Dataset Information

Chemoprophylaxis in contacts of patients with cholera: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

There is a pressing need for effective measures to prevent the spread of cholera. Our systematic review assesses the effects of chemoprophylaxis in preventing cholera among exposed contacts.

Methods and findings

We considered published and unpublished reports of studies up to July 2011. For this we searched: PubMed (1966 to July, 2011), Embase (1980 to July 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (6; 2011), LILACS (1982 to July, 2011), the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (July 2011) and references of identified publications. We included controlled clinical trials (randomized and non-randomized) in which chemoprophylaxis was used to prevent cholera among patient contacts. The main outcome measures were hospitalization and laboratory diagnosis of cholera in contacts for cholera patients. We assessed the risk of bias. We identified 2638 references and these included 2 randomized trials and 5 controlled trials that added up to a total of 4,154 participants. The risk of bias scored high for most trials. The combined results from two trials found that chemoprophylaxis reduced hospitalization of contacts during the follow-up period by 8-12 days (2826 participants; RR 0.54 95% CI 0.40-0.74;I² 0%). A meta-analysis of five trials found a significant reduction in disease among contacts with at least one positive sample who received chemoprophylaxis during the overall follow-up (range 4-15 days) (1,414 participants; RR 0.35 95% CI 0.18-0.66;I² 74%). A significant reduction in the number of positive samples was also found with chemoprophylaxis (3 CCT; 6,918 samples; RR 0.39 95% CI 0.29-0.51;I² 0%).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that chemoprophylaxis has a protective effect among household contacts of people with cholera but the results are based on studies with a high risk of bias. Hence, there is a need for adequate reliable research that allows balancing benefits and harms by evaluating the effects of chemoprophylaxis.

SUBMITTER: Reveiz L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3216950 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundKilled whole-cell oral cholera vaccines (kOCVs) are becoming a standard cholera control and prevention tool. However, vaccine efficacy and direct effectiveness estimates have varied, with differences in study design, location, follow-up duration, and vaccine composition posing challenges for public health decision making. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to generate average estimates of kOCV efficacy and direct effectiveness from the available literature.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Review Library on July 9, 2016, and ISI Web of Science on July 11, 2016, for randomised controlled trials and observational studies that reported estimates of direct protection against medically attended confirmed cholera conferred by kOCVs. We included studies published on any date in English, Spanish, French, or Chinese. We extracted from the published reports the primary efficacy and effectiveness estimates from each study and also estimates according to number of vaccine doses, duration, and age group. The main study outcome was average efficacy and direct effectiveness of two kOCV doses, which we estimated with random-effect models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016048232.FindingsSeven trials (with 695 patients with cholera) and six observational studies (217 patients with cholera) met the inclusion criteria, with an average two-dose efficacy of 58% (95% CI 42-69, I2=58%) and effectiveness of 76% (62-85, I2=0). Average two-dose efficacy in children younger than 5 years (30% [95% CI 15-42], I2=0%) was lower than in those 5 years or older (64% [58-70], I2=0%; p<0·0001). Two-dose efficacy estimates of kOCV were similar during the first 2 years after vaccination, with estimates of 56% (95% CI 42-66, I2=45%) in the first year and 59% (49-67, I2=0) in the second year. The efficacy reduced to 39% (13 to 57, I2=48%) in the third year, and 26% (-46 to 63, I2=74%) in the fourth year.InterpretationTwo kOCV doses provide protection against cholera for at least 3 years. One kOCV dose provides at least short-term protection, which has important implications for outbreak management. kOCVs are effective tools for cholera control.FundingThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundCholera continues to pose a problem for low-resource, fragile and humanitarian contexts. Evidence suggests that 2.86 million cholera cases and 95,000 deaths due to cholera are reported annually. Without quick and effective diagnosis and treatment, case-fatality may be 50%. In line with the priorities of the Global Task Force on Cholera Control, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy and other test characteristics of current tests for cholera detection in stool and water.MethodsWe searched 11 bibliographic and grey literature databases. Data was extracted on test sensitivity, specificity and other product information. Meta-analyses of sensitivity and specificity were conducted for tests reported in three or more studies. Where fewer studies reported a test, estimates were summarised through narrative synthesis. Risk of Bias was assessed using QUADAS-2.ResultsSearches identified 6,637 records; 41 studies reporting on 28 tests were included. Twenty-two tests had both sensitivities and specificities reported above 95% by at least one study, but there was, overall, wide variation in reported diagnostic accuracy across studies. For the three tests where meta-analyses were possible the highest sensitivity meta-estimate was found in the Cholera Screen test (98.6%, CI: 94.7%-99.7%) and the highest specificity meta-estimate in the Crystal VC on enriched samples (98.3%, CI: 92.8%-99.6%). There was a general lack of evidence regarding field use of tests, but where presented this indicated trends for lower diagnostic accuracy in field settings, with lesser-trained staff, and without the additional process of sample enrichment. Where reported, mean test turnaround times ranged from over 50% to 130% longer than manufacturer's specification. Most studies had a low to unclear risk of bias.ConclusionsCurrently available Rapid Diagnostic Tests can potentially provide high diagnostic and detection capability for cholera. However, stronger evidence is required regarding the conditions required to secure these levels of accuracy in field use, particularly in low-resource settings.RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42016048428).

Project description:BackgroundMaternal infection with cholera may negatively affect pregnancy outcomes. The objective of this research is to systematically review the literature and determine the risk of fetal, neonatal and maternal death associated with cholera during pregnancy.Materials and methodsMedline, Global Health Library, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using the key terms cholera and pregnancy for articles published in any language and at any time before August 2013 to quantitatively summarize estimates of fetal, maternal, and neonatal mortality. 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each selected study. Random-effect non-linear logistic regression was used to calculate pooled rates and 95% CIs by time period. Studies from the recent period (1991-2013) were compared with studies from 1969-1990. Relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% CIs were obtained by comparing mortality of selected recent studies with published national normative data from the closest year.ResultsThe meta-analysis included seven studies that together involved 737 pregnant women with cholera from six countries. The pooled fetal death rate for 4 studies during 1991-2013 was 7.9% (95% CIs 5.3-10.4), significantly lower than that of 3 studies from 1969-1990 (31.0%, 95% CIs 25.2-36.8). There was no difference in fetal death rate by trimester. The pooled neonatal death rate for 1991-2013 studies was 0.8% (95% CIs 0.0-1.6), and 6.4% (95% CIs 0.0-20.8) for 1969-1990. The pooled maternal death rate for 1991-2013 studies was 0.2% (95% CIs 0.0-0.7), and 5.0% (95% CIs 0.0-16.0) for 1969-1990. Compared with published national mortality estimates, the RR for fetal death of 5.8 (95% CIs 2.9-11.3) was calculated for Haiti (2013), 1.8 (95% CIs 0.3-10.4) for Senegal (2007), and 2.6 (95% CIs 0.5-14.9) for Peru (1991); there were no significant differences in the RR for neonatal or maternal death.ConclusionResults are limited by the inconsistencies found across included studies but suggest that maternal cholera is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, particularly fetal death. These findings can inform a research agenda on cholera in pregnancy and guidance for the timely management of pregnant women with cholera.