Search

Background: Candida auris is a new pathogen called "superbug fungus" which caused panic worldwide. There are no large-scale epidemiology studies by now, therefore a systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to determine the epidemic situation, drug resistance patterns and mortality of C. auris.Methods: We systematically searched studies on the clinical report of Candida auris in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases until October 6, 2019. A standardized form was used for data collection, and then statics was performed with STATA11.0.Results: It showed that more than 4733 cases of C. auris were reported in over 33 countries, with more cases in South Africa, United States of America, India, Spain, United Kingdom, South Korea, Colombia and Pakistan. C. auirs exhibited a decrease in case count after 2016. Clade I and III were the most prevalent clades with more cases reported and wider geographical distribution. Blood stream infection was observed in 32% of the cases, which varied depending on the clades. Resistance to fluconazole, amphotericin B, caspofungin, micafungin and anidulafungin in C. auris were 91, 12, 12.1, 0.8 and 1.1%. The overall mortality of C. auris infection was 39%. Furthermore, subgroup analyses showed that mortality was higher in bloodstream infections (45%), and lower in Europe (20%).Conclusions: Over 4000 cases of C. auris were reported in at least 33 countries, which showed high resistance to fluconazole, moderate resistance to amphotericin B and caspofungin, high sensitivity to micafungin and anidulafungin. The crude mortality for BSI of C. auris was 45% which was similar to some drug-resistant bacteria previously reported. In conclusion, C. auris displayed similar characteristics to some drug resistance organisms. This study depicts several issues of C. auris that are most concerned, and is of great significance for the clinical management. [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]