-
Emerging Infectious Diseases Jul 2020A high prevalence rate of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) has been reported in Asia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A high prevalence rate of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) has been reported in Asia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of macrolide resistance on the manifestations and clinical judgment during M. pneumoniae infections. We found no difference in clinical severity between MRMP and macrolide-sensitive Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MSMP) infections. However, in the pooled data, patients infected with MRMP had a longer febrile period (1.71 days), length of hospital stay (1.61 day), antibiotic drug courses (2.93 days), and defervescence time after macrolide treatment (2.04 days) compared with patients infected with MSMP. The risk of fever lasting for >48 hours after macrolide treatment was also significantly increased (OR 21.24), and an increased proportion of patients was changed to second-line treatment (OR 4.42). Our findings indicate diagnostic and therapeutic challenges after the emergence of MRMP. More precise diagnostic tools and clearly defined treatment should be appraised in the future.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Asia; Child; Community-Acquired Infections; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Macrolides; Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Pneumonia, Mycoplasma
PubMed: 32568052
DOI: 10.3201/eid2607.200017 -
JAMA Network Open Jul 2022The proportion of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) infections has changed, and it differs according to geographical region. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The proportion of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) infections has changed, and it differs according to geographical region.
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the global patterns, including the temporal trends, regional variations, and variant types, in the proportion of MRMP infections in this systematic review and meta-anaysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for observational studies from inception to September 10, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Observational studies reporting the proportion of MRMP infections were screened independently by 2 authors. The presence of MRMP infection was defined as any case of M pneumoniae infection positive for any variants associated with macrolide resistance identified using respiratory samples.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by 2 reviewers. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was used. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate the proportion of MRMP infections.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The global patterns in the proportion of MRMP infections were estimated, and the temporal trends and variant types of MRMP infection with regional differences were investigated.
RESULTS
This study included 153 studies from 150 articles (27 408 samples in 26 countries) in the meta-analysis. The global patterns in the proportion of MRMP infections showed an increasing trend with regional differences. The proportion of MRMP infections was highest in the Western Pacific regions (53.4%; 95% CI, 47.4%-60.3%), followed by the South East Asian region (9.8%; 95% CI, 0.8%-100%), the region of the Americas (8.4%; 95% CI, 6.1%-11.6%), and the European region (5.1%; 95% CI, 3.3%-8.0%). The most commonly identified variant of MRMP infection was A2063G (96.8%; 95% CI, 95.8%-97.7%), followed by A2064G (4.8%; 95% CI, 3.5%-6.7%). The proportion of MRMP infections was the highest in studies including only children (37.0%; 95% CI, 29.8%-46.1%), followed by those including only adults (15.9%; 95% CI, 6.4%-39.7%) and those including both children and adults (16.7%; 95% CI, 10.1%-27.6%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study provides global trends in the proportion of MRMP infections and suggests that strategies to prevent the spread of MRMP infection and to treat MRMP infections are needed to decrease disease burden.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Macrolides; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Pneumonia, Mycoplasma; United States
PubMed: 35816304
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.20949 -
International Journal of Environmental... Sep 2022One of the public health issues faced worldwide is antibiotic resistance (AR). During the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, AR has increased. Since some studies... (Review)
Review
One of the public health issues faced worldwide is antibiotic resistance (AR). During the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, AR has increased. Since some studies have stated AR has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and others have stated otherwise, this study aimed to explore this impact. Seven databases-PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL-were searched using related keywords to identify studies relevant to AR during COVID-19 published from December 2019 to May 2022, according to PRISMA guidelines. Twenty-three studies were included in this review, and the evidence showed that AR has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The most commonly reported resistant Gram-negative bacteria was , followed by , , and . and were highly resistant to tested antibiotics compared with and . Moreover, showed high resistance to colistin. Commonly reported Gram-positive bacteria were and . The resistance of to ampicillin, erythromycin, and Ciprofloxacin was high. Self-antibiotic medication, empirical antibiotic administration, and antibiotics prescribed by general practitioners were the risk factors of high levels of AR during COVID-19. Antibiotics' prescription should be strictly implemented, relying on the Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) and guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) or Ministry of Health (MOH).
Topics: Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ciprofloxacin; Colistin; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Erythromycin; Escherichia coli; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Pandemics; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36231256
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191911931 -
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology Aug 2023Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a chronic, bilateral corneal and conjunctival problem which typically presents in young individuals. VKC is characterized by... (Review)
Review
Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a chronic, bilateral corneal and conjunctival problem which typically presents in young individuals. VKC is characterized by itching, photophobia, white mucous discharge, lacrimation, foreign body sensation, and pain due to corneal involvement of shield ulcers. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis is categorized within ocular diseases. The diagnosis is clinical, as no sure biomarkers pathognomonic of the disease have yet been identified. The VKC therapy relies on different types of drugs, from antihistamines and topical steroids to cyclosporine or tacrolimus eye drops. In extremely rare cases, there is also the need for surgical treatment for the debridement of ulcers, as well as for advanced glaucoma and cataracts, caused by excessive prolonged use of steroid eye drops. We performed a systematic review of the literature, according to PRISMA guideline recommendations. We searched the PubMed database from January 2016 to June 2023. Search terms were Vernal, Vernal keratoconjunctivitis, and VKC. We initially identified 211 articles. After the screening process, 168 studies were eligible according to our criteria and were included in the review. In this study, we performed a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive overview of currently available diagnostic methods, management of VKC, and its treatments.
Topics: Humans; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Ulcer; Cyclosporine; Tacrolimus; Ophthalmic Solutions
PubMed: 37658939
DOI: 10.1007/s12016-023-08970-4 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Sep 2021Mycoplasma pneumoniae is a common pathogen that causes community-acquired pneumonia in school-age children. Macrolides are considered a first-line treatment for M.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones for the treatment of macrolide-refractory Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Mycoplasma pneumoniae is a common pathogen that causes community-acquired pneumonia in school-age children. Macrolides are considered a first-line treatment for M. pneumoniae infection in children, but macrolide-refractory M. pneumoniae (MRMP) strains have become more common. In this study, we assessed the efficacy of tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones in MRMP treatment in children through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Two reviewers individually searched 10 electronic databases (Medline/Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and core Korean, Chinese, and Japanese journals) for papers published from January 1, 1990 to March 8, 2018. The following data for each treatment group were extracted from the selected studies: intervention (tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones/comparator), patient characteristics (age and sex), and outcomes (fever duration, hospital stay length, treatment success rate, and defervescence rates 24, 48, and 72 h after starting treatment).
RESULTS
Eight studies involving 537 participants were included. Fever duration and hospital stay length were shorter in the tetracycline group than in the macrolide group (weighted mean difference [WMD] = - 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 2.55 to - 0.36, P = 0.009; and WMD = - 3.33, 95% CI: - 4.32 to - 2.35, P < 0.00001, respectively). The therapeutic efficacy was significantly higher in the tetracycline group than in the macrolide group (odds ratio [OR]: 8.80, 95% CI: 3.12-24.82). With regard to defervescence rate, patients in the tetracycline group showed significant improvement compared to those in the macrolide group (defervescence rate after 24 h, OR: 5.34, 95% CI: 1.81-15.75; after 48 h, OR 18.37, 95% CI: 8.87-38.03; and after 72 h, OR: 40.77, 95% CI: 6.15-270.12). There were no differences in fever improvement within 24 h in patients in the fluoroquinolone group compared to those in the macrolide group (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.25-5.00), although the defervescence rate was higher after 48 h in the fluoroquinolone group (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.41-5.51).
CONCLUSION
Tetracyclines may shorten fever duration and hospital stay length in patients with MRMP infection. Fluoroquinolones may achieve defervescence within 48 h in patients with MRMP infection. However, these results should be carefully interpreted as only a small number of studies were included, and they were heterogeneous.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Macrolides; Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Pneumonia, Mycoplasma; Tetracyclines
PubMed: 34563128
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06508-7 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Sep 2023Guidelines recommend respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy or β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy as first-line options for hospitalized adults with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy vs. β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy for hospitalized adults with community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
INTRODUCTION
Guidelines recommend respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy or β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy as first-line options for hospitalized adults with mild-to-moderate community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Efficacy of these regimens has not been adequately evaluated.
METHODS
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy and β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy in hospitalised adults with CAP was performed. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. The primary outcome was clinical cure rate. Quality of evidence (QoE) was evaluated using GRADE methodology.
RESULTS
A total of 4140 participants in 18 RCTs were included. Levofloxacin (11 trials) or moxifloxacin (6 trials) were the predominant respiratory fluoroquinolones evaluated, and the β-lactam plus macrolide group used ceftriaxone plus a macrolide (10 trials), cefuroxime plus azithromycin (5 trials), and amoxicillin/clavulanate plus a macrolide (2 trials). Patients receiving respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy had a significantly higher clinical cure rate (86.5% vs. 81.5%; odds ratio [OR] 1.47; 95% confidence interval [95% CI: 1.17-1.83]; P = 0.0008; I = 0%; 17 RCTs; moderate QoE) and microbiological eradication rate (86.0% vs. 81.0%; OR 1.51 [95% CI: 1.00-2.26]; P = 0.05; I = 0%; 15 RCTs; moderate QoE) than patients receiving β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy. All-cause mortality (7.2% vs. 7.7%; OR 0.88 [95% CI: 0.67-1.17]; I = 0%; low QoE) and adverse events (24.8% vs. 28.1%; OR 0.87 [95% CI: 0.69-1.09]; I = 0%; low QoE] were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSION
Respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy demonstrated an advantage in clinical cure and microbiological eradication; however, it did not impact mortality.
Topics: Adult; Humans; beta-Lactams; Fluoroquinolones; Macrolides; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Drug Therapy, Combination; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Community-Acquired Infections
PubMed: 37385561
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2023.106905 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).
MAIN RESULTS
We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Ivermectin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 35726131
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Atopic dermatitis (AD) (or atopic eczema) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects children and adults and has an important impact on quality of life.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) (or atopic eczema) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects children and adults and has an important impact on quality of life. Topical corticosteroids (TCS) are the first-line therapy for this condition; however, they can be associated with significant adverse effects when used chronically. Tacrolimus ointment (in its 2 manufactured strengths of 0.1% and 0.03%) might be an alternative treatment. Tacrolimus, together with pimecrolimus, are drugs called topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical tacrolimus for moderate and severe atopic dermatitis compared with other active treatments.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 3 June 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 5, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), and the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT database). We searched six trials registers and checked the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We contacted specialists in the field for unpublished data.A separate search for adverse effects of topical tacrolimus was undertaken in MEDLINE and EMBASE on 30 July 2013. We also scrutinised the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites for adverse effects information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (both children and adults) using topical tacrolimus at any dose, course duration, and follow-up time compared with other active treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened and examined the full text of selected studies for compliance with eligibility criteria, risk of bias, and data extraction. Our three prespecified primary outcomes were physician's assessment, participant's self-assessment of improvement, and adverse effects. Our secondary outcomes included assessment of improvement of the disease by validated or objective measures, such as SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis), the EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index), and BSA (Body Surface Area) scores.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 studies, with 5885 participants. The variability of drug doses, outcomes, and follow-up periods made it difficult to carry out meta-analyses.A single trial showed that tacrolimus 0.1% was better than low-potency TCS by the physician's assessment (risk ratio (RR) 3.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.14 to 4.45, 1 study, n = 371, moderate-quality evidence). It was also marginally better than low-potency TCS on face and neck areas and moderate-potency TCS on the trunk and extremities by the physician's assessment (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.49, 1 study, n = 972, moderate level of evidence) and for some of the secondary outcomes. Compared with pimecrolimus 1%, people treated with tacrolimus were almost twice as likely to improve by the physician's assessment (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.42, 2 studies, n = 506, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with the lower concentration of 0.03%, the tacrolimus 0.1% formulation reduced the risk of not having an improvement by 18% as evaluated by the physician's assessment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92, 6 studies, n = 1640, high-quality evidence). Tacrolimus 0.1% compared with moderate-to-potent TCS showed no difference by the physician's assessment, and 2 secondary outcomes (1 study, 377 participants) and a marginal benefit favouring tacrolimus 0.1% was found by the participant's assessment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.29, 1 study, n = 974, low quality of evidence) and SCORAD.Based on data from 2 trials, tacrolimus 0.03% was superior to mild TCS for the physician's assessment (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.96 to 3.38, 2 studies, n = 790, moderate-quality evidence) and the participant's self-assessment (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.90, 1 study, n = 416, moderate quality of evidence). One trial showed moderate benefit of tacrolimus 0.03% compared with pimecrolimus 1% on the physician's assessment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.98, 1 study, n = 139, low-quality evidence), but the effects were equivocal when evaluating BSA. In the comparison of tacrolimus 0.03% with moderate-to-potent corticosteroids, no difference was found in most of the outcomes measured (including physician's and participant's assessment and also for the secondary outcomes), but in two studies, a marginal benefit favouring the corticosteroid group was found for the EASI and BSA scores.Burning was more frequent in those using calcineurin inhibitors than those using corticosteroid tacrolimus 0.03% (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.96 to 3.14, 5 studies, 1883 participants, high-quality evidence), but no difference was found for skin infections. Symptoms observed were mild and transient. The comparison between the two calcineurin inhibitors (pimecrolimus and tacrolimus) showed the same overall incidence of adverse events, but with a small difference in the frequency of local effects.Serious adverse events were rare; occurred in both the tacrolimus and corticosteroid groups; and in most cases, were considered to be unrelated to the treatment. No cases of lymphoma were noted in the included studies nor in the non-comparative studies. Cases were only noted in spontaneous reports, cohorts, and case-control studies. Systemic absorption was rarely detectable, only in low levels, and this decreased with time. Exception is made for diseases with severe barrier defects, such as Netherton's syndrome, lamellar ichthyosis, and a few others, with case reports of a higher absorption. We evaluated clinical trials; case reports; and in vivo, in vitro, and animal studies; and didn't find any evidence that topical tacrolimus could cause skin atrophy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Tacrolimus 0.1% was better than low-potency corticosteroids, pimecrolimus 1%, and tacrolimus 0.03%. Results were equivocal when comparing both dose formulations to moderate-to-potent corticosteroids. Tacrolimus 0.03% was superior to mild corticosteroids and pimecrolimus. Both tacrolimus formulations seemed to be safe, and no evidence was found to support the possible increased risk of malignancies or skin atrophy with their use. The reliability and strength of the evidence was limited by the lack of data; thus, findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. We did not evaluate costs.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 26132597
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009864.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Scabies is an intensely itchy parasitic infection of the skin. It occurs worldwide, but is particularly problematic in areas of poor sanitation, overcrowding, and social... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Scabies is an intensely itchy parasitic infection of the skin. It occurs worldwide, but is particularly problematic in areas of poor sanitation, overcrowding, and social disruption. In recent years, permethrin and ivermectin have become the most relevant treatment options for scabies.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical permethrin and topical or systemic ivermectin for scabies in people of all ages.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 25 April 2017: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and IndMED. We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the ISRCTN registry, CenterWatch Clinical Trials Listing, ClinicalTrials.gov, TrialsCentral, and the UK Department of Health National Research Register for ongoing trials. We also searched multiple sources for grey literature and checked reference lists of included studies for additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared permethrin or ivermectin against each other for people with scabies of all ages and either sex.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the identified records, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for the included trials.The primary outcome was complete clearance of scabies. Secondary outcomes were number of participants re-treated, number of participants with at least one adverse event, and number of participants withdrawn from study due to an adverse event.We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). If it was not possible to calculate the point estimate, we described the data qualitatively. Where appropriate, we calculated combined effect estimates using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity. We calculated numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome when we found a difference.We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the control rate average to provide illustrative clearance rates in the comparison groups.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen studies (1896 participants) comparing topical permethrin, systemic ivermectin, or topical ivermectin met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the risk of bias in the included trials was moderate: reporting in many studies was poor. Nearly all studies were conducted in South Asia or North Africa, where the disease is more common, and is associated with poverty.EfficacyOral ivermectin (at a standard dose of 200 μg/kg) may lead to slightly lower rates of complete clearance after one week compared to permethrin 5% cream. Using the average clearance rate of 65% in the trials with permethrin, the illustrative clearance with ivermectin is 43% (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.78; 613 participants, 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). However, by week two there may be little or no difference (illustrative clearance of permethrin 74% compared to ivermectin 68%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.08; 459 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). Treatments with one to three doses of ivermectin or one to three applications of permethrin may lead to little or no difference in rates of complete clearance after four weeks' follow-up (illustrative cures with 1 to 3 applications of permethrin 93% and with 1 to 3 doses of ivermectin 86%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 581 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence).After one week of treatment with oral ivermectin at a standard dose of 200 μg/kg or one application of permethrin 5% lotion, there is probably little or no difference in complete clearance rates (illustrative cure rates: permethrin 73%, ivermectin 68%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17; 120 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). After two weeks of treatment, one dose of systemic ivermectin compared to one application of permethrin lotion may lead to similar complete clearance rates (extrapolated cure rates: 67% in both groups; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.29; 120 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence).There is probably little or no difference in rates of complete clearance between systemic ivermectin at standard dose and topical ivermectin 1% lotion four weeks after initiation of treatment (illustrative cure rates: oral ivermectin 97%, ivermectin lotion 96%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03; 272 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Likewise, after four weeks, ivermectin lotion probably leads to little or no difference in rates of complete clearance when compared to permethrin cream (extrapolated cure rates: permethrin cream 94%, ivermectin lotion 96%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 210 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and there is little or no difference among systemic ivermectin in different doses (extrapolated cure rates: 2 doses 90%, 1 dose 87%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 80 participants, 1 study; high-certainty evidence).SafetyReporting of adverse events in the included studies was suboptimal. No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred in either the systemic ivermectin or the permethrin group (moderate-certainty evidence). Two weeks after treatment initiation, there is probably little or no difference in the proportion of participants treated with systemic ivermectin or permethrin cream who experienced at least one adverse event (55 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). After four weeks, ivermectin may lead to a slightly larger proportion of participants with at least one adverse event (extrapolated rates: permethrin 4%, ivermectin 5%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.83; 502 participants, 4 studies; low-certainty evidence).Adverse events in participants treated with topical ivermectin were rare and of mild intensity and comparable to those with systemic ivermectin. For this comparison, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in the number of participants with at least one adverse event (very low-certainty evidence). No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred (62 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether topical ivermectin or permethrin differ in the number of participants with at least one adverse event (very low-certainty evidence). We found no studies comparing systemic ivermectin in different doses that assessed safety outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that for the most part, there was no difference detected in the efficacy of permethrin compared to systemic or topical ivermectin. Overall, few and mild adverse events were reported. Our confidence in the effect estimates was mostly low to moderate. Poor reporting is a major limitation.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Antiparasitic Agents; Humans; Ivermectin; Permethrin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scabies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29608022
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012994 -
BMC Oral Health May 2022To compare the reported efficacy and costs of available interventions used for the management of oral lichen planus (OLP).
OBJECTIVE
To compare the reported efficacy and costs of available interventions used for the management of oral lichen planus (OLP).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed from database inception until March 2021 in MEDLINE via PubMed and the Cochrane library following PRISMA guidelines. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing an active intervention with placebo or different active interventions for OLP management were considered.
RESULTS
Seventy (70) RCTs were included. The majority of evidence suggested efficacy of topical steroids (dexamethasone, clobetasol, fluocinonide, triamcinolone), topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus, pimecrolimus, cyclosporine), topical retinoids, intra-lesional triamcinolone, aloe-vera gel, photodynamic therapy, and low-level laser therapies for OLP management. Based on the estimated cost per month and evidence for efficacy and side-effects, topical steroids (fluocinonide > dexamethasone > clobetasol > triamcinolone) appear to be more cost-effective than topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus > pimecrolimus > cyclosporine) followed by intra-lesional triamcinolone.
CONCLUSION
Of common treatment regimens for OLP, topical steroids appear to be the most economical and efficacious option followed by topical calcineurin inhibitors. Large-scale multi-modality, prospective trials in which head-to-head comparisons interventions are compared are required to definitely assess the cost-effectiveness of OLP treatments.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Clobetasol; Cyclosporins; Dexamethasone; Fluocinonide; Health Care Costs; Humans; Lichen Planus, Oral; Steroids; Tacrolimus; Treatment Outcome; Triamcinolone
PubMed: 35524296
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02168-4