Search

Background: In intensive care units (ICUs), both continuous and intermittent feeding are commonly used for early enteral nutrition (EN). However, whether continuous feeding is a preferable feeding modality compared to intermittent feeding remains unclear. Therefore, this meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy of both EN feeding modalities in critically ill patients. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception dates to December 29, 2022. The search did not involve language restrictions (PROSPERO CRD42022371756). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of continuous feeding and intermittent feeding in critically ill patients in ICUs were included. Results: We included 13 RCTs involving 785 patients. Compared with intermittent feeding, continuous feeding was associated with a lower mortality rate (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47, 0.98; p = 0.04) but a higher risk of constipation (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02, 2.43; p = 0.04). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) for mortality rate presented a cumulative Z-curve crossing the traditional boundary, but the curve did not cross the TSA boundary for benefit. No significant differences were found in the aspiration/pneumonia rate (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.51, 2.75; p = 0.69), diarrhea rate (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58, 1.16; p = 0.26), or increased gastric residual volumes (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.58, 1.90; p = 0.86) between the groups. Conclusion: Despite the low certainty of evidence, compared with intermittent feeding, continuous feeding may reduce the mortality rate in critically ill patients in ICU. Additional studies are needed to provide more evidence and validate the findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the usefulness of colchicine in patients with COVID-19. PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between database inception and November 12, 2021. Only RCTs that compared the clinical efficacy and safety of colchicine with other alternative treatments or placebos in patients with COVID-19 were included. Overall, 7 RCTs involving 16,024 patients were included; 7,794 patients were in the study group receiving colchicine and 8,230 were in the control group receiving placebo or standard treatment. The study and control groups had similar risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91–1.09; I2 = 0%). No significant difference was observed between the study and control groups in terms of the need for non-invasive ventilation (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83–1.03; I2 = 0%), the need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.32–1.32; I2 = 58%), and length of hospital stay (mean difference, −0.42 days; 95% CI, −1.95 to 1.11; I2 = 62%). In addition, colchicine was associated with significantly higher risks of gastrointestinal adverse events (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.56–2.11; I2 = 0%) and diarrhoea (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.75–2.56; I2 = 9%). Colchicine does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, so it did not support the additional use of colchicine in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Colchicine could not reduce the mortality of patients with COVID-19. No significant difference was observed between the colchicine and comparators in terms of the need for non-invasive ventilation, need for mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay. Colchicine was associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the clinical efficacy and safety of favipiravir for patients with mild-to-critical COVID-19. PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs published before 30 October 2021. Only RCTs that compared the clinical efficacy and safety of favipiravir -based antiviral regimens (study group) with other alternative treatments or placebos (control group) in patients with COVID-19 were included. Overall, the clinical improvement rate was significantly higher in the study group than in the control group at the assessment conducted after 14 days (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.12–2.98). The rate of virological eradication was significantly higher in the study group than in the control group at the assessment conducted after 28 days (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.15–3.78). No significant difference was observed in the rates of invasive mechanical ventilation requirement or ICU admission, mortality, or risk of an adverse event between the study and control groups. Except the clinical improvement rate within 14 days and the virological eradication rate within 28 days, favipiravir-based treatment did not provide significantly additional benefit for patients with COVID-19. Therefore, more evidence is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated the effect of melatonin on clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). We searched PubMed, the Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, and Clinicaltrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before September 11, 2021. Only RCTs that compared the clinical efficacy of melatonin with a placebo in the treatment of patients with COVID‐19 were included. The primary outcome measure was the clinical recovery rate. We included three RCTs in this meta‐analysis. Melatonin 3 mg three times daily was administered in one RCT, and 3 or 6 mg daily before bedtime in the other two trials. Treatment duration was 14 days in two RCTs and 7 days in one trial. The clinical recovery rates were 94.2% (81/86) and 82.4% (70/85) in the melatonin and control groups, respectively. Overall, patients receiving melatonin had a higher clinical recovery rate than did the controls (odds ratio [OR]: 3.67; 95% CI: 1.21−11.12; I2 = 0%, p = 0.02). The risk of intensive care unit admission was numerically lower in the melatonin group than in the control group (8.3% [6/72] vs. 17.6% [12/68], OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.16−1.25; I2 = 0%, p = 0.13), and the risk of mortality was numerically lower in the melatonin group than in the control group (1.4% [1/72] vs. 4.4% [3/68], OR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.03−3.18; I2 = 0%, p = 0.33). In conclusion, melatonin may help improve the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID‐19. Highlight: This study investigated the effect of melatonin on clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.Patients receiving melatonin had a higher clinical recovery rate than did the controls (odds ratio: 3.67; 95% CI: 1.21−11.12; I2 = 0%, p = 0.02).The risk of intensive care unit admission was only insignificantly lower in the melatonin group than in the control group.The risk of mortality was insignificantly lower in the melatonin group than in the control group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effect of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on the clinical outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was not known. Only phase 2 and 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from electronic databases that investigated ICS in the treatment of COVID-19 patients were included. The outcomes of interest were the resolution of symptoms, risk of hospitalization or urgent medical visit, mortality, and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Five RCTs involving 1243 patients who received ICS and 1526 patients with placebo or usual care were included. The ICS group had a higher rate of symptom resolution than the control group at day 14 (risk ratio [RR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.30, p < 0.00001) and day 28 (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06-1.18, p < 0.0001). Additionally, the ICS group had a significantly lower risk of needing urgent medical care or hospitalization than the control group (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.50; I2 = 0, p = 0.002). However, no significant difference in the 28-day mortality rate. In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, ICS therapy improved symptom resolution, and decreased the risk of needing urgent medical care or hospitalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The effect of additional antimicrobial agents on the clinical outcomes of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is unclear.Methods: We performed comprehensive searches of randomized control trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical efficacy of additional antimicrobial agents to those of placebo or usual care in the treatment of IPF patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes were changes in forced vital capacity (FVC), diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO), and the risk of adverse events (AEs).Results: Four RCTs including a total of 1055 patients (528 receiving additional antibiotics and 527 receiving placebo or usual care) were included in this meta-analysis. Among the study group, 402 and 126 patients received co-trimoxazole and doxycycline, respectively. The all-cause mortality rates were 15.0% (79/528) and 14.0% (74/527) in the patients who did and did not receive additional antibiotics, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.51; p = 0.71). No significant difference was observed in the changes in FVC (mean difference [MD], 0.01; 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.05; p = 0.56) and DLCO (MD, 0.05; 95% CI - 0.17 to 0.28; p = 0.65). Additional use of antimicrobial agents was also associated with an increased risk of AEs (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.19 to 2.27; p = 0.002), especially gastrointestinal disorders (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.15; p = 0.001).Conclusions: In patients with IPF, adding antimicrobial therapy to usual care did not improve mortality or lung function decline but increased gastrointestinal toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide updated information regarding the clinical efficacy of remdesivir in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for relevant articles published up to 18 November 2020.Results: Five RCTs, including 13 544 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Among them, 3839 and 391 patients were assigned to the 10 day and 5 day remdesivir regimens, respectively. Patients receiving 5 day remdesivir therapy presented greater clinical improvement than those in the control group [OR = 1.68 (95% CI 1.18-2.40)], with no significant difference observed between the 10 day and placebo groups [OR = 1.23 (95% CI 0.90-1.68)]. Patients receiving remdesivir revealed a greater likelihood of discharge [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.32 (95% CI 1.09-1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.73 (95% CI 1.28-2.35)] and recovery [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.29 (95% CI 1.03-1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.80 (95% CI 1.31-2.48)] than those in the control group. In contrast, no mortality benefit was observed following remdesivir therapy. Furthermore, no significant association was observed between remdesivir treatment and an increased risk of adverse events.Conclusions: Remdesivir can help improve the clinical outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a 5 day regimen, instead of a 10 day regimen, may be sufficient for treatment. Moreover, remdesivir appears as tolerable as other comparators or placebo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

aim of this study was to compare the usefulness of cefoperazone-sulbactam and that of piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Methods: This retrospective study included the adult patients receiving cefoperazone-sulbactam or piperacillin-tazobactam against HAP/VAP in nine hospitals in Taiwan from March 1, 2018 to May 30, 2019. Primary outcome was clinical cure rate. Results: A total of 410 patients were enrolled. Among them, 209 patients received cefoperazone-sulbactam and 201 patients received piperacillin-tazobactam. Overall, cefoperazone-sulbactam group had similar distribution of age, sex, or SOFA scores as piperacillin-tazobactam group. However, cefoperazone-sulbactam had higher comorbidity score and disease severity than piperacillin-tazobactam group (Charlson score: 6.5 ± 2.9 vs 5.7 ± 2.7, p < 0.001; APACHE II score: 21.4 ± 6.2 vs 19.3 ± 6.0, p = 0.002). Regarding clinical outcomes, no significant difference in clinical cure and failure rates was observed between cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam group (clinical cure rate: 80.9% vs 80.1% and clinical failure rate: 17.2% vs 18.4%, p = 0.943). Moreover, no significant difference in clinical effectiveness and ineffectiveness rates was observed between cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam group (clinical effective rate: 80.9% vs 80.6% and clinical ineffective rate: 17.7% vs 18.9%, p = 0.711). The all-cause mortality rates of the cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam groups were similar (23.9% vs 20.9%, p = 0.48). After adjustment of Charlson score and APACHE II score, the similarities in these clinical outcomes did not change in overall patients and patients with HAP or VAP. Conclusion: For treating adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia, cefoperazone-sulbactam was as effective as piperacillin-tazobactam. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

LINKED CONTENT: This article is linked to Hadi et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16730 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Epidemiological data suggest that statins improve the clinical outcome of respiratory infections. We sought to examine whether statin therapy decreases the risk of active TB.Methods: We conducted a nested case-control study on data obtained from a national health insurance claims database between 1999 and 2011. The use of statins was classified as current, recent, past or chronic use. Three conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate the incidence rate ratios (RRs). The first assessed the effect of statin use without further adjustment; the second adjusted (individually) for 75 potential confounders; and the third adjusted for the Disease Risk Score (DRS).Results: A total of 8098 new TB cases and 809 800 control patients were examined. All four types of statin users showed a decreased risk of active TB. Chronic use (>90 days in a calendar year) of statins was associated with the lowest unadjusted risk of TB (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.87). The protective effect of active TB remained after adjusting for individual confounders (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78) and after DRS adjustment (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.72). The effect estimates obtained for chronic and current use of statins were very similar. We also found that the active TB protection increased with increasing length of statin prescription.Conclusions: We found that statin therapy was associated with a decreased risk of active TB, and the length of statin therapy affected the TB protection. Given the observational nature of this study, the protective effect against active TB must be confirmed in future randomised trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study related to use of ceftaroline for treating older patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Topics include the randomized controlled trials showing that ceftaroline being non-inferior to ceftriaxone in terms of clinical efficacy, the safety profile in the treatment of community acquired pneumonia in both adult and pediatric patients, and the clinical evaluation population defining as modified intention-to-treat population.

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA cephalosporin and vancomycin-based treatment in treating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Turning Research into Practice, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant articles from inception to 15 June 2020. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-MRSA cephalosporin with those of vancomycin-based regimens in treating adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were clinical response at the test-of-cure assessments and risk of adverse events (AEs), respectively. Eight RCTs were enrolled. The clinical response rate was not significantly different between anti-MRSA cephalosporin and vancomycin-based treatments (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90–1.23; I2 = 0%). Except for major cutaneous abscesses in which anti-MRSA cephalosporin-based treatment was associated with a lower clinical response rate than vancomycin-based treatment (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40–0.97; I2 = 0%), other subgroup analyses according to the type of cephalosporin (ceftaroline or ceftobiprole), type of infection, and different pathogens did not show significant differences in clinical response. Anti-MRSA cephalosporin-based treatment was only associated with a higher risk of nausea than vancomycin-based treatment (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07–1.85; I2 = 0%). In treating ABSSSIs, the clinical efficacy of anti-MRSA cephalosporin is comparable to that of vancomycin-based treatment, except in major cutaneous abscesses. In addition to nausea, anti-MRSA cephalosporin was as tolerable as vancomycin-based treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-sulbactam against alternative antibiotics in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, and CKNI databases were searched for relevant articles up to November 25, 2020. The primary outcome was clinical efficacy rate, and the secondary outcomes were microbiologic eradication rate, mortality rate, and adverse event (AE) risk. Results: Twelve studies involving 1,674 patients were included. Overall, the clinical efficacy rate of cefoperazone-sulbactam and comparators was 87.7% and 81.7%, respectively, and cefoperazone-sulbactam was associated with a higher clinical efficacy rate than that the comparator (odds ratio [OR] 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-3.00; I2 = 36%). Additionally, cefoperazone-sulbactam was associated with a lower clinical failure rate (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.28-0.57; I2 = 0) and a higher clinical cure rate (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.17-2.03; I2 = 0) than the comparators. Cefoperazone-sulbactam was associated with a higher microbiologic eradication rate than the comparator (OR 2.54; 95% CI 1.72-3.76; I2 = 0). Finally, there was no significant difference between cefoperazone-sulbactam and the comparators in terms of mortality rate (OR 090; 95% CI 0.38-2.16; I2 = 0) and AE risk (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.74-1.55; I2 = 0). Conclusions: The clinical efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-sulbactam were similar to those of alternative antibiotics in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. Therefore, cefoperazone-sulbactam could be recommended as an effective and safe antibiotic for treating intra-abdominal infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Systematic review and meta-analysis examining the efficacy of sofosbuvir-based antiviral treatment against COVID-19. • Mortality was lower in the study group than the control group (OR = 0.49). • Overall clinical recovery rate was higher in the study group than the control group (OR = 1.82). • Study group presented a lower requirement for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.33) and ICU admission (OR = 0.42). • Study group exhibited a shorter hospital length of stay [mean deviation (MD), –1.49] and recovery time (MD, –1.34). This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy of sofosbuvir-based antiviral treatment against COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 15 August 2021. Studies comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir-based antiviral regimens (study group) with other antivirals or standard of care (control group) in patients with COVID-19 were included. Overall, 687 patients with COVID-19 were included, of which 377 patients received sofosbuvir-based treatment. Mortality was lower in the study group than in the control group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30–0.79; I 2 = 0%]. The overall clinical recovery rate was higher in the study group than in the control group (OR = 1.82, 95% CI 1.20–2.76; I 2 = 28%). The study group presented a lower requirement for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13–0.89; I 2 = 0%) and intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.25–0.70; I 2 = 0%) than the control group. Furthermore, the study group exhibited a shorter hospital length of stay [mean deviation (MD), –1.49, 95% CI –2.62 to –0.37; I 2 = 56%] and recovery time (MD, –1.34, 95% CI –2.29 to –0.38; I 2 = 46%) than the control group. Sofosbuvir-based treatment may help reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 and improve associated clinical outcomes. Furthermore, sofosbuvir-based treatment was as safe as the comparator in patients with COVID-19. However, further large-scale studies are warranted to validate these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]