Probiotics for the prevention of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics can disturb gastrointestinal microbiota which may lead to reduced resistance to pathogens such as Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Probiotics are live microbial preparations that, when administered in adequate amounts, may confer a health benefit to the host, and are a potential C. difficile prevention strategy. Recent clinical practice guidelines do not recommend probiotic prophylaxis, even though probiotics have the highest quality evidence among cited prophylactic therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics for preventing C.difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 21 March 2017. Additionally, we conducted an extensive grey literature search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled (placebo, alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment control) trials investigating probiotics (any strain, any dose) for prevention of CDAD, or C. difficile infection were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (independently and in duplicate) extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcome was the incidence of CDAD. Secondary outcomes included detection of C. difficile infection in stool, adverse events, antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) and length of hospital stay. Dichotomous outcomes (e.g. incidence of CDAD) were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where appropriate. Continuous outcomes (e.g. length of hospital stay) were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference and corresponding 95% CI. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of missing data on efficacy and safety outcomes. For the sensitivity analyses, we assumed that the event rate for those participants in the control group who had missing data was the same as the event rate for those participants in the control group who were successfully followed. For the probiotic group, we calculated effects using the following assumed ratios of event rates in those with missing data in comparison to those successfully followed: 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1, and 5:1. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analyses were conducted on probiotic species, dose, adult versus pediatric population, and risk of bias as well as a post hoc subgroup analysis on baseline risk of CDAD (low 0% to 2%; moderate 3% to 5%; high > 5%). The overall quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was independently assessed using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies (9955 participants) met the eligibility requirements for our review. Overall, 27 studies were rated as either high or unclear risk of bias. A complete case analysis (i.e. participants who completed the study) among trials investigating CDAD (31 trials, 8672 participants) suggests that probiotics reduce the risk of CDAD by 60%. The incidence of CDAD was 1.5% (70/4525) in the probiotic group compared to 4.0% (164/4147) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52; GRADE = moderate). Twenty-two of 31 trials had missing CDAD data ranging from 2% to 45%. Our complete case CDAD results proved robust to sensitivity analyses of plausible and worst-plausible assumptions regarding missing outcome data and results were similar whether considering subgroups of trials in adults versus children, inpatients versus outpatients, different probiotic species, lower versus higher doses of probiotics, or studies at high versus low risk of bias. However, in a post hoc analysis, we did observe a subgroup effect with respect to baseline risk of developing CDAD. Trials with a baseline CDAD risk of 0% to 2% and 3% to 5% did not show any difference in risk but trials enrolling participants with a baseline risk of > 5% for developing CDAD demonstrated a large 70% risk reduction (interaction P value = 0.01). Among studies with a baseline risk > 5%, the incidence of CDAD in the probiotic group was 3.1% (43/1370) compared to 11.6% (126/1084) in the control group (13 trials, 2454 participants; RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.42; GRADE = moderate). With respect to detection of C. difficile in the stool pooled complete case results from 15 trials (1214 participants) did not show a reduction in infection rates. C. difficile infection was 15.5% (98/633) in the probiotics group compared to 17.0% (99/581) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.10; GRADE = moderate). Adverse events were assessed in 32 studies (8305 participants) and our pooled complete case analysis indicates probiotics reduce the risk of adverse events by 17% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; GRADE = very low). In both treatment and control groups the most common adverse events included abdominal cramping, nausea, fever, soft stools, flatulence, and taste disturbance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 randomized controlled trials including 8672 patients, moderate certainty evidence suggests that probiotics are effective for preventing CDAD (NNTB = 42 patients, 95% CI 32 to 58). Our post hoc subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity indicated that probiotics are effective among trials with a CDAD baseline risk >5% (NNTB = 12; moderate certainty evidence), but not among trials with a baseline risk ≤5% (low to moderate certainty evidence). Although adverse effects were reported among 32 included trials, there were more adverse events among patients in the control groups. The short-term use of probiotics appears to be safe and effective when used along with antibiotics in patients who are not immunocompromised or severely debilitated. Despite the need for further research, hospitalized patients, particularly those at high risk of CDAD, should be informed of the potential benefits and harms of probiotics.

Corticosteroids for treatment of sore throat: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

Objective To estimate the benefits and harms of using corticosteroids as an adjunct treatment for sore throat.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials.Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), trial registries up to May 2017, reference lists of eligible trials, related reviews.Study selection Randomised controlled trials of the addition of corticosteroids to standard clinical care for patients aged 5 or older in emergency department and primary care settings with clinical signs of acute tonsillitis, pharyngitis, or the clinical syndrome of sore throat. Trials were included irrespective of language or publication status.Review methods Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the evidence, independently and in duplicate. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including the selection of outcomes important to patients. Random effects model was used for meta-analyses. Quality of evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach.Results 10 eligible trials enrolled 1426 individuals. Patients who received single low dose corticosteroids (the most common intervention was oral dexamethasone with a maximum dose of 10 mg) were twice as likely to experience pain relief after 24 hours (relative risk 2.2, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 4.3; risk difference 12.4%; moderate quality evidence) and 1.5 times more likely to have no pain at 48 hours (1.5, 1.3 to 1.8; risk difference 18.3%; high quality). The mean time to onset of pain relief in patients treated with corticosteroids was 4.8 hours earlier (95% confidence interval -1.9 to -7.8; moderate quality) and the mean time to complete resolution of pain was 11.1 hours earlier (-0.4 to -21.8; low quality) than in those treated with placebo. The absolute pain reduction at 24 hours (visual analogue scale 0-10) was greater in patients treated with corticosteroids (mean difference 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 1.9; moderate quality). Nine of the 10 trials sought information regarding adverse events. Six studies reported no adverse effects, and three studies reported few adverse events, which were mostly complications related to disease, with a similar incidence in both groups.Conclusion Single low dose corticosteroids can provide pain relief in patients with sore throat, with no increase in serious adverse effects. Included trials did not assess the potential risks of larger cumulative doses in patients with recurrent episodes of acute sore throat.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067808.

Antiretroviral therapy in pregnant women living with HIV: a clinical practice guideline

Approximately 1.4 million women living with HIV become pregnant every year. Most women use antiretroviral therapy, to reduce the risk of vertical transmission or for personal health reasons. Using the GRADE framework according to the BMJ Rapid Recommendation process, we make recommendations for optimal choice of combination antiretroviral regimen considering patient values and preferences, the balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, their uncertainty, and practical issues. We suggest a zidovudine and lamivudine-based regimen over one that includes tenofovir or emtricitabine (weak recommendation). We recommend alternatives over the combination of tenofovir, emtricitabine, and lopinavir/ritonavir (strong recommendation).

Values and preferences of women living with HIV who are pregnant, postpartum or considering pregnancy on choice of antiretroviral therapy during pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate women's values and preferences regarding antiretroviral therapy (ART) during pregnancy to inform a BMJ Rapid Recommendation.

SETTING

Primary studies reporting patient-reported outcomes relevant to decision-making regarding ART in any clinical and geographical setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Women living with HIV who are pregnant, postpartum or considering pregnancy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Quantitative measurements and qualitative descriptions of values and preferences in relation to ART during pregnancy. We also included studies on women's reported barriers and facilitators to adherence. We excluded studies correlating objective measures (eg, CD4 count) with adherence, or reporting only outcomes which are not expected to differ between ART alternatives (eg, access to services, knowledge about ART).

RESULTS

We included 15 qualitative studies reporting values and preferences about ART in the peripartum period; no study directly studied choice of ART therapy during pregnancy. Six themes emerged: a desire to reduce vertical transmission (nine studies), desire for child to be healthy (five studies), concern about side effects to the child (eight studies), desire for oneself to be healthy (five studies), distress about side effect to oneself (10 studies) and pill burden (two studies). None of the studies weighed the relative importance of these outcomes directly, but pill burden/medication complexity appears to be a lower priority for most women compared with other factors. Overall, the body of evidence was at low risk of bias, with minor limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Women who are or may become pregnant and who are considering ART appear to place a high value on both their own and their children's health. Evidence on the relative importance between these values when choosing between ART regimens is uncertain. There is variability in individual values and preferences among women. This highlights the importance of an individualised women-centred approach, such as shared decision-making when choosing between ART alternatives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews:CRD42017057157.

Application of minimal important differences in degenerative knee disease outcomes: a systematic review and case study to inform BMJ Rapid Recommendations

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most credible anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient important outcomes in patients with degenerative knee disease, and to inform BMJ Rapid Recommendations for arthroscopic surgery versus conservative management DESIGN: Systematic review.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Estimates of anchor-based MIDs, and their credibility, for knee symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included original studies documenting the development of anchor-based MIDs for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reported in randomised controlled trials included in the linked systematic review and meta-analysis and judged by the parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendations panel as critically important for informing their recommendation: measures of pain, function and HRQoL.

RESULTS

13 studies reported 95 empirically estimated anchor-based MIDs for 8 PRO instruments and/or their subdomains that measure knee pain, function or HRQoL. All studies used a transition rating (global rating of change) as the anchor to ascertain the MID. Among PROs with more than 1 estimated MID, we found wide variation in MID values. Many studies suffered from serious methodological limitations. We identified the following most credible MIDs: Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; pain: 12, function: 13), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS; pain: 12, activities of daily living: 8) and EuroQol five dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D; 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

We were able to distinguish between more and less credible MID estimates and provide best estimates for key instruments that informed evidence presentation in the associated systematic review and judgements made by the Rapid Recommendation panel.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016047912.

Low intensity pulsed ultrasound for bone healing: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Objective To determine the efficacy of low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) for healing of fracture or osteotomy.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and trial registries up to November 2016.Study selection Randomized controlled trials of LIPUS compared with sham device or no device in patients with any kind of fracture or osteotomy.Review methods Two independent reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence.Results 26 randomized controlled trials with a median sample size of 30 (range 8-501) were included. The most trustworthy evidence came from four trials at low risk of bias that included patients with tibia or clavicle fractures. Compared with control, LIPUS did not reduce time to return to work (percentage difference: 2.7% later with LIPUS, 95% confidence interval 7.7% earlier to 14.3% later; moderate certainty) or the number of subsequent operations (risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.16; moderate certainty). For pain, days to weight bearing, and radiographic healing, effects varied substantially among studies. For all three outcomes, trials at low risk of bias failed to show a benefit with LIPUS, while trials at high risk of bias suggested a benefit (interaction P<0.001). When only trials at low risk of bias trials were considered, LIPUS did not reduce days to weight bearing (4.8% later, 4.0% earlier to 14.4% later; high certainty), pain at four to six weeks (mean difference on 0-100 visual analogue scale: 0.93 lower, 2.51 lower to 0.64 higher; high certainty), and days to radiographic healing (1.7% earlier, 11.2% earlier to 8.8% later; moderate certainty).Conclusions Based on moderate to high quality evidence from studies in patients with fresh fracture, LIPUS does not improve outcomes important to patients and probably has no effect on radiographic bone healing. The applicability to other types of fracture or osteotomy is open to debate.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016050965.

The Scientific Basis of Guideline Recommendations on Sugar Intake: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The relationship between sugar and health is affected by energy balance, macronutrient substitutions, and diet and lifestyle patterns. Several authoritative organizations have issued public health guidelines addressing dietary sugars.

PURPOSE

To systematically review guidelines on sugar intake and assess consistency of recommendations, methodological quality of guidelines, and the quality of evidence supporting each recommendation.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science (1995 to September 2016); guideline registries; and gray literature (bibliographies, Google, and experts).

STUDY SELECTION

Guidelines addressing sugar intake that reported their methods of development and were published in English between 1995 and 2016.

DATA EXTRACTION

Three reviewers independently assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II), instrument. To assess evidence quality, articles supporting recommendations were independently reviewed and their quality was determined by using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The search identified 9 guidelines that offered 12 recommendations. Each of the reviewed guidelines indicated a suggested decrease in the consumption of foods containing nonintrinsic sugars. The guidelines scored poorly on AGREE II criteria, specifically in rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence. Seven recommendations provided nonquantitative guidance; 5 recommended less than 25% to less than 5% of total calories from nonintrinsic sugars. The recommendations were based on various health concerns, including nutrient displacement, dental caries, and weight gain. Quality of evidence supporting recommendations was low to very low.

LIMITATION

The authors conducted the study independent of the funding source, which is primarily supported by the food and agriculture industry.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines on dietary sugar do not meet criteria for trustworthy recommendations and are based on low-quality evidence. Public health officials (when promulgating these recommendations) and their public audience (when considering dietary behavior) should be aware of these limitations.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Technical Committee on Dietary Carbohydrates of the North American branch of the International Life Sciences Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42015029182).

Patient values and preferences on transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patients' values and preferences regarding aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis.

SETTING

Studies published after transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) became available (2002).

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with aortic stenosis who are considering or have had valve replacement, either TAVI or via surgery (surgical aortic valve replacement, SAVR).

OUTCOME MEASURES

We sought quantitative measurements, or qualitative descriptions, of values and preferences. When reported, we examined correlations between preferences and objective (eg, ejection fraction) or subjective (eg, health-related quality of life) measures of health.

RESULTS

We reviewed 1348 unique citations, of which 2 studies proved eligible. One study of patients with severe aortic stenosis used a standard gamble study to ascertain that the median hypothetical mortality risk patients were willing to tolerate to achieve full health was 25% (IQR 25-50%). However, there was considerable variability; for mortality risk levels defined by current guidelines, 130 participants (30%) were willing to accept low-to-intermediate risk (≤8%), 224 (51%) high risk (>8-50%) and 85 (19%) a risk that guidelines would consider prohibitive (>50%). Study authors did not, however, assess participants' understanding of the exercise, resulting in a potential risk of bias. A second qualitative study of 15 patients identified the following factors that influence patients to undergo assessment for TAVI: symptom burden; expectations; information support; logistical barriers; facilitators; obligations and responsibilities. The study was limited by serious risk of bias due to authors' conflict of interest (5/9 authors industry-funded).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence on patient values and preferences of adults with aortic stenosis is very limited, and no studies have enrolled patients deciding between TAVI and SAVR. On the basis of the data available, there is evidence of variability in individual values and preferences, highlighting the importance of well-informed and shared decision-making with patients facing this decision.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42016041907.

Effect of Vitamin D3 Supplementation on Respiratory Tract Infections in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

Vitamin D supplementation may be a simple preventive measure against respiratory tract infections (RTIs) but evidence from randomized controlled trials is inconclusive. We aimed to systematically summarize results from interventions studying the protective effect of vitamin D supplementation on clinical and laboratory confirmed RTIs in healthy adults and children.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were screened from inception until present (last updated in January 2016) completed by a search of the grey literature, clinical trial registers and conference abstracts. We included randomized trials comparing vitamin D versus placebo or no treatment. Two independent reviewers were responsible for study selection and data extraction. Cochrane’s risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach were used for quality assessment. Estimates were pooled with random-effects models. Heterogeneity was explored by sub-group and meta-regression analyses.

Results

Of 2627 original hits, 15 trials including 7053 individuals were ultimately eligible. All used oral cholecalciferol. We found a 6% risk reduction with vitamin D3 supplementation on clinical RTIs, but the result was not statistically significant (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.00). Heterogeneity was large (I-square 57%) and overall study quality was low. There were too few studies to reliably assess a potential risk reduction of laboratory confirmed RTI. Evidence was insufficient to demonstrate an association between vitamin D supplementation and risk of clinical RTI in sub-groups with vitamin D deficiency.

Conclusions

In previously healthy individuals vitamin D supplementation does not reduce the risk of clinical RTIs. However, this conclusion is based on a meta-analysis where the included studies differed with respect to population, baseline vitamin D levels and study length. This needs to be considered when interpreting the results. Future trials should focus on vitamin D deficient individuals and apply more objective and standardized outcome measurements.

Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics are frequently prescribed in children. They alter the microbial balance within the gastrointestinal tract, commonly resulting in antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). Probiotics may prevent AAD via restoration of the gut microflora.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) used for the prevention of AAD in children.

SEARCH METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, AMED, and the Web of Science (inception to November 2014) were searched along with specialized registers including the Cochrane IBD/FBD review group, CISCOM (Centralized Information Service for Complementary Medicine), NHS Evidence, the International Bibliographic Information on Dietary Supplements as well as trial registries. Letters were sent to authors of included trials, nutraceutical and pharmaceutical companies, and experts in the field requesting additional information on ongoing or unpublished trials. Conference proceedings, dissertation abstracts, and reference lists from included and relevant articles were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, parallel, controlled trials in children (0 to 18 years) receiving antibiotics, that compare probiotics to placebo, active alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment and measure the incidence of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection, data extraction as well as methodological quality assessment using the risk of bias instrument was conducted independently and in duplicate by two authors. Dichotomous data (incidence of diarrhea, adverse events) were combined using a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD), and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea, mean daily stool frequency) as mean difference (MD), along with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For overall pooled results on the incidence of diarrhea, sensitivity analyses included available case versus extreme-plausible analyses and random- versus fixed-effect models. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analysis were conducted on probiotic strain, dose, definition of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, as well as risk of bias. We also conducted post hoc subgroup analyses by patient diagnosis, single versus multi-strain, industry sponsorship, and inpatient status. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three studies (3938 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Trials included treatment with either Bacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Clostridium butyricum, Lactobacilli spp., Lactococcus spp., Leuconostoc cremoris, Saccharomyces spp., orStreptococcus spp., alone or in combination. Eleven studies used a single strain probiotic, four combined two probiotic strains, three combined three probiotic strains, one combined four probiotic strains, two combined seven probiotic strains, one included ten probiotic strains, and one study included two probiotic arms that used three and two strains respectively. The risk of bias was determined to be high or unclear in 13 studies and low in 10 studies. Available case (patients who did not complete the studies were not included in the analysis) results from 22/23 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show a precise benefit from probiotics compared to active, placebo or no treatment control. The incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (163/1992) compared to 19% (364/1906) in the control group (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; I(2) = 55%, 3898 participants). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate. This benefit remained statistically significant in an extreme plausible (60% of children loss to follow-up in probiotic group and 20% loss to follow-up in the control group had diarrhea) sensitivity analysis, where the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 14% (330/2294) compared to 19% (426/2235) in the control group (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; I(2) = 63%, 4529 participants). None of the 16 trials (n = 2455) that reported on adverse events documented any serious adverse events attributable to probiotics. Meta-analysis excluded all but an extremely small non-significant difference in adverse events between treatment and control (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01). The majority of adverse events were in placebo, standard care or no treatment group. Adverse events reported in the studies include rash, nausea, gas, flatulence, abdominal bloating, abdominal pain, vomiting, increased phlegm, chest pain, constipation, taste disturbance, and low appetite.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality evidence suggests a protective effect of probiotics in preventing AAD. Our pooled estimate suggests a precise (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61) probiotic effect with a NNT of 10. Among the various probiotics evaluated, Lactobacillus rhamnosus or Saccharomyces boulardii at 5 to 40 billion colony forming units/day may be appropriate given the modest NNT and the likelihood that adverse events are very rare. It is premature to draw conclusions about the efficacy and safety of other probiotic agents for pediatric AAD. Although no serious adverse events were observed among otherwise healthy children, serious adverse events have been observed in severely debilitated or immuno-compromised children with underlying risk factors including central venous catheter use and disorders associated with bacterial/fungal translocation. Until further research has been conducted, probiotic use should be avoided in pediatric populations at risk for adverse events. Future trials would benefit from a standard and valid outcomes to measure AAD.

Probiotics and synbiotics for the prevention of postoperative infections following abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Postoperative infections, particularly surgical site infections (SSIs), cause significant morbidity and mortality. Probiotics or synbiotics are a potential prevention strategy.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of probiotics/synbiotics for reducing postoperative infection risk following abdominal surgery.

METHODS

We searched AMED, Central, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and grey literature for randomized controlled trials of elective abdominal surgery patients administered probiotics or synbiotics compared to placebo or standard care. Primary outcome was SSIs. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, respiratory tract infections (RTIs), urinary tract infections (UTIs), combined infections, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Using random-effects meta-analyses, we estimated the relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Tests were performed for heterogeneity, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted, and the overall evidence quality was graded.

FINDINGS

We identified 20 trials (N = 1374 participants) reporting postoperative infections. Probiotics/synbiotics reduced SSIs (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41-0.98; N = 15 studies), UTIs (RR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.15-0.57; N = 11), and combined infections (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.35-0.70; N = 18). There was no difference between groups for adverse events (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.61-1.30; N = 6), RTIs (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.36-1.00; N = 14), length of stay (MD: -1.19; 95% CI: -2.94 to 0.56; N = 12), or mortality (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.58-2.48; N = 15).

CONCLUSION

Our review suggests that probiotics/synbiotics reduce SSIs and UTIs from abdominal surgeries compared to placebo or standard of care, without evidence of safety risk. Overall study quality was low, owing mostly to imprecision (few patients and events, or wide CIs); thus larger multi-centered trials are needed to further assess the certainty in this estimate.

The prevalence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among outpatient children in a tertiary hospital: A prospective observational study in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Background and objectives

The emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections among previously healthy persons in community settings, without exposure to health care facilities, has been noted recently. Colonization rates of community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA) have been reported to range from 0 to 9.2 percent. The nose and open skin areas are considered the most important sites for colonization. The aim of our study was to assess the prevalence and to describe the antibiotic susceptibility pattern of CA-MRSA among outpatient children.

Patients and methods

We prospectively screened every third consecutive child presenting to our pediatric emergency department of King Saud Medical City, a 275 bed tertiary care teaching hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from March through July 2015.

Results

We analyzed a total of 830 screening results (n = 478 males, 57.6%). Most of the screened patients were from Riyadh (n = 824, 99.3%). A total of 164 (19.8%) were found to be colonized with S. aureus, and of these 38 (4.6%) with MRSA. Thus, the MRSA rate amongst all S. aureus carriers was 23.2%. All MRSA were susceptible to vancomycin, (94.7%) were susceptible to linezolid, (65.8%) to clindamycin, and (89.5%) to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole.

Conclusion

The rate of MRSA carriage among children in Riyadh province was within the range reported internationally. As the MRSA rate among S. aureus infected children was 23.2%, empirical MRSA coverage should be considered in children with suspected S. aureus infections.

Mobile phone text messaging interventions for HIV and other chronic diseases: an overview of systematic reviews and framework for evidence transfer

BACKGROUND

Strong international commitment and the widespread use of antiretroviral therapy have led to higher longevity for people living with human immune deficiency virus (HIV). Text messaging interventions have been shown to improve health outcomes in people living with HIV. The objectives of this overview were to: map the state of the evidence of text messaging interventions, identify knowledge gaps, and develop a framework for the transfer of evidence to other chronic diseases.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews on text messaging interventions to improve health or health related outcomes. We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE (Exerpta Medica Database), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), PsycINFO, Web of Science (WoS) and the Cochrane Library on the 17th April 2014. Screening, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were done in duplicate. Our findings were used to develop a conceptual framework for transfer.

RESULTS

Our search identified 135 potential systematic reviews of which nine were included, reporting on 37 source studies, conducted in 19 different countries. Seven of nine (77.7%) of these reviews were high quality. There was some evidence for text messaging as a tool to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy. Text messages also improved attendance at appointments and behaviour change outcomes. The findings were inconclusive for self-management of illness, treatment of tuberculosis and communicating results of medical investigations. The geographical distribution of text messaging research was limited to specific regions of the world. Prominent knowledge gaps included the absence of data on long term outcomes, patient satisfaction, and economic evaluations. The included reviews also identified methodological limitations in many of the primary studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Global evidence supports the use of text messaging as a tool to improve adherence to medication and attendance at scheduled appointments. Given the similarities between HIV and other chronic diseases (long-term medications, life-long care, strong link to behaviour and the need for home-based support) evidence from HIV may be transferred to these diseases using our proposed framework by integration of HIV and chronic disease services or direct transfer.