Comparison of intermittent and continuous proton pump inhibitor infusions in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of intermittent and continuous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) infusion on the outcomes of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). METHODS: The study was a single-centred retrospective study in adult patients with active upper gastrointestinal bleeding who received intermittent or continuous PPI infusion at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from January 2013 to October 2019. The outcomes assessed were rebleeding, length of hospital stays and mortality within 30 days of admission, and were compared between the treatment groups. A statistically significant p-value was set at 0.05. RESULTS: The study involved 97 patients with NVUGIB treated with intermittent (n=56) and continuous (n=41) PPI infusions, with mean (±SD) ages of 66.0±16.1 and 58.0±19.5 years, respectively. The baseline and clinical characteristics between the 2 treatment groups; age (p=0.116), gender (p=0.345) and comorbidities (p=0.401), were comparable. There were no significant differences in rebleeding rates within 30 days (5 [8.9%] versus 1 [2.4%], p=0.396), length of hospital stays (4 vs 5, p=0.067), and mortality rate (1 [1.7%] vs 3 [7.3%], p=0.308) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: The management of NVUGIB with intermittent and continuous PPI infusions demonstrated comparable outcomes in reducing rebleeding rate, length of hospital stays, and mortality rate among patients attending the university hospital in Saudi Arabia.

Efficacy of empiric macrolides versus fluoroquinolones in community-acquired pneumonia associated with atypical bacteria: A meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: It is unclear if one empiric regimen for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) associated with atypical bacteria is superior to another. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare fluoroquinolones to macrolides in the rates of clinical failure in CAP associated with atypical pathogens. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy of fluoroquinolones with macrolides for CAP associated with atypical bacteria. We estimated risk differences (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models and assessed for heterogeneity (I2). RESULTS: Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria. No significant differences between macrolides and fluoroquinolones and were identified in rates of clinical failure in CAP associated with any atypical bacteria (RR = 1.57 [95% CI 0.73 to 3.38]; p = 0.251; I2 = 0%), Chlamydia pneumoniae (RR = 2.12 [95% CI 0.63 to 7.14]; p = 0.223; I2 = 0%), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (RR = 1.28 [95% CI 0.57 to 2.92]; p = 0.550; I2 = 0%), or Legionella pneumophila (RR = 0.24 [95% CI 0.02 to 2.86]; p = 0.256; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of RCTs found no significant differences between macrolides and fluoroquinolones in rates of clinical failure in CAP associated with atypical bacteria.

Clinical cure with ceftriaxone versus ceftaroline or ceftobiprole in the treatment of staphylococcal pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ceftriaxone is an empirical antibiotic commonly used to treat pneumonia. However, its use to treat infections caused by methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) is controversial given limited evidence of its clinical efficacy. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of ceftriaxone with either ceftaroline or ceftobiprole in the treatment of pneumonia caused by MSSA. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing clinical cure in patients with pneumonia who received ceftriaxone versus those who received either ceftaroline or ceftobiprole was conducted. Patients who received ceftriaxone plus vancomycin were excluded. The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases as well as clinical trial registries were searched up to 8 June 2018. Risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a random-effects model and assessing for heterogeneity (I2). A total of five RCTs met the inclusion criteria; four used ceftaroline and one used ceftobiprole. Four studies included adults and one included paediatric patients. The adult studies included non-intensive care unit patients with mild-to-moderate community-acquired pneumonia. Clinical cure was statistically lower with ceftriaxone (RD, -28.5%, 95% CI -53.5% to -3.4%; P = 0.026; I2 = 16.321%) than with ceftaroline or ceftobiprole. In conclusion, ceftriaxone use was associated with higher clinical failure of MSSA pneumonia compared with ceftaroline or ceftobiprole. This supports the notion that ceftriaxone is not an ideal agent for the treatment of MSSA infections and adds new evidence against its use for MSSA pneumonia.