Comparison of high-dose, short-course levofloxacin treatment vs conventional regimen against acute bacterial infection: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Levofloxacin Quadruple Therapy for Helicobacter pylori Eradication: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

The incidence of microbial resistance is growing, and new rescue regimens are needed to treat Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. This study aimed to evaluate levofloxacin-based quadruple therapies’ efficacy, safety, and tolerability in eradicating H. pylori. In a randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 220 patients with dyspepsia and H. pylori infection were randomly assigned to receive either bismuth subcitrate 240 mg, pantoprazole 20 mg, amoxicillin 1000 mg twice a day, and levofloxacin 500 mg daily for seven days (BPAL-7) or ten days (BPAL-10). The eradication of H. pylori was evaluated two months after the end of treatment, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were assessed during the intervention. According to intention-to-treat and per-protocol, the eradication rate was significantly lower in the BPAL-7 regimen at 49.1% (95% CI: 39.3–57.8) and 47.6% (95% CI: 39.7–58.4), respectively, compared to the BPAL-10 regimen at 62.7% (95% CI: 53.6–72.8) and 62.4% (95% CI: 55.1–72.8), respectively. The ADR incidence was not statistically significant between the groups of BPAL-7 (33.6%) and BPAL-10 (36.7%). Although the ADRs were negligible in both groups, these regimens could not be an ideal alternative therapy for H. pylori because of their low eradication rates compared to standard regimens. Trial Registration. The study was reviewed and approved by the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT201406141155N19).

The potential of 4D's approach in curbing antimicrobial resistance among bacterial pathogens

INTRODUCTION

Antibiotics are life-saving drugs but irrational/inappropriate use leads to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial superbugs, making their treatment extremely challenging. Increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) among bacterial pathogens is becoming a serious public health concern globally. If ignorance persists, there would not be any antibiotics available to treat even a common bacterial infection in future.

AREA COVERED

This article intends to collate and discuss the potential of 4D's (right Drug, Dose, Duration, and De-escalation of therapy) approach to tackle the emerging problem of AMR. For this, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, and clinicaltrials.gov databases primarily using keywords 'optimal antibiotic therapy,' 'antimicrobial resistance,' 'higher versus lower dose antibiotic treatment,' 'shorter versus longer duration antibiotic treatment,' 'de-escalation study', and 'antimicrobial stewardship measures' and based on the findings, form and expressed our opinion.

EXPERT OPINION

More efforts are needed for developing diagnostics for rapid, accurate, point-of-care, and cost-effective pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) to facilitate rational use of antibiotics. Current dosing and duration of therapies also need to be redefined to maximize their impact. Furthermore, de-escalation approaches should be developed and encouraged in the clinic. This altogether will minimize selection pressure on the pathogens and reduce emergence of AMR.

Estimating daily antibiotic harms: an umbrella review with individual study meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence supporting the efficacy of shorter courses of antibiotic therapy for common infections, however the risks of prolonged antibiotic duration are underappreciated.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to estimate the incremental daily risk of antibiotic-associated harms.

METHODS

We searched three major databases to retrieve systematic reviews from 2000 to July 30, 2020 in any language.

ELIGIBILITY

Systematic reviews were required to evaluate shorter versus longer antibiotic therapy with fixed durations between 3 and 14 days. RCTs included for meta-analysis were identified from the systematic reviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult and pediatric patients from any setting.

INTERVENTIONS

Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients experiencing adverse drug events, superinfections and antimicrobial resistance. Risk of Bias Assessment: Each RCT was evaluated for quality by extracting the assessment reported by each systematic review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The daily odds ratio (OR) of antibiotic harm was estimated and pooled using random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-five (35) systematic reviews encompassing 71 eligible randomized controlled trials were included. Studies most commonly evaluated duration of therapy for respiratory tract (n=36, 51%) and urinary tract infections (n=29, 41%). Overall, 23,174 patients were evaluated for antibiotic-associated harms. Adverse events (n=20,345), superinfections (n=5,776), and AMR (n=2,330) were identified in 19.9% (n=4,039), 4.8% (n=280), and 10.6% (n=246) of patients, respectively. Each day of antibiotic therapy was associated with 4% increased odds of experiencing an adverse event (OR 1.04, 95% CI [1.02 to 1.07]). Daily odds of severe adverse effects also increased (OR 1.09, 95% CI [1.00 to 1.19). The daily incremental odds of superinfection and AMR were OR 0.98 (0.92 to 1.06) and OR 1.03 (0.98 to 1.07), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Each additional day of antibiotic therapy is associated with measurable antibiotic harm, particularly adverse events. These data may provide additional context for clinicians when weighing benefits versus risks of prolonged antibiotic therapy.