-
European Journal of Neurology Dec 2023Evidence-based recommendations for treatment of Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB) should rely on the available literature. As new data emerges, close review and evaluation of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Evidence-based recommendations for treatment of Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB) should rely on the available literature. As new data emerges, close review and evaluation of the recent literature is needed to build evidence-based recommendations to inform clinical practice and management of LNB. We performed an update of a previous systematic review on treatment of LNB.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of Medline and CENTRAL was performed for published studies from 2015 to 2023 to update a previous systematic review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) were evaluated. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools for RCTs; NRS were assessed using the ROBINS-I-tool. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Data were integrated into an existing meta-analysis of the available literature.
RESULTS
After screening 1530 records, two RCTs and five NRS with new and relevant data were additionally identified. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between doxycycline and beta-lactam antibiotics regarding residual neurological symptoms after 12 months. Meta-analysis showed no benefit of extended antibiotic treatment of LNB. Three NRS show no benefit for additional steroid use in LNB with facial palsy.
DISCUSSION
Additional incorporated recent research corroborates existing guideline recommendations for treatment of LNB. New RCTs add to the certainty of previous analysis showing similar efficacy for doxycycline and beta-lactam antibiotics in LNB. Available evidence shows no benefit for extended antibiotic treatment in LNB. NRS do not suggest a role for steroids in facial palsy due to LNB.
Topics: Humans; Lyme Neuroborreliosis; Doxycycline; Facial Paralysis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Monobactams
PubMed: 37565386
DOI: 10.1111/ene.16034 -
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 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Feb 2024Macrolides and tetracyclines are antibiotics that have a range of anti-inflammatory properties beyond their microbial capabilities. Although these antibiotics have been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Macrolides and tetracyclines are antibiotics that have a range of anti-inflammatory properties beyond their microbial capabilities. Although these antibiotics have been in widespread use, the long-term safety profiles are limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that compared macrolides or tetracyclines with placeboes to provide long-term safety information. We searched Medline and EMBASE from inception to October 2022 and identified studies that reported study drug-related death, serious adverse events (SAEs), or withdrawal rates, and common adverse effects of each drug. Relative risk (RR) and number needed to harm were calculated. Of the 52 randomized clinical trials included, there are 3151 participants on doxycycline, 2519 participants on minocycline, 3049 participants on azithromycin, 763 participants on clarithromycin, 262 participants on erythromycin, and 100 participants on roxithromycin. There was no death related to any study drugs and rates of SAE were not significantly different from placebo in any drug. Overall withdrawal rates were slightly higher than placebo in doxycycline (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.12-1.52) and minocycline (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.46). Withdrawal rates due to adverse events were higher in doxycycline (RR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.88-4.22), minocycline (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-1.98), and azithromycin (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.13-2.08). Gastrointestinal disturbances are the most common tolerable adverse effects for every drug. Photosensitivity and rash are the second most common adverse effects for doxycycline and minocycline. We found no evidence that long-term use up to 2 years of macrolides or tetracyclines was associated with increased risk of SAEs.
Topics: Humans; Macrolides; Azithromycin; Doxycycline; Minocycline; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37751595
DOI: 10.1002/jcph.2358 -
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 -
Le Infezioni in Medicina 2023Leptospirosis is a zoonotic bacterial infection with significant mortality and morbidity, especially in resource-limited settings. This systematic review aimed to study... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Leptospirosis is a zoonotic bacterial infection with significant mortality and morbidity, especially in resource-limited settings. This systematic review aimed to study the clinical profile and outcome of patients with leptospirosis in India.
METHODOLOGY
All articles up to 02.08.2022 were searched using the two databases, PubMed and Scopus. A total of 542 articles were found using the search terms related to 'leptospirosis' and 'India'. After two rounds of screening, 55 articles were included. The data were collected on epidemiology, clinical features, laboratory features and treatment of patients with leptospirosis.
RESULTS
Most cases of leptospirosis were reported from the coastal belt. A large percentage of patients were identified as farmers, and exposure to rainfall was identified as an important risk factor. Fever was present in 97%, and conjunctival suffusion was present in 35% of cases. Haemoptysis, gastrointestinal bleeding, and haematuria were present in 5%, 5% and 12% of patients, respectively. Liver and kidney were involved in 34% and 35% of the patients, respectively. The average haemoglobin, leucocyte count and platelet count across various studies ranged from 9.6-12.5 grams/dl, 8.8-11.3 thousand/μl and 20-130 thousand/μl, respectively. Treatment details were sparsely available in some studies, with penicillin, ceftriaxone, and doxycycline used commonly. The pooled mortality across various studies was calculated as 11% [95% CI-8-15%, I=93%, P<0.001].
CONCLUSIONS
Leptospirosis is associated with significant mortality in Indian settings. There is a need for studies focussing on treatment modalities.
PubMed: 37701390
DOI: 10.53854/liim-3103-4 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Jul 2021Osteoarthritis (OA) is common and burdensome for patients and health care systems. Our study purpose was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of DMOADs in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis (OA) is common and burdensome for patients and health care systems. Our study purpose was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of DMOADs in adults with knee and hip osteoarthritis.
METHODS
We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Knowledge without language, publication, or date restrictions from inception through November 2018 for randomized controlled trials assessing 12 classes of DMOADs with at least 12 months of follow-up. Therapeutic effects were evaluated with pairwise and network meta-analysis. Outcomes included pain, function, minimum joint space width or cartilage volume, radiographic progression, and total joint replacement. Analyses were also performed for drug safety.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials with 11,890 patients were included. Glucosamine and chondroitin minimally improved both structure (minimum joint width or cartilage volume: network results: glucosamine: SMD 0.16; 95% CI [0.04, 0.28], chondroitin: SMD 0.21 [0.10, 0.32]) and symptoms (glucosamine: pain: - 0.15 [- 0.25, - 0.05]; function: - 0.17 [- 0.28, - 0.07], chondroitin: pain: - 0.06 [- 0.15, 0.03], and function: - 0.15 [- 0.26, - 0.03]). Strontium demonstrated improvement in structure (minimum joint width or cartilage volume: 0.20 [0.02, 0.38]), and vitamin D on symptoms (pain: - 0.15 [- 0.27, -0.03]; function: - 0.18 [- 0.31, - 0.06]). Although doxycycline also demonstrated a favorable efficacy ranking, its safety profile was poor (withdrawal: network relative risk 1.69 [1.03, 2.75]). The therapeutic effects of other medications were not ranked as highly.
DISCUSSION
Glucosamine and chondroitin yielded statistically significant but clinically questionable long-term benefit on structure and symptoms, though both had favorable safety profiles. Strontium improved structure, and vitamin D improved symptoms. Although doxycycline had a favorable efficacy ranking, its safety profile was poor. None of the 12 classes of drugs appears to have long-term clinically significant benefit.
Topics: Chondroitin; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33846938
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-06755-z -
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 -
Drug Safety Jun 2021Ivermectin (IVM) and doxycycline (DOXY) have demonstrated in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, and have a reasonable safety profile. The objective of this systematic...
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE
Ivermectin (IVM) and doxycycline (DOXY) have demonstrated in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, and have a reasonable safety profile. The objective of this systematic review was to explore the evidence in the literature on the safety and efficacy of their use as monotherapy and combination therapy in COVID-19 management.
METHODS
After prospectively registering the study protocol with the Open Science Framework, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, various pre-print servers and reference lists for relevant records published until 16 February, 2021 using appropriate search strategies. Baseline features and data pertaining to efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted separately for IVM monotherapy, DOXY monotherapy, and IVM + DOXY combination therapy. Methodological quality was assessed based on the study design.
RESULTS
Out of 200 articles screened, 19 studies (six retrospective cohort studies, seven randomised controlled trials, five non-randomised trials, one case series) with 8754 unique patients with multiple stages of COVID-19 were included; four were pre-prints and one was an unpublished clinicaltrials.gov document. The comparator was standard care and 'hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin' in seven and three studies respectively, and two studies were placebo controlled; six studies did not have a comparator. IVM monotherapy, DOXY monotherapy and IVM + DOXY were explored in eight, five and five studies, respectively; one study compared IVM monotherapy and IVM + DOXY with placebo. While all studies described efficacy, the safety profile was described in only six studies. Efficacy outcomes were mixed with some studies concluding in favour of the intervention and some studies displaying no significant benefit; barring one study that described 9/183 patients with erosive esophagitis and non-ulcer dyspepsia with IVM + DOXY (without causality assessment details), there were no new safety signals of concern with any of the three interventions considered. The quality of studies varied widely, with five studies having a 'good' methodological quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence is not sufficiently strong to either promote or refute the efficacy of IVM, DOXY, or their combination in COVID-19 management.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION DETAILS
Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/n7r2j .
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Doxycycline; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Ivermectin; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33864232
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-021-01066-y -
Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen... Feb 2024Rosacea is a common chronic skin disease distributed primarily around the central face. Ocular manifestations of rosacea are poorly studied, and estimates of prevalence... (Review)
Review
Rosacea is a common chronic skin disease distributed primarily around the central face. Ocular manifestations of rosacea are poorly studied, and estimates of prevalence vary widely, ranging from 6% to 72% in the rosacea population. Treatment options for ocular rosacea include lid hygiene, topical and oral antibiotics, cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion, oral vitamin A derivatives, and intense pulsed light; however, a direct comparison of treatment methods for ocular rosacea is lacking. This review aims to compare treatment efficacy and adverse events for different treatment modalities in ocular rosacea. We performed a systematic review by searching Cochrane, MEDLINE and Embase. Title, abstract, full text screening, and data extraction were done in duplicate. Sixty-six articles met the inclusion criteria, representing a total of 1,275 patients. The most effective treatment modalities were topical antimicrobials and oral antibiotics, which achieved complete or partial response in 91% (n = 82/90) and 89% (n = 525/580) of patients respectively, followed by intense pulsed light (89%, n = 97/109 partial response), cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion (87% n = 40/46), and lid hygiene (65%, n = 67/105). Combination treatments achieved a complete or partial response in 90% (n = 69/77). Results suggest that topical antimicrobials, oral antibiotics, intense pulsed light. and cyclosporine were the most efficacious single modality treatments.
Topics: Humans; Emulsions; Rosacea; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cyclosporine; Skin Diseases
PubMed: 38243868
DOI: 10.1111/ddg.15290 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Jun 2023This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy of all available treatments for severe melioidosis in decreasing hospital mortality... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy of all available treatments for severe melioidosis in decreasing hospital mortality and to identify eradication therapies with low disease recurrence rates and minimal risk of adverse drug events (AEs).
METHODOLOGY
Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) were searched from Medline and Scopus databases from their inception until July 31, 2022. RCTs that compared the efficacy between treatment regimens for severe melioidosis or eradication therapy of melioidosis, measured outcomes of in-hospital mortality, disease recurrence, drug discontinuation, or AEs, were included for review. A two-stage NMA with the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of treatment regimens.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Fourteen RCTs were included in the review. Ceftazidime plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), ceftazidime plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), and cefoperazone-sulbactam plus TMP-SMX had a lower mortality rate than other treatments and were ranked as the top three most appropriate treatments for severe melioidosis with the SUCRA of 79.7%, 66.6%, and 55.7%, respectively. However, these results were not statistically significant. For eradication therapy, treatment with doxycycline monotherapy for 20 weeks was associated with a significantly higher risk of disease recurrence than regimens containing TMP-SMX (i.e.,TMP-SMX for 20 weeks, TMP-SMX plus doxycycline plus chloramphenicol for more than 12 weeks, and TMP-SMX plus doxycycline for more than 12 weeks). According to the SUCRA, TMP-SMX for 20 weeks was ranked as the most efficacious eradication treatment (87.7%) with the lowest chance of drug discontinuation (86.4%), while TMP-SMX for 12 weeks had the lowest risk of AEs (95.6%).
CONCLUSION
Our results found a non-significant benefit of ceftazidime plus G-CSF and ceftazidime plus TMP-SMX over other treatments for severe melioidosis. TMP-SMX for 20 weeks was associated with a lower recurrence rate and minimal risk of adverse drug events compared to other eradication treatments. However, the validity of our NMA may be compromised by the limited number of included studies and discrepancies in certain study parameters. Thus, additional well-designed RCTs are needed to improve the therapy of melioidosis.
Topics: Humans; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination; Melioidosis; Doxycycline; Ceftazidime; Network Meta-Analysis; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37307278
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011382