Comparison of two different antibiotic regimens for the prophylaxisis of cases with preterm premature rupture of membranes: a randomized clinical trial

Kahramanoğlu, İlker; Baktiroğlu, Merve; Şenol, Taylan; Kahramanoğlu, Özge; Özkaya, Enis; İlhan, Olcay; Verit, Fatma Ferda; Baydogan, Seyda; Yücel, Oğuz

doi:10.5603/gp.2016.0071

Cited by 3 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The study designs were comprised of systematic review (7/90, 7.8%) ( Mercer and Arheart, 1995 ; Maymon et al, 1998 ; Kenyon et al, 2004 ; Cousens et al, 2010 ; Wojcieszek et al, 2014 ; Saccone and Berghella, 2015 ; Chatzakis et al, 2020 ), RCTs (32/90, 35.6%) ( Brelje and Kaltreider, 1966 ; Amon et al, 1988 ; Johnston et al, 1990 ; McGregor et al, 1991 ; Kurki et al, 1992 ; McCaul et al, 1992 ; Mercer et al, 1992 ; Lockwood et al, 1993 ; Ernest and Givner, 1994 ; Lewis et al, 1995 ; Almeida et al, 1996 ; Grable et al, 1996 ; Lovett et al, 1997 ; Kenyon et al, 2001b ; Ovalle et al, 2002 ; Lewis et al, 2003 ; Segel et al, 2003 ; August Fuhr et al, 2006 ; Kwak et al, 2013 ; Nabhan et al, 2014 ; Zhang, 2014 ; Kahramanoglu et al, 2016 ; Mai and He, 2016 ; Liang, 2018 ; Zheng, 2018 ; Pasquier et al, 2019 ; Siegel et al, 2019 ; Deng, 2020 ; Wolf et al, 2020 ; Chen, 2021 ; Cong, 2021 ; Zheng, 2021 ) and cohort studies (51/90, 56.6%) ( A, 2021 ; Ali, 2020 ; Bar et al, 2020 ; Barišić et al, 2017 ; Bergström, 1991 ; Chang et al, 2017 ; Chen et al, 2020 ; Dotters-Katz et al, 2017 ; Du, 2016 ; Du et al, 2019 ; Du and Zhang, 2020 ; Ehsanipoor et al, 2008 ; Feng, 2020 ; Finneran et al, 2019 ; Finneran et al, 2017 ; Fitzgibbon et al, 2021 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Out of the 90 studies, 78 (86.7%) studies ( Ali, 2020 ; Almeida et al, 1996 ; Amon et al, 1988 ; Bar et al, 2000 ; Bergström, 1991 ; Chang et al, 2017 ; Chatzakis et al, 2020 ; Chen et al, 2020 ; Chen, 2021 ; Cong, 2021 ; Cousens et al, 2010 ; Lewis et al, 1995 ; Deng, 2020 ; Dotters-Katz et al, 2017 ; Du, 2016 ; Du et al, 2019 ; Du and Zhang, 2020 ; Ehsanipoor et al, 2008 ; Ernest and Givner, 1994 ; Feng, 2020 ; Finneran et al, 2019 ; Finneran et al, 2017 ; Fitzgibbon et al, 2021 ; August et al, 2006 ; Grable et al, 1996 ; Siegel et al, 2019 ; Johnston et al, 1990 ; Kahramanoglu et al, 2016 ; Ke, 2013 ; Kenyon et al, 2001 ; Kenyon et al, 2004 ; Knupp et al, 2022 ; Kole-White et al, 2021 ; Kurki et al, 1992 ; Kwak et al, 2013 ; Lee et al, 2016 ; Li, 2017 ; Li, 2020 ; Li ,2021; Liang, 2018 ; Lin et al, 2012 ; Lockwood et al, 1993 ; Lovett et al, 1997 ; Siegel et al, 2019 ; Mai et al, 2016 ; Martingano et al, 2020 ; Maymon et al, 1998 ; McCaul et al, 1992 ; McGregor et al, 1991 ; Mercer et al, 1992 ; Mercer and Arheart, 1995 ; Lewis et al, 2003 ; Nabhan et al, 2014 ; Navathe et al, 2019 ; Ovalle et al, 2002 ; Pan et al, 2018 ; Pasquier et al, 2019 ;…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

“…The median number of the outcomes in the included studies was 7, with the range 1–31. Only 38.9% (35/90) studies ( Chatzakis et al, 2020 ; Saccone and Berghella, 2015 ; Amon et al, 1988 ; Brelje and Kaltreider, 1966 ; Lewis et al, 1995 ; Ernest and Givner, 1994 ; Grable et al, 1996 ; Siegel et al, 2019 ; Kahramanoglu et al, 2016 ; Kenyon et al, 2001b ; Kurki et al, 1992 ; Kwak et al, 2013 ; Lockwood et al, 1993 ; Mercer et al, 1992 ; Nabhan et al, 2014 ; Pasquier et al, 2019 ; Segel et al, 2003 ; A, 2021 ; Zhao, 2019a ; Zheng et al, 2020 ; Kenyon et al, 2008 ; Bar et al, 2020 ; Chang et al, 2017 ; Dotters-Katz et al, 2017 ; Kramer et al, 1996 ; Ehsanipoor et al, 2008 ; Fitzgibbon et al, 2021 ; Martingano et al, 2020 ; Pierson et al, 2014 ; Sung et al, 2017 ; Zheng et al, 2016 ; Knupp et al, 2022 ; Smith et al, 2015 ; Kole-White et al, 2021 ) defined study outcomes and 3.3% (3/90) studies ( Kenyon et al, 2008 ; Kwak et al, 2013 ; Chang et al, 2017 ) explained how to measure the outcomes. 16.7% (15/90) of studies used composite outcomes ( Lockwood et al, 1993 ; Kenyon et al, 2001b ; Segel et al, 2003 ; Kenyon et al, 2008 ; Kwak et al, 2013 ; Wojcieszek et al, 2014 ; Smith et al, 2015 ; Kahramanoglu et al, 2016 ; Zheng et al, 2016 ; Chang et al, 2017 ; Zhao, 2019a ; Pasquier et al, 2019 ; Siegel et al, 2019 ; Zheng et al, 2020 ; Knupp et al, 2022 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies were conducted in 17 countries on five continents from 1966 to 2021 (Figure 2). The study designs were comprised of systematic review (7/90, 7.8%) (Mercer and Arheart, 1995;Maymon et al, 1998;Kenyon et al, 2004;Cousens et al, 2010;Wojcieszek et al, 2014;Saccone and Berghella, 2015;Chatzakis et al, 2020), RCTs (32/90, 35.6%) (Brelje and Kaltreider, 1966;Amon et al, 1988;Johnston et al, 1990;McGregor et al, 1991;Kurki et al, 1992;McCaul et al, 1992;Mercer et al, 1992;Lockwood et al, 1993;Lewis et al, 1995;Almeida et al, 1996;Grable et al, 1996;Lovett et al, 1997;Kenyon et al, 2001b;Ovalle et al, 2002;Lewis et al, 2003;Segel et al, 2003;August Fuhr et al, 2006;Kwak et al, 2013;Nabhan et al, 2014;Zhang, 2014;Kahramanoglu et al, 2016;Mai and He, 2016;Liang, 2018;Zheng, 2018;Pasquier et al, 2019;Siegel et al, 2019;Wolf et al, 2020; and cohort studies (51/90, 56.6%) Bar et al, 2020;Barišić et al, 2017;Chang et al, 2017;Chen et al, 2020;…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only 38.9% (35/90) studies (Chatzakis et al, 2020;Saccone and Berghella, 2015;Amon et al, 1988;Brelje and Kaltreider, 1966;Lewis et al, 1995;Grable et al, 1996;Siegel et al, 2019;Kahramanoglu et al, 2016;Kenyon et al, 2001b;Kurki et al, 1992;Kwak et al, 2013;Lockwood et al, 1993;Mercer et al, 1992;Nabhan et al, 2014;Pasquier et al, 2019;Segel et al, 2003;Zhao, 2019a;Zheng et al, 2020;Kenyon et al, 2008;Bar et al, 2020;Chang et al, 2017;Dotters-Katz et al, 2017;Kramer et al, 1996;Ehsanipoor et al, 2008;Fitzgibbon et al, 2021;Martingano et al, 2020;Pierson et al, 2014;Sung et al, 2017;Zheng et al, 2016;Knupp et al, 2022;Smith et al, 2015;Kole-White et al, 2021) defined study outcomes and 3.3% (3/90) studies (Kenyon et al, 2008;Kwak et al, 2013;Chang et al, 2017) explained how to measure the outcomes. 16.7% (15/90) of studies used composite outcomes (Lockwood et al, 1993;Kenyon et al, 2001b;Segel et al, 2003;…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Developing a Core Outcome Set for the Evaluation of Antibiotic Use in Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: A Systematic Review and Semi-Structured Interview

Liú

Luo

et al. 2022

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) is associated with maternal and neonatal infections. Although guidelines suggest prophylactic antibiotics for pregnant women with PROM, the optimal antibiotic regimen remains controversial. Synthesizing the data from different studies is challenging due to variations in reported outcomes.Objective: This study aimed to form the initial list of outcomes for the core outcome set (COS) that evaluates antibiotic use in PROM by identifying all existing outcomes and patients’ views.Methods: Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP databases. We also screened the references of the included studies as a supplementary search. We extracted basic information from the articles and the outcomes. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, extracted the outcomes, and grouped them into domains. Then, semi-structured interviews based on the potential factors collected by the systematic review were conducted at West China Second Hospital of Sichuan University. Pregnant women who met the diagnostic criteria for PROM were enrolled. Participants reported their concerns about the outcomes. Two researchers identified the pregnant women’s concerns.Results: A total of 90 studies were enrolled in this systematic review. The median outcomes in the included studies was 7 (1–31), and 109 different unique outcomes were identified. Pre-term PROM (PPROM) had 97 outcomes, and term PROM (TPROM) had 70 outcomes. The classification and order of the core outcome domains of PPROM and TPROM were consistent. The physiological domain was the most common for PPROM and TPROM outcomes. Furthermore, 35.1 and 57.1% outcomes were only reported once in PPROM and TPROM studies, respectively. Thirty pregnant women participated in the semi-structured interviews; 10 outcomes were extracted after normalized, and the outcomes were reported in the systematic review. However, studies rarely reported pregnant women’s concerns.Conclusion: There was considerable inconsistency in outcomes selection and reporting in studies about antibiotics in PROM. An initial core outcomes set for antibiotics in PROM was formed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsunclassified

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Developing a Core Outcome Set for the Evaluation of Antibiotic Use in Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: A Systematic Review and Semi-Structured Interview

Liú

Luo

et al. 2022

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effect on perinatal outcome of prophylactic antibiotics in preterm prelabor rupture of membranes: network meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Chatzakis

Papatheodorou

Sarafidis

et al. 2019

Ultrasound in Obstet & Gyne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What are the novel findings of this work? In women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), most antibiotics are superior to placebo/no treatment for prevention of chorioamnionitis, but not for most of the other studied outcomes. None of the antibiotics is clearly and globally superior to the others and the overall quality of the evidence is low. What are the clinical implications of this work? Guidelines on prophylactic antibiotics for PPROM are based largely on evidence that is scarce, of low quality and potentially outdated. New evidence is needed, taking into account the clinical use of antibiotics, such as cephalosporins, and the changes in bacterial resistance.

show abstract

The eNAMPT/TLR4 inflammatory cascade drives the severity of intra-amniotic inflammation in pregnancy and predicts infant outcomes

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Intra-amniotic inflammation (IAI) or chorioamnionitis is a common complication of pregnancy producing significant maternal morbidity/mortality, premature birth and neonatal risk of chronic lung diseases such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). We examined eNAMPT (extracellular nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase), a critical inflammatory DAMP and TLR4 ligand, as a potential therapeutic target to reduce IAI severity and improve adverse fetal/neonatal outcomes.Methods: Blood/tissue samples were examined in: 1) women with histologically-proven chorioamnionitis, 2) very low birth weight (VLBW) neonates, and 3) a preclinical murine pregnancy model of IAI. Groups of pregnant IAI-exposed mice and pups were treated with an eNAMPT-neutralizing mAb.Results: Human placentas from women with histologically-proven chorioamnionitis exhibited dramatic NAMPT expression compared to placentas without chorioamnionitis. Increased NAMPT expression in whole blood from VLBW neonates (day 5) significantly predicted BPD development. Compared to untreated LPS-challenged murine dams (gestational day 15), pups born to eNAMPT mAb-treated dams (gestational days 15/16) exhibited a > 3-fold improved survival, reduced neonate lung eNAMPT/cytokine levels, and reduced development and severity of BPD and pulmonary hypertension (PH) following postnatal exposure to 100% hyperoxia days 1–14. Genome-wide gene expression studies of maternal uterine and neonatal cardiac tissues corroborated eNAMPT mAb-induced reductions in inflammatory pathway genes.Discussion: The eNAMPT/TLR4 inflammatory pathway is a highly druggable contributor to IAI pathobiology during pregnancy with the eNAMPT-neutralizing mAb a novel therapeutic strategy to decrease premature delivery and improve short- and long-term neonatal outcomes. eNAMPT blood expression is a potential biomarker for early prediction of chronic lung disease among premature neonates.

show abstract

Comparison of two different antibiotic regimens for the prophylaxisis of cases with preterm premature rupture of membranes: a randomized clinical trial

Cited by 3 publications

References 29 publications

Developing a Core Outcome Set for the Evaluation of Antibiotic Use in Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: A Systematic Review and Semi-Structured Interview

Developing a Core Outcome Set for the Evaluation of Antibiotic Use in Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: A Systematic Review and Semi-Structured Interview

Effect on perinatal outcome of prophylactic antibiotics in preterm prelabor rupture of membranes: network meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

The eNAMPT/TLR4 inflammatory cascade drives the severity of intra-amniotic inflammation in pregnancy and predicts infant outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About