-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2023Percutaneous treatment for primary aneurysmal bone cysts (ABCs) has been widely accepted. The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various sclerotherapy agents on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous treatment for primary aneurysmal bone cysts (ABCs) has been widely accepted. The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various sclerotherapy agents on patients with primary ABCs.
METHODS
A meta-analysis of relevant studies. A systematic search was conducted on five databases, resulting in the inclusion of 25 studies with different percutaneous agents.
RESULTS
A total of 729 patients with primary ABCs were included. Patients were administered with Ethibloc, doxycycline, embolization, alcohol, polidocanol, and calcitonin with methylprednisolone, respectively. Overall, 542 (74.3%) patients with ABCs had complete healing, 120 (16.4%) had partial healing, 44 (6%) had no-ossification or failure, and 26 (3.5%) had a recurrence. However, there was a total of 45 (6.1%) patients who had surgical curettage after sclerotherapy. Among the sclerotherapy agents, doxycycline showed highly effective results with minimal complications and recurrence, but it required multiple injections per patient. Ethibloc and embolization also proved to be highly effective with fewer injections required but had a higher rate of complications. Absolute alcohol, polidocanol, and calcitonin with methylprednisolone had similar efficacity and favorable success with fewer complications and fewer injections.
CONCLUSION
Percutaneous treatment showed promising results in treating primary ABCs. However, more robust research is needed to establish the best approach for sclerotherapy in clinical practice and to address the limitations of the current literature.
PubMed: 38068264
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12237213 -
Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen... Jan 2021Low-dose doxycycline (SDD) is an antimicrobial agent that appears to improve common inflammatory skin diseases. Few data are available regarding the overall... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Low-dose doxycycline (SDD) is an antimicrobial agent that appears to improve common inflammatory skin diseases. Few data are available regarding the overall effectiveness, appropriate length of treatment and optimal patient selection for rosacea. We therefore reviewed the efficacy of sub-antimicrobial doses of SDD in papulopustular rosacea (PPR) and aimed to determine the most suitable patients for this approach.
METHODS
From July to September 2019, we carried out a comprehensive search of literature from five databases, using a combination of "rosacea" AND "doxycycline".
RESULTS
Our search yielded 532 potentially relevant studies. Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between SDD and a comparator (RR: 1.12, 95 % CI: 0.78-1.62, I = 86 %). Subgroup analysis of studies comparing doxycycline with placebo yielded a clear difference in favor of doxycycline (RR: 1.45, 95 % CI: 1.22-1.72, I = 31 %), while subgroup analysis of studies comparing active drugs revealed no difference between interventions (RR: 0.52, 95 % CI: 0.17-1.63, I = 90 %).
CONCLUSIONS
There is strong evidence that SDD is more effective than placebo. However, other drugs such as minocycline or isotretinoin have shown outcomes at least similar to that of SDD. We suggest that the anti-inflammatory properties of SDD may be of more value for mild cases of rosacea than for moderate to severe cases, for which higher (antimicrobial) doses of doxycycline may be a more suitable choice.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Doxycycline; Humans; Rosacea
PubMed: 32989925
DOI: 10.1111/ddg.14247 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is an infection that affects 4% to 12% of young women, and is one of the most common causes of morbidity in this age group. The main... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is an infection that affects 4% to 12% of young women, and is one of the most common causes of morbidity in this age group. The main intervention for acute PID is the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics which cover Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and anaerobic bacteria, administered intravenously, intramuscularly, or orally. In this review, we assessed the optimal treatment regimen for PID.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic regimens used to treat pelvic inflammatory disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Review Group's Specialized Register, which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1944 to 2016, located through electronic searching and handsearching; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid platform (1991 to July 2016); MEDLINE (1946 to July 2016); Embase (1947 to July 2016); LILACS, iAHx interface (1982 to July 2016); World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (July 2016); Web of Science (2001 to July 2016); OpenGrey (1990, 1992, 1995, 1996, and 1997); and abstracts in selected publications.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing the use of antibiotics with placebo or other antibiotics for the treatment of PID in women of reproductive age, either as inpatient or outpatient treatment. We limited our review to comparison of drugs in current use that are recommended for consideration by the 2015 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for treatment of PID.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a fourth review author if necessary. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria, classifying it as high, moderate, low, or very low. We calculated Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RR), using either random-effects or fixed-effect models and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome or for an additional harmful outcome, with their 95% confidence interval (CI), to measure the effect of the treatments. We conducted sensitivity analyses limited to studies at low risk of bias, for comparisons where such studies were available.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 37 RCTs (6348 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to high, the main limitations being serious risk of bias (due to poor reporting of study methods and lack of blinding), serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision. Azithromycin versus doxycyclineThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the two drugs in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.55, I = 72%, 2 RCTs, 243 women, very low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05, 1 RCT, 309 women, low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.34, 3 RCTs, 552 women, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). In a sensitivity analysis limited to a single study at low risk of bias, azithromycin was superior to doxycycline in achieving cure in mild-moderate PID (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.67, 133 women, moderate-quality evidence). Quinolone versus cephalosporinThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the two drugs in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.10, 3 RCTs, 459 women, I = 5%, low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.23, 2 RCTs, 313 women, I = 7%, low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 2.24, 95% CI 0.52 to 9.72, 5 RCTs, 772 women, I = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Nitroimidazole versus no use of nitroimidazoleThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the nitroimidazoles (metronidazole) group and the group receiving other drugs with activity over anaerobes (e.g. amoxicillin-clavulanate) in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10, 5 RCTs, 2427 women, I = 60%, moderate-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01, 11 RCTs, 1383 women, I = 0%, moderate-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.59; participants = 3788; studies = 16; I = 0% , low-quality evidence). In a sensitivity analysis limited to studies at low risk of bias, findings did not differ substantially from the main analysis (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.15, 2 RCTs, 1201 women, I = 32%, high-quality evidence). Clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus quinoloneThere was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.13, 1 RCT, 25 women, very low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19, 2 studies, 151 women, I = 0%, low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.72, 3 RCTs, 163 women, very low-quality evidence). Clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus cephalosporinThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the two groups in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09, 2 RCTs, 150 women, I = 0%, low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06, 10 RCTs, 959 women, I = 21%, moderate-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.42, 10 RCTs, 1172 women, I = 0%, very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no conclusive evidence that one regimen of antibiotics was safer or more effective than any other for the cure of PID, and there was no clear evidence for the use of nitroimidazoles (metronidazole) compared to use of other drugs with activity over anaerobes. Moderate-quality evidence from a single study at low risk of bias suggested that a macrolide (azithromycin) may be more effective than a tetracycline (doxycycline) for curing mild-moderate PID. Our review considered only the drugs that are currently used and mentioned by the CDC.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Cephalosporins; Clindamycin; Doxycycline; Female; Humans; Nitroimidazoles; Pelvic Inflammatory Disease; Publication Bias; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28436019
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010285.pub2 -
Cureus Apr 2024Acne vulgaris, commonly called acne, is a skin condition affecting many individuals globally. It is a chronic condition characterized by developing pimples, blackheads... (Review)
Review
Acne vulgaris, commonly called acne, is a skin condition affecting many individuals globally. It is a chronic condition characterized by developing pimples, blackheads (open comedones), whiteheads (closed comedones), and other skin lesions. Acne usually appears on the face, neck, chest, and back. It is commonly associated with puberty and adolescence but can also affect adults of all ages. Acne can be very frustrating and embarrassing, leading to low self-esteem and social isolation. The condition arises from various factors, including clogged pores, excessive sebum production, bacteria, and inflammation. This systematic review assesses the effectiveness of topical antibiotics, retinoids, niacinamide, azelaic acid, and clascoterone in treating mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris. A comprehensive search across PubMed, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar yielded 10 articles focused on topical antibiotics, with findings from 198 subjects indicating the efficacy of doxycycline against inflammatory lesions. Retinoids, such as tretinoin and adapalene, significantly improved both lesion types (open and closed comedones). Niacinamide, examined in a randomized controlled trial involving 41 participants, reduced sebum production. Another study with 60 patients revealed that azelaic acid effectively reduced both inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions. Clascoterone emerged as a promising antiandrogenic treatment, supported by a randomized controlled trial involving 4,440 patients. It is essential that individualized therapy, incorporating patient preferences and considering adverse effects, is emphasized for optimizing acne management.
PubMed: 38725769
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.57909 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2022To explore the efficacy and safety of drugs in patients with scrub typhus. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To explore the efficacy and safety of drugs in patients with scrub typhus.
METHODS
For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang data (WF) up to December 2021. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antibiotics used to treat scrub typhus were included without language or date restrictions. The overall effectiveness was evaluated from 4 perspectives: cure rate (CR), defervescence time (DT), gastrointestinal symptoms-adverse events (GS-AD), and abnormal blood count-adverse events (ABC-AD). The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE system.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies involving 1,582 patients were included to evaluate 7 drugs, namely, azithromycin, doxycycline, chloramphenicol, tetracycline, rifampin, moxifloxacin, and telithromycin. In this network meta-analysis, rifampicin (82%) and chloramphenicol (65%) were more effective in terms of CR, and moxifloxacin (3%) from the quinolone family was the worst. Azithromycin caused the fewest events in terms of ABC-AD. No differences were found in this network meta-analysis (NMA) in terms of DT and GS-AD.
CONCLUSIONS
Rifampicin was associated with the highest CR benefit and the lowest risk of DT when used to treat patients with scrub typhus, except in areas where tuberculosis (TB) was endemic. Azithromycin was found to be better in CR and was associated with a lower probability of GS-AD and ABC-AD; therefore, it may be considered to treat pregnant women and children. Moxifloxacin had a much lower CR than other drugs and is, therefore, not recommended for the management of scrub typhus.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42021287837.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Child; Chloramphenicol; Female; Humans; Moxifloxacin; Network Meta-Analysis; Rifampin; Scrub Typhus
PubMed: 35570886
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.883945 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2012Minocycline is an oral antibiotic used for acne vulgaris. Its use has lessened due to safety concerns (including potentially irreversible pigmentation), a relatively... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Minocycline is an oral antibiotic used for acne vulgaris. Its use has lessened due to safety concerns (including potentially irreversible pigmentation), a relatively high cost, and no evidence of any greater benefit than other acne treatments. A modified-release version of minocycline is being promoted as having fewer side-effects.
OBJECTIVES
To assess new evidence on the effects of minocycline for acne vulgaris.
SEARCH METHODS
Searches were updated in the following databases to November 2011: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched trials registers and checked reference lists for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).The Cochrane Skin Group's Trials Search Co-ordinator undertook searches exploring minocycline's adverse effects in EMBASE and MEDLINE in February 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing minocycline, at any dose, to an active or a placebo control, in participants with inflammatory acne vulgaris. For adverse effects, we selected additional studies that reported the number of adverse effects and the number of participants treated.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Outcome measures used in the trials included lesion counts, acne grades/severity scores, doctors' and participants' global assessments, adverse effects, and dropout rates. Two authors independently assessed the quality of each study. Effect sizes were calculated, and meta-analyses were undertaken where possible.Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria for the review of adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 new RCTs for this update, giving a total of 39 RCTs (6013 participants). These additional 12 RCTs have not changed the original conclusions about the clinical efficacy of minocycline.The identified RCTs were generally small and poor quality. Meta-analysis was rarely possible because of the lack of data and different outcome measures and trial durations. Although minocycline was shown to be an effective treatment for moderate to moderately-severe acne vulgaris, there was no evidence that it is better than any of the other commonly-used acne treatments. One company-sponsored RCT found minocycline to be less effective than combination treatment with topical erythromycin and zinc. No trials have been conducted using minocycline in those participants whose acne is resistant to other therapies. Also, there is no evidence to guide what dose should be used.The adverse effects studies must be interpreted with caution. The evidence suggests that minocycline is associated with more severe adverse effects than doxycycline. Minocycline, but not other tetracyclines, is associated with lupus erythematosus, but the risk is small: 8.8 cases per 100,000 person-years. The risk of autoimmune reactions increases with duration of use. The evidence does not support the conclusion that the more expensive extended-release preparation is safer than standard minocycline preparations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Minocycline is an effective treatment for moderate to moderately-severe inflammatory acne vulgaris, but there is still no evidence that it is superior to other commonly-used therapies. This review found no reliable evidence to justify the reinstatement of its first-line use, even though the price-differential is less than it was 10 years ago. Concerns remain about its safety compared to other tetracyclines.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Minocycline; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 22895927
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002086.pub2 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Jul 2021Antibiotic consumption is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance (AR), particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where risk factors for AR emergence and...
Antibiotic consumption is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance (AR), particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where risk factors for AR emergence and spread are prevalent. However, the potential contribution of mass drug administration (MDA) and systematic drug administration (SDA) of antibiotics to AR spread is unknown. We conducted a systematic review to provide an overview of MDA/SDA in LMICs, including indications, antibiotics used and, if investigated, levels of AR over time. This systematic review is reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Of 2438 identified articles, 63 were reviewed: indications for MDA/SDA were various, and targeted populations were particularly vulnerable, including pregnant women, children, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected populations, and communities in outbreak settings. Available data suggest that MDA/SDA may lead to a significant increase in AR, especially following azithromycin administration. However, only 40% of studies evaluated AR. Integrative approaches that evaluate AR in addition to clinical outcomes are needed to understand the consequences of MDA/SDA implementation, combined with standardised AR surveillance for timely detection of AR emergence.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Azithromycin; Ciprofloxacin; Developing Countries; Doxycycline; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Drug Utilization; Female; Humans; Mass Drug Administration; Pregnancy; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination
PubMed: 34044108
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106364 -
European Journal of Vascular and... May 2021
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Animals; Aorta, Abdominal; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Disease Models, Animal; Doxycycline; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Metalloproteases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33674154
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.01.023 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) May 2024Street food may be a vehicle of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) to humans. Foods contaminated with ARB entail serious problems... (Review)
Review
Street food may be a vehicle of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) to humans. Foods contaminated with ARB entail serious problems or challenges in the fields of medical care, animal husbandry, food industry, and public health worldwide. The objectives of this systematic review were to identify and evaluate scientific reports associated with ARB isolated from various street foods. "Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis" (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The bibliographic material covers a period from January 2015 to April 2024. Six electronic scientific databases were searched individually for full-text articles; only those papers that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected. Seventeen papers were included in this systematic review. This study highlighted the wide distribution of ARB resistant to β-lactams and other antibiotics, posing significant health risks to consumers. High resistance levels were observed for antibiotics such as ampicillin, ceftriaxone, and tetracycline, while some antibiotics, such as ceftazidime, clavulanic acid, cefoperazone, cotrimoxazole, doxycycline, doripenem, fosfomycin, vancomycin, and piperacillin-tazobactam, demonstrated 100% susceptibility. The prevalence of ARB in street foods varied between 5.2% and 70.8% among different countries. The multiple resistance of various bacteria, including , , , and , to multiple classes of antibiotics, as well as environmental factors contributing to the spread of antibiotic resistance (AR), emphasize the urgent need for comprehensive approaches and coordinated efforts to confront antimicrobial resistance (AMR) under the "One Health" paradigm.
PubMed: 38927148
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics13060481 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016Onchocerciasis, also known as "river blindness," is a parasitic disease that is caused by infection from the filarial nematode (roundworm), Onchocerca volvulus.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Onchocerciasis, also known as "river blindness," is a parasitic disease that is caused by infection from the filarial nematode (roundworm), Onchocerca volvulus. Nematodes are transmitted from person to person by blackflies of the Simulium genus, which usually breed in fast flowing streams and rivers. The disease is the second leading infectious cause of blindness in endemic areas.Ivermectin (a microfilaricide) is widely distributed to endemic populations for prevention and treatment of onchocerciasis. Doxycycline, an antibiotic, targets Wolbachia organisms that are crucial to the survival of adult onchocerca (macrofilaricide). Combined treatment with both drugs is believed to cause direct microfilarial death by ivermectin and indirect macrofilarial death by doxycycline. Long-term reduction in the numbers of microfilaria in the skin and eyes and in the numbers of adult worms in the body has the potential to reduce the transmission and occurrence of onchocercal eye disease.
OBJECTIVES
The primary aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone for prevention and treatment of onchocerciasis. The secondary aim was to assess the effectiveness of doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone for prevention and treatment of onchocercal ocular lesions in communities co-endemic for onchocerciasis and Loa loa (loiasis) infection.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 7, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2015), PubMed (1948 to July 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to July 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 1 July 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 July 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had compared doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone. Participants with or without one or more characteristic signs of ocular onchocerciasis resided in communities where onchocerciasis was endemic.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified three RCTs including a total of 466 participants with a diagnosis of onchocerciasis. All trials compared doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone. One study investigated improvement in visual impairment at six-month follow-up; the other two studies measured microfilarial loads in skin snips to assess sustained effects of treatment at follow-up of 21 months or longer. The studies were conducted at various centers across three countries (Cameroon, Ghana, and Liberia). We judged all studies to be at overall high risk of bias because of inadequate randomization and lack of masking (one study), missing data (two studies), and selective outcome reporting (three studies).Only one study measured visual outcomes. This study reported uncertainty about the difference in the proportion of participants with improvement in visual impairment at six-month follow-up for doxycycline plus ivermectin compared with ivermectin alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.80 to 1.39; 240 participants; very low-quality evidence). No participant in either group showed improvement in optic atrophy, chorioretinitis, or sclerosing keratitis at six-month follow-up. More participants in the doxycycline plus ivermectin group than in the ivermectin alone group showed improvement in iridocyclitis (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.22) and punctate keratitis (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.00) at six-month follow-up; however, we graded these results as very low quality.Two studies reported that a six-week course of doxycycline may result in Wolbachia depletion and macrofilaricidal and sterilizing activities in female Onchocerca worms; however, no analysis was possible because data were missing and incomplete (graded evidence as very low quality). Adverse events were reported in 16 of 135 (12%) participants in one of these studies and included itching, headaches, body pains, and vertigo; no difference between treatment groups was reported for any adverse event. The second study reported that one (1.3%) participant in the doxycycline plus ivermectin group had bloody diarrhea after treatment was initiated.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence on the effectiveness of doxycycline plus ivermectin compared with ivermectin alone in preventing and treating onchocerciasis is unclear. Limited evidence of very low quality from two studies indicates that a six-week course of doxycycline followed by ivermectin may result in more frequent macrofilaricidal and microfilaricidal activity and sterilization of female adult Onchocerca compared with ivermectin alone; however, effects on vision-related outcomes are uncertain. Future studies should consider the effectiveness of treatments in preventing visual acuity and visual field loss and their effects on anterior and posterior segment lesions, particularly chorioretinitis. These studies should report outcomes in a uniform and consistent manner at follow-up of three years or longer to allow detection of meaningful changes in vision-related outcomes.
Topics: Doxycycline; Drug Therapy, Combination; Filaricides; Humans; Ivermectin; Onchocerciasis; Onchocerciasis, Ocular; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vision Disorders
PubMed: 26771164
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011146.pub2