-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Infection with the protozoan Entamoeba histolytica is common in low- and middle-income countries, and up to 100,000 people with severe disease die every year. Adequate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infection with the protozoan Entamoeba histolytica is common in low- and middle-income countries, and up to 100,000 people with severe disease die every year. Adequate therapy for amoebic colitis is necessary to reduce illness, prevent development of complicated disease and extraintestinal spread, and decrease transmission.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the available literature up to 22 March 2018. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, mRCT, and conference proceedings. We contacted individual researchers, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies, and we checked reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials of antiamoebic drugs given alone or in combination, compared with placebo or another antiamoebic drug, for treating adults and children with a diagnosis of amoebic colitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials and extracted and analysed the data. We calculated clinical and parasitological failure rates and rates of relapse and adverse events as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model. We determined statistical heterogeneity and explored possible sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. We carried out sensitivity analysis by using trial quality to assess the robustness of reported results.
MAIN RESULTS
In total, 41 trials (4999 participants) met the inclusion criteria of this review. In this update, we added four trials to the 37 trials included in the first published review version. Thirty trials were published over 20 years ago. Only one trial used adequate methods of randomization and allocation concealment, was blinded, and analysed all randomized participants. Only one trial used an E histolytica stool antigen test, and two trials used amoebic culture.Tinidazole may be more effective than metronidazole for reducing clinical failure (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.51; 477 participants, eight trials; low-certainty evidence) and is probably associated with fewer adverse events (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.92; 477 participants, 8 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with metronidazole, combination therapy may result in fewer parasitological failures (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.86; 720 participants, 3 trials; low-certainty evidence), but we are uncertain which combination is more effective than another. Evidence is insufficient to allow conclusions regarding the efficacy of other antiamoebic drugs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with metronidazole, tinidazole may be more effective in reducing clinical failure and may be associated with fewer adverse events. Combination drug therapy may be more effective for reducing parasitological failure compared with metronidazole alone. However, these results are based mostly on small trials conducted over 20 years ago with a variety of poorly defined outcomes. Tests that detect E histolytica more accurately are needed, particularly in countries where concomitant infection with other bacteria and parasites is common.
Topics: Amebicides; Animals; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dysentery, Amebic; Entamoeba histolytica; Humans; Metronidazole; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tinidazole
PubMed: 30624763
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006085.pub3 -
Epidemiology and Infection Nov 2018A comprehensive meta-analysis study was performed to estimate the reliable national prevalence and molecular epidemiology of amoebiasis in Iran. Nine English and Persian... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A comprehensive meta-analysis study was performed to estimate the reliable national prevalence and molecular epidemiology of amoebiasis in Iran. Nine English and Persian databases were searched to achieve the relevant studies. Pooled estimates were generated and meta-regression was performed. We identified 71 eligible articles involving 330 930 subjects from 25 provinces to be included in the final analysis. Moreover, 17 studies compromising 462 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive isolates performed molecular analysis to inter-species differentiation. The pooled prevalence of Entamoeba infection among Iranian population was about 1% (95% CI 0.8-2.0%). Moreover, regarding Human Development Index (HDI), a higher prevalence was observed in undeveloped provinces. Out of 462 PCR-positive isolates, 83% (95% CI 69-94%) and 12% (95% CI 3-24%) were Entamoeba dispar, Entamoeba histolytica, respectively. In subgroup analysis based on molecular results, in general, population prevalence of Entamoeba dispar and E. histolytica were 91% (95% CI 80-99%) and 7%, (95% CI 0-19%), respectively, while prevalence of these species in patients with gastrointestinal disorders were 75% (95% CI 45-96%) and 18% (95% CI 1-43%), respectively. Our findings indicate the low burden of amoebiasis in Iran. E. dispar, that is mostly non-pathogenic, was identified as most prevalent species. Nevertheless, we suggest more public health interventions in areas with lower HDI.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Child, Preschool; Entamoeba histolytica; Entamoebiasis; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Iran; Male; Middle Aged; Molecular Epidemiology; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Prevalence; Sequence Analysis, DNA; Young Adult
PubMed: 29991366
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268818001863 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Jul 2016Amebic colitis, caused by intestinal infection with the parasite, Entamoeba histolytica, is a common cause of diarrhea worldwide. Fulminant amebic colitis is the most... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Amebic colitis, caused by intestinal infection with the parasite, Entamoeba histolytica, is a common cause of diarrhea worldwide. Fulminant amebic colitis is the most devastating complication of this infection, associated with both high mortality and morbidity. We conducted a review of the English literature to describe cases of fulminant amebic colitis associated with exposure to corticosteroid medications in order to identify the risk factors for poor outcome and determine difficulties in diagnosis and treatment.
METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Articles reporting severe and fulminant forms of amebic colitis between 1991 and 2016 were collected. 525 records were screened to identify 24 cases for qualitative analysis associated with corticosteroid use. Cases arose from areas of high endemicity or travel to such areas. Most cases (14 of 24, 58%) were given corticosteroids for initially misdiagnosed colitis, mainly inflammatory bowel, resulting in rapid progression of disease. Nearly half of all cases underwent surgical intervention, and 25% of cases died, despite all patients eventually receiving treatment with metronidazole. The odds of death did not differ significantly by prior misdiagnosis, co-morbidities, bowel perforation or need for surgery.
CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE
Infection with E. histolytica should be considered prior to the administration of corticosteroids, in particular for patients residing in endemic areas or those with appropriate travel history, especially prior to the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease. The development of preventative and treatment interventions are needed to improve outcomes of fulminant disease.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Dysentery, Amebic; Humans; Immunosuppression Therapy
PubMed: 27467600
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004879 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Acanthamoeba are microscopic, free-living, single-celled organisms which can infect the eye and lead to Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK). AK can result in loss of vision in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acanthamoeba are microscopic, free-living, single-celled organisms which can infect the eye and lead to Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK). AK can result in loss of vision in the infected eye or loss of eye itself; however, there are no formal guidelines or standards of care for the treatment of AK.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the relative effectiveness and safety of medical therapy for the treatment of AK.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2015), PubMed (1948 to January 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to January 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 9 January 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medical therapy for AK, regardless of the participants' age, sex, or etiology of disease. We included studies that compared either anti-amoeba therapy (drugs used alone or in combination with other medical therapies) with no anti-amoeba therapy or one anti-amoeba therapy with another anti-amoeba therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened search results and full-text reports, assessed risk of bias, and abstracted data. We used standard methodological procedures as set forth by the Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one RCT (56 eyes of 55 participants) in this review. The study compared two types of topical biguanides for the treatment of AK: chlorhexidine 0.02% and polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) 0.02%. All participants were contact lens wearers with a median age of 31 years. Treatment duration ranged from 51 to 145 days. The study, conducted in the UK, was well-designed and had low risk of bias overall.Outcome data were available for 51 (91%) of 56 eyes. Follow-up times for outcome measurements in the study were not reported. Resolution of infection, defined as control of ocular inflammation, relief of pain and photosensitivity, and recovery of vision, was 86% in the chlorhexidine group compared with 78% in the PHMB group (relative risk (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.84 to 1.42). In the chlorhexidine group, 20 of 28 eyes (71%) had better visual acuity compared with 13 of 23 eyes (57%) in the PHMB group at final follow-up (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.94). Five participants required therapeutic keratoplasty: 2 in the chlorhexidine group compared with 3 in the PHMB group (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00). No serious adverse event related to drug toxicity was observed in the study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the relative effectiveness and safety of medical therapy for the treatment of AK. Results from the one included study yielded no difference with respect to outcomes reported between chlorhexidine and PHMB. However, the sample size was inadequate to detect clinically meaningful differences between the two groups as indicated by the wide confidence intervals of effect estimates.
Topics: Acanthamoeba Keratitis; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Biguanides; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25710134
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010792.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2013Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and food with faeces. In these areas, up to 40% of people with diarrhoea may have amoebic dysentery.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of drug treatments for amoebic dysentery in endemic areas? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 6 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: diiodohydroxyquinoline (iodoquinol), diloxanide, emetine, metronidazole, nitazoxanide, ornidazole, paromomycin, secnidazole, and tinidazole.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Diarrhea; Dysentery, Amebic; Entamoeba histolytica; Feces; Humans; Metronidazole; Paromomycin; Tinidazole
PubMed: 23991750
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2011Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and food with faeces. In these areas, up to 40% of people with diarrhoea may have amoebic dysentery.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of drug treatments for amoebic dysentery in endemic areas? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 6 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: diiodohydroxyquinoline (iodoquinol), diloxanide, emetine, metronidazole, nitazoxanide, ornidazole, paromomycin, secnidazole, and tinidazole.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Diarrhea; Dysentery, Amebic; Entamoeba histolytica; Humans; Incidence; Iodoquinol; Metronidazole; Paromomycin; Tinidazole
PubMed: 21477391
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2007Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and food with faeces. In these areas, up to 40% of people with diarrhoea may have amoebic dysentery.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of drug treatments for amoebic dysentery in endemic areas? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to July 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 11 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: emetine, metronidazole, ornidazole, paromomycin, secnidazole, and tinidazole.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antibodies, Protozoan; Diarrhea; Dysentery, Amebic; Entamoeba histolytica; Feces; Gene Library; Humans; Metronidazole; Tinidazole
PubMed: 19454043
DOI: No ID Found