Dataset Information

Comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Parenteral penicillin is the first-line regimen for treating syphilis, but unsuitable for some patients due to penicillin allergy and lacking health resources. Unfortunately, the efficacy of penicillin alternatives remains poorly understood. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of ceftriaxone and doxycycline/tetracycline in treating early syphilis relative to that of penicillin, and thereby to determine which antibiotic is a better replacement for penicillin.

Method

By searching literature from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, the Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov and systematically screening relevant studies, eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on treatments with penicillin, doxycycline/tetracycline, and ceftriaxone for early syphilis were identified and combined in this systematic review. Estimated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized to compare their serological response and treatment failure rates. At 12-month follow up, serological response rates were compared by a direct meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), while treatment failure rates were compared with a direct meta-analysis.

Result

Three RCTs and seven cohort studies were included in this research. The results of NMA demonstrated that no significant differences existed in serological response rate at 12-month follow-up between any two of the three treatments (doxycycline/tetracycline vs. penicillin RR = 1.01, 95%CI 0.89-1.14; ceftriaxone vs. penicillin RR = 1.00, 95%CI 0.89-1.13; ceftriaxone vs. doxycycline/tetracycline RR = 0.99, 95%CI 0.96-1.03), which was consistent with the outcomes of the direct meta-analysis. In addition, the direct meta-analysis indicated that, at 12-month follow-up, penicillin and ceftriaxone treatment groups had similar treatment failure rates (RR = 0.92, 95%CI 0.12-6.93), while treatment failure rate was significantly lower among penicillin recipients than among doxycycline/tetracycline recipients (RR = 0.58, 95%CI 0.38-0.89).

Conclusion

Ceftriaxone is as effective as penicillin in treating early syphilis with regard to serological response and treatment failure rate. Compared with doxycycline/tetracycline, ceftriaxone appears to be a better choice as the substitution of penicillin.

SUBMITTER: Liu HY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5489196 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

Liu Hong-Ye HY Han Yan Y Chen Xiang-Sheng XS Bai Li L Guo Shu-Ping SP Li Li L Wu Peng P Yin Yue-Ping YP

PloS one 20170628 6

<h4>Background</h4>Parenteral penicillin is the first-line regimen for treating syphilis, but unsuitable for some patients due to penicillin allergy and lacking health resources. Unfortunately, the efficacy of penicillin alternatives remains poorly understood. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of ceftriaxone and doxycycline/tetracycline in treating early syphilis relative to that of penicillin, and thereby to determine which antibiotic is a better replacement for penicillin.<h4>Method</h4> ...[more]

PMID: 28658325

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Melasma is an acquired pigmentation disorder with challenges in treatment because of its refractory nature and high risk of recurrence. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and side effects of 14 common therapies for melasma using a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched till December 2020 using the melasma area and severity index as a therapeutic index. A total of 59 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria and were selected. Results: The ranking of relative efficacy compared with placebo in descending order was Q-switched Nd:Yag 1,064-nm laser (QSND), intense pulsed light, ablative fractional laser (AFL), triple combined cream (TCC), topical vitamin C, oral tranexamic acid (oTA), peeling, azelaic acid, microneedles (MNs), topical tranexamic acid (tTA), tretinoin, picosecond laser, hydroquinone (HQ), and non-AFL. Moreover, QSND was more effective than HQ and tTA against melasma. The ranking of percentage (%) of side effects in ascending order for each of 14 therapies with more than 80 participants was tretinoin (10.1%), oTA (17.6%), HQ (18.2%), AFL (20.0%), QSND (21.5%), TCC (25.7%), tTA (36.75%), peeling (38.0%), and MN (52.3%). Taking both efficacy and safety into consideration, TCC was found to be the most favorable selection among the topical drugs for melasma. QSND and AFL were still the best ways to treat melasma among photoelectric devices. oTA as system administration was a promising way recommended for melasma. Among 31 studies, 87% (27/31) studies showed that the efficacy of combination therapies is superior to that of single therapy. The quality of evidence in this study was generally high because of nearly 50% of split-face RCTs. Conclusions: Based on the published studies, this NMA indicated that QSND, AFL, TCC, and oTA would be the preferred ways to treat melasma for dermatologists. However, more attention should be paid to the efficacy and safety simultaneously during the clinical application. Most of the results were in line with those of the previous studies, but a large number of RCTs should be included for validation or update. Systematic Review Registration: identifier: CRD42021239203.

Project description:Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications. Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates. Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Project description:BackgroundAcupuncture has been found to be an effective treatment for functional dyspepsia (FD). Currently, several types of acupuncture have been developed but it is not clear which type is suitable for FD. Currently, doctors often rely on experience to decide which form of acupuncture to apply. Herein, we employed network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the effectiveness of various methods of acupuncture in the treatment of functional dyspepsia.MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture treatments for functional dyspepsia in seven databases; PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Wanfang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, Chinese Science and Technique Journals (CQVIP), and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) from the date of database inception to October 10, 2019. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to analyze the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 and the network meta-analysis of the included RCTs was performed using the frequentist framework.ResultsA total of 35 studies involving 3301 patients and 10 interventions were eligible for this study. NMA results showed that five types of acupuncture (manual acupuncture, acupoint application, moxibustion, acupoint catgut embedding, and warm acupuncture alone) all were superior to prokinetics (itopride, mosapride, and domperidone) and sham acupuncture in terms of improving the symptoms of functional dyspepsia. Specifically, manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture were more effective in improving the MOS 36 Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) compared to itopride and sham acupuncture, and electroacupuncture was the best among the three acupuncture therapies (acupuncture, electroacupuncture, and acupoint catgut embedding). Moxibustion and manual acupuncture were more effective in improving Nepean Dyspepsia Life Quality Index (NDLQI) compared to itopride, domperidone, and sham acupuncture; moxibustion ranks first among the three acupuncture therapies (acupuncture, electroacupuncture, moxibustion).ConclusionsThese results showed that manual acupuncture alone was the most effective therapy for FD. It should, therefore, be considered as an alternative treatment for FD patients who are unresponsive to prokinetics or intolerant to the adverse effects of prokinetics. We recommend further multiple centers and high-quality RCT studies to confirm the present findings.

Project description:BackgroundSystemic treatments, namely, either monotherapy or combination therapy, are commonly administered to patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to provide the complete efficacy and safety profiles and ranking of systemic therapies for the treatment of unresectable advanced or metastatic CRC.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until June 30, 2021, and also the bibliographies of relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials comparing two or more treatments, namely, at least capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, bevacizumab, cetuximab, oxaliplatin, or panitumumab were investigated. A network meta-analysis using the Bayesian approach was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated for the probability of each treatment as the most effective. The overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs) grade ≥3, and serious adverse events (SAEs) were evaluated.ResultsOne hundred two publications with 36,147 participants were assigned to 39 different treatments. Among 11 treatments with full information on six outcomes, FOLFIRI/FOLFOX/FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab significantly improved both the ORR and DCR, compared to FOLFIRI. Although FOLFOX and FOLFIRI/FOLFOX + cetuximab significantly prolonged both OS and PFS, treatments were comparable in terms of AEs grade ≥3 and SAEs. The top highest SUCRA values were observed in the FOLFOXIRI + panitumumab group for ORR (96%) and DCR (99%), FOLFIRI + bevacizumab + panitumumab group for OS (62%) and PFS (54%), and FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab group for AEs grade ≥3 (59%) and SAEs (59%) outcomes.ConclusionsThese findings suggest an available range of systemic treatment therapies with different efficacy and safety profiles with patients. Further investigations of the side effects and mutation status are required to confirm our findings.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42019127772.

Project description:BackgroundRadiation dermatitis (RD) is a prevalent and difficult-to-manage consequence of radiation therapy (RT). A variety of interventions have been proven effective in preventing and treating RD. However, the optimal approach remains unclear. This network meta-analysis (NMA) conducted a comparison and ranking of the effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the interventions currently utilized in RD.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on the prevention and treatment of RD. The primary outcome measures included the incidence of grade≥2 RD (i.e., percentage of moist desquamation) and RD score. The secondary outcome measures encompassed patients' subjective assessment scores of pains, itching and burning sensations.ResultsOur meta-analysis encompassed 42 studies and 4884 participants. Regarding the primary outcomes, photobiomodulation treatment (PBMT) ranked first in surface under curve cumulative ranking area (SUCRA:0.92) for reducing the incidence of grade≥2 RD. It demonstrated a significant difference when compared to Trolamine (OR 0.18,95%CrI 0.09-0.33) and Xonrid® (OR 0.28,95%CrI 0.12-0.66). Mepitelfilm (SUCRA: 0.98) achieved the highest rank in reducing the RD score, demonstrating superiority over StrataXRT® (MD -0.89, 95% CrI -1.49, -0.29). Henna (SUCRA: 0.89) demonstrated the highest effectiveness in providing pain relief, with a significant difference compared to Hydrofilm (MD -0.44, 95% CrI -0.84, -0.04) and Mepitelfilm (MD -0.55, 95% CrI -0.91, -0.19). Hydrofilm (SUCRA: 0.84) exhibited the fewest itching sensations, demonstrating superiority over Mepitelfilm (MD -0.50, 95% CrI -0.84, -0.17). No statistically significant difference was observed among various interventions in the assessment of burning sensations.ConclusionPBMT and Mepitelfilm demonstrated better efficacy in reducing the incidence of grade≥2 RD and RD score, respectively. In terms of PROs, Henna and Hydrofilm had fewer complaints in pain and itching sensations, respectively. However, studies with larger sample size on different interventions are warranted in the future.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42023428598.

Dataset Information

Comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

Background

Method

Result

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets