No abstract

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world. To investigate whether moxifloxacin monotherapy is associated with better clinical outcomes than other antibiotics recommended for CAP among adults with mild-to-moderate or severe CAP, we performed a meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs). The efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin were compared with other antimicrobial agents used to treat CAP. Fourteen RCTs, consisting of 6923 total patients, were included in the meta-analysis. No difference was found regarding the incidence of adverse events and mortality between moxifloxacin and the compared regimens. We found that moxifloxacin is as effective and well-tolerated as other recommended antibiotics for the treatment of CAP and possesses a better pathogen eradication rate than beta-lactam-based therapy.

We sought to review the potential role of isepamicin against infections with contemporary Gram-negative bacteria. We searched PubMed and Scopus databases to identify relevant microbiological and clinical studies published between 2000 and 2010, and we retrieved 11 and three studies, respectively. A total of 4901 isolates were examined in the in vitro studies. Isepamicin had higher in vitro activity compared with amikacin in four studies, was as active as amikacin in six studies and in the remaining study both were inactive. Regarding specifically the studies that included multidrug-resistant bacteria, isepamicin appeared superior to amikacin in two studies, as active as amikacin in one study and both did not exhibit activity in one study. In the clinical studies, isepamicin was as active as amikacin for the treatment of 55 children with urinary tract infections. In conclusion, isepamicin might be active in vitro against Gram-negative bacteria with resistance to amikacin and other aminoglycosides.

Background: Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) has become popular in postoperative pain relief after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of LIA with intrathecal morphine and epidural analgesia after THA and TKA. Methods: A systematic article search was performed from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases, up to February 21, 2019. The main outcomes included visual analog scale for assessment of pain, morphine equivalent consumption, length of hospital stay, and adverse events. The data were calculated using weight mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Results: Eleven studies with a total of 707 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. LIA provided better pain control than other 2 techniques at 24-hour (WMD = 10.61, 95% CI: 3.36–17.87; P = .004), 48-hour (WMD = 16.0, 95% CI: 8.87–23.13; P < .001), and 72-hour (WMD = 11.31, 95% CI: 3.78–18.83; P < .001). Moreover, LIA had similar morphine consumption and duration of hospital stay with intrathecal morphine and epidural analgesia. There was significantly lower incidence of adverse events with LIA than with the other 2 techniques. Conclusion: LIA provided better postoperative pain control and less adverse events than intrathecal morphine and epidural analgesia after THA and TKA.