Dataset Information

The impact of antibiotics on growth in children in low and middle income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine whether antibiotic treatment leads to improvements in growth in prepubertal children in low and middle income countries, to determine the magnitude of improvements in growth, and to identify moderators of this treatment effect.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and Web of Science.

Study selection

Randomised controlled trials conducted in low or middle income countries in which an orally administered antibacterial agent was allocated by randomisation or minimisation and growth was measured as an outcome. Participants aged 1 month to 12 years were included. Control was placebo or non-antimicrobial intervention.

Results

Data were pooled from 10 randomised controlled trials representing 4316 children, across a variety of antibiotics, indications for treatment, treatment regimens, and countries. In random effects models, antibiotic use increased height by 0.04 cm/month (95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.07) and weight by 23.8 g/month (95% confidence interval 4.3 to 43.3). After adjusting for age, effects on height were larger in younger populations and effects on weight were larger in African studies compared with other regions.

Conclusion

Antibiotics have a growth promoting effect in prepubertal children in low and middle income countries. This effect was more pronounced for ponderal than for linear growth. The antibiotic growth promoting effect may be mediated by treatment of clinical or subclinical infections or possibly by modulation of the intestinal microbiota. Better definition of the mechanisms underlying this effect will be important to inform optimal and safe approaches to achieving healthy growth in vulnerable populations.

SUBMITTER: Gough EK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3988318 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), given previous reviews have included scant trials from these settings and the great need there.MethodsSix electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and APA PsycINFO) were searched from inception-May 2020. Randomised controlled CR (i.e., at least initial assessment and structured exercise; any setting; some Phase II) trials with any clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality and morbidity, functional capacity, risk factor control and psychosocial well-being) or cost, with usual care (UC) control or active comparison (AC), in acute coronary syndrome with or without revascularization or heart failure patients in LMICs were included. With regard to data extraction and data synthesis, two reviewers independently vetted identified citations and extracted data from included trials; Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's tool. Certainty of evidence was ascertained based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. A random-effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsTwenty-six trials (6380 participants; 16.9% female; median follow-up = 3 months) were included. CR meaningfully improved functional capacity (VO2peak vs UC: 5 trials; mean difference [MD] = 3.13 ml/kg/min, 95% CI = 2.61 to 3.65; I2 = 9.0%); moderate-quality evidence), systolic blood pressure (vs UC: MD = -5.29 mmHg, 95% CI = -8.12 to -2.46; I2 = 45%; low-quality evidence), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (vs UC: MD = -16.55 mg/dl, 95% CI = -29.97 to -3.14; I2 = 74%; very low-quality evidence), body mass index (vs AC: MD = -0.84 kg/m2, 95% CI = -1.61 to -0.07; moderate-quality evidence; I2 = 0%), and quality of life (QoL; vs UC; SF-12/36 physical: MD = 6.05, 95% CI = 1.77 to 10.34; I2 = 93%, low-quality evidence; mental: MD = 5.38, 95% CI = 1.13 to 9.63; I2 = 84%; low-quality evidence), among others. There were no evidence of effects on mortality or morbidity. Qualitative analyses revealed CR was associated with lower percutaneous coronary intervention, myocardial infarction, better cardiovascular function, and biomarkers, as well as return to life roles; there were other non-significant effects. Two studies reported low cost of home-based CR.ConclusionsLow to moderate-certainty evidence establishes CR as delivered in LMICs improves functional capacity, risk factor control and QoL. While more high-quality research is needed, we must augment access to CR in these settings.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO (CRD42020185296).

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate evidence from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the use of task-shifting strategies for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).DesignSystematic review of RCTs that utilised a task-shifting strategy in the management of CVD in LMICs.Data sourcesWe searched the following databases for relevant RCTs: PubMed from the 1940s, EMBASE from 1974, Global Health from 1910, Ovid Health Star from 1966, Web of Knowledge from 1900, Scopus from 1823, CINAHL from 1937 and RCTs from ClinicalTrials.gov.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe focused on RCTs published in English, but without publication year. We included RCTs in which the intervention used task shifting (non-physician healthcare workers involved in prescribing of medications, treatment and/or medical testing) and non-physician healthcare providers in the management of CV risk factors and diseases (hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, stroke, coronary artery disease or heart failure), as well as RCTs that were conducted in LMICs. We excluded studies that are not RCTs.ResultsOf the 2771 articles identified, only three met the predefined criteria. All three trials were conducted in practice-based settings among patients with hypertension (2 studies) and diabetes (1 study), with one study also incorporating home visits. The duration of the studies ranged from 3 to 12 months, and the task-shifting strategies included provision of medication prescriptions by nurses, community health workers and pharmacists and telephone follow-up posthospital discharge. Both hypertension studies reported a significant mean blood pressure reduction (2/1 mm Hg and 30/15 mm Hg), and the diabetes trial reported a reduction in the glycated haemoglobin levels of 1.87%.ConclusionsThere is a dearth of evidence on the implementation of task-shifting strategies to reduce the burden of CVD in LMICs. Effective task-shifting interventions targeted at reducing the global CVD epidemic in LMICs are urgently needed.

Project description:ImportanceThe burden of cancer falls disproportionally on low-middle-income countries (LMICs). It is not well known how novel therapies are tested in current clinical trials and the extent to which they match global disease burden.ObjectivesTo describe the design, results, and publication of oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the extent to which trials match global disease burden and how trial methods and results differ across economic settings.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective cohort study, a literature search identified all phase 3 RCTs evaluating anticancer therapies published from 2014 to 2017. Randomized clinical trials were classified based on World Bank economic classification. Descriptive statistics were used to compare RCT design and results from high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Statistical analysis was conducted in January 2020.Main outcomes and measuresDifferences in the design, results, and output of RCTs between HICs and LMICs.ResultsThe study cohort included 694 RCTs: 636 (92%) led by HICs and 58 (8%) led by LMICs. A total of 601 RCTs (87%) tested systemic therapy and 88 RCTs (13%) tested radiotherapy or surgery. The proportion of RCTs relative to global deaths was higher for breast cancer (121 RCTs [17%] and 7% of deaths) but lower for gastroesophageal cancer (38 RCTs [6%] and 14% of deaths), liver cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 8% of deaths), pancreas cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 5% of deaths), and cervical cancer (9 RCTs [1%] and 3% of deaths). Randomized clinical trials in HICs were more likely than those in LMICs to be funded by industry (464 [73%] vs 24 [41%]; P < .001). Studies in LMICs were smaller than those in HICs (median, 219 [interquartile range, 137-363] vs 474 [interquartile range, 262-743] participants; P < .001) and more likely to meet their primary end points (39 of 58 [67%] vs 286 of 636 [45%]; P = .001). The observed median effect size among superiority trials was larger in LMICs compared with HICs (hazard ratio, 0.62 [interquartile range, 0.54-0.76] vs 0.84 [interquartile range, 0.67-0.97]; P < .001). Studies from LMICs were published in journals with lower median impact factors than studies from HICs (7 [interquartile range, 4-21] vs 21 [interquartile range, 7-34]; P < .001). Publication bias persisted when adjusted for whether a trial was positive or negative (median impact factor: LMIC negative trial, 5 [interquartile range, 4-6] vs HIC negative trial, 18 [interquartile range, 6-26]; LMIC positive trial, 9 [interquartile range, 5-25] vs HIC positive trial, 25 [interquartile range, 10-48]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that oncology RCTs are conducted predominantly by HICs and do not match the global burden of cancer. Randomized clinical trials from LMICs are more likely to identify effective therapies and have a larger effect size than RCTs from HICs. This study suggests that there is a funding and publication bias against RCTs led by LMICs. Policy makers, research funders, and journals need to address this issue with a range of measures including building capacity and capability in RCTs.

Project description:ObjectiveDiabetes poses serious health threats and economic burdens to patients, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). This systematic review searches for non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) among patients who are non-diabetic and pre-diabetic from LMICs.SettingsLMICs.ParticipantsAdult population aged over 18 years without having diabetes.Primary and secondary outcomesPrimary outcome is to measure the change in the incidence of T2DM. The secondary outcome is to measure changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level, weight/body mass index (BMI), fasting glucose level and 2-hour glucose from baseline of the included randomised controlled trials.MethodsThis review has been conducted following the standard systematic review guidelines. A total of six electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched in February 2021 using a comprehensive search strategy.Two sets of independent reviewers performed screening, risk of bias (ROB) assessment using the Cochrane ROB tool and data extraction. Narrative coalescence of selected articles was demonstrated using tables. No meta-analysis was performed due to the lack of homogenous intervention strategies and study settings.ResultA total of five studies were included for the review with a combined population of 1734 from three countries. Three of the studies showed a significant reduction in T2DM incidence after the intervention of physical training and dietary modifications. Four of the studies also demonstrated a significant reduction of different secondary outcomes like weight, BMI, fasting and 2-hour plasma glucose and HbA1c. All the studies demonstrated a low ROB in most of the bias assessment domains with some unclear results in allocation concealments.ConclusionsEmphasising non-pharmacological interventions for T2DM prevention can improve health outcomes and lessen the economic burdens, which will be of paramount importance in LMICs.Systematic review registration numberCRD42020191507.