-
Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical... Feb 2022The involvement of cranial nerves is being increasingly recognised in COVID-19. This review aims to summarize and discuss the recent advances concerning the clinical... (Review)
Review
The involvement of cranial nerves is being increasingly recognised in COVID-19. This review aims to summarize and discuss the recent advances concerning the clinical presentation, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 associated cranial nerve mononeuropathies or polyneuropathies. Therefore, a systematic review of articles from PubMed and Google Scholar was conducted. Altogether 36 articles regarding SARS-CoV-2 associated neuropathy of cranial nerves describing 56 patients were retrieved. Out of these 56 patients, cranial nerves were compromised without the involvement of peripheral nerves in 32 of the patients, while Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) with cranial nerve involvement was described in 24 patients. A single cranial nerve was involved either unilaterally or bilaterally in 36 patients, while in 19 patients multiple cranial nerves were involved. Bilateral involvement was more prevalent in the GBS group (n=11) as compared to the cohort with isolated cranial nerve involvement (n=5). Treatment of cranial nerve neuropathy included steroids (n=18), intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) (n=18), acyclovir/valacyclovir (n=3), and plasma exchange (n=1). The outcome was classified as "complete recovery" in 21 patients and as "partial recovery" in 30 patients. One patient had a lethal outcome. In conclusion, any cranial nerve can be involved in COVID-19, but cranial nerves VII, VI, and III are the most frequently affected. The involvement of cranial nerves in COVID-19 may or may not be associated with GBS. In patients with cranial nerve involvement, COVID-19 infections are usually mild. Isolated cranial nerve palsy without GBS usually responds favorably to steroids. Cranial nerve involvement with GBS benefits from IVIG.
Topics: COVID-19; Cranial Nerve Diseases; Cranial Nerves; Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Humans; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34392827
DOI: 10.17305/bjbms.2021.6341 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Viruses cause about 80% of all cases of acute conjunctivitis. Human adenoviruses are believed to account for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis, or 20% to 75%... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Viruses cause about 80% of all cases of acute conjunctivitis. Human adenoviruses are believed to account for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis, or 20% to 75% of all causes of infectious keratoconjunctivitis worldwide. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKC) is a highly contagious subset of adenoviral conjunctivitis that has been associated with large outbreaks at military installations and at medical facilities. It is accompanied by severe conjunctival inflammation, watery discharge, and light sensitivity, and can lead to chronic complications such as corneal and conjunctival scarring with discomfort and poor quality of vision. Due to a lack of consensus on the efficacy of any pharmacotherapy to alter the clinical course of EKC, no standard of care exists, therefore many clinicians offer only supportive care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical pharmacological therapies versus placebo, an active control, or no treatment for adults with EKC.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no restrictions on language or year of publication. The date of the last search was 27 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials in which antiseptic agents, virustatic agents, or topical immune-modulating therapy was compared with placebo, an active control, or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 10 studies conducted in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa with a total of 892 participants who were treated for 7 days to 6 months and followed for 7 days up to 1.5 years. Study characteristics and risk of bias In most studies participants were predominantly men (range: 44% to 90%), with an age range from 9 to 82 years. Three studies reported information on trial registration, but we found no published study protocol. The majority of trials had small sample sizes, ranging from 18 to 90 participants enrolled per study; the only exception was a trial that enrolled 350 participants. We judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias across risk of bias domains. Findings We included 10 studies of 892 EKC participants and estimated combined intervention effects in analyses stratified by steroid-containing control treatment or artificial tears. Six trials contributed to the comparisons of topical interventions (povidone-iodine [PVP-I], trifluridine, ganciclovir, dexamethasone plus neomycin) with artificial tears (or saline). Very low certainty evidence from two trials comparing trifluridine or ganciclovir with artificial tears showed inconsistent effects on shortening the mean duration of cardinal symptoms or signs of EKC. Low certainty evidence based on two studies (409 participants) indicated that participants treated with PVP-I alone more often experienced resolution of symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.24) and signs (RR 3.19, 95% CI 2.29 to 4.45) during the first week of treatment compared with those treated with artificial tears. Very low certainty evidence from two studies (77 participants) suggested that PVP-I or ganciclovir prevented the development of subepithelial infiltrates (SEI) when compared with artificial tears within 30 days of treatment (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.56). Four studies compared topical interventions (tacrolimus, cyclosporin A [CsA], trifluridine, PVP-I + dexamethasone) with topical steroids, and one trial compared fluorometholone (FML) plus polyvinyl alcohol iodine (PVA-I) with FML plus levofloxacin. Evidence from one trial showed that more eyes receiving PVP-I 1.0% plus dexamethasone 0.1% had symptoms resolved by day seven compared with those receiving dexamethasone alone (RR 9.00, 95% CI 1.23 to 66.05; 52 eyes). In two trials, fewer eyes treated with PVP-I or PVA-I plus steroid developed SEI within 15 days of treatment compared with steroid alone or steroid plus levofloxacin (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55; 69 eyes). One study found that CsA was no more effective than steroid for resolving SEI within four weeks of treatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.06; N = 88). The evidence from trials comparing topical interventions with steroids was overall of very low level certainty. Adverse effects Antiviral or antimicrobial agents plus steroid did not differ from artificial tears in terms of ocular discomfort upon instillation (RR 9.23, 95% CI 0.61 to 140.67; N = 19). CsA and tacrolimus eye drops were associated with more cases of severe ocular discomfort, and sometimes intolerance, when compared with steroids (RR 4.64, 95% CI 1.15 to 18.71; 2 studies; N = 141). Compared with steroids, tacrolimus did not increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0 to 1.13; 1 study; N = 80), while trifluridine conferred no additional risk compared to tear substitute (RR 5.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 96.49; 1 study; N = 97). Overall, bacterial superinfection was rare (one in 23 CsA users) and not associated with use of the intervention steroid (RR 3.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 84.98; N = 51). The evidence for all estimates was of low or very low certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for the seven specified outcomes was of low or very low certainty due to imprecision and high risk of bias. The evidence that antiviral agents shorten the duration of symptoms or signs when compared with artificial tears was inconclusive. Low certainty evidence suggests that PVP-I alone resolves signs and symptoms by seven days relative to artificial tears. PVP-I or PVA-I, alone or with steroid, is associated with lower risks of SEI development than artificial tears or steroid (very low certainty evidence). The currently available evidence is insufficient to determine whether any of the evaluated interventions confers an advantage over steroids or artificial tears with respect to virus eradication or its spread to initially uninvolved fellow eyes. Future updates of this review should provide evidence of high-level certainty from trials with larger sample sizes, enrollment of participants with similar durations of signs and symptoms, and validated methods to assess short- and long-term outcomes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Conjunctivitis; Conjunctivitis, Viral; Cyclosporine; Dexamethasone; Female; Fluorometholone; Ganciclovir; Humans; Keratoconjunctivitis; Levofloxacin; Lubricant Eye Drops; Male; Middle Aged; Povidone-Iodine; Tacrolimus; Trifluridine; Young Adult
PubMed: 35238405
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013520.pub2 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2022Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common, painful, and long-term complication of herpes zoster (HZ). PHN increases the demand for healthcare services and, previous... (Review)
Review
Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common, painful, and long-term complication of herpes zoster (HZ). PHN increases the demand for healthcare services and, previous studies showed that patients who received antiviral agents were less likely to develop PHN. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of prodrugs and acyclovir in treating PHN among patients with HZ. The search included the PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Center of Register of Controlled Trails databases through February 2022. Clinical trials and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving antiviral agent intervention for HZ patients diagnosed with PHN were eligible for inclusion. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with a fix-effect model. Five RCTs with 1147 HZ patients met our eligibility criteria. Our meta-analysis found that there was a significantly lower risk of PHN for members of the prodrugs group (famciclovir and valaciclovir) compared with those who received acyclovir (RR = 0.86, 95%, CI: 0.75 to 0.98, = 0.03). The review of studies indicated that the efficacy of prodrugs was better than acyclovir for reliving PHN.
PubMed: 35885708
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10071181 -
Survey of Ophthalmology 2024Acute retinal necrosis is a progressive intraocular inflammatory syndrome characterized by diffuse necrotizing retinitis that can lead to a poor visual outcome, mainly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Acute retinal necrosis is a progressive intraocular inflammatory syndrome characterized by diffuse necrotizing retinitis that can lead to a poor visual outcome, mainly from retinal detachment. The antiviral treatment approach for acute retinal necrosis varies as there are no established guidelines. We summarize the outcomes of acute retinal necrosis with available antiviral treatments. Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar for interventional and observational studies. Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the pooled proportion of the predefined selected outcomes. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022320987). Thirty-four studies with a total of 963 participants and 1,090 eyes were included in the final analysis. The estimated varicella-zoster virus and herpes simplex virus polymerase chain reaction-positive cases were 63% (95% CI: 55-71%) and 35% (95% CI: 28-42%), respectively. The 3 main antiviral treatment approaches identified were oral antivirals alone, intravenous antivirals alone, and a combination of systemic (oral or intravenous) and intravitreal antivirals. The overall pooled estimated proportions of visual acuity improvement, recurrence, and retinal detachment were 37% (95% CI: 27-47%), 14% (95% CI: 8-21%), and 43% (95% CI: 38-50%), respectively. Patients treated with systemic and intravitreal antivirals showed a trend towards better visual outcomes than those treated with systemic antivirals (oral or intravenous) alone, even though this analysis was not statistically significant (test for subgroup differences P = 0.83).
Topics: Humans; Retinal Necrosis Syndrome, Acute; Antiviral Agents; Acyclovir; Eye Infections, Viral; Retinal Detachment; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37774799
DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2023.09.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Pityriasis rosea is a scaly, itchy rash that mainly affects young adults and lasts for 2 to 12 weeks. The effects of many available treatments are uncertain. This is an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pityriasis rosea is a scaly, itchy rash that mainly affects young adults and lasts for 2 to 12 weeks. The effects of many available treatments are uncertain. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for the management of pityriasis rosea in any individual diagnosed by a medical practitioner.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to October 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched five trials registers. We also checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies, contacted trial authors, scanned the abstracts from major dermatology conference proceedings, and searched the CAB Abstracts database. We searched PubMed for adverse effects to November 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of interventions in pityriasis rosea. Treatment could be given in a single therapy or in combination. Eligible comparators were no treatment, placebo, vehicle only, another active compound, or placebo radiation treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane. Our key outcomes were good or excellent rash improvement within two weeks, rated separately by the participant and medical practitioner; serious adverse events; resolution of itch within two weeks (participant-rated); reduction in itch score within two weeks (participant-rated); and minor participant-reported adverse events not requiring withdrawal of the treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 trials (761 participants). In general, risk of selection bias was unclear or low, but risk of performance bias and reporting bias was high for 21% of the studies. Participant age ranged from 2 to 60 years, and sex ratio was similar. Disease severity was measured by various severity indices, which the included studies did not categorise. Six studies were conducted in India, three in Iran, two in the Philippines, and one each in Pakistan, the USA, and China. The included studies were conducted in dermatology departments and a paediatric clinic. Study duration ranged from 5 to 26 months. Three studies were funded by drug manufacturers; most studies did not report their funding source. The included studies assessed macrolide antibiotics, an antiviral agent, phototherapy, steroids and antihistamine, and Chinese medicine. None of the studies measured participant-rated good or excellent rash improvement. All reported outcomes were assessed within two weeks of treatment, except for adverse effects, which were measured throughout treatment. There is probably no difference between oral clarithromycin and placebo in itch resolution (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.52; 1 study, 28 participants) or rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.44; 1 study, 60 participants). For this comparison, there were no serious adverse events (1 study, 60 participants); minor adverse events and reduction in itch score were not measured; and all evidence was of moderate quality. When compared with placebo, erythromycin may lead to increased rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 4.02, 95% CI 0.28 to 56.61; 2 studies, 86 participants, low-quality evidence); however, the 95% CI indicates that the result may also be compatible with a benefit of placebo, and there may be little or no difference between treatments. Itch resolution was not measured, but one study measured reduction in itch score, which is probably larger with erythromycin (MD 3.95, 95% CI 3.37 to 4.53; 34 participants, moderate-quality evidence). In the same single, small trial, none of the participants had a serious adverse event, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, which included gastrointestinal upset (RR 2.00, CI 0.20 to 20.04; moderate-quality evidence). Two trials compared oral azithromycin to placebo or vitamins. There is probably no difference between groups in itch resolution (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.48) or reduction in itch score (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.43) (both outcomes based on one study; 70 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence from two studies indicates there may be no difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.00; 119 participants). In these same two studies, no serious adverse events were reported, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, specifically mild abdominal pain (RR 5.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 47.10; moderate-quality evidence). Acyclovir was compared to placebo, vitamins, or no treatment in three trials (all moderate-quality evidence). Based on one trial (21 participants), itch resolution is probably higher with placebo than with acyclovir (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.94); reduction in itch score was not measured. However, there is probably a significant difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) in favour of acyclovir versus all comparators (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.53; 3 studies, 141 participants). Based on the same three studies, there were no serious adverse events in either group, and there was probably no difference between groups in minor adverse events (only one participant in the placebo group experienced abdominal pain and diarrhoea). One trial compared acyclovir added to standard care (calamine lotion and oral cetirizine) versus standard care alone (24 participants). The addition of acyclovir may lead to increased itch resolution (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.22 to 16.62) and reduction in itch score (MD 1.26, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.78) compared to standard care alone. Rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) was not measured. The trial reported no serious adverse events in either group, and there may be no difference between groups in minor adverse events, such as headache (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 122.44) (all results based on low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When compared with placebo or no treatment, oral acyclovir probably leads to increased good or excellent, medical practitioner-rated rash improvement. However, evidence for the effect of acyclovir on itch was inconclusive. We found low- to moderate-quality evidence that erythromycin probably reduces itch more than placebo. Small study sizes, heterogeneity, and bias in blinding and selective reporting limited our conclusions. Further research is needed to investigate different dose regimens of acyclovir and the effect of antivirals on pityriasis rosea.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antiviral Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Dermatologic Agents; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Phototherapy; Pityriasis Rosea; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 31684696
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005068.pub3 -
Clinical Transplantation Jan 2024Human-cytomegalovirus (hCMV) infection involving the gastrointestinal tract represents a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among kidney transplant (KT) recipients... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Human-cytomegalovirus (hCMV) infection involving the gastrointestinal tract represents a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among kidney transplant (KT) recipients (KTRs). Signs and symptoms of the disease are extremely variable. Prompt anti-viral therapy administration and immunosuppression modification are key factors for optimizing management. However, complex work-up strategies are generally required to confirm the preliminary diagnosis. Unfortunately, solid evidence and guidelines on this specific topic are not available. We consequently aimed to summarize current knowledge on post-KT hCMV-related gastrointestinal disease (hCMV-GID).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023399363) about hCMV-GID in KTRs.
RESULTS
Our systematic review includes 52 case-reports and ten case-series, published between 1985 and 2022, collectively reporting 311 cases. The most frequently reported signs and symptoms of hCMV-GID were abdominal pain, diarrhea, epigastric pain, vomiting, fever, and GI bleeding. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy were the primary diagnostic techniques. In most cases, the preliminary diagnosis was confirmed by histology. Information on anti-viral prophylaxis were extremely limited as much as data on induction or maintenance immunosuppression. Treatment included ganciclovir and/or valganciclovir administration. Immunosuppression modification mainly consisted of mycophenolate mofetil or calcineurin inhibitor minimization and withdrawal. In total, 21 deaths were recorded. Renal allograft-related outcomes were described for 26 patients only. Specifically, reported events were acute kidney injury (n = 17), transplant failure (n = 5), allograft rejection (n = 4), and irreversible allograft dysfunction (n = 3).
CONCLUSIONS
The development of local and national registries is strongly recommended to improve our understanding of hCMV-GID. Future clinical guidelines should consider the implementation of dedicated diagnostic and treatment strategies.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Cytomegalovirus; Antiviral Agents; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Ganciclovir; Gastrointestinal Diseases
PubMed: 38063324
DOI: 10.1111/ctr.15218 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Jul 2022Meningitis and encephalitis are central nervous system infections with considerable morbidity and mortality. The BioFire FilmArray Meningitis/Encephalitis Panel... (Review)
Review
Meningitis and encephalitis are central nervous system infections with considerable morbidity and mortality. The BioFire FilmArray Meningitis/Encephalitis Panel (multiplex ME panel) can identify pathogens rapidly potentially aiding in targeted therapy and curtail antimicrobial exposure. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized the literature on the association between the multiplex ME panel and length of hospital stay (LOS), length of acyclovir therapy, and days with antibiotics. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Only studies presenting novel data were retained. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to assess the impact of the multiplex ME panel on outcomes. Of 169 retrieved publications, 13 met the criteria for inclusion. Patients tested with the multiplex ME panel had a reduction in the average LOS (mean difference [MD] [95% CI]: -1.20 days [-1.96, -0.44], n = 11 studies). Use of the multiplex ME panel was also associated with a reduction in the length of acyclovir therapy (MD [95% CI]: -1.14 days [-1.78, -0.50], n = 7 studies) and a nonsignificant reduction in the average number of days with antibiotics (MD [95% CI]: -1.01 days [-2.39, 0.37], n = 6 studies). The rapidity of pathogen identification contributes to an overall reduced LOS, reductions in the duration of empiric antiviral utilization, and a nonsignificant reduction in antibiotic therapy.
PubMed: 36009898
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11081028 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Herpes zoster ophthalmicus affects the eye and vision, and is caused by the reactivation of the varicella zoster virus in the distribution of the first division of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Herpes zoster ophthalmicus affects the eye and vision, and is caused by the reactivation of the varicella zoster virus in the distribution of the first division of the trigeminal nerve. An aggressive management of acute herpes zoster ophthalmicus with systemic antiviral medication is generally recommended as the standard first-line treatment for herpes zoster ophthalmicus infections. Both acyclovir and its prodrug valacyclovir are medications that are approved for the systemic treatment of herpes zoster. Although it is known that valacyclovir has an improved bioavailability and steadier plasma concentration, it is currently unclear as to whether this leads to better treatment results and less ocular complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of valacyclovir versus acyclovir for the systemic antiviral treatment of herpes zoster ophthalmicus in immunocompetent patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2016), Embase (January 1980 to June 2016), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S; January 1990 to June 2016), BIOSIS Previews (January 1969 to June 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 13 June 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which systemic valacyclovir was compared to systemic acyclovir medication for treatment of herpes zoster ophthalmicus. There were no language restrictions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials, evaluated the risk of bias in included trials, and extracted and analysed data. We did not conduct a meta-analysis, as only one study was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
One study fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In this multicentre, randomised double-masked study carried out in France, 110 immunocompetent people with herpes zoster ophthalmicus, diagnosed within 72 hours of skin eruption, were treated, with 56 participants allocated to the valacyclovir group and 54 to the acyclovir group. The study was poorly reported and we judged it to be unclear risk of bias for most domains.Persistent ocular lesions after 6 months were observed in 2/56 people in the valacyclovir group compared with 1/54 people in the acyclovir group (risk ratio (RR) 1.93 (95% CI 0.18 to 20.65); very low certainty evidence. Dendritic ulcer appeared in 3/56 patients treated with valacyclovir, while 1/54 suffered in the acyclovir group (RR 2.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 26.96); very low certainty evidence), uveitis in 7/56 people in the valacyclovir group compared with 9/54 in the acyclovir group (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.57); very low certainty evidence). Similarly, there was uncertainty as to the comparative effects of these two treatments on post-herpetic pain, and side effects (vomiting, eyelid or facial edema, disseminated zoster). Due to concerns about imprecision (small number of events and large confidence intervals) and study limitations, the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach was rated as low to very low for the use of valacyclovir compared to acyclovir.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review included data from only one study, which had methodological limitations. As such, our results indicated uncertainty of the relative benefits and harms of valacyclovir over acyclovir in herpes zoster ophthalmicus, despite its widespread use for this condition. Further well-designed and adequately powered trials are needed. These trials should include outcomes important to patients, including compliance.
Topics: Acyclovir; Antiviral Agents; Herpes Zoster Ophthalmicus; Humans; Immunocompetence; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Valacyclovir; Valine
PubMed: 27841441
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011503.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016The Cochrane Oral Health Group withdrew this review as of Issue 1, 2016. The review is out of date and does not meet current Cochrane methodological standards. It will... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The Cochrane Oral Health Group withdrew this review as of Issue 1, 2016. The review is out of date and does not meet current Cochrane methodological standards. It will be superseded by a new expanded Cochrane review on Interventions for treating primary herpetic gingivostomatitis. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Topics: Acyclovir; Antiviral Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Gingivitis; Humans; Infant; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomatitis, Herpetic
PubMed: 26784280
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006700.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Infectious mononucleosis (IM) is a clinical syndrome, usually caused by the Epstein Barr virus (EPV), characterised by lymphadenopathy, fever and sore throat. Most cases... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Infectious mononucleosis (IM) is a clinical syndrome, usually caused by the Epstein Barr virus (EPV), characterised by lymphadenopathy, fever and sore throat. Most cases of symptomatic IM occur in older teenagers or young adults. Usually IM is a benign self-limiting illness and requires only symptomatic treatment. However, occasionally the disease course can be complicated or prolonged and lead to decreased productivity in terms of school or work. Antiviral medications have been used to treat IM, but the use of antivirals for IM is controversial. They may be effective by preventing viral replication which helps to keep the virus inactive. However, there are no guidelines for antivirals in IM.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antiviral therapy for infectious mononucleosis (IM).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, March 2016), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to 15 April 2016), Embase (1974 to 15 April 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 15 April 2016), LILACS (1982 to 15 April 2016) and Web of Science (1955 to 15 April 2016). We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for completed and ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antivirals versus placebo or no treatment in IM. We included trials of immunocompetent participants of any age or sex with clinical and laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of IM, who had symptoms for up to 14 days. Our primary outcomes were time to clinical recovery and adverse events and side effects of medication. Secondary outcomes included duration of abnormal clinical examination, complications, viral shedding, health-related quality of life, days missing from school or work and economic outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed the included studies' risk of bias and extracted data using a customised data extraction sheet. We used the GRADE criteria to rate the quality of the evidence. We pooled heterogeneous data where possible, and presented the results narratively where we could not statistically combine data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven RCTs with a total of 333 participants in our review. Three trials studied hospitalised patients, two trials were conducted in an outpatient setting, while the trial setting was unclear in two studies. Participants' ages ranged from two years to young adults. The type of antiviral, administration route, and treatment duration varied between the trials. The antivirals in the included studies were acyclovir, valomaciclovir and valacyclovir. Follow-up varied from 20 days to six months. The diagnosis of IM was based on clinical symptoms and laboratory parameters.The risk of bias for all included studies was either unclear or high risk of bias. The quality of evidence was graded as very low for all outcomes and so the results should be interpreted with caution. There were statistically significant improvements in the treatment group for two of the 12 outcomes. These improvements may be of limited clinical significance.There was a mean reduction in 'time to clinical recovery as assessed by physician' of five days in the treatment group but with wide confidence intervals (CIs) (95% CI -8.04 to -1.08; two studies, 87 participants). Prospective studies indicate that clinical signs and symptoms may take one month or more to resolve and that fatigue may be persistent in approximately 10% of patients at six-month follow-up, so this may not be a clinically meaningful result.Trial results for the outcome 'adverse events and side effects of medication' were reported narratively in only five studies. In some reports authors were unsure whether an adverse event was related to medication or complication of disease. These results could not be pooled due to the potential for double counting results but overall, the majority of trials reporting this outcome did not find any significant difference between treatment and control groups.There was a mean reduction in 'duration of lymphadenopathy' of nine days (95% CI -11.75 to -6.14, two studies, 61 participants) in favour of the treatment group.In terms of viral shedding, the overall effect from six studies was that viral shedding was suppressed while on antiviral treatment, but this effect was not sustained when treatment stopped.For all other outcomes there was no statistically significant difference between antiviral treatment and control groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effectiveness of antiviral agents (acyclovir, valomaciclovir and valacyclovir) in acute IM is uncertain. The quality of the evidence is very low. The majority of included studies were at unclear or high risk of bias and so questions remain about the effectiveness of this intervention. Although two of the 12 outcomes have results that favour treatment over control, the quality of the evidence of these results is very low and may not be clinically meaningful. Alongside the lack of evidence of effectiveness, decision makers need to consider the potential adverse events and possible associated costs, and antiviral resistance. Further research in this area is warranted.
Topics: Acute Disease; Acyclovir; Adolescent; Adult; Antiviral Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Guanine; Humans; Infectious Mononucleosis; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Valacyclovir; Valine; Young Adult
PubMed: 27933614
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011487.pub2