-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Infective endocarditis is a severe infection arising in the lining of the chambers of the heart. It can be caused by fungi, but most often is caused by bacteria. Many... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Infective endocarditis is a severe infection arising in the lining of the chambers of the heart. It can be caused by fungi, but most often is caused by bacteria. Many dental procedures cause bacteraemia, which could lead to bacterial endocarditis in a small proportion of people. The incidence of bacterial endocarditis is low, but it has a high mortality rate. Guidelines in many countries have recommended that antibiotics be administered to people at high risk of endocarditis prior to invasive dental procedures. However, guidance by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales states that antibiotic prophylaxis against infective endocarditis is not recommended routinely for people undergoing dental procedures. This is an update of a review that we first conducted in 2004 and last updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To determine whether prophylactic antibiotic administration, compared to no antibiotic administration or placebo, before invasive dental procedures in people at risk or at high risk of bacterial endocarditis, influences mortality, serious illness or the incidence of endocarditis. Secondary objectives To determine whether the effect of dental antibiotic prophylaxis differs in people with different cardiac conditions predisposing them to increased risk of endocarditis, and in people undergoing different high risk dental procedures. Harms Had we foundno evidence from randomised controlled trials or cohort studies on whether prophylactic antibiotics affected mortality or serious illness, and we had found evidence from these or case-control studies suggesting that prophylaxis with antibiotics reduced the incidence of endocarditis, then we would also have assessed whether the harms of prophylaxis with single antibiotic doses, such as with penicillin (amoxicillin 2 g or 3 g) before invasive dental procedures, compared with no antibiotic or placebo, equalled the benefits in prevention of endocarditis in people at high risk of this disease.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 10 May 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: Due to the low incidence of bacterial endocarditis, we anticipated that few if any trials would be located. For this reason, we included cohort and case-control studies with suitably matched control or comparison groups. The intervention was antibiotic prophylaxis, compared to no antibiotic prophylaxis or placebo, before a dental procedure in people with an increased risk of bacterial endocarditis. Cohort studies would need to follow at-risk individuals and assess outcomes following any invasive dental procedures, grouping participants according to whether or not they had received prophylaxis. Case-control studies would need to match people who had developed endocarditis after undergoing an invasive dental procedure (and who were known to be at increased risk before undergoing the procedure) with those at similar risk who had not developed endocarditis. Our outcomes of interest were mortality or serious adverse events requiring hospital admission; development of endocarditis following any dental procedure in a defined time period; development of endocarditis due to other non-dental causes; any recorded adverse effects of the antibiotics; and the cost of antibiotic provision compared to that of caring for patients who developed endocarditis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search records, selected studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in the included study and extracted data from the included study. As an author team, we judged the certainty of the evidence identified for the main comparison and key outcomes using GRADE criteria. We presented the main results in a summary of findings table.
MAIN RESULTS
Our new search did not find any new studies for inclusion since the last version of the review in 2013. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) or cohort studies were included in the previous versions of the review, but one case-control study met the inclusion criteria. The trial authors collected information on 48 people who had contracted bacterial endocarditis over a specific two-year period and had undergone a medical or dental procedure with an indication for prophylaxis within the past 180 days. These people were matched to a similar group of people who had not contracted bacterial endocarditis. All study participants had undergone an invasive medical or dental procedure. The two groups were compared to establish whether those who had received preventive antibiotics (penicillin) were less likely to have developed endocarditis. The authors found no significant effect of penicillin prophylaxis on the incidence of endocarditis. No data on other outcomes were reported. The level of certainty we have about the evidence is very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There remains no clear evidence about whether antibiotic prophylaxis is effective or ineffective against bacterial endocarditis in at-risk people who are about to undergo an invasive dental procedure. We cannot determine whether the potential harms and costs of antibiotic administration outweigh any beneficial effect. Ethically, practitioners should discuss the potential benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis with their patients before a decision is made about administration.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Dentistry; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Humans; Penicillins
PubMed: 35536541
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003813.pub5 -
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology &... Jul 2016Antibacterials are frequently associated with idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI). The objective of this study was to estimate the risk of macrolides and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Antibacterials are frequently associated with idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI). The objective of this study was to estimate the risk of macrolides and amoxicillin/clavulanate (AMC) on DILI. We conducted a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) with studies retrieved from PubMed, Cochrane Library Plus, Web of Knowledge, clinicaltrials.gov, Livertox and Toxline (1980-2014). We searched for macrolides, AMC and MeSH and synonym terms for DILI. We included all study designs except case reports/series, all population ages and studies with a placebo/non-user comparator. We summarized the evidence with a random-effects MA. Quality of the studies was appraised with a checklist developed for SR of adverse effects. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed with different exploratory tools. We finally included 10 (two randomized clinical trials, six case-control, one cohort and one case-population studies) and 9 (case-population excluded) articles in the SR and MA, respectively. The overall summary relative risk of DILI for macrolides was 2.85 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.81-4.47], p < 0.0001, I(2) = 57%. Three studies were perceived to be missing in the area of low statistical significance. Year of study and selected exposure window partly explained the variability between studies. For AMC, the risk of DILI was 9.38 (95% CI 0.65-135.41) p = 0.3, I2 = 95%. In conclusion, although spontaneous reports and case series have long established an association between macrolides and AMC with acute liver injury, these SR and MA have assessed the magnitude of this association. The low incidence of DILI and the therapeutic place of these antibiotics might tilt the balance in favour of their benefits.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Clavulanic Acid; Databases, Factual; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Liver; Macrolides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26707367
DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.12550 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Systemic antimicrobials can be used as an adjunct to mechanical debridement (scaling and root planing (SRP)) as a non-surgical treatment approach to manage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Systemic antimicrobials can be used as an adjunct to mechanical debridement (scaling and root planing (SRP)) as a non-surgical treatment approach to manage periodontitis. A range of antibiotics with different dosage and combinations are documented in the literature. The review follows the previous classification of periodontitis as all included studies used this classification.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic antimicrobials as an adjunct to SRP for the non-surgical treatment of patients with periodontitis.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 9 March 2020: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which involved individuals with clinically diagnosed untreated periodontitis. Trials compared SRP with systemic antibiotics versus SRP alone/placebo, or with other systemic antibiotics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 45 trials conducted worldwide involving 2664 adult participants. 14 studies were at low, 8 at high, and the remaining 23 at unclear overall risk of bias. Seven trials did not contribute data to the analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the 10 comparisons which reported long-term follow-up (≥ 1 year). None of the studies reported data on antimicrobial resistance and patient-reported quality of life changes. Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP versus SRP in chronic/aggressive periodontitis: the evidence for percentage of closed pockets (MD -16.20%, 95% CI -25.87 to -6.53; 1 study, 44 participants); clinical attachment level (CAL) (MD -0.47 mm, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.05; 2 studies, 389 participants); probing pocket depth (PD) (MD -0.30 mm, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.18; 2 studies, 389 participants); and percentage of bleeding on probing (BOP) (MD -8.06%, 95% CI -14.26 to -1.85; 2 studies, 389 participants) was of very low certainty. Only the results for closed pockets and BOP showed a minimally important clinical difference (MICD) favouring amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP. Metronidazole + SRP versus SRP in chronic/aggressive periodontitis: the evidence for percentage of closed pockets (MD -12.20%, 95% CI -29.23 to 4.83; 1 study, 22 participants); CAL (MD -1.12 mm, 95% CI -2.24 to 0; 3 studies, 71 participants); PD (MD -1.11 mm, 95% CI -2.84 to 0.61; 2 studies, 47 participants); and percentage of BOP (MD -6.90%, 95% CI -22.10 to 8.30; 1 study, 22 participants) was of very low certainty. Only the results for CAL and PD showed an MICD favouring the MTZ + SRP group. Azithromycin + SRP versus SRP for chronic/aggressive periodontitis: we found no evidence of a difference in percentage of closed pockets (MD 2.50%, 95% CI -10.19 to 15.19; 1 study, 40 participants); CAL (MD -0.59 mm, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.08; 2 studies, 110 participants); PD (MD -0.77 mm, 95% CI -2.33 to 0.79; 2 studies, 110 participants); and percentage of BOP (MD -1.28%, 95% CI -4.32 to 1.76; 2 studies, 110 participants) (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). Amoxicillin + clavulanate + SRP versus SRP for chronic periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 21 participants for CAL (MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.71); PD (MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.37); and BOP (MD 0%, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.09) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Doxycycline + SRP versus SRP in aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 22 participants for CAL (MD -0.80 mm, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.11); and PD (MD -1.00 mm, 95% CI -1.78 to -0.22) was of very low certainty, with the doxycycline + SRP group showing an MICD in PD only. Tetracycline + SRP versus SRP for aggressive periodontitis: we found very low-certainty evidence of a difference in long-term improvement in CAL for the tetracycline group (MD -2.30 mm, 95% CI -2.50 to -2.10; 1 study, 26 participants). Clindamycin + SRP versus SRP in aggressive periodontitis: we found very low-certainty evidence from 1 study, 21 participants of a difference in long-term improvement in CAL (MD -1.70 mm, 95% CI -2.40 to -1.00); and PD (MD -1.80 mm, 95% CI -2.47 to -1.13) favouring clindamycin + SRP. Doxycycline + SRP versus metronidazole + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: there was very low-certainty evidence from 1 study, 27 participants of a difference in long-term CAL (MD 1.10 mm, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.84); and PD (MD 1.00 mm, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.70) favouring metronidazole + SRP. Clindamycin + SRP versus metronidazole + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 26 participants for CAL (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.95); and PD (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.78) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Clindamycin + SRP versus doxycycline + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 23 participants for CAL (MD -0.90 mm, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.18); and PD (MD -0.80 mm, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.02) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Most trials testing amoxicillin, metronidazole, and azithromycin reported adverse events such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, mild gastrointestinal disturbances, and metallic taste. No serious adverse events were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-certainty evidence (for long-term follow-up) to inform clinicians and patients if adjunctive systemic antimicrobials are of any help for the non-surgical treatment of periodontitis. There is insufficient evidence to decide whether some antibiotics are better than others when used alongside SRP. None of the trials reported serious adverse events but patients should be made aware of the common adverse events related to these drugs. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted clearly defining the minimally important clinical difference for the outcomes closed pockets, CAL, PD, and BOP.
Topics: Adult; Aggressive Periodontitis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Chronic Periodontitis; Confidence Intervals; Dental Prophylaxis; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33197289
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012568.pub2 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Nov 2021In areas where Lyme disease is endemic, bites from ticks are common, but no vaccine is currently available against Lyme disease for humans. Therefore, the feasibility of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In areas where Lyme disease is endemic, bites from ticks are common, but no vaccine is currently available against Lyme disease for humans. Therefore, the feasibility of using antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent Lyme disease after a tick bite is worth further exploration. Previous meta-analyses lack sufficient power to demonstrate the efficacy of about antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of Lyme disease following a tick bite. In this study, we explored more precise evidence and attempted to identify and update optimum treatment strategies.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies until March 23, 2021. We included studies if the enrolled patients were randomly allocated to a treatment or control group within 72 h following a tick bite and had no clinical evidence of Lyme disease at enrolment. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed for data abstraction. Two authors (GZZ and XX) independently reviewed the abstracts and identified articles for detailed assessment. We used a random-effects model to calculate the pooled results and reported the 95% confidence interval (CI). Study quality was assessed using a modified Jadad scale, and publication bias was assessed using Egger's test. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for the rates of unfavorable events in patients who received intervention versus the control group. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42021245002.
RESULTS
Six studies (3,766 individuals) were included. The pooled rate of unfavorable events in persons receiving treatment and the control group were 0.4% (95%CI: 0.1-1.1%) and 2.2% (95%CI: 1.6-3.0%), respectively. The pooled RR was 0.38 (95%CI: 0.22-0.66). Subgroup analysis revealed that the pooled RR was 0.29 (95%CI: 0.14-0.60) in the single-use 200-mg doxycycline group; 0.28 (95%CI: 0.05-1.67) in a 10-day course group (Amoxicillin, Penicillin or tetracycline); and 0.73 (95%CI: 0.25-2.08) in a topical antibiotic treatment group (Azithromycin).
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence supports the use of antibiotics for the prevention of Lyme disease, and reveals advantages of using single-dose; however, further confirmation is needed.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Doxycycline; Humans; Lyme Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tick Bites
PubMed: 34749665
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06837-7 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jan 2024Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials was conducted to compare the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of lower third molars with different prophylactic antibiotics. The occurrence of any antibiotic-related adverse event was also analysed. A pairwise and network meta-analysis was performed to establish direct and indirect comparisons of each outcome variable. Sixteen articles involving 2158 patients (2428 lower third molars) were included, and the following antibiotics were analysed: amoxicillin (with and without clavulanic acid), metronidazole, azithromycin, and clindamycin. Pooled results favoured the use of antibiotics to reduce dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of a lower third molar, with a number needed to treat of 25 and 18, respectively. Although antibiotic prophylaxis was found to significantly reduce the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection in patients undergoing lower third molar extraction, the number of patients needed to treat was high. Thus, clinicians should evaluate the need to prescribe antibiotics taking into consideration the patient's systemic status and the individual risk of developing a postoperative infection.
Topics: Humans; Dry Socket; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Surgical Wound Infection; Molar, Third; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 37612199
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2023.08.001 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2011Acute sinusitis is defined pathologically, by transient inflammation of the mucosal lining of the paranasal sinuses lasting less than 4 weeks. Clinically, it is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute sinusitis is defined pathologically, by transient inflammation of the mucosal lining of the paranasal sinuses lasting less than 4 weeks. Clinically, it is characterised by nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, facial pain, hyposmia, sneezing, and, if more severe, additional malaise and fever. It affects 1% to 5% of the adult population each year in Europe.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in people with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis, and in people with radiologically or bacteriologically confirmed acute sinusitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2011 (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 19 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: antibiotics (amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid [co-amoxiclav], doxycycline, cephalosporins, macrolides; different doses, long-course regimens), antihistamines, decongestants (xylometazoline, phenylephrine, pseudoephedrine), saline nasal washes, steam inhalation, and topical corticosteroids (intranasal).
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Amoxicillin; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Double-Blind Method; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Macrolides; Sinusitis
PubMed: 22189346
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2015Genital chlamydia is the most commonly reported bacterial sexually transmitted infection in developed countries. The majority of infections affect young adults under the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Genital chlamydia is the most commonly reported bacterial sexually transmitted infection in developed countries. The majority of infections affect young adults under the age of 25 years.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of antibiotic treatment for men and non-pregnant women with uncomplicated genital chlamydial infection? What are the effects of antibiotic treatment for pregnant women with uncomplicated genital chlamydial infection? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2014 (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 26 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 - for men and non-pregnant women: antibiotics (single-dose) and antibiotics (multiple-dose regimens); for pregnant women: antibiotics (single-dose), erythromycin or amoxicillin (multiple-dose regimens), and clindamycin (multiple-dose regimens).
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlamydia; Chlamydia Infections; Female; Genital Diseases, Female; Genital Diseases, Male; Humans; Male; Pregnancy
PubMed: 25880031
DOI: No ID Found -
Digestion 2023Vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, has a strong acid suppression effect and potent efficacy in acid-associated diseases, including Helicobacter... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, has a strong acid suppression effect and potent efficacy in acid-associated diseases, including Helicobacter pylori eradication. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy for H. pylori eradication.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search through PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to June 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy and triple therapies for H. pylori eradication. Primary outcomes were cure rates and relative efficacy. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, dropout rate, and subgroup analysis.
RESULTS
Five studies with 1,852 patients were included in the analysis. The cure rates of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy were 85.6% with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 79.7-91.5% and 88.5% (95% CI: 83.2-93.8%) in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. The efficacy of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy was not inferior to that of triple therapy with pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.03 (95% CI: 0.97-1.10) and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.98-1.08) in intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses; while it was significantly superior to the omeprazole or lansoprazole-based triple therapy (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.05-1.25, p = 0.001). For clarithromycin-resistant strains, vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy showed superiority to vonoprazan-based triple therapy (86.7% vs. 71.4%, RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.39, p = 0.02); however, vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy was significant inferior to vonoprazan-based triple therapy for clarithromycin-sensitive strains (83.0% vs. 92.8%, RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.85-0.95, p = 0.0002). The adverse effects of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy were lower than those of triple therapy (21.2% vs. 26.5%, RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.73-1.01, p = 0.06), especially the incidence of diarrhea (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy is noninferior to vonoprazan-based triple therapy but superior to the omeprazole or lansoprazole-based triple therapy and has less side effects. Patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains are particularly expected to benefit from vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy.
Topics: Humans; Amoxicillin; Clarithromycin; Helicobacter pylori; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Helicobacter Infections; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Pyrroles; Lansoprazole; Omeprazole; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37015201
DOI: 10.1159/000529622 -
Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology :... 2023Vonoprazan-amoxicillin (VA) dual therapy has recently been proposed to eradicate Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) with controversial results. We, therefore, conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vonoprazan-amoxicillin (VA) dual therapy has recently been proposed to eradicate Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) with controversial results. We, therefore, conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of this therapy for H. pylori eradication.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science database from inception until November 2022, collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VA dual therapy with other regimens for H. pylori eradication. Pooled relative risks (RRs) were calculated using random effects model.
RESULTS
Five RCTs were ultimately included. Compared with the vonoprazan-amoxicillin-clarithromycin (VAC) triple therapy, the eradication rate of VA dual therapy was lower in intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (n = 3 RCTs, RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-0.99, P = 0.03), but there was no significant difference between them in the per-protocol (PP) analysis (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91-1.01, P = 0.11). For clarithromycin-resistant H. pylori strains, the eradication rate of VA dual therapy was significantly higher than that of the VAC triple therapy (n = 2 RCTs, RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.39, P = 0.02). Compared with the PPI-based triple therapy (PAC), VA dual therapy had a superior eradication rate (n = 2 RCTs, ITT analysis: RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.04-1.23, P = 0.003; PP analysis: pooled RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.06-1.22, P = 0.0004). Compared with VAC or PAC triple therapy, VA dual therapy has a similar incidence of total adverse events and compliance.
CONCLUSIONS
VA dual therapy had a similar effect compared to VAC triple therapy and was superior to PAC triple therapy. Future RCTs are needed to ascertain the optimal dosage and duration of vonoprazan and amoxicillin, and the effect of VA dual therapy compared with the mainstream regimens recommended by current guidelines.
Topics: Humans; Amoxicillin; Clarithromycin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Helicobacter pylori; Helicobacter Infections; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Drug Therapy, Combination; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37602635
DOI: 10.4103/sjg.sjg_153_23 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2008Acute sinusitis is defined pathologically, by transient inflammation of the mucosal lining of the paranasal sinuses lasting less than 4 weeks. Clinically, it is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute sinusitis is defined pathologically, by transient inflammation of the mucosal lining of the paranasal sinuses lasting less than 4 weeks. Clinically, it is characterised by nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, facial pain, hyposmia, sneezing, and, if more severe, additional malaise and fever. It affects 1-5% of the adult population each year in Europe.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in people with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis, and with radiologically or bacteriologically confirmed acute sinusitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to August 2007 (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 19 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: antibiotics (amoxicillin, co-amoxiclav, doxycycline, cephalosporins, macrolides, different doses [amoxicillin, co-amoxiclav, doxycycline, cephalosporins, macrolides], long-course regimens), antihistamines, cephalosporins or macrolides, decongestants (xylometazoline, phenylephrine, pseudoephedrine), doxycycline, saline nasal washes, steam inhalation, and topical corticosteroids (intra-nasal).
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Amoxicillin; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Double-Blind Method; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Macrolides; Sinusitis
PubMed: 19450327
DOI: No ID Found