-
Journal of the Pediatric Infectious... Aug 2018With the continued high prevalence of chlamydia worldwide and high risk of transfer from mothers to their infant during delivery, a need for safe and effective therapies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
With the continued high prevalence of chlamydia worldwide and high risk of transfer from mothers to their infant during delivery, a need for safe and effective therapies for infants who acquire a chlamydial infection remains. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic treatments, including oral erythromycin, azithromycin, and trimethoprim, for neonatal chlamydial conjunctivitis.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from their inception to July 14, 2017. We included randomized and nonrandomized studies that evaluated the effects of erythromycin, azithromycin, or trimethoprim in neonates with chlamydial conjunctivitis. A meta-analysis using a random-effects generic inverse-variance method was performed, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
We found 12 studies (n = 292 neonates) and were able to meta-analyze 7 studies that used erythromycin at a dose of 50 mg/kg body weight per day for 14 days. The clinical and microbiological cure were 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94%-100%) and 97% (95% CI, 95%-99%), respectively, and adverse gastrointestinal effects occurred in 14% (95% CI, 1%-28%) of the neonates. The microbiological cure in the study that assessed azithromycin at 20 mg/kg per day were 60% (95% CI, 27%-93%) when it was given in a single dose and 86% (95% CI, 61%-100%) when given in a 3-day course. Two studies reported compliance with treatments, and 1 study reported no pyloric stenosis events. Because of the risk of bias and the few neonates included across the studies, the certainty of evidence is low to very low. No studies assessed trimethoprim.
CONCLUSIONS
Although evidence suggests that erythromycin at 50 mg/kg per day for 14 days results in higher numbers of cure than does azithromycin, compliance and risk of pyloric stenosis related to their use for other infections in neonates will factor into treatment recommendations. More data are needed to compare these treatments directly.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Bias; Chlamydia Infections; Chlamydia trachomatis; Conjunctivitis, Bacterial; Drug Administration Schedule; Erythromycin; Female; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Male; Pyloric Stenosis; Risk Factors; Trimethoprim
PubMed: 30007329
DOI: 10.1093/jpids/piy060 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Feb 2022First-line medications for acne vulgaris include retinoids and antibiotics. Dapsone is a topical drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
First-line medications for acne vulgaris include retinoids and antibiotics. Dapsone is a topical drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of acne. However, due to its side effects, the clinical application of dapsone has not been promoted, and the value of the medication is still unclear. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of dapsone gel in patients with acne.
METHODS
Systematic searches were performed using the following databases on January 4, 2020: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature Service System (SinoMed), China Science and Technology Journal Database (CQVIP), and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was then conducted to analyze the efficacy and adverse events of dapsone gel treatment compared with excipient and other drug therapies. RevMan 5.3 software was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR), and the confidence interval (CI) was 95%.
RESULTS
Data of 11,424 participants across 7 trials which met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Meta-analysis showed that dapsone gel alone or dapsone gel combined with isotretinoin was superior to excipient alone or oral isotretinoin alone in the treatment of acne (OR =1.51, 95% CI: 1.38-1.66, P<0.0001 random effects model, I2=0%). This indicates that dapsone gel is effective for the treatment of acne. We also found that dapsone gel is a more effective treatment for females (OR =1.80, 95% CI: 1.46-2.23). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the dapsone group and the control group (OR =0.94, 95% CI: 0.82-1.14, P=0.24 random effects model; I2=29%). The common local adverse reactions in the dapsone group, such as dryness, heat, and eczema, were not statistically significant compared with those in the control group, and the side effects were transient.
DISCUSSION
Dapsone gel is effective in treating acne, and there is no significant difference in adverse events compared with other drugs.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dapsone; Eczema; Female; Humans; Treatment Outcome; United States
PubMed: 35249339
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-3935 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Elective hysterectomy is commonly performed for benign gynaecological conditions. Hysterectomy can be performed abdominally, laparoscopically, or vaginally, with or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Elective hysterectomy is commonly performed for benign gynaecological conditions. Hysterectomy can be performed abdominally, laparoscopically, or vaginally, with or without laparoscopic assistance. Antibiotic prophylaxis consists of administration of antibiotics to reduce the rate of postoperative infection, which otherwise affects 40%-50% of women after vaginal hysterectomy, and more than 20% after abdominal hysterectomy. No Cochrane review has systematically assessed evidence on this topic.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched electronic databases to November 2016 (including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), as well as clinical trials registers, conference abstracts, and reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing use of antibiotics versus placebo or other antibiotics as prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane standard methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included in this review 37 RCTs, which performed 20 comparisons of various antibiotics versus placebo and versus one another (6079 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations of study findings were risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, imprecision due to small samples and low event rates, and inadequate reporting of adverse effects. Any antibiotic versus placebo Vaginal hysterectomyModerate-quality evidence shows that women who received antibiotic prophylaxis had fewer total postoperative infections (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.40; five RCTs, N = 610; I = 85%), less urinary tract infection (UTI) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; eight RCTs, N = 1790; I = 44%), fewer pelvic infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.39; 11 RCTs, N = 2010; I = 57%), and fewer postoperative fevers (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.54; nine RCTs, N = 1879; I = 48%) than women who did not receive such prophylaxis. This suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 34% to 7% to 14%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.10; one RCT, N = 146; very low-quality evidence).Data were insufficient for comparison of adverse effects. Abdominal hysterectomyWomen who received antibiotic prophylaxis of any class had fewer total postoperative infections (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.38; one RCT, N = 345; low-quality evidence), abdominal wound infections (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92; 11 RCTs, N = 2434; I = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), UTIs (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.51; 11 RCTs, N = 2547; I = 26%; moderate-quality evidence), pelvic infections (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.71; 11 RCTs, N = 1883; I = 11%; moderate-quality evidence), and postoperative fevers (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.70; 11 RCTs, N = 2581; I = 51%; moderate-quality evidence) than women who did not receive prophylaxis, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 16% to 1% to 6%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.69; two RCTs, N = 476; I = 29%; very low-quality evidence).It is unclear whether rates of adverse effects differed between groups (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 5.18; two RCTs, N = 430; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Head-to-head comparisons between antibiotics Vaginal hysterectomyWe identified four comparisons: cephalosporin versus penicillin (two RCTs, N = 470), cephalosporin versus tetracycline (one RCT, N = 51), antiprotozoal versus lincosamide (one RCT, N = 80), and cephalosporin versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes, except that fewer cases of total postoperative infection and postoperative fever were reported in women who received cephalosporin than in those who received antiprotozoal.Only one comparison (cephalosporin vs penicillin; two RCTs, N = 451) yielded data on adverse effects and showed no differences between groups. Abdominal hysterectomyWe identified only one comparison: cephalosporin versus penicillin (N = 220). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes. Adverse effects were not reported. Combined antibiotics versus single antibiotics Vaginal hysterectomyWe identified three comparisons: cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus cephalosporin (one RCT, N = 78), cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78), and penicillin plus antiprotozoal versus penicillin (one RCT, N = 230). Data were unavailable for most outcomes, including adverse effects. We found no evidence of differences between groups, except that fewer women receiving cephalosporin with antiprotozoal received a diagnosis of total postoperative infection, UTI, or postoperative fever compared with women receiving antiprotozoal. Abdominal hysterectomyWe identified one comparison (penicillin plus antiprotozoal vs penicillin only; one RCT, N = 230). Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. Adverse effects were not reported. Comparison of cephalosporins in different regimensSingle small trials addressed dose comparisons and provided no data for most outcomes, including adverse effects. Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. No trials compared route of administration.The quality of evidence for all head-to-head and dose comparisons was very low owing to very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias related to poor reporting of methods.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be effective in preventing postoperative infection in women undergoing elective vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy, regardless of the dose regimen. However, evidence is insufficient to show whether use of prophylactic antibiotics influences rates of adverse effects. Similarly, evidence is insufficient to show which (if any) individual antibiotic, dose regimen, or route of administration is safest and most effective. The most recent studies included in this review were 14 years old at the time of our search. Thus findings from included studies may not reflect current practice in perioperative and postoperative care and may not show locoregional antimicrobial resistance patterns.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Antiprotozoal Agents; Bacterial Infections; Cephalosporins; Elective Surgical Procedures; Fever; Humans; Hysterectomy; Lincosamides; Pelvis; Penicillins; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 28625021
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004637.pub2 -
Microbiology Spectrum Dec 2022Parenteral penicillin is the first-line regimen for treating syphilis. However, allergic reactions and poor drug tolerance still present challenging problems with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Different Stages of Syphilis: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies.
Parenteral penicillin is the first-line regimen for treating syphilis. However, allergic reactions and poor drug tolerance still present challenging problems with respect to use of this antibiotic. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ceftriaxone, erythromycin, minocycline, tetracycline, and doxycycline for syphilis treatment, compared with penicillin, to determine which antibiotic could be a better substitute for penicillin. This study included 17 articles, comprising 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 observational studies and involving 4,485 syphilis patients. Estimated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs) were used to compare the serological response rates. At the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, the serological response rates were compared by direct meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Based on direct meta-analysis, the serological response rates at the 3- and 24-month follow-ups were compared. Our NMA showed a higher serological response rate for ceftriaxone than for penicillin at the 6-month follow-up (RR of 1.12, 95% CI of 1.02 to 1.23). Ceftriaxone was equally effective as penicillin for syphilis in terms of serological response rates, and it was a better substitute for penicillin than ceftriaxone, erythromycin, minocycline, tetracycline, or doxycycline. However, more large-scale, high-quality, double-blind trials are still needed to determine whether ceftriaxone can safely replace penicillin for the treatment of syphilis when necessary. Parenteral penicillin is the first-line regimen for syphilis treatment. However, allergic reactions and poor drug tolerance still present emerging threatening problems with respect to use of this antibiotic. Our results showed a higher serological response rate for ceftriaxone than for penicillin at the 6-month follow-up. Sufficient data are not available for demonstrating significant differences in the efficacy of the other four antibiotics (erythromycin, minocycline, tetracycline, and doxycycline) for treating syphilis. In the clinical treatment of syphilis in patients who are allergic to penicillin or for whom penicillin is not available, ceftriaxone appears to be a better alternative treatment. This meta-analysis provides a reference for clinical treatment of syphilis. Currently, a lack of sufficient evidence to guide antibiotic treatment of syphilis exists, and a need for more high-quality RCTs is still present. This network meta-analysis can lay a foundation for further research.
Topics: Humans; Syphilis; Ceftriaxone; Doxycycline; Minocycline; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Penicillins; Tetracycline; Erythromycin; Hypersensitivity; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36377935
DOI: 10.1128/spectrum.02977-22 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2018Scrub typhus, an important cause of acute fever in Asia, is caused by Orientia tsutsugamushi, an obligate intracellular bacterium. Antibiotics currently used to treat... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Scrub typhus, an important cause of acute fever in Asia, is caused by Orientia tsutsugamushi, an obligate intracellular bacterium. Antibiotics currently used to treat scrub typhus include tetracyclines, chloramphenicol, macrolides, and rifampicin.
OBJECTIVES
To assess and compare the effects of different antibiotic regimens for treatment of scrub typhus.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 8 January 2018: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library (2018, Issue 1); MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT). We checked references and contacted study authors for additional data. We applied no language or date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing antibiotic regimens in people with the diagnosis of scrub typhus based on clinical symptoms and compatible laboratory tests (excluding the Weil-Felix test).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For this update, two review authors re-extracted all data and assessed the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes when appropriate, and elsewhere tabulated data to facilitate narrative analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs and one quasi-RCT with 548 participants; they took place in the Asia-Pacific region: Korea (three trials), Malaysia (one trial), and Thailand (three trials). Only one trial included children younger than 15 years (N = 57). We judged five trials to be at high risk of performance and detection bias owing to inadequate blinding. Trials were heterogenous in terms of dosing of interventions and outcome measures. Across trials, treatment failure rates were low.Two trials compared doxycycline to tetracycline. For treatment failure, the difference between doxycycline and tetracycline is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Doxycycline compared to tetracycline may make little or no difference in resolution of fever within 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.44, 55 participants; one trial; low-certainty evidence) and in time to defervescence (116 participants; one trial; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to extract data for other outcomes.Three trials compared doxycycline versus macrolides. For most outcomes, including treatment failure, resolution of fever within 48 hours, time to defervescence, and serious adverse events, we are uncertain whether study results show a difference between doxycycline and macrolides (very low-certainty evidence). Macrolides compared to doxycycline may make little or no difference in the proportion of patients with resolution of fever within five days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.10; 185 participants; two trials; low-certainty evidence). Another trial compared azithromycin versus doxycycline or chloramphenicol in children, but we were not able to disaggregate date for the doxycycline/chloramphenicol group.One trial compared doxycycline versus rifampicin. For all outcomes, we are uncertain whether study results show a difference between doxycycline and rifampicin (very low-certainty evidence). Of note, this trial deviated from the protocol after three out of eight patients who had received doxycycline and rifampicin combination therapy experienced treatment failure.Across trials, mild gastrointestinal side effects appeared to be more common with doxycycline than with comparator drugs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Tetracycline, doxycycline, azithromycin, and rifampicin are effective treatment options for scrub typhus and have resulted in few treatment failures. Chloramphenicol also remains a treatment option, but we could not include this among direct comparisons in this review.Most available evidence is of low or very low certainty. For specific outcomes, some low-certainty evidence suggests there may be little or no difference between tetracycline, doxycycline, and azithromycin as treatment options. Given very low-certainty evidence for rifampicin and the risk of inducing resistance in undiagnosed tuberculosis, clinicians should not regard this as a first-line treatment option. Clinicians could consider rifampicin as a second-line treatment option after exclusion of active tuberculosis.Further research should consist of additional adequately powered trials of doxycycline versus azithromycin or other macrolides, trials of other candidate antibiotics including rifampicin, and trials of treatments for severe scrub typhus. Researchers should standardize diagnostic techniques and reporting of clinical outcomes to allow robust comparisons.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Child, Preschool; Chloramphenicol; Doxycycline; Humans; Macrolides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rifampin; Scrub Typhus; Tetracycline
PubMed: 30246875
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002150.pub2 -
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease 2017Mefloquine is recommended in international health guidelines for preventing malaria in travellers. Reports of psychosis and suicide are often alluded to but are not... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mefloquine is recommended in international health guidelines for preventing malaria in travellers. Reports of psychosis and suicide are often alluded to but are not clearly established.
METHODS
We carried out a systematic review of the literature to identify and critically appraise any reported death or parasuicide associated with mefloquine prophylaxis. We developed a comprehensive search that included publications up to 11 July 2017. We included case studies but excluded newspaper reports. Two authors independently appraised each death or parasuicide against a standardised causality assessment tool. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016041988).
RESULTS
We identified 527 articles that required full-text retrieval; of these 17 were unique publications that reported deaths or parasuicide. Eight unique publications had sufficient detail to be included in causality assessment. We identified 2 deaths with a probable association that appeared to be idiosyncratic drug reactions; we categorised the remaining 8 deaths as "unlikely" to be related to mefloquine, or "unclassifiable". There was one parasuicide with a possible causal association. There were 9 additional publications that searched spontaneous drug reporting databases; none provided sufficient detail to perform a causality assessment.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the number of deaths that we could reliably attribute to the prophylactic use of mefloquine is very low.
Topics: Antimalarials; Cause of Death; Chemoprevention; Humans; Malaria; Mefloquine; Self-Injurious Behavior; Travel Medicine
PubMed: 29107173
DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2017.10.011 -
Journal of Hazardous Materials Aug 2022Increasing usage of antimicrobials is a significant contributor to the emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance. Wastewater-based epidemiology is a useful...
Increasing usage of antimicrobials is a significant contributor to the emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance. Wastewater-based epidemiology is a useful tool for evaluating public health, via the monitoring of chemical and biological markers in wastewater influent, such as antibiotics. Sixteen antimicrobials and their metabolites were studied: sulfonamides, trimethoprim, metronidazole, quinolones, nitrofurantoin, cyclines, and antiretrovirals. Correction factors (CFs) for human drug excretion, for various drug forms, were determined via a systematic literature review of pharmacokinetic research. Analyte stability was examined over a 24 h study. The estimation of community-wide drug intake was evaluated using the corresponding catchment prescription data. Overall, antimicrobials excreted in an unchanged form were often observed to over-estimate daily intake. This could be attributed to biotransformation, e.g., via glucuronide cleavage, or direct disposal of unused drugs. Acetyl-sulfonamides, trimethoprim, hydroxy-metronidazole, clarithromycin, ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, tetracycline, and oxytetracycline generally performed well in the estimation of drug intake, relative to prescription records. The low prevalence of quinolone and trimethoprim metabolites, and the low stability of nitrofurantoin, limited the ability to evaluate these metabolites and their respective CFs.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Humans; Metronidazole; Nitrofurantoin; Quinolones; Sulfonamides; Trimethoprim; Wastewater-Based Epidemiological Monitoring; Water Pollutants, Chemical
PubMed: 35594673
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129001 -
Systematic Reviews Apr 2024Leptospirosis, an important zoonotic bacterial disease, commonly affects resource-poor populations and results in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Leptospirosis, an important zoonotic bacterial disease, commonly affects resource-poor populations and results in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. The value of antibiotics in leptospirosis remains unclear, as evidenced by the conflicting opinions published.
METHODS
We conducted a search in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for studies. These studies included clinical trials and retrospective studies that evaluated the efficacy or safety of antibiotics for leptospirosis treatment. The primary outcomes assessed were defervescence time, mortality rate, and hospital stays. Subgroup analyses were performed based on whether there were cases involving children and whether there were cases of severe jaundice. Safety was defined as the prevalence of adverse events associated with the use of antibiotics. p scores were utilized to rank the efficacy of the antibiotics.
RESULTS
There are included 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 control trial (CT), and 3 retrospective studies (RS) involving 920 patients and 8 antibiotics. Six antibiotics resulted in significantly shorter defervescence times compared to the control, namely cefotaxime (MD, - 1.88; 95% CI = - 2.60 to - 1.15), azithromycin (MD, - 1.74; 95% CI = - 2.52 to - 0.95), doxycycline (MD, - 1.53; 95% CI = - 2.05 to - 1.00), ceftriaxone (MD, - 1.22; 95% CI = - 1.89 to - 0.55), penicillin (MD, - 1.22; 95% CI = - 1.80 to - 0.64), and penicillin or ampicillin (MD, - 0.08; 95% CI = - 1.01 to - 0.59). The antibiotics were not effective in reducing the mortality and hospital stays. Common adverse reactions to antibiotics included Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction, rash, headache, and digestive reactions (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and others).
CONCLUSIONS
Findings recommend that leptospirosis patients be treated with antibiotics, which significantly reduced the leptospirosis defervescence time. Cephalosporins, doxycycline, and penicillin are suggested, and azithromycin may be a suitable alternative for drug-resistant cases.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022354938.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Doxycycline; Leptospirosis; Network Meta-Analysis; Penicillins
PubMed: 38627798
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02519-y -
BMJ Open Respiratory Research Aug 2023Current evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis is inconclusive. We aimed to systematically evaluate published studies on repurposed drugs for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Current evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis is inconclusive. We aimed to systematically evaluate published studies on repurposed drugs for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 among healthy adults.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
ELIGIBILITY
Quantitative experimental and observational intervention studies that evaluated the effectiveness of repurposed drugs for the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 disease.
DATA SOURCE
PubMed and Embase (1 January 2020-28 September 2022).
RISK OF BIAS
Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools were applied to assess the quality of studies.
DATA ANALYSIS
Meta-analyses for each eligible drug were performed if ≥2 similar study designs were available.
RESULTS
In all, 65 (25 trials, 40 observational) and 29 publications were eligible for review and meta-analyses, respectively. Most studies pertained to hydroxychloroquine (32), ACE inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (11), statin (8), and ivermectin (8). In trials, hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis reduced laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk ratio: 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90), I=48%), a result largely driven by one clinical trial (weight: 60.5%). Such beneficial effects were not observed in observational studies, nor for prognostic clinical outcomes. Ivermectin did not significantly reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR: 0.35 (95% CI 0.10 to 1.26), I=96%) and findings for clinical outcomes were inconsistent. Neither ACEi or ARB were beneficial in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most of the evidence from clinical trials was of moderate quality and of lower quality in observational studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Results from our analysis are insufficient to support an evidence-based repurposed drug policy for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis because of inconsistency. In the view of scarce supportive evidence on repurposing drugs for COVID-19, alternative strategies such as immunisation of vulnerable people are warranted to prevent the future waves of infection.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021292797.
Topics: Adult; Humans; COVID-19; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Hydroxychloroquine; Ivermectin; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Primary Prevention
PubMed: 37640510
DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001674 -
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease 2021In 2018, tafenoquine was approved for malaria chemoprophylaxis. We evaluated all available data on the safety and efficacy of tafenoquine chemoprophylaxis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In 2018, tafenoquine was approved for malaria chemoprophylaxis. We evaluated all available data on the safety and efficacy of tafenoquine chemoprophylaxis.
METHODS
This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019123839). We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane databases. Two authors (JDM, PS) screened all papers.
RESULTS
We included 44 papers in the qualitative and 9 in the quantitative analyses. These 9 randomized, controlled trials included 2495 participants, aged 12-60 years with 27.3% women. Six studies were conducted in Plasmodium spp.-endemic regions; two were human infection studies. 200 mg weekly tafenoquine and higher dosages lead to a significant reduction of Plasmodium spp. infection compared to placebo and were comparable to 250 mg mefloquine weekly with a protective efficacy between 77.9 and 100% or a total risk ratio of 0.22 (95%-CI: 0.07-0.73; p = 0.013) in favour of tafenoquine. Adverse events (AE) were comparable in frequency and severity between tafenoquine and comparator arms. One study reported significantly more gastrointestinal events in tafenoquine users (p ≤ 0.001). Evidence of increased, reversible, asymptomatic vortex keratopathy in subjects with prolonged tafenoquine exposures was found. A single, serious event of decreased macular sensitivity occurred.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis of trials of G6PD-normal adults show that weekly tafenoquine 200 mg is well tolerated and effective as malaria chemoprophylaxis focusing primarily on Plasmodium falciparum but also on Plasmodium vivax. Our safety analysis is limited by heterogenous methods of adverse events reporting. Further research is indicated on the use of tafenoquine in diverse traveller populations.
Topics: Adult; Aminoquinolines; Antimalarials; Chemoprevention; Female; Humans; Malaria; Male
PubMed: 33227500
DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101908