-
BMC Anesthesiology Oct 2022This meta-analysis compared the quality of lung collapse and the resultant adverse reactions between the use of double-lumen endotracheal tubes (DLT) and bronchial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of the effect of double-lumen endotracheal tubes and bronchial blockers on lung collapse in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis compared the quality of lung collapse and the resultant adverse reactions between the use of double-lumen endotracheal tubes (DLT) and bronchial blockers (BB) in minimally invasive thoracic surgery.
METHODS
A search was performed in five bibliographic databases, namely PubMed, Springer, Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library ignoring the original language, which identified five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published on or before December 31, 2021. These studies were subsequently analyzed. All included studies compared the efficacy and safety of DLT and BB as a lung isolation technique in surgery. The methodological quality of each study was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The quality of lung collapse and the malposition rate were adopted as the main outcome indicators. Alternatively, the intubation time and the incidence of postoperative sore throat were adopted as secondary indicators.
RESULTS
When either DLT or BB were utilized in minimally invasive thoracic surgery, no differences were observed in the quality of lung collapse (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 1.58), the intubation time (mean difference [MD], 0.06; 95% CI, -1.02 to 1.14), or the malposition rate (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.37 to 2.06). However, the incidence of postoperative sore throat among patients treated with BB was significantly lower than that among patients treated with DLT (OR, 5.25; 95% CI, 2.55 to 10.75).
CONCLUSION
When utilized in minimally invasive thoracic surgery, the quality of lung collapse with DLT was identical to that with BB. However, patients treated with the latter demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of postoperative sore throat.
Topics: Humans; Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted; Intubation, Intratracheal; Pulmonary Atelectasis; One-Lung Ventilation; Pharyngitis
PubMed: 36309646
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-022-01876-2 -
Scientific Reports Oct 2022This meta-analysis aimed at investigating the effectiveness of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) against postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications after thyroidectomy.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of laryngeal mask airway against postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications following thyroid surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.
This meta-analysis aimed at investigating the effectiveness of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) against postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications after thyroidectomy. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, google scholar, and EMBASE databases were searched from inception through February, 2021, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the incidence of pharyngolaryngeal complications following the use of LMA or endotracheal tube (ETT). Pooled results from seven RCTs involving 600 patients showed an association of LMA with a reduced risk of postoperative sore throat (POST) at 24 h [risk ratio (RR) 0.75, p = 0.006, four trials], but not at 1 h and 48 h after thyroidectomy. POST severity and hoarseness risk were lower in the LMA group than the ETT group at 1 h, 24 h, and 48 h (all p < 0.05). Nevertheless, hoarseness severity was lower in the LMA group only at postsurgical 48 h [standardized mean difference = - 0.35, p = 0.008, three trials]. Moreover, the risk of emergence cough was lower in patients using LMA than those receiving ETT (RR = 0.14, p = 0.002, two trials). The two groups did not differ in the severity of dysphagia at postoperative 1 h, 24 h, and 48 h. This meta-analysis showed that LMA may be associated with fewer pharyngolaryngeal complications compared to ETT without airway impacts. The limited number of included studies warrants further research to support our findings.
Topics: Humans; Laryngeal Masks; Hoarseness; Thyroid Gland; Intubation, Intratracheal; Pharyngitis; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36307459
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-21989-5 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Feb 2023Few studies have assessed participant safety in human challenge trials (HCTs). Key questions regarding HCTs include how risky such trials have been, how often adverse...
BACKGROUND
Few studies have assessed participant safety in human challenge trials (HCTs). Key questions regarding HCTs include how risky such trials have been, how often adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) occur, and whether risk mitigation measures have been effective.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed and PubMed Central for articles reporting on results of HCTs published between 1980 and 2021 was performed and completed by 7 October 2021.
RESULTS
Of 2838 articles screened, 276 were reviewed in full. A total of 15 046 challenged participants were described in 308 studies that met inclusion criteria; 286 (92.9%) of these studies reported mitigation measures used to minimize risk to the challenge population. Among 187 studies that reported on SAEs, 0.2% of participants experienced at least 1 challenge-related SAE. Among 94 studies that graded AEs by severity, challenge-related AEs graded "severe" were reported by between 5.6% and 15.8% of participants. AE data were provided as a range to account for unclear reporting. Eighty percent of studies published after 2010 were registered in a trials database.
CONCLUSIONS
HCTs are increasingly common and used for an expanding list of diseases. Although AEs occur, severe AEs and SAEs are rare. Reporting has improved over time, though not all papers provide a comprehensive report of relevant health impacts. We found very few severe symptoms or SAEs in studies that reported them, but many HCTs did not report relevant safety data. This study was preregistered on PROSPERO as CRD42021247218.
PubMed: 36219704
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac820 -
Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare... 2021To evaluate the frequency of antibiotic prescribing for common infections via telemedicine compared to face-to-face visits.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the frequency of antibiotic prescribing for common infections via telemedicine compared to face-to-face visits.
DESIGN
Systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase (Elsevier platform) and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify studies comparing frequency of antibiotic prescribing via telemedicine and face-to-face visits without restrictions by publish dates or language used. We conducted meta-analyses of 5 infections: sinusitis, pharyngitis, otitis media, upper respiratory infection (URI) and urinary tract infection (UTI). Random-effect models were used to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs). Heterogeneity was evaluated with I estimation and the Cochran Q statistic test.
RESULTS
Among 3,106 studies screened, 23 studies (1 randomized control study, 22 observational studies) were included in the systematic literature review. Most of the studies (21 of 23) were conducted in the United States. Studies were substantially heterogenous, but stratified analyses revealed that providers prescribed antibiotics more frequently via telemedicine for otitis media (pooled odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.52; I = 31%) and pharyngitis (pooled OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33; I = 0%). We detected no significant difference in the frequencies of antibiotic prescribing for sinusitis (pooled OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70-1.06; I = 91%), URI (pooled OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.59-2.39; I = 100%), or UTI (pooled OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 0.88-7.46; I = 91%).
CONCLUSIONS
Telemedicine visits for otitis media and pharyngitis were associated with higher rates of antibiotic prescribing. The interpretation of these findings requires caution due to substantial heterogeneity among available studies. Large-scale, well-designed studies with comprehensive assessment of antibiotic prescribing for common outpatient infections comparing telemedicine and face-to-face visits are needed to validate our findings.
PubMed: 36168456
DOI: 10.1017/ash.2021.179 -
Computational Intelligence and... 2022The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of the best evidence in preventing postoperative sore throat in patients undergoing general...
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of the best evidence in preventing postoperative sore throat in patients undergoing general anesthesia intubation.
METHODS
The related topics of the postoperative sore throat of patients undergoing general anesthesia intubation were systematically searched in the database and evaluated using the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework. Combined with clinical needs and evidence-based professional judgment, 20 pieces of evidence and 6 examination standards on the management process and evidence implementation plan for the prevention of postoperative sore throat in patients with general anesthesia intubation are summarized, implementing the best evidence into clinical practice in anesthesiology, general surgery, orthopedics, thoracic surgery, and gynecology.
RESULTS
Nurses' knowledge scores and evidence compliance significantly improved after the implementation of the best evidence ( < 0.05); the incidence of the postoperative sore throat in patients undergoing general anesthesia intubation decreased from 41.7% to 28.1%.
CONCLUSION
The i-PARIHS framework effectively prevents postoperative sore throat in patients, providing an effective case for translating evidence into practice based on the i-PARIHS framework.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Clinical Competence; Health Services; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Pharyngitis; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 35837218
DOI: 10.1155/2022/3151423 -
Journal of Cardiovascular Development... May 2022(1) Background: Myocarditis following group A streptococcal pharyngitis and tonsillitis is a relatively rare medical condition. The aim of this systematic review was to... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Myocarditis following group A streptococcal pharyngitis and tonsillitis is a relatively rare medical condition. The aim of this systematic review was to identify specific ECG changes, laboratory parameters and signs, and symptoms associated with this disease. (2) Methods: A systematic literature review was performed in concordance with the current PRISMA guidelines, including the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, CDSR, CENTRAL, CCAs, EBM Reviews, and LILACS. Articles were included if they covered myocarditis after streptococcal pharyngitis/tonsillitis in humans. Exclusion criteria were rheumatic, autoimmune, or toxic myocarditis. (3) Results: Patients that developed myocarditis after group A streptococcal throat infection frequently presented with chest pain, elevated cardiac markers, and ST-segment elevations, making it a condition that shows more similarities to acute coronary syndrome than viral myocarditis. (4) Conclusions: Myocarditis after streptococcal pharyngitis and/or tonsillitis is a rather infrequently described disease; however, it is necessary to consider this condition when investigating streptococcal sore throat because it can be associated with severe adverse events for the individual patient.
PubMed: 35735799
DOI: 10.3390/jcdd9060170 -
Chinese Medical Journal Apr 2022Concerns exist regarding the risk of infections in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) treated with biologics. We assessed the risk of infections of biological and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Concerns exist regarding the risk of infections in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) treated with biologics. We assessed the risk of infections of biological and targeted drugs in patients with SpA by performing a meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and China Biology Medicine Disc for RCTs evaluating the risk of infections of biological therapy in patients with SpA from inception through August 9, 2021. We calculated a pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) for infections in biologics-treated patients vs. placebo patients. The risk of bias on the included RCTs was assessed by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
RESULTS
In total, 62 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, the risk of infection (Peto OR: 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-1.26, P < 0.001), serious infection (Peto OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.26-2.17, P < 0.001), upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) (Peto OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.04-1.32, P = 0.008), nasopharyngitis (Peto OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.10-1.42, P < 0.001), and Candida infection (Peto OR: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.48-4.71, P = 0.001) were increased in SpA patients treated with biologics compared with placebo. Sensitivity analysis based on biologics classes was conducted, and results demonstrated that compared with placebo, there was a higher risk of infection for tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-a inhibitors (Peto OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.13-1.68, P = 0.001) and interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors (Peto OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.08-2.22, P = 0.018) in axial SpA, and for Janus kinase inhibitors in peripheral SpA (Peto OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.14-1.69, P = 0.001); higher risk of serious infection for IL-17 inhibitors in peripheral SpA (Peto OR: 3.46, 95% CI: 1.26-9.55, P = 0.016) and axial SpA (Peto OR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.38-2.91, P < 0.001); higher risk of URTI for TNF-a inhibitors in axial SpA (Peto OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.05-1.78, P = 0.019), and for apremilast in peripheral SpA (Peto OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.08-2.36, P = 0.018); higher risk of nasopharyngitis for TNF-a inhibitors in axial SpA (Peto OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.05-1.90, P = 0.022) and peripheral SpA (Peto OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.09-2.05, P = 0.013), and for IL-17 inhibitors in axial SpA (Peto OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.01-1.82, P = 0.044); higher risk of herpes zoster for Janus kinase inhibitors in peripheral SpA (Peto OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.03-4.62, P = 0.043); higher risk of Candida infection for IL-17 inhibitors in peripheral SpA (Peto OR: 2.52, 95% CI: 1.31-4.84, P = 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis shows that biological therapy in patients with SpA may increase the risk of infections, including serious infections, URTI, nasopharyngitis, and Candida infection, which should be paid attention to in our clinical practice.
Topics: Biological Products; Candidiasis; Humans; Interleukin-17; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Nasopharyngitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spondylarthritis; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 35730370
DOI: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000001928 -
EClinicalMedicine Jun 2022Contemporary data for the global burden of sore throat and group A (Strep A) pharyngitis are required to understand the frequency of disease and develop value...
BACKGROUND
Contemporary data for the global burden of sore throat and group A (Strep A) pharyngitis are required to understand the frequency of disease and develop value propositions for Strep A vaccines.
METHODS
We used Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science platform to search WoS core collection, PubMed, Medline, data citation index, KCI-Korean Journal Database, Russian Science Citation Index, and the SciELO Citation Index for articles published between Jan 1, 2000, and Feb 15, 2021, from any country and in any language. The risk of bias was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal checklist. We used random-effects meta-analyses to pool sore throat and Strep A sore throat incidence rates from community-based studies. Our study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181103).
FINDINGS
Of 5,529 articles identified by the search strategy, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria, but only two included data to determine incidence among adults. The pooled incidence rate, calculated for children only, was 82.2 episodes per 100 child-years (95% CI 25.2-286.3, I = 100%) for sore throat (7 studies; 7,964 person years) and 22.1 episodes per 100 child-years (95% CI 14.7-33.1, I = 98%) for Strep A sore throat (9 studies; 15,696 person years). The pooled cumulative incidence rate of sore throat from five studies was 31.9 per 100 children. There was significant methodological and statistical heterogeneity among studies, and five of 26 studies had a risk of bias score less than five (range: nine [maximum score] to one).
INTERPRETATION
Strep A sore throat has a considerable global burden. However, methodologically standardised studies are required to quantify that burden, analyse differences in rates between populations, and evaluate the likely impact of future Strep A vaccines.
FUNDING
This study was funded by Wellcome Trust 215,490/Z/19/Z.
PubMed: 35706486
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101458 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of sense of smell (anosmia) or taste (ageusia), can help flag early on if the disease is present. Such information could be used either to rule out COVID-19 disease, or to identify people who need to go for COVID-19 diagnostic tests. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
We undertook electronic searches up to 10 June 2021 in the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We used artificial intelligence text analysis to conduct an initial classification of documents. We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were eligible if they included people with clinically suspected COVID-19, or recruited known cases with COVID-19 and also controls without COVID-19 from a single-gate cohort. Studies were eligible when they recruited people presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies that included people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract, and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist, and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Analyses were restricted to prospective studies only. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary prospective studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 90 studies; for this update we focused on the results of 42 prospective studies with 52,608 participants. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 3.7% to 60.6% with a median of 27.4%. Thirty-five studies were set in emergency departments or outpatient test centres (46,878 participants), three in primary care settings (1230 participants), two in a mixed population of in- and outpatients in a paediatric hospital setting (493 participants), and two overlapping studies in nursing homes (4007 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild COVID-19 disease from COVID-19 pneumonia, so we present the results for both conditions together. Twelve studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because they used a high level of preselection to decide whether reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was needed, or because they enrolled a non-consecutive sample, or because they excluded individuals while they were part of the study base. We rated 36 of the 42 studies as high risk of bias for the index tests because there was little or no detail on how, by whom and when, the symptoms were measured. For most studies, eligibility for testing was dependent on the local case definition and testing criteria that were in effect at the time of the study, meaning most people who were included in studies had already been referred to health services based on the symptoms that we are evaluating in this review. The applicability of the results of this review iteration improved in comparison with the previous reviews. This version has more studies of people presenting to ambulatory settings, which is where the majority of assessments for COVID-19 take place. Only three studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 96 symptoms or combinations of signs and symptoms. Evidence on individual signs as diagnostic tests was rarely reported, so this review reports mainly on the diagnostic value of symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. RT-PCR was the most often used reference standard (40/42 studies). Only cough (11 studies) had a summary sensitivity above 50% (62.4%, 95% CI 50.6% to 72.9%)); its specificity was low (45.4%, 95% CI 33.5% to 57.9%)). Presence of fever had a sensitivity of 37.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.2% (95% CI 56.3% to 87.8%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of cough was 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.25) and that of fever 1.52 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.10). Sore throat had a summary positive likelihood ratio of 0.814 (95% CI 0.714 to 0.929), which means that its presence increases the probability of having an infectious disease other than COVID-19. Dyspnoea (12 studies) and fatigue (8 studies) had a sensitivity of 23.3% (95% CI 16.4% to 31.9%) and 40.2% (95% CI 19.4% to 65.1%) respectively. Their specificity was 75.7% (95% CI 65.2% to 83.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI 48.4% to 89.3%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of dyspnoea was 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11) and that of fatigue 1.52 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.91), which means that the presence of fatigue slightly increases the probability of having COVID-19. Anosmia alone (7 studies), ageusia alone (5 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had summary sensitivities below 50% but summary specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a summary sensitivity of 26.4% (95% CI 13.8% to 44.6%) and a specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.6% to 96.5%). Ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 23.2% (95% CI 10.6% to 43.3%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 97.0%). Anosmia or ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 39.2% (95% CI 26.5% to 53.6%) and a specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 84.5% to 96.2%). The summary positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.55 (95% CI 3.46 to 5.97) and 4.99 (95% CI 3.22 to 7.75) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The summary positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was 3.14 (95% CI 1.79 to 5.51). Twenty-four studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining olfactory symptoms. By combining symptoms with other information such as contact or travel history, age, gender, and a local recent case detection rate, some multivariable prediction scores reached a sensitivity as high as 90%.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most individual symptoms included in this review have poor diagnostic accuracy. Neither absence nor presence of symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out the disease. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for the presence of COVID-19. The presence of cough also supports further testing. There is currently no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea. Combinations of symptoms with other readily available information such as contact or travel history, or the local recent case detection rate may prove more useful and should be further investigated in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. The diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for COVID-19 is moderate to low and any testing strategy using symptoms as selection mechanism will result in both large numbers of missed cases and large numbers of people requiring testing. Which one of these is minimised, is determined by the goal of COVID-19 testing strategies, that is, controlling the epidemic by isolating every possible case versus identifying those with clinically important disease so that they can be monitored or treated to optimise their prognosis. The former will require a testing strategy that uses very few symptoms as entry criterion for testing, the latter could focus on more specific symptoms such as fever and anosmia.
Topics: Aged; Ageusia; Anosmia; Artificial Intelligence; COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Child; Cough; Dyspnea; Fatigue; Fever; Hospitals; Humans; Outpatients; Pharyngitis; Primary Health Care; Prospective Studies; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 35593186
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013665.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Sore throat is a common reason for people to present for medical care and to be prescribed antibiotics. Overuse of antibiotics in primary medicine is a concern, hence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sore throat is a common reason for people to present for medical care and to be prescribed antibiotics. Overuse of antibiotics in primary medicine is a concern, hence it is important to establish their efficacy in treating sore throat and preventing secondary complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotics for reducing symptoms of sore throat for child and adult patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL 2021, Issue 2, MEDLINE (January 1966 to April week 1, 2021), Embase (January 1990 to April 2021), and two trial registries (searched 6 April 2021).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antibiotics versus control assessing typical sore throat symptoms or complications amongst children and adults seeking medical care for sore throat symptoms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data, resolving any differences in opinion by discussion. We contacted the trial authors from three studies for additional information. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for the efficacy of antibiotics on our primary outcomes (sore throat at day three and one week) and secondary outcomes (fever and headache symptoms and incidence of acute rheumatic fever, acute glomerulonephritis, acute otitis media, acute sinusitis, and quinsy).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 29 trials with 15,337 cases of sore throat. The majority of included studies were conducted in the 1950s, during which time the rates of serious complications (especially acute rheumatic fever) were much higher than today. Although clinical antibiotic trials for sore throat and respiratory symptoms are still being conducted, it is unusual for them to include placebo or 'no treatment' control arms, which is a requirement for inclusion in the review. The age of participants ranged from younger than one year to older than 50 years, but most participants across all studies were adults. Although all studies recruited patients presenting with symptoms of sore throat, few of them distinguished between bacterial and viral aetiology. Bias may have been introduced through non-clarity in treatment allocation procedures and lack of blinding in some studies. Harms from antibiotics were poorly or inconsistently reported, and were thus not quantified for this review. 1. Symptoms Throat soreness and headache at day three were reduced by using antibiotics, although 82% of participants in the placebo or no treatment group were symptom-free by one week. The reduction in sore throat symptoms at day three (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.80; 16 studies, 3730 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) was greater than at one week in absolute numbers (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.75; 14 studies, 3083 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) due to many cases in both treatment groups having resolved by this time. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent one sore throat at day three was less than six; at week one it was 18. Compared with placebo or no treatment, antibiotics did not significantly reduce fever at day three (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.07; 8 studies, 1443 participants; high-certainty evidence), but did reduce headache at day three (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70; 4 studies, 1020 participants; high-certainty evidence). 2. Suppurative complications Whilst the prevalence of suppurative complications was low, antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media within 14 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 10 studies, 3646 participants; high-certainty evidence) and quinsy within two months (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35; 8 studies, 2433 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared to those receiving placebo or no treatment, but not acute sinusitis within 14 days (Peto OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.05; 8 studies, 2387 participants; high-certainty evidence). 3. Non-suppurative complications There were too few cases of acute glomerulonephritis to determine whether there was a protective effect of antibiotics compared with placebo against this complication (Peto OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; 10 studies, 5147 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever within two months when compared to the control group (Peto OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.50; 18 studies, 12,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It should be noted that the overall prevalence of acute rheumatic fever was very low, particularly in the later studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotics probably reduce the number of people experiencing sore throat, and reduce the likelihood of headache, and some sore throat complications. As the effect on symptoms can be small, clinicians must judge on an individual basis whether it is clinically justifiable to use antibiotics to produce this effect, and whether the underlying cause of the sore throat is likely to be of bacterial origin. Furthermore, the balance between modest symptom reduction and the potential hazards of antimicrobial resistance must be recognised. Few trials have attempted to measure symptom severity. If antibiotics reduce the severity as well as the duration of symptoms, their benefit will have been underestimated in this meta-analysis. Additionally, more trials are needed in low-income countries, in socio-economically deprived sections of high-income countries, as well as in children.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Fever; Humans; Infant; Otitis Media; Pain; Pharyngitis
PubMed: 34881426
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000023.pub5