Search

Background: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a life-threatening complication in patients with advanced cirrhosis. Prophylactic Norfloxacin used to be considered effective in SBP prevention, but in recent years its efficacy has been partially compromised by increasing quinolone-resistant bacteria. However, whether the effects of alternative prophylactic regimens are superior to norfloxacin remains controversial. The goal of this study is to compare the effects of norfloxacin with other antibiotics in SBP prophylaxis for cirrhotic patients. Methods: We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Databases. Two reviewers independently identified relevant random control trials (RCTs) comparing the role of norfloxacin and other antibiotics in SBP prevention. Results: Eight studies comprising 1043 cirrhotic patients were included in this study. Norfloxacin and alternative antibiotics displayed comparable effects in SBP prophylaxis, survival benefit, overall infection prevention, and safety. Subgroup analyses revealed that rifaximin prophylaxis could reduce the recurrence of SBP with fewer adverse events but failed to improve overall survival compared with norfloxacin. Conclusions: Other antibiotics are a reasonable alternative to norfloxacin in the prophylaxis of SBP. Rifaximin prophylaxis could be an alternative choose of antibiotic for SBP prevention because of its better protective effect and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A substantial body of evidence has recently emphasized the risks associated with antibiotic resistance (ABR) in conflicts in the Middle East. War-related, and more specifically weapon-related wounds can be an important breeding ground for multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms. However, the majority of available evidence comes from the military literature focused on risks and patterns of ABR in infections from combat-related injuries among military personnel. The overall aim of this study is to contribute to the scarce existing evidence on the burden of ABR among patients, including civilians with war-related wounds in the Middle East, in order to help inform the revision of empirical antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment protocols adopted in these settings. The primary objectives of this study are to: 1) describe the microbiology and the corresponding resistance profiles of the clinically relevant bacteria most commonly isolated from skin, soft tissue and bone biopsies in patients admitted to the WTTC; and 2) describe the association of the identified bacteria and corresponding resistance profiles with sociodemographic and specimen characteristics.Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the antibiograms of all consecutive, non-duplicate isolates from samples taken from patients admitted to the ICRC WTTC between 2016 and 2019, limited to skin and soft tissue samples and bone biopsies. We collected data on socio-demographic characteristics from patient files and data on specimens from the WHONET database. We ran univariate and multivariable logistic regression models to test the association between bacterial and resistance profiles with sociodemographic and specimen characteristics.Results: Patients who were admitted with war-related trauma to the ICRC reconstructive surgical project in Tripoli, Lebanon, from 2016 to 2019, presented with high proportion of MDR in the samples taken from skin and soft tissues and bones, particularly Enterobacterales (44.6%), MRSA (44.6%) and P. aeruginosa (7.6%). The multivariable analysis shows that the odds of MDR isolates were higher in Iraqi patients (compared to Syrian patients) and in Enterobacterales isolates (compared to S. aureus isolates).Conclusions: Our findings stress the importance of regularly screening patients who present with complex war-related injuries for colonization with MDR bacteria, and of ensuring an antibiotic-sensitivity testing-guided antimicrobial therapeutic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In areas where Lyme disease is endemic, bites from ticks are common, but no vaccine is currently available against Lyme disease for humans. Therefore, the feasibility of using antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent Lyme disease after a tick bite is worth further exploration. Previous meta-analyses lack sufficient power to demonstrate the efficacy of about antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of Lyme disease following a tick bite. In this study, we explored more precise evidence and attempted to identify and update optimum treatment strategies.Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies until March 23, 2021. We included studies if the enrolled patients were randomly allocated to a treatment or control group within 72 h following a tick bite and had no clinical evidence of Lyme disease at enrolment. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed for data abstraction. Two authors (GZZ and XX) independently reviewed the abstracts and identified articles for detailed assessment. We used a random-effects model to calculate the pooled results and reported the 95% confidence interval (CI). Study quality was assessed using a modified Jadad scale, and publication bias was assessed using Egger's test. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for the rates of unfavorable events in patients who received intervention versus the control group. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42021245002.Results: Six studies (3,766 individuals) were included. The pooled rate of unfavorable events in persons receiving treatment and the control group were 0.4% (95%CI: 0.1-1.1%) and 2.2% (95%CI: 1.6-3.0%), respectively. The pooled RR was 0.38 (95%CI: 0.22-0.66). Subgroup analysis revealed that the pooled RR was 0.29 (95%CI: 0.14-0.60) in the single-use 200-mg doxycycline group; 0.28 (95%CI: 0.05-1.67) in a 10-day course group (Amoxicillin, Penicillin or tetracycline); and 0.73 (95%CI: 0.25-2.08) in a topical antibiotic treatment group (Azithromycin).Conclusions: The available evidence supports the use of antibiotics for the prevention of Lyme disease, and reveals advantages of using single-dose; however, further confirmation is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]