-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2020Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a relatively common chronic T cell-mediated disease, which can cause significant pain, particularly in its erosive or ulcerative forms. As... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a relatively common chronic T cell-mediated disease, which can cause significant pain, particularly in its erosive or ulcerative forms. As pain is the indication for treatment of OLP, pain resolution is the primary outcome for this review. This review is an update of a version last published in 2011, but focuses on the evidence for corticosteroid treatment only. A second review considering non-corticosteroid treatments is in progress.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects and safety of corticosteroids, in any formulation, for treating people with symptoms of oral lichen planus.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 25 February 2019: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid. ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of any local or systemic corticosteroid treatment compared with a placebo, a calcineurin inhibitor, another corticosteroid, any other local or systemic (or both) drug, or the same corticosteroid plus an adjunctive treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently scanned the titles and abstracts of all reports identified, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and extracted data from included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we expressed the estimates of effects of an intervention as risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. The statistical unit of analysis was the participant. We conducted meta-analyses only with studies of similar comparisons reporting the same outcome measures. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 studies (1474 participants) in this review. We assessed seven studies at low risk of bias overall, 11 at unclear and the remaining 17 studies at high risk of bias. We present results for our main outcomes, pain and clinical resolution measured at the end of the treatment course (between one week and six months), and adverse effects. The limited evidence available for comparisons between different corticosteroids, and corticosteroids versus alternative or adjunctive treatments is presented in the full review. Corticosteroids versus placebo Three studies evaluated the effectiveness and safety of topical corticosteroids in an adhesive base compared to placebo. We were able to combine two studies in meta-analyses, one evaluating clobetasol propionate and the other flucinonide. We found low-certainty evidence that pain may be more likely to be resolved when using a topical corticosteroid rather than a placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.36; 2 studies, 72 participants; I² = 0%). The results for clinical effect of treatment and adverse effects were inconclusive (clinical resolution: RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 47.58; 2 studies, 72 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence; adverse effects RR 1.48, 95% 0.48 to 4.56; 3 studies, 88 participants, I² = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids versus calcineurin inhibitors Three studies compared topical clobetasol propionate versus topical tacrolimus. We found very low-certainty evidence regarding any difference between tacrolimus and clobetasol for the outcomes pain resolution (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88; 2 studies, 100 participants; I² = 80%), clinical resolution (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99; 2 studies, 52 participants; I² = 95%) and adverse effects (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.83; 2 studies, 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence) . One study (39 participants) compared topical clobetasol and ciclosporin, and provided only very low-certainty evidence regarding the rate of clinical resolution with clobetasol (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 9.93), pain resolution (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.76 to 5.86) and adverse effects (RR 6.32, 95% CI 0.84 to 47.69). Two studies (60 participants) that compared triamcinolone and tacrolimus found uncertain evidence regarding the rate of clinical resolution (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.35; very low-certainty evidence) and that there may be a lower rate of adverse effects in the triamcinolone group (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report on pain resolution.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids have been first line for the treatment of OLP. This review found that these drugs, delivered topically as adhesive gels or similar preparations, may be more effective than placebo for reducing the pain of symptomatic OLP; however, with the small number of studies and participants, our confidence in the reliability of this finding is low. The results for clinical response were inconclusive, and we are uncertain about adverse effects. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that calcineurin inhibitors, specifically tacrolimus, may be more effective at resolving pain than corticosteroids, although there is some uncertainty about adverse effects and clinical response to tacrolimus showed conflicting results.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Clobetasol; Cyclosporine; Humans; Lichen Planus, Oral; Oral Health; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 32108333
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001168.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) affects 4% to 12% of women of reproductive age. The main intervention for acute PID is broad-spectrum antibiotics administered... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) affects 4% to 12% of women of reproductive age. The main intervention for acute PID is broad-spectrum antibiotics administered intravenously, intramuscularly or orally. We assessed the optimal treatment regimen for PID. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic regimens to treat PID.
SEARCH METHODS
In January 2020, we searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Review Group's Specialized Register, which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1944 to 2020, located through hand and electronic searching; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; four other databases; and abstracts in selected publications.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing antibiotics with placebo or other antibiotics for the treatment of PID in women of reproductive age, either as inpatient or outpatient treatment. We limited our review to a comparison of drugs in current use that are recommended by the 2015 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for treatment of PID.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and conducted GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 39 RCTs (6894 women) in this review, adding two new RCTs at this update. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to high, the main limitations being serious risk of bias (due to poor reporting of study methods and lack of blinding), serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision. None of the studies reported quinolones and cephalosporins, or the outcomes laparoscopic evidence of resolution of PID based on physician opinion or fertility outcomes. Length of stay results were insufficiently reported for analysis. Regimens containing azithromycin versus regimens containing doxycycline We are uncertain whether there was a clinically relevant difference between azithromycin and doxycycline in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.55; 2 RCTs, 243 women; I = 72%; very low-quality evidence). The analyses may result in little or no difference between azithromycin and doxycycline in rates of severe PID (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 309 women; low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.34; 3 RCTs, 552 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). In a sensitivity analysis limited to a single study at low risk of bias, azithromycin probably improves the rates of cure in mild-moderate PID (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.67; 133 women; moderate-quality evidence), compared to doxycycline. Regimens containing quinolone versus regimens containing cephalosporin The analysis shows there may be little or no clinically relevant difference between quinolones and cephalosporins in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 772 women; I = 15%; low-quality evidence), or severe PID (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.23; 2 RCTs, 313 women; I = 7%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there was a difference between quinolones and cephalosporins in adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 2.24, 95% CI 0.52 to 9.72; 6 RCTs, 1085 women; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Regimens with nitroimidazole versus regimens without nitroimidazole There was probably little or no difference between regimens with or without nitroimidazoles (metronidazole) in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09; 6 RCTs, 2660 women; I = 50%; moderate-quality evidence), or severe PID (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01; 11 RCTs, 1383 women; I = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that there was little to no difference in in adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.61; 17 studies, 4021 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). . In a sensitivity analysis limited to studies at low risk of bias, there was little or no difference for rates of cure in mild-moderate PID (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 3 RCTs, 1434 women; I = 0%; high-quality evidence). Regimens containing clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus quinolone We are uncertain whether quinolone have little to no effect in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID compared to clindamycin plus aminoglycoside (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.13; 1 RCT, 25 women; very low-quality evidence). The analysis may result in little or no difference between quinolone vs. clindamycin plus aminoglycoside in severe PID (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19; 2 studies, 151 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether quinolone reduces adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.72; 3 RCTs, 163 women; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Regimens containing clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus regimens containing cephalosporin We are uncertain whether clindamycin plus aminoglycoside improves the rates of cure for mild-moderate PID compared to cephalosporin (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 150 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). There was probably little or no difference in rates of cure in severe PID with clindamycin plus aminoglycoside compared to cephalosporin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; 10 RCTs, 959 women; I= 21%; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether clindamycin plus aminoglycoside reduces adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment compared to cephalosporin (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.42; 10 RCTs, 1172 women; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain whether one treatment was safer or more effective than any other for the cure of mild-moderate or severe PID Based on a single study at a low risk of bias, a macrolide (azithromycin) probably improves the rates of cure of mild-moderate PID, compared to tetracycline (doxycycline).
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Cephalosporins; Clindamycin; Doxycycline; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Nitroimidazoles; Pelvic Inflammatory Disease; Publication Bias; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32820536
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010285.pub3 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Jan 2024Treatment failure is considered to be an important factor in relation to the increase in scabies incidence over the last decade. However, the regional and temporal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Treatment failure is considered to be an important factor in relation to the increase in scabies incidence over the last decade. However, the regional and temporal differences, in addition to the predictors of therapy failure, are unclear.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the prevalence of treatment failure in patients with scabies and investigation of associated factors.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2021 for randomized and quasi-randomized trials, in addition to observational studies that enrolled children or adults diagnosed with confirmed or clinical scabies treated with permethrin, ivermectin, crotamiton, benzyl benzoate, malathion, sulfur or lindane, and measured treatment failure or factors associated with treatment failure. We performed a random effects meta-analysis for all outcomes reported by at least two studies.
RESULTS
A total of 147 studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The overall prevalence of treatment failure was 15.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.9-17.6; I2 = 95.3%, moderate-certainty evidence] with regional differences between World Health Organization regions (P = 0.003) being highest in the Western Pacific region (26.9%, 95% CI 14.5-41.2). Oral ivermectin (11.8%, 95% CI 8.4-15.4), topical ivermectin (9.3%, 95% CI 5.1-14.3) and permethrin (10.8%, 95% CI 7.5-14.5) had relatively lower failure prevalence compared with the overall prevalence. Failure prevalence was lower in patients treated with two doses of oral ivermectin (7.1%, 95% CI 3.1-12.3) compared with those treated with one dose (15.2%, 95% CI 10.8-20.2; P = 0.021). Overall and permethrin treatment failure prevalence in the included studies (1983-2021) increased by 0.27% and 0.58% per year, respectively. Only three studies conducted a multivariable risk factor analysis; no studies assessed resistance.
CONCLUSIONS
A second dose of ivermectin showed lower failure prevalence than single-dose ivermectin, which should be considered in all guidelines. The increase in treatment failure over time hints at decreasing mite susceptibility for several drugs, but reasons for failure are rarely assessed. Ideally, scabicide susceptibility testing should be implemented in future studies.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Administration, Oral; Hexachlorocyclohexane; Ivermectin; Malathion; Permethrin; Scabies; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 37625798
DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljad308 -
The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Jan 2024We previously showed rising primary antibiotic resistance of Helicobacter pylori during 1990-2015 in the Asia-Pacific region. However, whether primary antibiotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We previously showed rising primary antibiotic resistance of Helicobacter pylori during 1990-2015 in the Asia-Pacific region. However, whether primary antibiotic resistance continues to rise is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to assess the latest prevalence of H pylori antibiotic resistance in this region.
METHODS
We did an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials published in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library between Jan 1, 1990, and July 12, 2023. Studies investigating primary H pylori resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, levofloxacin, amoxicillin, or tetracycline in individuals naive to eradication therapy in the Asia-Pacific region (as defined by the UN geoscheme) were eligible for inclusion. There were no language restrictions. Studies that focused on specific subpopulations (eg, children) were excluded. Using a standardised extraction form, two authors independently reviewed and extracted summary data from all eligible articles. The updated prevalence of antibiotic resistance was generated by meta-analysis under a random-effects model and subgroup analyses were done by countries and periods of study. Between-study variability was assessed by use of I. The study is registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022339956.
FINDINGS
A total of 351 studies, including 175 new studies and 176 studies from our previous analysis, were included in this meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of primary antibiotic resistance of H pylori between 1990 and 2022 was 22% (95% CI 20-23; I=96%) for clarithromycin, 52% (49-55; I=99%) for metronidazole, 26% (24-29; I=96%) for levofloxacin, 4% (3-5; I=95%) for tetracycline, and 4% (3-5; I=95%) for amoxicillin. Prevalence varied considerably between countries and across study periods. From 1990 to 2022, the prevalence of primary resistance increased for clarithromycin, metronidazole, and levofloxacin but remained stable for amoxicillin and tetracycline. The latest primary resistance prevalences were 30% (95% CI 28-33; I=93%) for clarithromycin, 61% (55-66; I=99%) for metronidazole, 35% (31-39; I=95%) for levofloxacin, 4% (2-6; I=96%) for tetracycline, and 6% (4-8; I=96%) for amoxicillin in the Asia-Pacific region.
INTERPRETATION
Treatment guidelines should be adapted in response to the rising primary resistance of key antibiotics for H pylori eradication. A global policy to control and monitor the antibiotic resistance of H pylori is urgently needed.
FUNDING
Ministry of Health and Welfare of Taiwan, National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan, and National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATION
For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Topics: Child; Humans; Clarithromycin; Metronidazole; Levofloxacin; Helicobacter pylori; Helicobacter Infections; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Amoxicillin; Tetracycline; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Asia
PubMed: 37972625
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(23)00281-9 -
American Journal of Therapeutics Jun 2021Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.
AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY
We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection.
DATA SOURCES
We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.
THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES
Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian-Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff-Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%-91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for "need for mechanical ventilation," whereas effect estimates for "improvement" and "deterioration" clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Humans; Ivermectin; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34145166
DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation. Acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation. Acute exacerbations punctuate the natural history of COPD and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality and disease progression. Chronic airflow limitation is caused by a combination of small airways (bronchitis) and parenchymal destruction (emphysema), which can impact day-to-day activities and overall quality of life. In carefully selected patients with COPD, long-term, prophylactic use of antibiotics may reduce bacterial load, inflammation of the airways, and the frequency of exacerbations.
OBJECTIVES
To assess effects of different prophylactic antibiotics on exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events in people with COPD in three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs), and to provide rankings of identified antibiotics.
SEARCH METHODS
To identify eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and clinical trials registries. We conducted the most recent search on 22 January 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs with a parallel design of at least 12 weeks' duration evaluating long-term administration of antibiotics prophylactically compared with other antibiotics, or placebo, for patients with COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This Cochrane Review collected and updated pair-wise data from two previous Cochrane Reviews. Searches were updated and additional studies included. We conducted three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs) within a Bayesian framework to assess three outcomes: exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events. For quality of life, we collected data from St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Using previously validated methods, we selected the simplest model that could adequately fit the data for every analysis. We used threshold analysis to indicate which results were robust to potential biases, taking into account each study's contributions to the overall results and network structure. Probability ranking was performed for each antibiotic class for exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
Characteristics of studies and participants Eight trials were conducted at multiple sites that included hospital clinics or academic health centres. Seven were single-centre trials conducted in hospital clinics. Two trials did not report settings. Trials durations ranged from 12 to 52 weeks. Most participants had moderate to severe disease. Mean age ranged from 64 years to 73 years, and more males were recruited (51% to 100%). Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranged from 0.935 to 1.36 L. Most participants had previous exacerbations. Data from 12 studies were included in the NMAs (3405 participants; 16 treatment arms including placebo). Prophylactic antibiotics evaluated were macrolides (azithromycin and erythromycin), tetracyclines (doxycyclines), quinolones (moxifloxacin) and macrolides plus tetracyclines (roxithromycin plus doxycycline). Risk of bias and threshold analysis Most studies were at low risk across domains, except detection bias, for which only seven studies were judged at low risk. In the threshold analysis for exacerbations, all comparisons in which one antibiotic was compared with another were robust to sampling variation, especially macrolide comparisons. Comparisons of classes with placebo were sensitive to potential bias, especially macrolide versus placebo, therefore, any bias in the comparison was likely to favour the active class, so any adjustment would bring the estimated relative effect closer to the null value, thus quinolone may become the best class to prevent exacerbations. Exacerbations Nine studies were included (2732 participants) in this NMA (exacerbations analysed as time to first exacerbation or people with one or more exacerbations). Macrolides and quinolones reduced exacerbations. Macrolides had a greater effect in reducing exacerbations compared with placebo (macrolides: hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.60 to 0.75; quinolones: HR 0.89, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.04), resulting in 127 fewer people per 1000 experiencing exacerbations on macrolides. The difference in exacerbations between tetracyclines and placebo was uncertain (HR 1.29, 95% CrI 0.66 to 2.41). Macrolides ranked first (95% CrI first to second), with quinolones ranked second (95% CrI second to third). Tetracyclines ranked fourth, which was lower than placebo (ranked third). Contributing studies were considered as low risk of bias in a threshold analysis. Quality of life (SGRQ) Seven studies were included (2237 participants) in this NMA. SGRQ scores improved with macrolide treatment compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: mean difference (MD) -2.30, 95% CrI -3.61 to -0.99), but the mean difference did not reach the minimally clinical important difference (MCID) of 4 points. Tetracyclines and quinolones did not improve quality of life any more than placebo, and we did not detect a difference between antibiotic classes. Serious adverse events Nine studies were included (3180 participants) in the NMA. Macrolides reduced the odds of a serious adverse event compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% CrI 0.62 to 0.93). There was probably little to no difference in the effect of quinolone compared with placebo or tetracycline plus macrolide compared with placebo. There was probably little to no difference in serious adverse events between quinolones or tetracycline plus macrolide. With macrolide treatment 49 fewer people per 1000 experienced a serious adverse event compared with those given placebo. Macrolides ranked first, followed by quinolones. Tetracycline did not rank better than placebo. Drug resistance Ten studies reported drug resistance. Results were not combined due to variation in outcome measures. All studies concluded that prophylactic antibiotic administration was associated with the development of antimicrobial resistance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This NMA evaluated the safety and efficacy of different antibiotics used prophylactically for COPD patients. Compared to placebo, prolonged administration of macrolides (ranked first) appeared beneficial in prolonging the time to next exacerbation, improving quality of life, and reducing serious adverse events. No clear benefits were associated with use of quinolones or tetracyclines. In addition, antibiotic resistance was a concern and could not be thoroughly assessed in this review. Given the trade-off between effectiveness, safety, and risk of antibiotic resistance, prophylactic administration of antibiotics may be best reserved for selected patients, such as those experiencing frequent exacerbations. However, none of the eligible studies excluded patients with previously isolated non-tuberculous mycobacteria, which would contraindicate prophylactic administration of antibiotics, due to the risk of developing resistant non-tuberculous mycobacteria.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bacterial Load; Bayes Theorem; Bias; Disease Progression; Female; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Macrolides; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tetracyclines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33448349
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013198.pub2 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Feb 2023Doxycycline has been recommended as a treatment option for non-severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adults. We sought to review the evidence for the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Doxycycline has been recommended as a treatment option for non-severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adults. We sought to review the evidence for the efficacy of doxycycline in adult patients with mild-to-moderate CAP.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of doxycycline versus comparator to assess the clinical efficacy. The primary outcome was the clinical cure rate. Random effects model meta-analyses were used to generate pooled odds ratio (OR) and evaluate heterogeneity (I2). Risk of bias (RoB) and quality of evidence (QoE) were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and GRADE methods, respectively.
RESULTS
We included 6 RCTs with 834 clinically evaluable patients. The trials were performed between 1984 and 2004. Comparators were 3 macrolides (roxithromycin, spiramycin, and erythromycin) and 3 fluoroquinolones (ofloxacin, fleroxacin, and levofloxacin). Four trials had an overall high RoB. The clinical cure rate was similar between the doxycycline and comparator groups (87.2% [381/437] vs 82.6% [328/397]; OR 1.29 [95% confidence interval {CI}: .73-2.28]; I2 = 30%; low QoE). Subgroup analysis of two studies with a low RoB showed significantly higher clinical cure rates in the doxycyline group (87.1% [196/225] vs 77.8% [165/212]; OR 1.92 [95% CI: 1.15-3.21]; P = .01; I2 = 0%). Adverse event rates were comparable between the doxycycline and comparator groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of doxycycline was comparable to macrolides or fluoroquinolones in mild-to-moderate CAP and thus represents a viable treatment option. Considering the lack of recent trials, it warrants large-scale clinical trials.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Doxycycline; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Macrolides; Fluoroquinolones; Pneumonia
PubMed: 35903011
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac615 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Dec 2023To evaluate the efficacy and safety of macrolide antibiotics therapy in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) receiving endoscopic sinus surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of macrolide antibiotics therapy in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) receiving endoscopic sinus surgery.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library.
REVIEW METHODS
The electronic databases were comprehensively searched on June 2, 2022, for randomized controlled trials on macrolide antibiotics in the treatment of patients undergoing CRS endoscopic surgery. The primary outcome measures were the sinonasal outcome test (SNOT) score and the visual analog scale (VAS) score. The secondary outcome measures were the nasal endoscopy score (NES), the sinus computed tomography score, and adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 8 studies were included, involving 606 patients who used macrolide for a long time. Meta-analysis showed that no significant difference was observed in SNOT (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.38 to 0.13, I = 0%) and VAS (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.88 to 0.68, I = 81%) between the macrolide and placebo groups. However, macrolide outperformed the placebo in improving NES (SMD = -0.32; 95% CI, -0.62 to -0.03, I = 21%). The use of macrolide did not increase the incidence of adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Long-term use of macrolide after CRS surgery may not significantly improve the quality of life and disease severity of the patients but may play a role in improving postoperative NES in patients with CRS. There is still no sufficient evidence to determine whether the disease phenotype of CRS or the patient's race will affect the efficacy of long-term use of macrolide after CRS.
Topics: Humans; Macrolides; Quality of Life; Rhinitis; Nasal Polyps; Sinusitis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chronic Disease; Endoscopy
PubMed: 37548067
DOI: 10.1002/ohn.461 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Diffuse panbronchiolitis (DPB) is a chronic airways disease predominantly affecting East Asians. Macrolides, a class of antibiotics, have been used as the main treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Diffuse panbronchiolitis (DPB) is a chronic airways disease predominantly affecting East Asians. Macrolides, a class of antibiotics, have been used as the main treatment for DPB, based on evidence from retrospective and non-randomised studies.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of macrolides for DPB.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1966 to July week 1, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to July 2014), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to July 2014), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1974 to July 2014), KoreaMed (1997 to July 2014) and Database of Japana Centra Revuo Medicina (1983 to July 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs assessing the effect of macrolides for DPB.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study quality and subsequent risk of bias according to The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. The primary outcomes were five-year survival rate, lung function and clinical response. We used risk ratios (RR) for individual trial results in the data analysis and measured all outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Only one RCT (19 participants) with significant methodological limitations was included in this review. It found that the computerised tomography images of all participants treated with a long-term, low-dose macrolide (erythromycin) improved from baseline, while the images of 71.4% of participants in the control group (with no treatment) worsened and 28.6% remained unchanged. Adverse effects were not reported. This review was previously published in 2010 and 2013. For this 2014 update, we identified no new trials for inclusion or exclusion.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is little evidence for macrolides in the treatment of DPB. We are therefore unable to make any new recommendations. It may be reasonable to use low-dose macrolides soon after diagnosis is made and to continue this treatment for at least six months, according to current guidelines.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bronchiolitis; Erythromycin; Haemophilus Infections; Humans; Macrolides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 25618845
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007716.pub4 -
The Laryngoscope Jan 2018To investigate the potential association of macrolide antibiotics with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and which agents and dosage may be related. To evaluate whether... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the potential association of macrolide antibiotics with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and which agents and dosage may be related. To evaluate whether an optimal treatment exists for reversing SNHL that occurs after macrolide therapy.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review of the literature.
METHODS
Computerized (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed to identify human studies of all ages (patients) who received macrolides (intervention, with or without control) and documented SNHL (outcome). All study designs were assessed. Extracted data included macrolide regimen details, as well as the timing, severity, and reversibility of SNHL with drug cessation alone or with additional medical intervention. Study designs and the associated risk of bias were assessed.
RESULTS
The 44 publications (3 prospective, 41 retrospective) that met these criteria described 78 cases of audiometrically confirmed SNHL. SNHL was associated with oral and intravenous macrolide administration at standard and elevated doses. SNHL was irreversible in six cases, despite macrolide cessation (n = 5) and oral steroid treatment (n = 1). Irreversible SNHL was observed following 2 to 3 days of exposure. SNHL was reversible with macrolide cessation alone in 70 cases. In two cases, macrolide cessation coupled with oral steroid administration restored hearing. Reversible cases improved within hours to days. Nine studies also described 42 cases of subjective patient-reported hearing loss. Limitations in the data arose from study design, related comorbidities, and concomitant drug administration.
CONCLUSION
SNHL may follow macrolide exposure, even at standard oral doses. Further research is needed to understand the incidence, prevalence, and biological mechanism of its ototoxicity. Laryngoscope, 128:228-236, 2018.
Topics: Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Macrolides; Risk Factors
PubMed: 28771738
DOI: 10.1002/lary.26799