-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Corticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), but the effectiveness of additional treatment with an antiviral agent is...
BACKGROUND
Corticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), but the effectiveness of additional treatment with an antiviral agent is uncertain. This review was first published in 2001 and most recently updated in 2015. Since a significant benefit of corticosteroids for the early management of Bell's palsy has been demonstrated, the main focus of this update, as in the previous version, was to determine the effect of adding antivirals to corticosteroid treatment. We undertook this update to integrate additional evidence and to better assess the robustness of findings, taking risk of bias fully into account.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antiviral treatments alone or in combination with any other therapy for Bell's palsy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS in July 2019. We reviewed the bibliographies of the identified trials and contacted trial authors to identify additional published or unpublished data. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antivirals with and without corticosteroids versus control therapies for the treatment of Bell's palsy. We excluded trials that followed-up participants for less than three months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently assessed trials for relevance, eligibility, and risk of bias, using standard Cochrane procedures. We performed sensitivity analyses excluding trials at high or unclear risk of bias in at least five domains, and reported these data as the primary analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen trials, including 2488 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias in multiple domains. We included four new studies at this update.Incomplete recoveryA combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in people with Bell's palsy compared to corticosteroids alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.74; 3 trials, N = 766; random-effects; low-certainty evidence). We excluded 10 trials that were at high or unclear risk of bias in several domains from this analysis and limited all analyses to studies at lower risk of bias. Recovery rates were better in participants receiving corticosteroids alone than antivirals alone (RR 2.69, 95% CI 0.73 to 10.01; 2 trials, N = 667; random-effects), but the result was imprecise and allowed for the possibility of no effect. The rate of incomplete recovery was lower with antivirals plus corticosteroids than with placebo or no treatment (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.76; 2 trials, N = 658; random-effects). Antivirals alone had no clear effect on incomplete recovery rates compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40; 2 trials, N = 658; fixed-effect). For people with severe Bell's palsy (House-Brackmann score of 5 and 6, or equivalent on other scales), we found that the combination of antivirals and corticosteroids had no clear effect on incomplete recovery at month six compared to corticosteroids alone, although the result was again imprecise (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 2 trials, N = 98; random-effects).Motor synkinesis or crocodile tearsAntivirals plus corticosteroids reduced the proportion of participants who experienced these long-term sequelae from Bell's palsy compared to placebo plus corticosteroids (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87; 2 trials, N = 469; fixed-effect; moderate-certainty evidence). Antivirals plus corticosteroids reduced long-term sequelae compared to placebo but there was no clear difference in this outcome with antivirals alone compared to placebo.Adverse events Adverse event data were available in four studies providing data on 1592 participants. None of the four comparisons showed clear differences in adverse events between treatment and comparison arms (very low-certainty evidence); for the comparison of antivirals plus corticosteroids and corticosteroids alone in studies at lower risk of bias, the RR was 1.17 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.69; 2 trials, N = 656; fixed-effect; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in comparison to corticosteroids alone in Bell's palsy of various degrees of severity, or in people with severe Bell's palsy, but the results were very imprecise. Corticosteroids alone were probably more effective than antivirals alone and antivirals plus corticosteroids were more effective than placebo or no treatment. There was no clear benefit from antivirals alone over placebo.The combination of antivirals and corticosteroids probably reduced the late sequelae of Bell's palsy compared with corticosteroids alone. Studies also showed fewer episodes of long-term sequelae in corticosteroid-treated participants than antiviral-treated participants.We found no clear difference in adverse events from the use of antivirals compared with either placebo or corticosteroids, but the evidence is too uncertain for us to draw conclusions.An adequately powered RCT in people with Bell's palsy that compares different antiviral agents may be indicated.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antiviral Agents; Bell Palsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31486071
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001869.pub9 -
Supportive care and antiviral treatments in primary herpetic gingivostomatitis: a systematic review.Clinical Oral Investigations Nov 2023Herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) is the main pathogen responsible for herpes infections. In 13-30% of the cases, primary HSV-1 leads to the primary herpetic... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) is the main pathogen responsible for herpes infections. In 13-30% of the cases, primary HSV-1 leads to the primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (PHGS), often a self-limiting infection; however, it can limit the ability to drink/eat with, sometimes, the need for hospitalization. Multiple therapeutic methods have been proposed. This systematic review aims to collect and critically appraise the available evidence about the clinical management of PHGS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Literature search including three databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase), study design, and data analysis were performed following PRISMA guidelines, according to the PICO tool (PROSPERO n° CRD42023391386). Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I.
RESULTS
Five studies on a total of 364 patients (average age: 7.6 years) were identified. The treatment regimens were summarized in acyclovir; acyclovir + honey; fluids and analgesic; maalox + diphenhydramine; lidocaine; chlorhexidine (CHX); CHX + ialuronic acid; CHX + Mucosyte®; antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT); topical antiviral; topical antiviral + aPDT; and others.
CONCLUSIONS
Although PHGS is a disease with a high worldwide prevalence, the lack of consensus about therapeutic management indicates gaps in existing evidence. Most of the proposed treatment consists in symptomatic drugs with empiric regimens which are ineffective for the viral replication. The main limit to realize randomized clinical trial is due to the rapid onset and remission of the disease. In fact, the diagnostic delay, estimated in 72 h, decreases the effectiveness of any antiviral drugs.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Out of the five studies included in this systematic review, only one was able to provide some weak evidence that ACV is an effective treatment, improving healing of oral lesions and reducing duration of symptoms.
Topics: Humans; Child; Stomatitis, Herpetic; Delayed Diagnosis; Antiviral Agents; Acyclovir; Lidocaine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37733027
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05250-5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2014Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide.
OBJECTIVES
To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers.
MAIN RESULTS
We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage 2 (formal analysis), including 20 oseltamivir (9623 participants) and 26 zanamivir trials (14,628 participants). Inadequate reporting put most of the zanamivir studies and half of the oseltamivir studies at a high risk of selection bias. There were inadequate measures in place to protect 11 studies of oseltamivir from performance bias due to non-identical presentation of placebo. Attrition bias was high across the oseltamivir studies and there was also evidence of selective reporting for both the zanamivir and oseltamivir studies. The placebo interventions in both sets of trials may have contained active substances. Time to first symptom alleviation. For the treatment of adults, oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms by 16.8 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours, P < 0.0001). This represents a reduction in the time to first alleviation of symptoms from 7 to 6.3 days. There was no effect in asthmatic children, but in otherwise healthy children there was (reduction by a mean difference of 29 hours, 95% CI 12 to 47 hours, P = 0.001). Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days, P < 0.00001), equating to a reduction in the mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 to 6.0 days. The effect in children was not significant. In subgroup analysis we found no evidence of a difference in treatment effect for zanamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults in the influenza-infected and non-influenza-infected subgroups (P = 0.53). Hospitalisations. Treatment of adults with oseltamivir had no significant effect on hospitalisations: risk difference (RD) 0.15% (95% CI -0.78 to 0.91). There was also no significant effect in children or in prophylaxis. Zanamivir hospitalisation data were unreported. Serious influenza complications or those leading to study withdrawal. In adult treatment trials, oseltamivir did not significantly reduce those complications classified as serious or those which led to study withdrawal (RD 0.07%, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.44), nor in child treatment trials; neither did zanamivir in the treatment of adults or in prophylaxis. There were insufficient events to compare this outcome for oseltamivir in prophylaxis or zanamivir in the treatment of children. Pneumonia. Oseltamivir significantly reduced self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia (RD 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.49); number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 100 (95% CI 67 to 451) in the treated population. The effect was not significant in the five trials that used a more detailed diagnostic form for pneumonia. There were no definitions of pneumonia (or other complications) in any trial. No oseltamivir treatment studies reported effects on radiologically confirmed pneumonia. There was no significant effect on unverified pneumonia in children. There was no significant effect of zanamivir on either self reported or radiologically confirmed pneumonia. In prophylaxis, zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41); NNTB = 311 (95% CI 244 to 1086), but not oseltamivir. Bronchitis, sinusitis and otitis media. Zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of bronchitis in adult treatment trials (RD 1.80%, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.80); NNTB = 56 (36 to 155), but not oseltamivir. Neither NI significantly reduced the risk of otitis media and sinusitis in both adults and children. Harms of treatment. Oseltamivir in the treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.39); number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 28 (95% CI 14 to 112) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39 to 7.58); NNTH = 22 (14 to 42). The proportion of participants with four-fold increases in antibody titre was significantly lower in the treated group compared to the control group (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, I(2) statistic = 0%) (5% absolute difference between arms). Oseltamivir significantly decreased the risk of diarrhoea (RD 2.33%, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.81); NNTB = 43 (95% CI 27 to 709) and cardiac events (RD 0.68%, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.0); NNTB = 148 (101 to 2509) compared to placebo during the on-treatment period. There was a dose-response effect on psychiatric events in the two oseltamivir "pivotal" treatment trials, WV15670 and WV15671, at 150 mg (standard dose) and 300 mg daily (high dose) (P = 0.038). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.29); NNTH = 19 (95% CI 10 to 57). There was a significantly lower proportion of children on oseltamivir with a four-fold increase in antibodies (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00, I(2) = 0%). Prophylaxis. In prophylaxis trials, oseltamivir and zanamivir reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir: RD 3.05% (95% CI 1.83 to 3.88); NNTB = 33 (26 to 55); zanamivir: RD 1.98% (95% CI 0.98 to 2.54); NNTB = 51 (40 to 103)) and in households (oseltamivir: RD 13.6% (95% CI 9.52 to 15.47); NNTB = 7 (6 to 11); zanamivir: RD 14.84% (95% CI 12.18 to 16.55); NNTB = 7 (7 to 9)). There was no significant effect on asymptomatic influenza (oseltamivir: RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.39 to 3.33); zanamivir: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.24)). Non-influenza, influenza-like illness could not be assessed due to data not being fully reported. In oseltamivir prophylaxis studies, psychiatric adverse events were increased in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.76); NNTH = 94 (95% CI 36 to 1538) in the study treatment population. Oseltamivir increased the risk of headaches whilst on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.78); NNTH = 32 (95% CI 18 to 115), renal events whilst on treatment (RD 0.67%, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.01); NNTH = 150 (NNTH 35 to NNTB > 1000) and nausea whilst on treatment (RD 4.15%, 95% CI 0.86 to 9.51); NNTH = 25 (95% CI 11 to 116).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oseltamivir and zanamivir have small, non-specific effects on reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults, but not in asthmatic children. Using either drug as prophylaxis reduces the risk of developing symptomatic influenza. Treatment trials with oseltamivir or zanamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced, because of a lack of diagnostic definitions. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal events in adults and vomiting in children. The lower bioavailability may explain the lower toxicity of zanamivir compared to oseltamivir. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of both NIs for either the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. The influenza virus-specific mechanism of action proposed by the producers does not fit the clinical evidence.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Child; Drug Evaluation; Enzyme Inhibitors; Europe; Health Status; Humans; Influenza, Human; Japan; Legislation, Drug; Neuraminidase; Oseltamivir; Pneumonia; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; United Kingdom; United States; Zanamivir
PubMed: 24718923
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub4 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Genital herpes is an infection with herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) or type 2 (HSV-2), and is among the most common sexually transmitted diseases. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Genital herpes is an infection with herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) or type 2 (HSV-2), and is among the most common sexually transmitted diseases.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent sexual transmission of herpes simplex virus? What are the effects of interventions to prevent transmission of herpes simplex virus from mother to neonate? What are the effects of antiviral treatment in people with a first episode of genital herpes? What are the effects of interventions to reduce the impact of recurrence? What are the effects of treatments in people with genital herpes and HIV? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to January 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 35 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: antivirals, caesarean delivery, condoms, oral aciclovir, psychotherapy, recombinant glycoprotein vaccines, serological screening, and counselling.
Topics: Acyclovir; Antiviral Agents; Condoms; Herpes Genitalis; Herpesvirus 2, Human; Humans
PubMed: 21496359
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Sep 2009Herpes simplex virus type 1 infection usually causes a mild, self-limiting painful blistering around the mouth, with 20% to 40% of adults affected at some time. Primary... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Herpes simplex virus type 1 infection usually causes a mild, self-limiting painful blistering around the mouth, with 20% to 40% of adults affected at some time. Primary infection usually occurs in childhood, after which the virus is thought to remain latent in the trigeminal ganglion. Recurrence may be triggered by factors such as exposure to bright light, stress, and fatigue.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of antiviral treatments for the first attack of herpes labialis? What are the effects of interventions aimed at preventing recurrent attacks of herpes labialis? What are the effects of treatments for recurrent attacks of herpes labialis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2009 (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 27 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: oral antiviral agents, sunscreen, topical anaesthetic agents, topical antiviral agents, and zinc oxide cream.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anesthetics, Local; Antiviral Agents; Dermatologic Agents; Double-Blind Method; Herpes Labialis; Humans
PubMed: 21726482
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2008Bell's palsy is characterised by an acute, unilateral, partial or complete paralysis of the face, which may occur with mild pain, numbness, increased sensitivity to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Bell's palsy is characterised by an acute, unilateral, partial or complete paralysis of the face, which may occur with mild pain, numbness, increased sensitivity to sound, and altered taste. Bell's palsy remains idiopathic, but a proportion may be caused by reactivation of herpes viruses from cranial nerve ganglia. Bell's palsy is most common in people aged 15-40 years, affecting 1 in 60 in their lifetime. Most make a spontaneous recovery within 1 month, but up to 30% have delayed or incomplete recovery.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments in adults and children? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to February 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 eight 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: antiviral treatment, corticosteroids (alone or plus antiviral treatment), facial nerve decompression surgery, and mime therapy.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Antiviral Agents; Bell Palsy; Facial Nerve; Facial Paralysis; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19450338
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2007Genital herpes is an infection with herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) or type 2 (HSV-2), and is among the most common sexually transmitted diseases. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Genital herpes is an infection with herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) or type 2 (HSV-2), and is among the most common sexually transmitted diseases.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent sexual transmission of herpes simplex virus? What are the effects of interventions to prevent transmission of herpes simplex virus from mother to neonate? What are the effects of antiviral treatment in people with a first episode of genital herpes? What are the effects of interventions to reduce the impact of recurrence? What are the effects of treatments in people with genital herpes and HIV? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to August 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 35 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: antivirals, caesarean delivery, condoms, oral acyclovir, psychotherapy, recombinant glycoprotein vaccines, serological screening, and counselling.
Topics: Acyclovir; Antiviral Agents; Herpes Genitalis; Herpesvirus 1, Human; Herpesvirus 2, Human; Humans
PubMed: 19454063
DOI: No ID Found -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Mar 2014To evaluate the impact of antiviral treatment on cytomegalovirus (CMV)-positive ulcerative colitis patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To evaluate the impact of antiviral treatment on cytomegalovirus (CMV)-positive ulcerative colitis patients.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) of comparative cohort and case-control studies published between January 1966 and March 2013. Studies focusing on colectomy series and studies including only less than 3 patients in the treated or non-treated arm were excluded. The primary outcome was colectomy within 30 d of diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included colectomy during the follow-up period Subgroup analyses by method of detection of CMV, study design, risk of bias and country of origin were performed. Quality of studies was evaluated according to modified New-Castle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
After full-text review, nine studies with a total of 176 patients were included in our MA. All the included studies were of low to moderate quality. Patients who have received antiviral treatment had a higher risk of 30-d colectomy (OR = 2.40; 95%CI: 1.05-5.50; I² = 37.2%). A subgroup analysis including only patients in whom CMV diagnosis was based did not demonstrate a significant difference between the groups (OR = 3.41; 95%CI: 0.39-29.83; I² = 56.9%). Analysis of long-term colectomy rates was possible for 6 studies including 110 patients. No statistically significant difference was found between the treated and untreated groups (OR = 1.71; 95%CI: 0.71-4.13; 6 studies, I² = 0%). Analysis of mortality rate was not possible due to a very limited number of cases. Stratification of the outcomes by disease severity was not possible.
CONCLUSION
No positive association between antiviral treatment and a favorable outcome was demonstrated. These findings should be interpreted cautiously due to primary studies' quality and potential biases.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Chi-Square Distribution; Colectomy; Colitis, Ulcerative; Colon; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Humans; Odds Ratio; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24627606
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i10.2695 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Nov 2020
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Humans; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33229356
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.200647-f -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2008Ocular infection with herpes simplex virus (HSV) is usually acquired early in life, with 50% of people from higher and 80% from lower socioeconomic groups in the USA... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Ocular infection with herpes simplex virus (HSV) is usually acquired early in life, with 50% of people from higher and 80% from lower socioeconomic groups in the USA having antibodies by the age of 30 years. Attacks usually resolve spontaneously within 1-2 weeks, but 50% of people will experience a recurrence within 10 years.
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 epithelial keratitis? What are the effects of treatments in people with stomal keratitis? What are the effects of interventions to prevent recurrence of ocular herpes simplex? What are the effects of interventions to prevent recurrence of ocular herpes simplex in people with corneal grafts? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2007 (BMJ 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 seven 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: adding oral aciclovir to topical corticosteroids plus topical antiviral treatment; adding topical corticosteroids to topical antiviral treatment; antiviral agents (topical); debridement; interferons (topical); and oral aciclovir.
Topics: Acute Disease; Acyclovir; Administration, Oral; Antiviral Agents; Debridement; Humans; Interferons; Keratitis, Herpetic; Recurrence
PubMed: 19445742
DOI: No ID Found