Randomized trial using piperacillin versus ampicillin and amikacin for treatment of premature neonates with risk factors for sepsis

Efficacy of Antibiotic Regimens for Sepsis or Possible Serious Bacterial Infection in Young Infants Aged 0 to 59 Days: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Sepsis is a leading cause of young infant mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of different antibiotic regimens to treat young infant sepsis or possible serious bacterial infection (PSBI) on clinical outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, Cochrane Central Registry of Trials.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of young infants 0 to 59 days with sepsis or PBSI (population) comparing the efficacy of antibiotic regimens (intervention) with alternate regimens or management (control) on clinical outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We performed random-effects meta-analysis, and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Of 2390 publications, we included 41 RCTs (n = 18 054). Thirty-five trials were hospital-based and 6 were nonhospital-based. Meta-analysis of 4 trials demonstrated similar rates of treatment success with intramuscular/intravenous third generation cephalosporins versus intramuscular/intravenous penicillin or ampicillin + gentamicin (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.13]; n = 1083; moderate certainty of evidence). Meta-analysis of 3 trials demonstrated similar rates of treatment failure with oral amoxicillin + intramuscular gentamicin versus intramuscular penicillin + gentamicin for nonhospital treatment of clinical severe illness (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72-1.02]; n = 5054; low certainty of evidence). Other studies were heterogeneous.

LIMITATIONS

RCTs evaluated heterogeneous regimens, limiting our ability to pool data.

CONCLUSIONS

We found limited evidence to support any single antibiotic regimen as superior to alternate regimens to treat young infant sepsis or PSBI.

Neonatal sepsis: a systematic review of core outcomes from randomised clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The lack of a consensus definition of neonatal sepsis and a core outcome set (COS) proves a substantial impediment to research that influences policy and practice relevant to key stakeholders, patients and parents.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In the included studies, the described outcomes were extracted in accordance with the provisions of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) handbook and registered.

RESULTS

Among 884 abstracts identified, 90 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this review. Only 30 manuscripts explicitly stated the primary and/or secondary outcomes. A total of 88 distinct outcomes were recorded across all 90 studies included. These were then assigned to seven different domains in line with the taxonomy for classification proposed by the COMET initiative. The most frequently reported outcome was survival with 74% (n = 67) of the studies reporting an outcome within this domain.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review constitutes one of the initial phases in the protocol for developing a COS in neonatal sepsis. The paucity of standardised outcome reporting in neonatal sepsis hinders comparison and synthesis of data. The final phase will involve a Delphi Survey to generate a COS in neonatal sepsis by consensus recommendation.

IMPACT

This systematic review identified a wide variation of outcomes reported among published RCTs on the management of neonatal sepsis. The paucity of standardised outcome reporting hinders comparison and synthesis of data and future meta-analyses with conclusive recommendations on the management of neonatal sepsis are unlikely. The final phase will involve a Delphi Survey to determine a COS by consensus recommendation with input from all relevant stakeholders.

Population pharmacokinetics and dosing optimization of azlocillin in neonates with early-onset sepsis: a real-world study

OBJECTIVES

Nowadays, real-world data can be used to improve currently available dosing guidelines and to support regulatory approval of drugs for use in neonates by overcoming practical and ethical hurdles. This proof-of-concept study aimed to assess the population pharmacokinetics of azlocillin in neonates using real-world data, to make subsequent dose recommendations and to test these in neonates with early-onset sepsis (EOS).

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, investigator-initiated study of azlocillin in neonates with EOS was conducted using an adaptive two-step design. First, a maturational pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model of azlocillin was developed, using an empirical dosing regimen combined with opportunistic samples resulting from waste material. Second, a Phase II clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03932123) of this newly developed model-based dosing regimen of azlocillin was conducted to assure optimized target attainment [free drug concentration above MIC during 70% of the dosing interval ('70% fT>MIC')] and to investigate the tolerance and safety in neonates.

RESULTS

A one-compartment model with first-order elimination, using 167 azlocillin concentrations from 95 neonates (31.7-41.6 weeks postmenstrual age), incorporating current weight and renal maturation, fitted the data best. For the second step, 45 neonates (30.3-41.3 weeks postmenstrual age) were subsequently included to investigate target attainment, tolerance and safety of the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model-based dose regimen (100 mg/kg q8h). Forty-three (95.6%) neonates reached their pharmacokinetic target and only two neonates experienced adverse events (feeding intolerance and abnormal liver function), possibly related to azlocillin.

CONCLUSIONS

Target attainment, tolerance and safety of azlocillin was shown in neonates with EOS using a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model developed with real-world data.

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. 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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis.

SEARCH METHODS

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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing different antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis. We included participants from birth to 72 hours of life at randomisation.

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 (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.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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 late-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.

Monotherapy with amikacin or piperacillin-tazobactum empirically in neonates at risk for early-onset sepsis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Neonates at risk for early-onset sepsis are started on antibiotics empirically. Antibiotic resistance to conventionally used antibiotics is increasingly being reported. Antenatal maternal antibiotic exposure in this setting contributes to low yield on blood culture drawn at birth, limiting the planning of antibiotics based on culture reports. A head-to-head comparison for selecting the appropriate antibiotic is one strategy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare monotherapy with amikacin against piperacillin-tazobactum as an empirical therapy in neonates at risk for early-onset sepsis.

DESIGN

Randomized open-label controlled trial with stratification and block randomization.

SETTINGS

Tertiary care neonatal unit in India

PARTICIPANTS

All consecutive inborn neonates delivered between 01 May 2009 and 30 April 2011 who were ≥28 week gestation and/or ≥1000 g birth weight with risk factors for early-onset sepsis.

INTERVENTION

Randomized to receive either amikacin or piperacillin-tazobactum, after stratifying as asymptomatic or symptomatic within 1 h of birth.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Incidence of treatment failure to the allocated antibiotic defined as blood culture isolate reported resistant to the allocated antibiotic or progression of the illness, necessitating a change of antibiotic.

RESULTS

Of 204 eligible cases, 187 were enrolled. Seventeen babies were excluded. A total of 128 neonates were stratified as asymptomatic and 59 as symptomatic. In all, 64 of the asymptomatic cases received amikacin and 64 received piperacillin-tazobactum, while 29 symptomatic babies received amikacin and 30 received piperacillin-tazobactum. Five babies had blood culture-positive sepsis, and 28 babies had strong suspicion of sepsis. There was no difference in the treatment failure in the amikacin group (3 of 93; 3.2%) compared with piperacillin-tazobactum group (2 of 94; 2.1%) (p > 0.01) and no difference in the incidence of second infection, fungal sepsis and all-cause mortality at day 7 and 28 between the two study groups (p > 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Monotherapy with amikacin as an empirical antibiotic did not result in a higher incidence of treatment failure in neonates at risk for early-onset sepsis as compared with piperacillin-tazobactum. Both antibiotics were effective in management of babies with early-onset sepsis.

Beta lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for sepsis

BACKGROUND

Optimal antibiotic treatment for sepsis is imperative. Combining a beta lactam antibiotic with an aminoglycoside antibiotic may provide certain advantages over beta lactam monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to compare beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in patients with sepsis and to estimate the rate of adverse effects with each treatment regimen, including the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

SEARCH METHODS

In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11); MEDLINE (1966 to 4 November 2013); EMBASE (1980 to November 2013); LILACS (1982 to November 2013); and conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (1995 to 2013). We scanned citations of all identified studies and contacted all corresponding authors. In our previous review, we searched the databases to July 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing any beta lactam monotherapy versus any combination of a beta lactam with an aminoglycoside for sepsis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure, superinfections and adverse events. Two review authors independently collected data. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed-effect model. We extracted outcomes by intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 69 trials that randomly assigned 7863 participants. Twenty-two trials compared the same beta lactam in both study arms, while the remaining trials compared different beta lactams using a broader-spectrum beta lactam in the monotherapy arm. In trials comparing the same beta lactam, we observed no difference between study groups with regard to all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.30) and clinical failure (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29). In studies comparing different beta lactams, we observed a trend for benefit with monotherapy for all-cause mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01) and a significant advantage for clinical failure (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84). No significant disparities emerged from subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including assessment of participants with Gram-negative infection. The subgroup of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections was underpowered to examine effects. Results for mortality were classified as low quality of evidence mainly as the result of imprecision. Results for failure were classified as very low quality of evidence because of indirectness of the outcome and possible detection bias in non-blinded trials. We detected no differences in the rate of development of resistance. Nephrotoxicity was significantly less frequent with monotherapy (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.39). We found no heterogeneity for all these comparisons.We included a small subset of studies addressing participants with Gram-positive infection, mainly endocarditis. We identified no difference between monotherapy and combination therapy in these studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of an aminoglycoside to beta lactams for sepsis should be discouraged. All-cause mortality rates are unchanged. Combination treatment carries a significant risk of nephrotoxicity.

Clinical trials in neonatal sepsis

Antibiotic licensing studies remain a problem in neonates. The classical adult clinical syndrome-based licensing studies do not apply to neonates, where sepsis is the most common infection. The main obstacle to conducting neonatal antibiotic trials is a lack of consensus on the definition of neonatal sepsis itself and the selection of appropriate endpoints. This article describes the difficulties of the clinical and laboratory definitions of neonatal sepsis and reviews the varying designs of previous neonatal sepsis trials. The optimal design of future trials of new antibiotics will need to be based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters, combined with adequately powered clinical studies to determine safety and efficacy.

Beta lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for sepsis

BACKGROUND

Optimal antibiotic treatment for sepsis is imperative. Combining a beta-lactam antibiotic with an aminoglycoside antibiotic may have certain advantages over beta-lactam monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

We compared clinical outcomes for beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy versus beta lactam monotherapy for sepsis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2004); MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004); EMBASE (1980 to March 2003); LILACS (1982 to July 2004); and conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (1995 to 2003). We scanned citations of all identified studies and contacted all corresponding authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing any beta-lactam monotherapy to any combination of one beta-lactam and one aminoglycoside for sepsis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was all-cause fatality. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure, superinfections, colonization, and adverse events. Two authors independently collected data. We pooled relative risks (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed effect model. We extracted outcomes by intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 64 trials, randomizing 7586 patients. Twenty trials compared the same beta-lactam in both study arms, while the remaining compared different beta-lactams using a broader spectrum beta-lactam in the monotherapy arm. In studies comparing the same beta-lactam, we observed no difference between study groups with regard to all-cause fatality, RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.75-1.35) and clinical failure, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.95-1.29). In studies comparing different beta-lactams, we observed an advantage to monotherapy: all cause fatality RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.71-1.01), clinical failure RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.86). No significant disparities emerged from subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including the assessment of patients with Gram-negative and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. We detected no differences in the rate of resistance development. Adverse events rates did not differ significantly between the study groups overall, although nephrotoxicity was significantly more frequent with combination therapy, RR 0.30 (95% CI 0.23-0.39). We found no heterogeneity for all comparisons. We included a small subset of studies addressing patients with Gram-positive infections, mainly endocarditis. We identified no difference between monotherapy and combination therapy in these studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of an aminoglycoside to beta-lactams for sepsis should be discouraged. All-cause fatality rates are unchanged. Combination treatment carries a significant risk of nephrotoxicity.

Antibiotic regimens for suspected late onset sepsis in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and adverse effects of different antibiotic regimens for treatment of suspected late onset sepsis in newborn infants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

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).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi randomised controlled trials comparing different initial antibiotic regimens in neonates with suspected late onset sepsis were evaluated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Antimicrobial therapy for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: an evidence-based review

OBJECTIVE

In 2003, critical care and infectious disease experts representing 11 international organizations developed management guidelines for antimicrobial therapy for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock that would be of practical use for the bedside clinician, under the auspices of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, an international effort to increase awareness and improve outcome in severe sepsis.

DESIGN

The process included a modified Delphi method, a consensus conference, several subsequent smaller meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee.

METHODS

The modified Delphi methodology used for grading recommendations built on a 2001 publication sponsored by the International Sepsis Forum. We undertook a systematic review of the literature graded along five levels to create recommendation grades from A to E, with A being the highest grade. Pediatric considerations to contrast adult and pediatric management are in the article by Parker et al. on p. S591.

CONCLUSION

Since the prompt institution of therapy that is active against the causative pathogen is one of the most important predictors of outcome, clinicians must establish a system for rapid administration of a rationally chosen drug or combination of drugs when sepsis or septic shock is suspected. The expanding number of antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral agents available provides opportunities for effective empiric and specific therapy. However, to minimize the promotion of antimicrobial resistance and cost and to maximize efficacy, detailed knowledge of the likely pathogens and the properties of the available drugs is necessary for the intensivist.

Antibiotic regimens for suspected early neonatal sepsis

BACKGROUND

Early acquired infection may cause severe illness or death in the neonatal period. Prompt treatment with antibiotics has shown to reduce mortality. It is not clear which antibiotic regimen is suitable for treatment of presumed early neonatal sepsis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effectiveness and adverse effects of antibiotic regimens for treatment of presumed early neonatal sepsis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2003), EMBASE (1980 to September 2003) and ZETOC (1993 to August 2003) databases were searched for possible studies. Pharmaceutical companies were contacted for any unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies comparing antibiotic regimens for the treatment of early neonatal sepsis (both monotherapies and combination therapies).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both reviewers screened abstracts and full reports against the inclusion criteria, appraised the quality of and extracted data from papers. For dichotomous outcomes, treatment effect was expressed as relative risk with 95% confidence interval. Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Two small studies had compared monotherapy with combination therapy. There was no significant difference in mortality, treatment failure or bacteriological resistance.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from randomised trials to suggest that any antibiotic regimen may be better than any other in the treatment of presumed early neonatal sepsis. More studies are needed to resolve this issue.

Bacteriological nasal flora in newborns indicating health and/or development of infection

During delivery, a fetus otherwise sterile during the intrauterine life, comes in contact with bacterial flora of the mother's birth canal, and then also with the ward personnel's skin and respiratory system flora. Due to the absence of competitive bacteriological flora, the nasal cavity is gradually colonized by microorganisms, especially those with a capacity of adhesion to epithelial cells of respiratory nasal mucosa. Bacteriological flora of the newborn's nasal flora was observed on days 1 and 3 postpartum, in an attempt to determine whether a finding of pathogenic bacterial flora in newborn's nasal mucosa indicates a localized infection only or points to the possible development of generalized infection. Bacteriological nasal flora was monitored in infants born by spontaneous delivery and in those born by cesarean section. In mothers of infants born by spontaneous delivery, bacteriological flora from the cervix uteri was investigated. Results of the study performed by usual methods revealed Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus to prevail in the pathogenic flora. Gram-negative microorganisms were found to be good indicators of local infection of newborn's nasal mucosa, regardless of the absence of clinical symptoms.