SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014
Prophylactic anti-staphylococcal antibiotics for cystic fibrosis.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prophylactic anti-staphylococcal antibiotics for cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Prophylactic anti-staphylococcal antibiotics for cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Antibiotics for preventing lower respiratory tract infections in high-risk children aged 12 years and under.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Polyclonality, Shared Strains, and Convergent Evolution in Chronic Cystic FibrosisAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021Article
- New opportunities for managing acute and chronic lung infections.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2018Review
- Colonization of CF patients' upper airways with S. aureus contributes more decisively to upper airway inflammation than P. aeruginosa.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2016Article
- Cystic Fibrosis: Microbiology and Host Response.Pediatric clinics of North America · 2016Review
- Targeted therapies to improve CFTR function in cystic fibrosis.Genome medicine · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStaphylococcus aureus causes pulmonary infection in young children with cystic fibrosis. Prophylactic antibiotics are prescribed hoping to prevent such infection and lung damage. Antibiotics have adverse effects and long-term use might lead to infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
objectivesTo assess continuous oral antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of Staphylococcus aureus versus no prophylaxis in people with cystic fibrosis, we tested these hypotheses. Prophylaxis:1. improves clinical status, lung function and survival;2. causes adverse effects (e.g. diarrhoea, skin rash, candidiasis);3. leads to fewer isolates of common pathogens from respiratory secretions;4. leads to the emergence of antibiotic resistance and colonisation of the respiratory tract with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Companies manufacturing anti-staphylococcal antibiotics were contacted.Most recent search of Register: 04 September 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of continuous oral prophylactic antibiotics (given for at least one year) compared to intermittent antibiotics given 'as required', in people with cystic fibrosis of any disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The authors assessed studies for eligibility and methodological quality and extracted data. MAIN
resultsWe included four studies, totaling 401 randomised participants aged zero to seven years on enrolment. The two older studies generally had a higher risk of bias across all domains, but in particular due to a lack of blinding and incomplete outcome data, than the two more recent studies. We only regarded the most recent study as being generally free of bias, although even here we were not certain of the effect of the per protocol analysis on the study results.Fewer children receiving anti-staphylococcal antibiotic prophylaxis had one or more isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. There was no significant difference between groups in infant or conventional lung function. We found no significant effect on nutrition, hospital admissions, additional courses of antibiotics or adverse effects. There was no significant difference in the number of isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa between groups, though there was a trend towards a lower cumulative isolation rate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the prophylaxis group at two and three years and towards a higher rate from four to six years. As the studies reviewed lasted six years or less, conclusions cannot be drawn about the long-term effects of prophylaxis. AUTHORS'
conclusionsAnti-staphylococcal antibiotic prophylaxis leads to fewer children having isolates of Staphylococcus aureus, when commenced early in infancy and continued up to six years of age. The clinical importance of this finding is uncertain. Further research may establish whether the trend towards more children with CF with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, after four to six years of prophylaxis, is a chance finding and whether choice of antibiotic or duration of treatment might influence this.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.