Эффективность использования бактериофагов для лечения и профилактики инфекции: систематический обзор

Successful implementation of lytic virulent bacteriophages in clinical practice requires convincing evidence of its safety and efficacy.Design: We searched in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Russian-language literature databases in May 2018. Original articles must fulfill the following eligibility criteria: randomized, controlled trials investigating the effects of phage therapy in people with bacterial infections; at least one patient outcome was reported. Three review authors independently selected, studies, extracted, data, and. assessed, risk of bias. We used, random-effects models for meta-analysis.Participants: adults and. children of both, sexes with bacterial infection, including multi-drug resistant variants, or individuals at risk of infection.Outcomes: recovery or resolution of infection; clinical improvement; change in number of exacerbations; recurrence of infection; quality of life; elimination or load, reduction of a pathogen in an anatomical compartment.Results: We included 13 trials (issued in 1965-2018) including 9 treatment studies and. 4 prevention studies. Overall, eight randomized, trials involved, adults. Five studies addressed skin and soft tissues infections, six studies concerned intestinal infections, one study addressed respiratory tract infection and. one study — ear infection. Across bias domains, 35-90% of trials scored, low risk of bias. Meta-analysis for adverse events attributable to phages and. for wound, healing provided us with pooled relative risks of 0.74 (95% CI 0.68;1.2) and 0.91 (95% CI0.68;1.2) respectively.Conclusions: Beneficial effect of bacteriophages can be demonstrated, and. not refuted. However, our study led. to tentative conclusions. The conduct of well-designed and sufficiently powered, trials would, facilitate registration and. wide accepting of bacteriophage treatment.Цель: оценка использования бактериофагов, применяемых для профилактики или лечения бактериальных инфекций у людей.Метод: поиск информации проведен в англо- и русскоязычных базах данных в 2018 г. Критерии отбора оригинальных статей: рандомизированные контролируемые испытания; описан как минимум, один исход, значимый для пациента; взрослые и дети, обоего пола, с диагнозом бактериальной инфекции или лица с риском, заражения. Три автора независимо друг от друга отбирали исследования, извлекали данные и оценивали риск систематической ошибки. Для мета-анализа использована модель случайных эффектов. Исходы: выздоровление; клиническое улучшение; изменение числа обострений; рецидив инфекции; качество жизни; элиминации или уменьшение нагрузки патогена в анатомическом, локусе.Результаты: после критической оценки литературы, мы. включили 13 публикаций: исследования лечения (n = 9) и исследования профилактики (п = 4). Из них 5 исследований были проведены, в России и бывшем. СССР, 3 — в США, 2 — в Западной Европе, 2—в Азии. 8 исследований было с участием взрослых пациентов. 5 работ касались инфекций кожи и мягких тканей, 6 — кишечных инфекций, 1 — инфекции дыхательных путей, 1 — болезни уха. Включенные исследования были опубликованы, в 1965—2018 гг. По всем, видам, систематической ошибки 35—90% РКИ имели низкий риск. Мета-анализ был возможен только для побочных явлений, связанных с фагами, и для заживления ран: 0,74 (95% ДИ 0,68—1,2) и 0,91 (95% ДИ 0,68—1,2) соответственно.Выводы: с учетом, сформировавшейся доказательной базы, благоприятный эффект фаготерапии не вызывает сомнений. Однако наше исследование позволяет сделать лишь предварительные выводы. Широкое признание бактериофагов мировой наукой для лечения и профилактики требует, проведения РКИ должного методологического качества и мощности

EPIDEMIOLOGY OPPORTUNISTIC MYCOSES

The review touches upon a problem of coinfection caused by several important fungal infections (aspergillus, candida, pneumocystis, cryptococcus) and infectious or parasitic diseases. The authors also investigate epidemiologic determinants of such clinical forms of pathologic process. There are a lot of scientific gaps in the studying coinfections concerning mycosis and other infections. Physicians and infection control practitioners sometimes reveal such cases therefore complex characteristics of the coinfections is required

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ISSUES MIXED INFECTIONS CAUSED BY OPPORTUNISTIC MICROORGANISMS

Infections caused by opportunistic microorganisms occupy a special position. In microbial associations of opportunistic microorganisms is easier to implement its low pathogenic potential, activate properties of each other. Group polyetiologic infections caused by conditionally pathogenic microorganisms are quite diverse in terms of a nosological forms and groups. These include the so-called septic infection, which are also very diverse and clinical, epidemiological and etiological characteristics. Scientific evidence shows the urgency of the problem mixed infections, especially in surgery and indicate a lack of systematic data about the whole spectrum and the composition of microbial associations in different infections, quantification, insufficient study of the properties compared to monoagents. The problem mixed infections practically not been studied with epidemiologic standpoint, only a few studies devoted to the study of nosocomial infection of microbial associations are not developed microbiological monitoring. In this connection, you need comprehensive research mixed infections compared with monoagents to identify the characteristics and development of epidemiologic surveillance and control

Efficiency of phage therapy in humans: systematic review

Successful implementation of lytic virulent bacteriophages in clinical practice requires convincing evidence of its safety and efficacy.Design: We searched in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Russian-language literature databases in May 2018. Original articles must fulfill the following eligibility criteria: randomized, controlled trials investigating the effects of phage therapy in people with bacterial infections; at least one patient outcome was reported. Three review authors independently selected, studies, extracted, data, and. assessed, risk of bias. We used, random-effects models for meta-analysis.Participants: adults and. children of both, sexes with bacterial infection, including multi-drug resistant variants, or individuals at risk of infection.Outcomes: recovery or resolution of infection; clinical improvement; change in number of exacerbations; recurrence of infection; quality of life; elimination or load, reduction of a pathogen in an anatomical compartment.Results: We included 13 trials (issued in 1965-2018) including 9 treatment studies and. 4 prevention studies. Overall, eight randomized, trials involved, adults. Five studies addressed skin and soft tissues infections, six studies concerned intestinal infections, one study addressed respiratory tract infection and. one study — ear infection. Across bias domains, 35-90% of trials scored, low risk of bias. Meta-analysis for adverse events attributable to phages and. for wound, healing provided us with pooled relative risks of 0.74 (95% CI 0.68;1.2) and 0.91 (95% CI0.68;1.2) respectively.Conclusions: Beneficial effect of bacteriophages can be demonstrated, and. not refuted. However, our study led. to tentative conclusions. The conduct of well-designed and sufficiently powered, trials would, facilitate registration and. wide accepting of bacteriophage treatment