-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Scabies is an intensely itchy parasitic infection of the skin. It occurs worldwide, but is particularly problematic in areas of poor sanitation, overcrowding, and social... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Scabies is an intensely itchy parasitic infection of the skin. It occurs worldwide, but is particularly problematic in areas of poor sanitation, overcrowding, and social disruption. In recent years, permethrin and ivermectin have become the most relevant treatment options for scabies.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical permethrin and topical or systemic ivermectin for scabies in people of all ages.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 25 April 2017: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and IndMED. We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the ISRCTN registry, CenterWatch Clinical Trials Listing, ClinicalTrials.gov, TrialsCentral, and the UK Department of Health National Research Register for ongoing trials. We also searched multiple sources for grey literature and checked reference lists of included studies for additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared permethrin or ivermectin against each other for people with scabies of all ages and either sex.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the identified records, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for the included trials.The primary outcome was complete clearance of scabies. Secondary outcomes were number of participants re-treated, number of participants with at least one adverse event, and number of participants withdrawn from study due to an adverse event.We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). If it was not possible to calculate the point estimate, we described the data qualitatively. Where appropriate, we calculated combined effect estimates using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity. We calculated numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome when we found a difference.We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the control rate average to provide illustrative clearance rates in the comparison groups.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen studies (1896 participants) comparing topical permethrin, systemic ivermectin, or topical ivermectin met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the risk of bias in the included trials was moderate: reporting in many studies was poor. Nearly all studies were conducted in South Asia or North Africa, where the disease is more common, and is associated with poverty.EfficacyOral ivermectin (at a standard dose of 200 μg/kg) may lead to slightly lower rates of complete clearance after one week compared to permethrin 5% cream. Using the average clearance rate of 65% in the trials with permethrin, the illustrative clearance with ivermectin is 43% (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.78; 613 participants, 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). However, by week two there may be little or no difference (illustrative clearance of permethrin 74% compared to ivermectin 68%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.08; 459 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). Treatments with one to three doses of ivermectin or one to three applications of permethrin may lead to little or no difference in rates of complete clearance after four weeks' follow-up (illustrative cures with 1 to 3 applications of permethrin 93% and with 1 to 3 doses of ivermectin 86%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 581 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence).After one week of treatment with oral ivermectin at a standard dose of 200 μg/kg or one application of permethrin 5% lotion, there is probably little or no difference in complete clearance rates (illustrative cure rates: permethrin 73%, ivermectin 68%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17; 120 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). After two weeks of treatment, one dose of systemic ivermectin compared to one application of permethrin lotion may lead to similar complete clearance rates (extrapolated cure rates: 67% in both groups; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.29; 120 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence).There is probably little or no difference in rates of complete clearance between systemic ivermectin at standard dose and topical ivermectin 1% lotion four weeks after initiation of treatment (illustrative cure rates: oral ivermectin 97%, ivermectin lotion 96%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03; 272 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Likewise, after four weeks, ivermectin lotion probably leads to little or no difference in rates of complete clearance when compared to permethrin cream (extrapolated cure rates: permethrin cream 94%, ivermectin lotion 96%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 210 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and there is little or no difference among systemic ivermectin in different doses (extrapolated cure rates: 2 doses 90%, 1 dose 87%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 80 participants, 1 study; high-certainty evidence).SafetyReporting of adverse events in the included studies was suboptimal. No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred in either the systemic ivermectin or the permethrin group (moderate-certainty evidence). Two weeks after treatment initiation, there is probably little or no difference in the proportion of participants treated with systemic ivermectin or permethrin cream who experienced at least one adverse event (55 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). After four weeks, ivermectin may lead to a slightly larger proportion of participants with at least one adverse event (extrapolated rates: permethrin 4%, ivermectin 5%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.83; 502 participants, 4 studies; low-certainty evidence).Adverse events in participants treated with topical ivermectin were rare and of mild intensity and comparable to those with systemic ivermectin. For this comparison, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in the number of participants with at least one adverse event (very low-certainty evidence). No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred (62 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether topical ivermectin or permethrin differ in the number of participants with at least one adverse event (very low-certainty evidence). We found no studies comparing systemic ivermectin in different doses that assessed safety outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that for the most part, there was no difference detected in the efficacy of permethrin compared to systemic or topical ivermectin. Overall, few and mild adverse events were reported. Our confidence in the effect estimates was mostly low to moderate. Poor reporting is a major limitation.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Antiparasitic Agents; Humans; Ivermectin; Permethrin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scabies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29608022
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012994 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2008Scabies is a common public health problem, with an estimated prevalence of 300 million cases worldwide, the majority in resource-poor countries. In industrialised... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Scabies is a common public health problem, with an estimated prevalence of 300 million cases worldwide, the majority in resource-poor countries. In industrialised countries, it is most common in institutionalised communities.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of topical treatments for scabies? What are the effects of systemic treatments for scabies? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 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 two 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: benzyl benzoate (topical), crotamiton (topical), lindane (topical), malathion (topical), ivermectin (oral), permethrin (topical), and sulphur compounds (topical).
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Hexachlorocyclohexane; Humans; Insecticides; Ivermectin; Malathion; Permethrin; Scabies
PubMed: 19445807
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2011Head lice can only be diagnosed by finding live lice, as eggs take 7 days to hatch and may appear viable for weeks after death of the egg. Infestation may be more likely... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Head lice can only be diagnosed by finding live lice, as eggs take 7 days to hatch and may appear viable for weeks after death of the egg. Infestation may be more likely in school children, with risks increased in children with more siblings, longer hair, and of lower socioeconomic group.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for head lice? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 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 26 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: benzyl alcohol, dimeticone, herbal and essential oils, insecticide combinations, isopropyl myristate, ivermectin, lindane, malathion, mechanical removal by combing ("bug busting"), oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole, TMP-SMX), permethrin, phenothrin, pyrethrum, and spinosad.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Lice Infestations; Pediculus; Permethrin; Scalp Dermatoses; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination
PubMed: 21575285
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2009Head lice can only be diagnosed by finding live lice, as eggs take 7 days to hatch and may appear viable for weeks after death of the egg. Infestation may be more likely... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Head lice can only be diagnosed by finding live lice, as eggs take 7 days to hatch and may appear viable for weeks after death of the egg. Infestation may be more likely in school children, with risks increased in children with more siblings, longer hair, and of lower socioeconomic group.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for head lice? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2008 (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 15 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: dimeticone, herbal and essential oils, insecticide combinations, lindane, malathion, mechanical removal by combing ('bug busting'), oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazone (co-trimoxazole, TMP-SMX), permethrin, phenothrin, and pyrethrum.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Animals; Humans; Lice Infestations; Malathion; Pediculus; Permethrin; Scalp Dermatoses; Treatment Outcome; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination
PubMed: 19445766
DOI: No ID Found -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2014The search for more effective and lower cost therapeutic approaches for wound healing remains a challenge for modern medicine. In the search for new therapeutic options,... (Review)
Review
The search for more effective and lower cost therapeutic approaches for wound healing remains a challenge for modern medicine. In the search for new therapeutic options, plants and their metabolites are a great source of novel biomolecules. Among their constituents, the monoterpenes represent 90% of essential oils, and have a variety of structures with several activities such as antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and wound healing. Based on that, and also due to the lack of reviews concerning the wound-healing activity of monoterpenes, we performed this systematic review-which provides an overview of their characteristics and mechanisms of action. In this search, the terms "terpenes", "monoterpenes", "wound healing" and "wound closure techniques" were used to retrieve articles published in LILACS, PUBMED and EMBASE until May 2013. Seven papers were found concerning the potential wound healing effect of five compouds (three monoterpenes and two iridoid derivatives) in preclinical studies. Among the products used for wound care, the films were the most studied pharmaceutical form. Monoterpenes are a class of compounds of great diversity of biological activities and therapeutic potential. The data reviewed here suggest that monoterpenes, although poorly studied in this context, are promising compounds for the treatment of chronic wound conditions.
Topics: Animals; Drug Evaluation, Preclinical; Humans; Iridoids; Monoterpenes; Plant Extracts; Plants, Medicinal; Wound Healing
PubMed: 24419138
DOI: 10.3390/molecules19010846 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Malaria remains an important public health problem. Research in 1900 suggested house modifications may reduce malaria transmission. A previous version of this review... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Malaria remains an important public health problem. Research in 1900 suggested house modifications may reduce malaria transmission. A previous version of this review concluded that house screening may be effective in reducing malaria. This update includes data from five new studies.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of house modifications that aim to reduce exposure to mosquitoes on malaria disease and transmission.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CAB) Abstracts (Web of Science); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) up to 25 May 2022. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry to identify ongoing trials up to 25 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials, including cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), cross-over studies, and stepped-wedge designs were eligible, as were quasi-experimental trials, including controlled before-and-after studies, controlled interrupted time series, and non-randomized cross-over studies. We sought studies investigating primary construction and house modifications to existing homes reporting epidemiological outcomes (malaria case incidence, malaria infection incidence or parasite prevalence). We extracted any entomological outcomes that were also reported in these studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used risk ratios (RR) to compare the effect of the intervention with the control for dichotomous data. For continuous data, we presented the mean difference; and for count and rate data, we used rate ratios. We presented all results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
One RCT and six cRCTs met our inclusion criteria, with an additional six ongoing RCTs. We did not identify any eligible non-randomized studies. All included trials were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa since 2009; two randomized by household and four at the block or village level. All trials assessed screening of windows, doors, eaves, ceilings, or any combination of these; this was either alone, or in combination with roof modification or eave tube installation (an insecticidal "lure and kill" device that reduces mosquito entry whilst maintaining some airflow). In one trial, the screening material was treated with 2% permethrin insecticide. In five trials, the researchers implemented the interventions. A community-based approach was adopted in the other trial. Overall, the implementation of house modifications probably reduced malaria parasite prevalence (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.82; 5 trials, 5183 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although an inconsistent effect was observed in a subpopulation of children in one study. House modifications reduced moderate to severe anaemia prevalence (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 3 trials, 3643 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was no consistent effect on clinical malaria incidence, with rate ratios ranging from 0.38 to 1.62 (3 trials, 3365 participants, 4126.6 person-years). House modifications may reduce indoor mosquito density (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.30; 4 trials, 9894 household-nights; low-certainty evidence), although two studies showed little effect on this parameter.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
House modifications - largely screening, sometimes combined with insecticide and lure and kill devices - were associated with a reduction in malaria parasite prevalence and a reduction in people with anaemia. Findings on malaria incidence were mixed. Modifications were also associated with lower indoor adult mosquito density, but this effect was not present in some studies.
Topics: Adult; Anemia; Animals; Child; Culicidae; Humans; Insecticides; Malaria; Permethrin
PubMed: 36200610
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013398.pub4 -
Journal of the American Academy of... May 2019Many drugs have been used to treat scabies, but it is unclear which of them is the most efficacious. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many drugs have been used to treat scabies, but it is unclear which of them is the most efficacious.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of antiscabietic agents.
METHODS
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Direct and network meta-analyses were applied to 13 antiscabietic agents on 3 outcomes (cure, persistent itching, and adverse events). Their probability of having highest efficacy and safety was estimated and ranked.
RESULTS
A network meta-analysis of 52 trials including 9917 patients indicated that permethrin (the reference treatment) had a significantly higher cure rate than sulfur, malathion, lindane, crotamiton, and benzyl benzoate. Combination permethrin plus oral ivermectin had a nonsignificantly higher cure rate than permethrin. Combination permethrin plus oral ivermectin was ranked highest in terms of cure, topical ivermectin in terms of persistent itching, and synergized pyrethrins in terms of adverse events. On the basis of clustered ranking, permethrin, oral ivermectin, and synergized pyrethrins seemed to retain balance between cure and adverse events.
LIMITATIONS
There are small numbers of trials and patients in some comparisons and a high risk of bias in some trials.
CONCLUSION
There is no 1 treatment that ranked highest in all aspects. Physicians should consider the drug's efficacy and safety profiles, along with ease of administration.
Topics: Benzoates; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hexachlorocyclohexane; Humans; Insecticides; Ivermectin; Malathion; Network Meta-Analysis; Permethrin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scabies; Sulfur; Toluidines
PubMed: 30654070
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.01.004 -
Environmental Research Dec 2022In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), pesticides are widely used in agricultural and residential settings. Little is known about how pesticides affect child... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), pesticides are widely used in agricultural and residential settings. Little is known about how pesticides affect child growth.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review and synthesise the evidence on the associations between pesticide exposure and adverse birth outcomes and/or impaired postnatal growth in children up to 5 years of age in LMICs.
METHODS
We searched 10 databases from inception through November 2021. We included cohort and cross-sectional studies investigating associations between self-reported or measured prenatal or postnatal pesticide exposure and child growth (postnatal child linear/ponderal growth, and/or birth outcomes). Two researchers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed certainty using GRADE. The protocol was preregistered with PROSPERO (CRD42021292919).
RESULTS
Of 939 records retrieved, 31 studies met inclusion criteria (11 cohort, 20 cross-sectional). All studies assessed prenatal exposure. Twenty-four studies reported on birth weight. Four found positive associations with organochlorines (0.01-0.25 standardised mean difference (SMD)) and two found negative associations (-0.009 SMD to -55 g). Negative associations with organophosphates (-170 g, n = 1) and pyrethroids (-97 to -233 g, n = 2) were also documented. Two (out of 15) studies reporting on birth length found positive associations with organochlorines (0.21-0.25 SMD) and one found negative associations (-0.25 to -0.32 SMD). Organophosphate exposure was negatively associated with birth length (-0.37 cm, n = 1). Organophosphate exposure was also associated with higher risk/prevalence of low birth weight (2 out of nine studies) and preterm birth (2 out of six studies). Certainty of the evidence was "very low" for all outcomes.
CONCLUSION
The limited literature from LMICs shows inconclusive associations between prenatal pesticide exposure, child growth, and birth outcomes. Studies with accurate quantitative data on exposure to commonly used pesticides in LMICs using consistent methodologies in comparable populations are needed to better understand how pesticides influence child growth.
Topics: Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Developing Countries; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Organophosphates; Pesticides; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Pyrethrins
PubMed: 36087771
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.114230 -
BMC Public Health Dec 2017Although menthol was not banned under the Tobacco Control Act, the law made it clear that this did not prevent the Food and Drug Administration from issuing a product... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although menthol was not banned under the Tobacco Control Act, the law made it clear that this did not prevent the Food and Drug Administration from issuing a product standard to ban menthol to protect public health. The purpose of this review was to update the evidence synthesis regarding the role of menthol in initiation, dependence and cessation.
METHODS
A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature on menthol cigarettes via a PubMed search through May 9, 2017. The National Cancer Institute's Bibliography of Literature on Menthol and Tobacco and the FDA's 2011 report and 2013 addendum were reviewed for additional publications. Included articles addressing initiation, dependence, and cessation were synthesized based on study design and quality, consistency of evidence across populations and over time, coherence of findings across studies, and plausibility of the findings.
RESULTS
Eighty-two studies on menthol cigarette initiation (n = 46), dependence (n = 14), and cessation (n = 34) were included. Large, representative studies show an association between menthol and youth smoking that is consistent in magnitude and direction. One longitudinal and eight cross-sectional studies demonstrate that menthol smokers report increased nicotine dependence compared to non-menthol smokers. Ten studies support the temporal relationship between menthol and reduced smoking cessation, as they measure cessation success at follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
The strength and consistency of the associations in these studies support that the removal of menthol from cigarettes is likely to reduce youth smoking initiation, improve smoking cessation outcomes in adult smokers, and in turn, benefit public health.
Topics: Cigarette Smoking; Health Policy; Humans; Menthol; Public Health; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; United States
PubMed: 29284458
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4987-z -
Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem 2022to map the strategies for managing thirst in postoperative adult patients. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
to map the strategies for managing thirst in postoperative adult patients.
METHODS
scoping review was conducted in October 2021 in 19 data sources: 14 databases and 5 platforms to search in the grey literature. It was prepared according to the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute and the checklist of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Nine selected articles were part of the final sample.
RESULTS
there is evidence of strategies to manage postoperative thirst using interventions such as water, ice, mentholated measures, carbohydrate and protein enriched fluid, oral hydrator, flavored gargling, cold gargling, wet gauze, 0.75% citric acid spray, and cold water.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
the strategies observed may be reduced to cold and menthol use, salivary stimulants, and early introduction of fluids. The outcomes were positive in all the studies reviewed.
Topics: Adult; Carbohydrates; Citric Acid; Humans; Ice; Menthol; Research Design; Thirst; Water
PubMed: 36228294
DOI: 10.1590/0034-7167-2022-0154