-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Probiotic and low fermentable oligosaccharide, disaccharide, monosaccharide, and polyol (FODMAP) diet are two commonly used management approaches for patients with... (Review)
Review
Probiotic and low fermentable oligosaccharide, disaccharide, monosaccharide, and polyol (FODMAP) diet are two commonly used management approaches for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We aimed to evaluate the most effective combinations and components among different probiotics or low FODMAP diet through component network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched Embase, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science from inception to 21 January 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of probiotics and low FODMAP diet for IBS were included, with placebo, sham diet, or conventional treatments as controls. Binary outcomes were compared among treatments using the relative ratio (RR). A minimally contextualized framework recommended by the GRADE group was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. The primary efficacy outcome was the relief of global IBS symptoms, and the secondary efficacy outcome was the reduction in IBS symptom scores or abdominal pain scores. We included 76 RCTs (n = 8058) after screening 1940 articles. Eight RCTs were classified as low risk of bias. Standard network meta-analysis (NMA) showed that (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.22-2.48) and (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.01-3.07) were the most effective for the primary efficacy outcome (high certainty evidence); component NMA showed that (RR 5.67, 95% CI 1.88 to 17.08, = 0.002) and (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.91, = 0.017) were among the most effective components. The results of standard NMA and CNMA analysis of the improvement of overall IBS symptom scores or abdominal pain scores were consistent with this finding. was the most effective component for the relief of IBS symptoms; and were possibly effective and need further verification. website, identifier registration number.
PubMed: 35355730
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.853011 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Antibiotics alter the microbial balance commonly resulting in antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). Probiotics may prevent AAD via providing gut barrier, restoration of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antibiotics alter the microbial balance commonly resulting in antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). Probiotics may prevent AAD via providing gut barrier, restoration of the gut microflora, and other potential mechanisms of action.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) used for the prevention of AAD in children.
SEARCH METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and the Web of Science (inception to 28 May 2018) were searched along with registers including the ISRCTN and Clinicaltrials.gov. We also searched the NICE Evidence Services database as well as reference lists from relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized, parallel, controlled trials in children (0 to 18 years) receiving antibiotics, that compare probiotics to placebo, active alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment and measure the incidence of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two authors. Dichotomous data (incidence of AAD, adverse events) were combined using a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD), and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea) as mean difference (MD), along with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where appropriate. For studies reporting on microbiome characteristics using heterogeneous outcomes, we describe the results narratively. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-three studies (6352 participants) were included. Probiotics assessed included Bacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Clostridium butyricum, Lactobacilli spp., Lactococcus spp., Leuconostoc cremoris, Saccharomyces spp., orStreptococcus spp., alone or in combination. The risk of bias was determined to be high in 20 studies and low in 13 studies. Complete case (patients who did not complete the studies were not included in the analysis) results from 33 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show a precise benefit from probiotics compared to active, placebo or no treatment control.After 5 days to 12 weeks of follow-up, the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (259/3232) compared to 19% (598/3120) in the control group (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.56; I² = 57%, 6352 participants; NNTB 9, 95% CI 7 to 13; moderate certainty evidence). Nineteen studies had loss to follow-up ranging from 1% to 46%. After making assumptions for those lost, the observed benefit was still statistically significant using an extreme plausible intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, wherein the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 12% (436/3551) compared to 19% (664/3468) in the control group (7019 participants; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; P <0.00001; I² = 70%). An a priori available case subgroup analysis exploring heterogeneity indicated that high dose (≥ 5 billion CFUs per day) is more effective than low probiotic dose (< 5 billion CFUs per day), interaction P value = 0.01. For the high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (162/2029) compared to 23% (462/2009) in the control group (4038 participants; RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.46; P = 0.06; moderate certainty evidence). For the low dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (97/1155) compared to 13% (133/1059) in the control group (2214 participants; RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.02). Again, assumptions for loss to follow-up using an extreme plausible ITT analysis was statistically significant. For high dose studies the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 13% (278/2218) compared to 23% (503/2207) in control group (4425 participants; RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; P <0.00001; I² = 68%; moderate certainty evidence).None of the 24 trials (4415 participants) that reported on adverse events reported any serious adverse events attributable to probiotics. Adverse event rates were low. After 5 days to 4 weeks follow-up, 4% (86/2229) of probiotics participants had an adverse event compared to 6% (121/2186) of control participants (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; P < 0.00001; I² = 75%; low certainty evidence). Common adverse events included rash, nausea, gas, flatulence, abdominal bloating, and constipation.After 10 days to 12 weeks of follow-up, eight studies recorded data on our secondary outcome, the mean duration of diarrhea; with probiotics reducing diarrhea duration by almost one day (MD -0.91; 95% CI -1.38 to -0.44; P <0.00001; low certainty evidence). One study reported on microbiome characteristics, reporting no difference in changes with concurrent antibiotic and probiotic use.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The overall evidence suggests a moderate protective effect of probiotics for preventing AAD (NNTB 9, 95% CI 7 to 13). Using five criteria to evaluate the credibility of the subgroup analysis on probiotic dose, the results indicate the subgroup effect based on high dose probiotics (≥ 5 billion CFUs per day) was credible. Based on high-dose probiotics, the NNTB to prevent one case of diarrhea is 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). The overall certainty of the evidence for the primary endpoint, incidence of AAD based on high dose probiotics was moderate due to the minor issues with risk of bias and inconsistency related to a diversity of probiotic agents used. Evidence also suggests that probiotics may moderately reduce the duration of diarrhea, a reduction by almost one day. The benefit of high dose probiotics (e.g. Lactobacillus rhamnosus orSaccharomyces boulardii) needs to be confirmed by a large well-designed multi-centered randomized trial. It is premature to draw firm conclusions about the efficacy and safety of 'other' probiotic agents as an adjunct to antibiotics in children. Adverse event rates were low and no serious adverse events were attributable to probiotics. Although no serious adverse events were observed among inpatient and outpatient children, including small studies conducted in the intensive care unit and in the neonatal unit, observational studies not included in this review have reported serious adverse events in severely debilitated or immuno-compromised children with underlying risk factors including central venous catheter use and disorders associated with bacterial/fungal translocation.
Topics: Adolescent; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Probiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31039287
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004827.pub5 -
Nutrients Aug 2018Acute diarrhea is a burdensome disease with potentially harmful consequences, especially in childhood. Despite its large use in clinical practice, the efficacy of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Acute diarrhea is a burdensome disease with potentially harmful consequences, especially in childhood. Despite its large use in clinical practice, the efficacy of the probiotic in treating acute childhood diarrhea remains unclear. Our objective was to systematically review the efficacy of in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea. The following electronic databases were systematically searched up to October 2017: MEDLINE (via PubMed/OVID), EMBASE (via OVID), Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials (via CENTRAL), Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The overall effect for the meta-analysis was derived by using a random effects model. Six randomized controlled trials (1298 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Data arising from pooled analysis showed that significantly reduced the duration of diarrhea (mean difference = -9.12 h; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -16.49 to -1.75, = 0.015), and the duration of hospitalization (mean difference = -0.85 days; 95% CI: -1.56 to -0.15, = 0.017), compared with control. There was a trend of decreasing stool frequency after administration compared with the control group (mean difference = -0.19 diarrheal motions; 95% CI: -0.43 to -0.06, = 0.14). may represent an effective therapeutic option in acute childhood diarrhea, with a good safety profile.
Topics: Acute Disease; Age of Onset; Bacillus clausii; Child; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Humans; Infant; Length of Stay; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30103531
DOI: 10.3390/nu10081074 -
Gastroenterology Aug 2020We aimed to compare the effectiveness of single- vs multiple-strain probiotics in a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND & AIMS
We aimed to compare the effectiveness of single- vs multiple-strain probiotics in a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS Previews, and Google Scholar through January 1, 2019, for studies of single-strain and multistrain probiotic formulations on the outcomes of preterm, low-birth-weight neonates. We used a frequentist approach for network meta-analysis and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, severe necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) (Bell stage II or more), and culture-proven sepsis.
RESULTS
We analyzed data from 63 trials involving 15,712 preterm infants. Compared with placebo, a combination of 1 or more Lactobacillus species (spp) and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp was the only intervention with moderate- or high-quality evidence of reduced all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.80). Among interventions with moderate- or high-quality evidence for efficacy compared with placebo, combinations of 1 or more Lactobacillus spp and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp, Bifidobacterium animalis subspecies lactis, Lactobacillus reuteri, or Lactobacillus rhamnosus significantly reduced severe NEC (OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.20-0.59]; OR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.74]; OR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.91]; and OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.21-0.90], respectively). There was moderate- or high-quality evidence that combinations of 1 or more Lactobacillus spp and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp and Saccharomyces boulardii reduced the number of days to reach full feeding (mean reduction of 3.30 days [95% CI, reduction of 5.91-0.69 days]). There was moderate- or high-quality evidence that, compared with placebo, the single-species product B animalis subsp lactis or L reuteri significantly reduced duration of hospitalization (mean reduction of 13.00 days [95% CI, reduction of 22.71-3.29 days] and mean reduction of 7.89 days [95% CI, reduction of 11.60-4.17 days], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
In a systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies to determine the effects of single-strain and multistrain probiotic formulations on outcomes of preterm, low-birth-weight neonates, we found moderate to high evidence for the superiority of combinations of 1 or more Lactobacillus spp and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp vs single- and other multiple-strain probiotic treatments. The combinations of Bacillus spp and Enterococcus spp, and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp and Streptococcus salivarius subsp thermophilus, might produce the largest reduction in NEC development. Further trials are needed.
Topics: Enterocolitis, Necrotizing; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Neonatal Sepsis; Network Meta-Analysis; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32592699
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.096 -
Nutrients Sep 2023Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal disease. The efficacy of different probiotics in treating IBS remains controversial. This network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal disease. The efficacy of different probiotics in treating IBS remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare and rank the outcome-specific efficacy of different probiotic strains or combinations in adults with IBS. We searched the literature up to June 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of probiotics in IBS were included. A frequentist framework was used to perform this study. In total, 9253 participants from 81 RCTs were included in the study. Four probiotic strains and five mixtures were significantly superior to placebo in improving IBS Symptom Severity Scale, among which DDS-1 ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking, SUCRA, 92.9%). A mixture containing five probiotics (SUCRA, 100%) ranked first in improving the IBS-Quality of life. MTCC 5856 (SUCRA, 96.9%) and Unique IS2 (SUCRA, 92.6%) were among the most effective probiotics for improving abdominal pain. Three probiotic strains and two mixtures were effective in alleviating abdominal bloating. Four probiotic strains and a mixture were significantly superior to placebo in reducing the bowel movement frequency in diarrhea-predominant IBS (IBS-D). MTCC 5856 (SUCRA, 99.6%) and CNCM I-3856 (SUCRA, 89.7%) were among the most effective probiotics for improving the Bristol stool form scale of IBS-D. Only some probiotics are effective for particular outcomes in IBS patients. This study provided the first ranking of outcome-specific efficacy of different probiotic strains and combinations in IBS. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Network Meta-Analysis; Abdominal Pain; Bacillus coagulans; Probiotics; Saccharomyces cerevisiae
PubMed: 37686889
DOI: 10.3390/nu15173856 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021It remains unclear whether people with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) benefit from intravesical gemcitabine compared to other agents in the primary or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It remains unclear whether people with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) benefit from intravesical gemcitabine compared to other agents in the primary or recurrent setting following transurethral resection of a bladder tumor. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2012. Since that time, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported, making this update relevant. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative effectiveness and toxicity of intravesical gemcitabine instillation for NMIBC.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, trial registries, and conference proceedings to 11 September 2020, with no restrictions on the language or status of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs in which participants received intravesical gemcitabine for primary or recurrent NMIBC.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: time to recurrence, time to progression, grade III to V adverse events determined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (CTCAE v5.0), and the secondary outcomes: time to death from bladder cancer, time to death from any cause, grade I or II adverse events determined by the CTCAE v5.0 and disease-specific quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies with 1222 participants with NMIBC across five comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of the three most clinically relevant comparisons. 1. Gemcitabine versus saline: based on two years' to four years' follow-up, gemcitabine may reduce the risk of recurrence over time compared to saline (39% versus 47% recurrence rate, hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 1.09; studies = 2, participants = 734; I = 49%; low-certainty evidence), but the CI included the possibility of no effect. Gemcitabine may result in little to no difference in the risk of progression over time compared to saline (4.6% versus 4.8% progression rate, HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.19 to 4.71; studies = 2, participants = 654; I = 53%; low-certainty evidence). Gemcitabine may result in little to no difference in the CTCAE grade III to V adverse events compared to saline (5.9% versus 4.7% adverse events rate, risk ratio [RR] 1.26, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.75; studies = 2, participants = 668; I = 24%; low-certainty evidence). 2. Gemcitabine versus mitomycin: based on three years' follow-up (studies = 1, participants = 109), gemcitabine may reduce the risk of recurrence over time compared to mitomycin (17% versus 40% recurrence rate, HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.69; low-certainty evidence). Gemcitabine may reduce the risk of progression over time compared to mitomycin (11% versus 18% progression rate, HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence), but the CI included the possibility of no effect. We are very uncertain about the effect of gemcitabine on the CTCAE grade III to V adverse events compared to mitomycin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.93; very low-certainty evidence). The analysis was only based on recurrent NMIBC. 3. Gemcitabine versus Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for recurrent (one-course BCG failure) high-risk NMIBC: based on 6 months' to 22 months' follow-up (studies = 1, participants = 80), gemcitabine may reduce the risk of recurrence compared to BCG (41% versus 97% recurrence rate, HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26; low-certainty evidence) and progression over time (16% versus 33% progression rate, HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of gemcitabine on the CTCAE grade III to V adverse events compared to BCG (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.66; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, the review provides information on the comparison of gemcitabine versus BCG and gemcitabine versus one-third dose BCG. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on findings of this review, gemcitabine may have a more favorable impact on recurrence and progression-free survival than mitomycin but we are very uncertain as to how major adverse events compare. The same is true when comparing gemcitabine to BCG in individuals with high risk disease who have previously failed BCG. The underlying low- to very low-certainty evidence indicates that our confidence in these results is limited; the true effects may be substantially different from these findings; therefore, better quality studies are needed.
Topics: Adjuvants, Immunologic; Administration, Intravesical; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; BCG Vaccine; Bias; Cause of Death; Confidence Intervals; Deoxycytidine; Disease Progression; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Mitomycin; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saline Solution; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 34125951
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009294.pub3 -
Gastroenterology Nov 2023Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts...
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts to make specific recommendations as to which should be preferred. We updated our previous meta-analysis examining this issue.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to March 2023). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS, comparing probiotics with placebo were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk of global symptoms, abdominal pain, or abdominal bloating or distension persisting after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardized mean difference with a 95% CI. Adverse events data were also pooled.
RESULTS
We identified 82 eligible trials, containing 10,332 patients. Only 24 RCTs were at low risk of bias across all domains. For global symptoms, there was moderate certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Escherichia strains, low certainty for Lactobacillus strains and Lactobacillus plantarum 299V, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, LacClean Gold S, Duolac 7s, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal pain, there was low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Saccharomyces cerevisae I-3856 and Bifidobacterium strains, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, Lactobacillus, Saccharomyces, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal bloating or distension there was very low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of combination probiotics and Bacillus strains. The relative risk of experiencing any adverse event, in 55 trials, including more than 7000 patients, was not significantly higher with probiotics.
CONCLUSIONS
Some combinations of probiotics or strains may be beneficial in IBS. However, certainty in the evidence for efficacy by GRADE criteria was low to very low across almost all of our analyses.
PubMed: 37541528
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.018 -
Biodegradation Apr 2022Petroleum industry activities worldwide have caused pollution and resulted in environmental degradation. Microorganisms with the potential to reduce pollutant levels by... (Review)
Review
Petroleum industry activities worldwide have caused pollution and resulted in environmental degradation. Microorganisms with the potential to reduce pollutant levels by degradation processes have been reported, and bacteria are among such organisms. The first study on bacterial degradation in Colombia was published in 1996. The study isolated bacteria belonging to the Pseudomonas genus from hydrocarbon-polluted sediments. Since then, different reports on degrading bacteria have been published. The objective of this systematic review is to identify and analyze all the studies on hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria performed in Colombia. To accomplish this goal, a literature search was conducted. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and 37 relevant articles were obtained. We found that 2018 was the year with the largest number of publications in Colombia, and most frequently identified bacterial genera were Pseudomonas and Bacillus. Some studies showed that the degradation of hydrocarbons is more efficient when bacterial consortia are used rather than pure cultures. This study provides information about bacteria with the potential to degrade hydrocarbons in Colombia, which in turn will be a source of information for future studies in this field.
Topics: Bacillus; Bacteria; Biodegradation, Environmental; Colombia; Hydrocarbons; Pseudomonas
PubMed: 35235111
DOI: 10.1007/s10532-022-09976-z -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2007The World Health Organization field leprosy classification is based on the number of skin lesions: single-lesion leprosy (1 lesion), paucibacillary leprosy (2-5 skin... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The World Health Organization field leprosy classification is based on the number of skin lesions: single-lesion leprosy (1 lesion), paucibacillary leprosy (2-5 skin lesions), and multibacillary leprosy (more than 5 skin lesions). Worldwide, about 720,000 new cases of leprosy are reported each year, and about 2 million people have leprosy-related disabilities.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent leprosy? What are the effects of treatments for leprosy? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to March 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 20 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: Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG) plus killed Mycobacterium leprae vaccine; BCG vaccine; ICRC vaccine; multidrug treatment; multiple-dose treatment; mycobacterium w vaccine; single-dose treatment.
Topics: BCG Vaccine; Humans; Leprosy; Leprosy, Lepromatous; Leprosy, Multibacillary; Leprosy, Paucibacillary; Leprosy, Tuberculoid; Mycobacterium leprae; World Health Organization
PubMed: 19454067
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2010The World Health Organization field leprosy classification is based on the number of skin lesions: paucibacillary leprosy (1-5 skin lesions), and multibacillary leprosy... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The World Health Organization field leprosy classification is based on the number of skin lesions: paucibacillary leprosy (1-5 skin lesions), and multibacillary leprosy (more than 5 skin lesions). Worldwide, about 250,000 new cases of leprosy are reported each year, and about 2 million people have leprosy-related disabilities.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent leprosy? What are the effects of treatments for leprosy? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 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 20 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: chemoprophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) plus killed Mycobacterium leprae vaccine, BCG vaccine, ICRC vaccine, multidrug treatment, multiple-dose treatment, Mycobacterium w vaccine, and single-dose treatment.
Topics: BCG Vaccine; Humans; Leprosy; Leprosy, Lepromatous; Leprosy, Multibacillary; Leprosy, Tuberculoid; Mycobacterium leprae; Rifampin
PubMed: 21418690
DOI: No ID Found