairment’, ototoxicity, nephrotoxicity and necrotizing enterocolitis. We plan to perform a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.DiscussionThis is the study protocol for a systematic review on the effects of different antibiotic regimens for neonatal sepsis. The results of this systematic review intent to adequately inform stakeholders or health care professionals in the field of neonatal sepsis, and to aid appropriate development of treatment guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO reference number: CRD42019134300.

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)

Effect of different antibiotic therapy in the treatment of patients with chronic pelvic inflammation disease and the influence on inflammatory factors

Objective To compare the effects of different antibiotic regimens on clinical efficacy and inflammatory factors in patients with chronic pelvic inflammatory disease. Methods 78 patients with chronic pelvic inflammatory disease were enrolled.They were randomly divided into observation group(antibiotic sequential method) and control group(sequential transformation of antibiotics) by computer generation test case random number method, 39 cases in each group.After treatment for 10 days, the clinical efficacy was observed, the serum IL-1 and IL-2 levels before and after treatment were compared.The economic costs, adverse events during the course of treatment were compared between the two groups, and 6 months after treatment, the recurrence was followed up in the two groups. Results After 10 days of treatment, the total effective rate was 94.59% in the observation group and 86.49% in the control group.The total remission rate in the observation group was higher than that in the control group(χ2=5.41, P=0.002). Before treatment, the levels of IL-1 and IL-2 of the observation group were (413.47±38.59)μg/L, (489.43±44.58)ng/L, respectively, which of the control group were (419.47±40.46)μg/L, (490.47±47.40)ng/L, respectively, and the differences were not statistically significant between the two groups (t=0.65, 0.10, P=0.52, 0.92). After treatment, the IL-1 level of the observation group[(288.53±32.48)μg/L] was lower than before treatment (t=15.07, P=0.00), and IL-2 level [(288.53±32.48)ng/L] was higher than before treatment (t=14.65, P=0.00). After treatment, the IL-1 level of the control group[(358.41±43.47)μg/L] was lower than before treatment (t=15.07, P=0.00), and IL-2 level [(550.46±32.90)ng/L] was higher than before treatment (t=14.65, P=0.00). The improvement of IL-1 and IL-2 levels in the observation group were better than those in the control group (t=7.83, 9.66, all P=0.00). The cost of drug and drug expense of the observation group were (115.47±3.48)RMB and (27.45±2.01)RMB, respectively, which of the control group were (120.45±3.39)RMB, (27.45±2.01)RMB, respectively, the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant (t=2.44, 0.00, P=0.17, 1.00). There were 2 cases with gastrointestinal discomfort in the observation group and 1 case in the control group, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (χ2=0.35, P=0.56). The adverse reactions of two groups were relatively minor, self-mitigation or disappeared after withdrawl the drug.After treatment for 6 months, the recurrence rate was 2.56%(1/39) in the observation group and 15.38%(6/39) in the control group.The recurrence rate of the observation group was lower than that of the control group(χ2=3.92, P=0.04). Conclusion The antibiotic sequential conversion therapy is the first intravenous antibiotics, and then oral combination, the recent and long-term clinical efficacy is good, and it is safe and reliable, without increasing the economic burden of patients, and is worthy of clinical use. Key words: Pelvic inflammatory disease; Anti-infective agents; Interleukins

Antibiotic treatment for Burkholderia cepacia complex in people with cystic fibrosis experiencing a pulmonary exacerbation.

Chronic pulmonary infection is a hallmark of lung disease in cystic fibrosis. Infections dominated by organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex, a group of at least 18 closely-related species of gram-negative bacteria, are particularly difficult to treat. These infections may be associated with a fulminant necrotising pneumonia. Burkholderia cepacia complex bacteria are resistant to many common antibiotics and able to acquire resistance against many more. Following patient segregation in cystic fibrosis medical care, the more virulent epidemic strains are not as frequent, and new infections are more likely to be with less virulent environmentally-acquired strains. Although evidence-based guidelines exist for treating respiratory exacerbations involving Pseudomonas aeruginosa, these cannot be extended to Burkholderia cepacia complex infections. This review, which is an update of a previous review, aims to assess the available trial evidence for the choice and application of treatments for these infections. To assess the effectiveness and safety of different antibiotic regimens in people with cystic fibrosis experiencing an exacerbation and chronically infected with organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of latest search: 28 August 2015. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of treatments for exacerbations of pulmonary symptoms in people with cystic fibrosis chronically infected with organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. No relevant trials were identified. No trials were included in this review. Burkholderia cepacia complex infections present a significant challenge for people with cystic fibrosis and their clinicians. The incidence is likely to increase as the cystic fibrosis population ages; and managing and treating these infections will become more important. There is a lack of trial evidence to guide decision making and no conclusions can be drawn from this review about the optimal antibiotic regimens for people with cystic fibrosis who have chronic Burkholderia cepacia complex infections. Clinicians must continue to assess each person individually, taking into account in vitro antibiotic susceptibility data, previous clinical responses and their own experience. Multicentre randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of different antibiotic regimens in people with cystic fibrosis infected with organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex.

Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section.

The single most important risk factor for postpartum maternal infection is cesarean section. Although guidelines endorse the use of prophylactic antibiotics for women undergoing cesarean section, there is not uniform implementation of this recommendation. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1995 and last updated in 2010. To assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotics compared with no prophylactic antibiotics on infectious complications in women undergoing cesarean section. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2014) and reference lists of retrieved papers. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing the effects of prophylactic antibiotics versus no treatment in women undergoing cesarean section. Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. The clinically important primary outcomes were wound infection, endometritis, serious maternal infectious complications and adverse effects on the infant. We presented dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and combined trials in meta-analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We identified 95 studies enrolling over 15,000 women. Compared with placebo or no treatment, the use of prophylactic antibiotics in women undergoing cesarean section reduced the incidence of wound infection (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46, 82 studies, 14,407 women), endometritis (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.42, 83 studies, 13,548 women) and maternal serious infectious complications (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.49, 32 studies, 6159 women). When only studies that included women undergoing an elective cesarean section were analyzed, there was also a reduction in the incidence of wound infections (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82, 17 studies, 3537 women) and endometritis (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.61, 15 studies, 2502 women) with prophylactic antibiotics. Similar estimates of effect were seen whether the antibiotics were administered before the cord was clamped or after. The effect of different antibiotic regimens was studied and similar reductions in the incidence of infections were seen for most of the antibiotics and combinations.There were no data on which to estimate the effect of maternal administration of antibiotics on infant outcomes. No studies systematically collected and reported on adverse infant outcomes nor the effect of antibiotics on the developing infant immune system. No studies reported on the incidence of oral candidiasis (thrush) in babies. Maternal adverse effects were also rarely described.We judged the evidence for antibiotic treatment compared with no treatment to be of moderate quality; most studies lacked an adequate description of methods and were assessed as being at unclear risk of bias. The conclusions of this review support the recommendation that prophylactic antibiotics should be routinely administered to all women undergoing cesarean section to prevent infection. Compared with placebo or no treatment, the use of prophylactic antibiotics in women undergoing cesarean section reduced the incidence of wound infection, endometritis and serious infectious complications by 60% to 70%. There were few data on adverse effects and no information on the effect of antibiotics on the baby, making the assessment of overall benefits and harms difficult. Prophylactic antibiotics given to all women undergoing elective or non-elective cesarean section is beneficial for women but there is uncertainty about the consequences for the baby.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) related complications in surgical patients.

Risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection after surgery is generally low, but affects up to 33% of patients after certain types of surgery. Postoperative MRSA infection can occur as surgical site infections (SSIs), chest infections, or bloodstream infections (bacteraemia). The incidence of MRSA SSIs varies from 1% to 33% depending upon the type of surgery performed and the carrier status of the individuals concerned. The optimal prophylactic antibiotic regimen for the prevention of MRSA after surgery is not known. To compare the benefits and harms of all methods of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of postoperative MRSA infection and related complications in people undergoing surgery. In March 2013 we searched the following databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); NHS Economic Evaluation Database (The Cochrane Library); Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one antibiotic regimen used as prophylaxis for SSIs (and other postoperative infections) with another antibiotic regimen or with no antibiotic, and that reported the methicillin resistance status of the cultured organisms. We did not limit our search for RCTs by language, publication status, publication year, or sample size. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion in the review, and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for comparing binary outcomes between the groups and planned to calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for comparing continuous outcomes. We planned to perform meta-analysis using both a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model. We performed intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible. We included 12 RCTs, with 4704 participants, in this review. Eleven trials performed a total of 16 head-to-head comparisons of different prophylactic antibiotic regimens. Antibiotic prophylaxis was compared with no antibiotic prophylaxis in one trial. All the trials were at high risk of bias. With the exception of one trial in which all the participants were positive for nasal carriage of MRSA or had had previous MRSA infections, it does not appear that MRSA was tested or eradicated prior to surgery; nor does it appear that there was high prevalence of MRSA carrier status in the people undergoing surgery.There was no sufficient clinical similarity between the trials to perform a meta-analysis. The overall all-cause mortality in four trials that reported mortality was 14/1401 (1.0%) and there were no significant differences in mortality between the intervention and control groups in each of the individual comparisons. There were no antibiotic-related serious adverse events in any of the 561 people randomised to the seven different antibiotic regimens in four trials (three trials that reported mortality and one other trial). None of the trials reported quality of life, total length of hospital stay or the use of healthcare resources. Overall, 221/4032 (5.5%) people developed SSIs due to all organisms, and 46/4704 (1.0%) people developed SSIs due to MRSA.In the 15 comparisons that compared one antibiotic regimen with another, there were no significant differences in the proportion of people who developed SSIs. In the single trial that compared an antibiotic regimen with placebo, the proportion of people who developed SSIs was significantly lower in the group that received antibiotic prophylaxis with co-amoxiclav (or cefotaxime if allergic to penicillin) compared with placebo (all SSI: RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; MRSA SSI RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.83). In two trials that reported MRSA infections other than SSI, 19/478 (4.5%) people developed MRSA infections including SSI, chest infection and bacteraemia. There were no significant differences in the proportion of people who developed MRSA infections at any body site in these two comparisons. Prophylaxis with co-amoxiclav decreases the proportion of people developing MRSA infections compared with placebo in people without malignant disease undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion, although this may be due to decreasing overall infection thereby preventing wounds from becoming secondarily infected with MRSA. There is currently no other evidence to suggest that using a combination of multiple prophylactic antibiotics or administering prophylactic antibiotics for an increased duration is of benefit to people undergoing surgery in terms of reducing MRSA infections. Well designed RCTs assessing the clinical effectiveness of different antibiotic regimens are necessary on this topic.

Antibiotics for brain abscesses in people with cyanotic congenital heart disease.

Brain abscess is a focal, intracerebral infection that begins as a localized area of brain infection and develops into a collection of pus surrounded by a well-vascularized capsule. People with cyanotic congenital heart disease are at risk of developing brain abscess. To evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic regimens for treating brain abscess in people with cyanotic congenital heart disease. We updated the searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library Issue 12 of 12, December 2012, MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to December Week 4 2012), EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2013 Week 01) and LILACS (1980 to 9 January 2013) on 9 January 2013. No language or publication restrictions were applied. Randomized controlled trials that reported clinically meaningful outcomes and presented results on an intention to treat basis, irrespective of blinding, publication status, or language. Data were to be extracted, unblinded, by the two reviewers independently. No studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. There are no randomized controlled trials about the effectiveness of antibiotic regimens for treating people with cyanotic congenital heart disease who developed a brain abscess. Currently, the antibiotic regimens used are based on previous retrospective studies and clinical experience. There is a need for a well designed multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of different antibiotic regimens.

Do Perioperative Antibiotics Decrease Implant Failure?

To execute an evidence-based review answering the following question: "Among patients receiving dental implants, do those who receive perioperative antibiotic therapy, compared with those who do not, have a decreased likelihood of implant failure?" We performed a literature review. The primary predictor variable was an antibiotic regimen, which was grouped into 3 categories: a single preoperative dose, a single preoperative dose and multiday postoperative therapy, and no antibiotic therapy. The primary and secondary outcome variables were implant failure and postoperative infection, respectively. Eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed. Two studies assessed the effect of a single preoperative antibiotic dose and reported a reduction in implant failure by 1.3% to 2% compared with no antibiotics use. Two studies compared the effect of pre- and postoperative antibiotics and no antibiotic use and found a 4.2% decrease to 1.1% increase in the failure rates when antibiotics were used. Four studies considered the effect of different antibiotic regimens. Only 2 studies found a statistically significant reduction in implant failure (2.5% to 5.4%) when a single preoperative antibiotic dose was used in conjunction with multiday treatment, compared with postoperative multiday treatment only. Four studies analyzed the rate of postoperative infection, which was 0.6% to 3% when no antibiotics were used, 0.6% when preoperative antibiotics alone were used, and 0.8% to 1% when preoperative and postoperative antibiotics were given. A single dose of preoperative antibiotic therapy may slightly decrease the failure rate of dental implants. However, the current data do not support the routine use of postoperative antibiotics, which can be tailored by the clinician to the patient's specific needs.

Antibiotic therapy for acute Q fever in The Netherlands in 2007 and 2008 and its relation to hospitalization

Data about the effectiveness of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of acute Q fever from clinical studies is scarce. We analysed the antibiotic treatment regimens of acute Q fever patients in 2007 and 2008 in The Netherlands and assessed whether hospitalization after a minimum of 2 days antibiotic therapy was related to the initial antibiotic therapy. Clinical data on antibiotic treatment and risk factors of acute Q fever patients were obtained from general practitioner medical records and self-reported by patients. For the 438 study patients, doxycycline was the most commonly prescribed initial antibiotic in both study years. After adjustments for confounding factors, doxycycline (200 mg/day), moxifloxacin, as well as other possibly effective antibiotics [including other new fluoroquinolones and doxycycline (100 mg/day)] showed significant lower risks for hospitalization compared to β-lactam antibiotics and azithromycin (reference group), with the lowest risk for doxycycline (200 mg/day) (odds ratio 0·04, 95% confidence interval 0·01-0·22). These data support current guidelines that recommend doxycycline as the first choice antibiotic for treating acute Q fever.

A comparison of Denagard, Denagard/CTC and Pulmotil on nursery pig growth performance and economic return (2010)

A total of 880 weanling pigs (initially 15.6 lb and 16 to 20 d of age) were used in a 41-d experiment to compare the effects of different antibiotic regimens on growth performance and economic return in the nursery phase. Pigs were alloted to 1 of 5 treatment groups based on weight within gender. The antibiotic regimens included: (1) control diets containing no antibiotic throughout the trial, (2) a combination of Denagard (Novartis Animal Health, Greensboro, NC) at 35g/ton and chlortetracycline at 400g/ton (Denagard/CTC) for the entire 41-d trial, (3) a Pulmotil (Elanco, Greenfield, IN) regimen of 363g/ton from d 0 to 10 followed by 181g/d from d 10 to 41, (4) Denagard 200 from d 0 to 10 followed by Denagard/CTC from d 10 to 41, and (5) Denagard/CTC from d 0 to 10, Denagard 200 from d 10 to 20, and Denagard/ CTC from d 20 to 41. From d 0 to 10, ADG, ADFI, and F/G were similar (P > 0.40) between the pigs fed nonmedicated diets and the mean of the groups fed diets containing antibiotics. However, from d 10 to 20, 20 to 41, and for the overall trial, pigs fed diets containing antibiotics had greater (P 0.18) between pigs fed Denagard/CTC and Denagard 200 during any phase. Final pig weights were greater for pigs fed diets containing antibiotics compared with the control (P < 0.01) and for pigs fed Denagard/CTC compared with pigs fed Pulmotil (P < 0.05). Adding antibiotics to the diets increased (P < 0.01) feed cost per pig; however, income over feed cost (IOFC) also increased for pigs fed Denagard/CTC compared with the control (P < 0.01) and compared with pigs fed Pulmotil (P < 0.01). These results demonstrate that adding antibiotics to the nursery diet improved pig performance and economic return.

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.