-
Clinical Rheumatology Sep 2023Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality... (Review)
Review
Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality CPG recommendations, highlighting areas of consistency, and inconsistency. Electronic searches of five databases and four online guideline repositories were performed. RA management CPGs were eligible for inclusion if they were written in English and published between January 2015 and February 2022; focused on adults ≥ 18 years of age; met the criteria of a CPG as defined by the Institute of Medicine; and were rated as high quality on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. RA CPGs were excluded if they required additional payment to access; only addressed recommendations for the system/organization of care and did not include interventional management recommendations; and/or included other arthritic conditions. Of 27 CPGs identified, 13 CPGs met eligibility criteria and were included. Non-pharmacological care should include patient education, patient-centered care, shared decision-making, exercise, orthoses, and a multi-disciplinary approach to care. Pharmacological care should include conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), with methotrexate as the first-line choice. If monotherapy conventional synthetic DMARDs fail to achieve a treatment target, this should be followed by combination therapy conventional synthetic DMARDs (leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), biologic DMARDS and targeted synthetic DMARDS. Management should also include monitoring, pre-treatment investigations and vaccinations, and screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis. Surgical care should be recommended if non-surgical care fails. This synthesis offers clear guidance of evidence-based RA care to healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UB3Y7 ).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Hydroxychloroquine; Methotrexate; Sulfasalazine; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 37291382
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-023-06654-0 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune blistering disease. Oral steroids are the standard treatment. We have updated this review, which was first... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune blistering disease. Oral steroids are the standard treatment. We have updated this review, which was first published in 2002, because several new treatments have since been tried.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of treatments for bullous pemphigoid.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated searches of the following databases to November 2021: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched five trial databases to January 2022, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs of treatments for immunofluorescence-confirmed bullous pemphigoid.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors, working independently, evaluated the studies against the review's inclusion criteria and extracted data from included studies. Using GRADE methodology, we assessed the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in each comparison. Our primary outcomes were healing of skin lesions and mortality.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 RCTs (1442 participants). The main treatment modalities assessed were oral steroids, topical steroids, and the oral anti-inflammatory antibiotic doxycycline. Most studies reported mortality but adverse events and quality of life were not well reported. We decided to look at the primary outcomes 'disease control' and 'mortality'. Almost all studies investigated different comparisons; two studies were placebo-controlled. The results are therefore based on a single study for each comparison except azathioprine. Most studies involved only small numbers of participants. We assessed the risk of bias for all key outcomes as having 'some concerns' or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information. Clobetasol propionate cream versus oral prednisone Compared to oral prednisone, clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body probably increases skin healing at day 21 (risk ratio (RR 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.13; 1 study, 341 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Skin healing at 21 days was seen in 99.8% of participants assigned to clobetasol and 92.4% of participants assigned to prednisone. Clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body compared to oral prednisone may reduce mortality at one year (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.01; 1 study, 341 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death occurred in 26.5% (45/170) of participants assigned to clobetasol and 36.3% (62/171) of participants assigned to oral prednisone. This study did not measure quality of life. Clobetasol propionate cream may reduce risk of severe complications by day 21 compared with oral prednisone (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86; 1 study, 341 participants; low-certainty evidence). Mild clobetasol propionate cream regimen (10 to 30 g/day) versus standard clobetasol propionate cream regimen (40 g/day) A mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen probably does not change skin healing at day 21 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03; 1 study, 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Both groups showed complete healing of lesions at day 21 in 98% participants. A mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen may not change mortality at one year (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.32; 1 study, 312 participants; low-certainty evidence), which occurred in 118/312 (37.9%) participants. This study did not measure quality of life. A mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen may not change adverse events at one year (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 309 participants; low-certainty evidence). Doxycycline versus prednisolone Compared to prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg/day), doxycycline (200 mg/day) induces less skin healing at six weeks (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92; 1 study, 213 participants; high-certainty evidence). Complete skin healing was reported in 73.8% of participants assigned to doxycycline and 91.1% assigned to prednisolone. Doxycycline compared to prednisolone probably decreases mortality at one year (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 14; 1 study, 234 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mortality occurred in 2.4% (3/132) of participants with doxycycline and 9.7% (11/121) with prednisolone. Compared to prednisolone, doxycycline improved quality of life at one year (mean difference 1.8 points lower, which is more favourable on the Dermatology Life Quality Index, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.58 lower; 1 study, 234 participants; high-certainty evidence). Doxycycline compared to prednisolone probably reduces severe or life-threatening treatment-related adverse events at one year (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99; 1 study, 234 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Prednisone plus azathioprine versus prednisone It is unclear whether azathioprine plus prednisone compared to prednisone alone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from two trials (98 participants). These studies did not measure quality of life. Adverse events were reported in a total of 20/48 (42%) participants assigned to azathioprine plus prednisone and 15/44 (34%) participants assigned to prednisone. Nicotinamide plus tetracycline versus prednisone It is unclear whether nicotinamide plus tetracycline compared to prednisone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from one trial (18 participants). This study did not measure quality of life. Fewer adverse events were reported in the nicotinamide group. Methylprednisolone plus azathioprine versus methylprednisolone plus dapsone It is unclear whether azathioprine plus methylprednisolone compared to dapsone plus methylprednisolone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from one trial (54 participants). This study did not measure quality of life. A total of 18 adverse events were reported in the azathioprine group and 13 in the dapsone group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body is probably similarly effective as, and may cause less mortality than, oral prednisone for treating bullous pemphigoid. Lower-dose clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body is probably similarly effective as standard-dose clobetasol propionate cream and has similar mortality. Doxycycline is less effective but causes less mortality than prednisolone for treating bullous pemphigoid. Other treatments need further investigation.
Topics: Humans; Azathioprine; Prednisone; Clobetasol; Pemphigoid, Bullous; Doxycycline; Methylprednisolone; Dapsone; Niacinamide
PubMed: 37572360
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002292.pub4 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Aug 2023We conducted a systematic review to assess medical therapy for the treatment and prevention of pouchitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
We conducted a systematic review to assess medical therapy for the treatment and prevention of pouchitis.
METHODS
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medical therapy in adults with or without pouchitis were searched to March 2022. Primary outcomes included clinical remission/response, maintenance of remission and prevention of pouchitis.
RESULTS
Twenty RCTs (N = 830) were included. Acute pouchitis: One study compared ciprofloxacin with metronidazole. At 2 weeks, 100% (7/7) of ciprofloxacin participants achieved remission, compared with 67% (6/9) of metronidazole participants (RR: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.88-2.35, very low certainty evidence). One study compared budesonide enemas with oral metronidazole. Fifty percent (6/12) of budesonide participants achieved remission compared with 43% (6/14) of metronidazole participants (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.51-2.67, low certainty evidence). Chronic pouchitis: Two studies (n = 76) assessed De Simone Formulation. Eighty-five percent (34/40) of De Simone Formulation participants maintained remission at 9-12 months compared with 3% (1/36) placebo participants (RR: 18.50, 95% CI: 3.86-88.56, moderate certainty evidence). One study assessed vedolizumab. Thirty-one percent (16/51) of vedolizumab participants achieved clinical remission at 14 weeks compared with 10% (5/51) of placebo participants (RR: 3.20, 95% CI: 1.27-8.08, moderate certainty evidence).
PROPHYLAXIS
Two studies assessed De Simone Formulation. Ninety percent (18/20) of De Simone Formulation participants did not develop pouchitis compared with 60% (12/20) of placebo participants (RR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.02-2.21, moderate certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
Apart from vedolizumab and the De Simone formulation, the effects of other medical interventions for pouchitis are uncertain.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Metronidazole; Remission Induction; Pouchitis; Ciprofloxacin; Budesonide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37246609
DOI: 10.1111/apt.17568 -
Journal of the American Pharmacists... 2023The 2011 Infectious Diseases Society of America and European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guidelines recommend ciprofloxacin or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The 2011 Infectious Diseases Society of America and European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guidelines recommend ciprofloxacin or sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (SMX-TMP) as first-line agents to treat uncomplicated acute pyelonephritis (APN).
OBJECTIVE
With increasing antimicrobial resistance rates and recent changes in practice patterns, the objective of this systematic review was to describe the effectiveness of cephalosporins for uncomplicated APN in more recently published literature.
METHODS
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used for reporting. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for publications between January 2010 and September 2022. Eligible articles detailed patients with uncomplicated APN, treated with first- to fourth-generation cephalosporins, and identified a clinical, microbiological, or health care utilization outcome. Studies with more than 30% of complicated APN patients, non-English-language studies, case reports, case series, pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic studies, and in vitro laboratory or animal studies were excluded. Screening, review, and extraction were performed independently by 2 researchers, plus a third for conflict resolution. Critical appraisal of studies was performed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists.
RESULTS
Eight studies met inclusion, including 5 cohort studies (62.5%), 2 randomized controlled trials (25%), and 1 nonrandomized experimental study (12.5%). Cephalosporins most used across the studies included cefazolin, cephalexin, cefuroxime, cefotaxime, cefdinir, cefditoren, and ceftriaxone. Outcomes assessed were diverse, including clinical or microbiological success and time to defervescence or symptom resolution. Cephalosporins displayed effectiveness for the treatment of acute uncomplicated APN regardless of study design or the presence of a comparison group. No trials reported inferiority of clinical treatment outcomes compared with a fluoroquinolone or SMX-TMP.
CONCLUSION
Cephalosporins may be viable treatment options for the management of uncomplicated APN.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cephalosporins; Communicable Diseases; Pyelonephritis; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination
PubMed: 37414282
DOI: 10.1016/j.japh.2023.06.028 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Nov 2023This systematic review explored different medications and methods for prevention and treatment of pouchitis after restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review explored different medications and methods for prevention and treatment of pouchitis after restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA).
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for randomized clinical trials that assessed prevention or treatment of pouchitis. The systematic review was reported in line with updated 2020 PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias in the trials included was assessed using the ROB-2 tool and certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. The main outcomes were the incidence of new pouchitis episodes in the preventative studies and resolution or improvement of active pouchitis in the treatment studies.
RESULTS
Fifteen randomized trials were included. A meta-analysis of 7 trials on probiotics revealed significantly lower odds of pouchitis with the use of probiotics (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.16-0.42, I = 20%, p < 0.001) and similar odds of adverse effects to placebo (RR: 2.43, 95% CI: 0.11-55.9, I = 0, p = 0.579). One trial investigated the prophylactic role of allopurinol in preventing pouchitis and found a comparable incidence of pouchitis in the two groups (31% vs 28%; p = 0.73). Seven trials assessed different treatments for active pouchitis. One recorded the resolution of pouchitis in all patients treated with ciprofloxacin versus 67% treated with metronidazole. Both budesonide enema and oral metronidazole were associated with similar significant improvement in pouchitis (58.3% vs 50%, p = 0.67). Rifaximin, adalimumab, fecal microbiota transplantation, and bismuth carbomer foam enema were not effective in treating pouchitis.
CONCLUSIONS
Probiotics are effective in preventing pouchitis after IPAA. Antibiotics, including ciprofloxacin and metronidazole, are likely effective in treating active pouchitis.
Topics: Humans; Pouchitis; Metronidazole; Colitis, Ulcerative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Ciprofloxacin; Anastomosis, Surgical
PubMed: 37815701
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-023-05841-3 -
Microbial Pathogenesis Oct 2023Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease that can be transmitted from animals to humans. Brucellosis is caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella, which are typically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease that can be transmitted from animals to humans. Brucellosis is caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella, which are typically transmitted through contact with infected animals, unpasteurized dairy products, or airborne pathogens. Tetracyclines (tetracycline and doxycycline) are antibiotics commonly used to treat brucellosis; however, antibiotic resistance has become a major concern. This study assessed the worldwide prevalence of tetracycline-resistant Brucella isolates.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE using relevant keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms until August 13, 2022, to identify relevant studies for meta-analysis. A random effects model was used to estimate the proportion of resistance. Meta-regression analysis, subgroup analysis, and examination of outliers and influential studies were also performed.
RESULTS
The prevalence rates of resistance to tetracycline and doxycycline were estimated to be 0.017 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.009-0.035) and 0.017 (95%CI, 0.011-0.026), respectively, based on 51 studies conducted from 1983 to 2020. Both drugs showed increasing resistance over time (tetracycline: r = 0.077, P = 0.012; doxycycline: r = 0.059, P = 0.026).
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of tetracycline and doxycycline resistance in Brucella was low (1.7%) but increased over time. This increase in tetracycline and doxycycline resistance highlights the need for further research to understand resistance mechanisms and develop more effective treatments.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Brucella melitensis; Brucella abortus; Tetracycline; Doxycycline; Prevalence; Brucellosis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Tetracyclines
PubMed: 37673354
DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2023.106321 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2024Leptospirosis is a global zoonotic and waterborne disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are used as a strategy for prevention of leptospirosis, in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Leptospirosis is a global zoonotic and waterborne disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are used as a strategy for prevention of leptospirosis, in particular in travellers and high-risk groups. However, the clinical benefits are unknown, especially when considering possible treatment-associated adverse effects. This review assesses the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in leptospirosis and is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Library (2009, Issue 3).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis for human leptospirosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised clinical trials through electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and other resources. We searched online clinical trial registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. We checked reference lists of the retrieved studies for further trials. The last date of search was 17 April 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials of any trial design, assessing antibiotics for prevention of leptospirosis, and with no restrictions on age, sex, occupation, or comorbidity of trial participants. We looked for trials assessing antibiotics irrespective of route of administration, dosage, and schedule versus placebo or no intervention. We also included trials assessing antibiotics versus other antibiotics using these criteria, or the same antibiotic but with another dose or schedule.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed Cochrane methodology. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (inclusive of asymptomatic cases), clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation, clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (exclusive of asymptomatic cases), and serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were quality of life and the proportion of people with non-serious adverse events. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using the RoB 2 tool and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a random-effects model for our main analyses and the fixed-effect model for sensitivity analyses. Our primary outcome analyses included trial data at the longest follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five randomised clinical trials comprising 2593 participants that compared antibiotics (doxycycline, azithromycin, or penicillin) with placebo, or one antibiotic compared with another. Four trials assessed doxycycline with different durations, one trial assessed azithromycin, and one trial assessed penicillin. One trial had three intervention groups: doxycycline, azithromycin, and placebo. Three trials assessed pre-exposure prophylaxis, one trial assessed postexposure prophylaxis, and one did not report this clearly. Four trials recruited residents in endemic areas, and one trial recruited soldiers who experienced limited time exposure. The participants' ages in the included trials were 10 to 80 years. Follow-up ranged from one to three months. Antibiotics versus placebo Doxycycline compared with placebo may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.83; 1 trial, 782 participants; low-certainty evidence). Prophylactic antibiotics may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.26; 5 trials, 2593 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics may result in little to no difference in the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of laboratory confirmation (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.08; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis with laboratory confirmation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.26; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics compared with placebo may increase non-serious adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 10.13, 95% CI 2.40 to 42.71; 3 trials, 1909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One antibiotic versus another antibiotic One trial assessed doxycycline versus azithromycin but did not report mortality. Compared to azithromycin, doxycycline may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.32; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), and on non-serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.48; 1 trial, 137 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. None of the five included trials reported serious adverse events or assessed quality of life. One study is awaiting classification. Funding Four of the five trials included statements disclosing their funding/supporting sources, and the remaining trial did not include this. Three of the four trials that disclosed their supporting sources received the supply of trial drugs directly from the same pharmaceutical company, and the remaining trial received financial support from a governmental source.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo or another antibiotic has little or have no effect on all-cause mortality or leptospirosis infection because the certainty of evidence is low or very low. We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo may increase the overall risk of non-serious adverse events because of very low-certainty evidence. We lack definitive rigorous data from randomised trials to support the use of antibiotics for the prophylaxis of leptospirosis infection. We lack trials reporting data on clinically relevant outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Doxycycline; Azithromycin; Quality of Life; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Penicillins; Leptospirosis
PubMed: 38483067
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014959.pub2 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2023The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of systemic nonsteroidal immunomodulators (SNSI) for oral lichen planus (OLP) treatment. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of systemic nonsteroidal immunomodulators (SNSI) for oral lichen planus (OLP) treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines and registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021243524). Consulted databases were Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria was as follows: clinical trials, case series, prospective, and retrospective studies conducted with participants presenting OLP of any sex and age.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were selected, assessing 9 different SNSI: methotrexate, dapsone, levamisole, hydroxychloroquine, thalidomide, metronidazole, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and colchicine. Methotrexate and dapsone were the drugs with the best evidence among the options included, regarding number and quality of studies. Methotrexate resulted in significant improvement in the clinical condition and remission of symptoms, ranging between 63 and 93% of cases. Dapsone presented a similar effect to the use of topical corticosteroids and tacrolimus CONCLUSION: Among SNSI therapeutic options, methotrexate, and dapsone showed promising efficacy and safety. However, large-scale randomized clinical trials are still needed.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
SNSI have been used in the treatment of recalcitrant OLP; however, so far, it is not clear which are the best options. This scoping review highlights the potential use of methotrexate and dapsone.
Topics: Humans; Lichen Planus, Oral; Methotrexate; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Immunologic Factors; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Dapsone
PubMed: 37921879
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05357-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2024Leptospirosis is a disease transmitted from animals to humans through water, soil, or food contaminated with the urine of infected animals, caused by pathogenic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Leptospirosis is a disease transmitted from animals to humans through water, soil, or food contaminated with the urine of infected animals, caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for the management of leptospirosis. Despite the widespread use of antibiotic treatment for leptospirosis, there seems to be insufficient evidence to determine its effectiveness or to recommend antibiotic use as a standard practice. This updated systematic review evaluated the available evidence regarding the use of antibiotics in treating leptospirosis, building upon a previously published Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of antibiotics versus placebo, no intervention, or another antibiotic for the treatment of people with leptospirosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised clinical trials following standard Cochrane procedures. The date of the last search was 27 March 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised clinical trials of various designs that examined the use of antibiotics for treating leptospirosis. We did not impose any restrictions based on the age, sex, occupation, or comorbidities of the participants involved in the trials. Our search encompassed trials that evaluated antibiotics, regardless of the method of administration, dosage, and schedule, and compared them with placebo or no intervention, or compared different antibiotics. We included trials regardless of the outcomes reported.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
During the preparation of this review, we adhered to the Cochrane methodology and used Review Manager. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events (nosocomial infection). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, proportion of people with adverse events considered non-serious, and days of hospitalisation. To assess the risk of bias of the included trials, we used the RoB 2 tool, and for evaluating the certainty of evidence we used GRADEpro GDT software. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD), both accompanied by their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the random-effects model for all our main analyses and the fixed-effect model for sensitivity analyses. For our primary outcome analyses, we included trial data from the longest follow-up period.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified nine randomised clinical trials comprising 1019 participants. Seven trials compared two intervention groups and two trials compared three intervention groups. Amongst the trials comparing antibiotics versus placebos, four trials assessed penicillin and one trial assessed doxycycline. In the trials comparing different antibiotics, one trial evaluated doxycycline versus azithromycin, one trial assessed penicillin versus doxycycline versus cefotaxime, and one trial evaluated ceftriaxone versus penicillin. One trial assessed penicillin with chloramphenicol and no intervention. Apart from two trials that recruited military personnel stationed in endemic areas or military personnel returning from training courses in endemic areas, the remaining trials recruited people from the general population presenting to the hospital with fever in an endemic area. The participants' ages in the included trials was 13 to 92 years. The treatment duration was seven days for penicillin, doxycycline, and cephalosporins; five days for chloramphenicol; and three days for azithromycin. The follow-up durations varied across trials, with three trials not specifying their follow-up periods. Three trials were excluded from quantitative synthesis; one reported zero events for a prespecified outcome, and two did not provide data for any prespecified outcomes. Antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.79; I = 8%; 3 trials, 367 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin or chloramphenicol versus placebo on adverse events considered non-serious (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.17; I = 0%; 2 trials, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed serious adverse events. Antibiotics versus another antibiotic The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus cephalosporin on all-cause mortality (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.04; I = 0%; 2 trials, 348 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or versus doxycycline (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.46; 1 trial, 168 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cefotaxime versus doxycycline on all-cause mortality (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.78; 1 trial, 169 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus doxycycline on serious adverse events (nosocomial infection) (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.62; 1 trial, 168 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or versus cefotaxime (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.02; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxycycline versus cefotaxime on serious adverse events (nosocomial infection) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.02; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus cefotaxime (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.47; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence), versus doxycycline (RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.66; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or versus chloramphenicol on adverse events considered non-serious (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.67; 1 trial, 52 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Funding Six of the nine trials included statements disclosing their funding/supporting sources and three trials did not mention funding source. Four of the six trials mentioning sources received funds from public or governmental sources or from international charitable sources, and the remaining two, in addition to public or governmental sources, received support in the form of trial drug supply directly from pharmaceutical companies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
As the certainty of evidence is very low, we do not know if antibiotics provide little to no effect on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, or adverse events considered non-serious. There is a lack of definitive rigorous data from randomised trials to support the use of antibiotics for treating leptospirosis infection, and the absence of trials reporting data on clinically relevant outcomes further adds to this limitation.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Doxycycline; Azithromycin; Quality of Life; Chloramphenicol; Penicillins; Cephalosporins; Cefotaxime; Leptospirosis; Cross Infection
PubMed: 38483092
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014960.pub2