Dataset Information

Rifampicin versus streptomycin for brucellosis treatment in humans: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease with a high morbidity in developing countries, but there the optimal treatment is not yet determined. Therefore, the development of a simple and effective treatment is important. The aim of this study was to summarize the available evidences and compare rifampicin with streptomycin in human brucellosis with doxycycline as background regimen. We systematically searched PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception up through December 2016. We included studies with a randomized controlled design that evaluated the effect of streptomycin compared with rifampicin in human brucellosis patients who received doxycycline therapy as background regimen. The overall failure and relapse were summarized using random-effects model. Our meta-analysis included 1,383 patients with brucellosis from 14 trials. We found that patients who received rifampicin therapy had a higher risk of overall failure (RR: 2.36; 95% CI: 1.72-3.23; P<0.001) and relapse (RR: 2.74; 95% CI: 1.80-4.19; P<0.001) compared with streptomycin. Results of the sensitivity analysis were consistent with the overall analysis. Subgroup analysis indicated that mean age of the patients and percentage of male participants might influence the treatment effects. Furthermore, no publication bias was detected. The findings of this study indicated that rifampicin therapy significantly increased the risk of overall failure and relapse compared with streptomycin. Hence, it can be recommended to patients with human brucellosis receiving streptomycin therapy.

SUBMITTER: Meng F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5819773 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rifampicin versus streptomycin for brucellosis treatment in humans: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Meng Fanjie F Pan Xiangpo X Tong Wenzhen W

PloS one 20180220 2

Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease with a high morbidity in developing countries, but there the optimal treatment is not yet determined. Therefore, the development of a simple and effective treatment is important. The aim of this study was to summarize the available evidences and compare rifampicin with streptomycin in human brucellosis with doxycycline as background regimen. We systematically searched PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception up through December 2016. We incl ...[more]

PMID: 29462155

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine and quantify differences in efficacy between treatment regimens for brucellosis.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing different antibiotic regimens and durations of treatment for human brucellosis.Data sourcesPubMed, CENTRAL, Lilacs, conference proceedings, and bibliographies with no restrictions on language, study year, or publication status. Review methods Search, application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality independently performed in duplicate. Primary outcomes were relapse and overall failure resulting from primary failure or relapse. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled with a fixed effect model.Results30 trials and 77 treatment arms were included. Overall failure was significantly higher with doxycycline-rifampicin compared to doxycycline-streptomycin, mainly due to a higher rate of relapse (relative risk 2.80, 95% confidence interval 1.81 to 4.36; 13 trials, without heterogeneity). Results were consistent among patients with bacteraemia and complicated brucellosis. Doxycycline-streptomycin resulted in a significantly higher rate of failure than doxycycline-rifampicin-aminoglycoside (triple drug regimen) (2.50, 1.26 to 5.00; two trials). Gentamicin was not inferior to streptomycin (1.45, 0.52 to 4.00 for failure; two trials). Quinolones combined with rifampicin were significantly less effective than doxycycline combined with rifampicin or streptomycin (1.83, 1.11 to 3.02, for failure; five trials). Monotherapy was associated with a higher risk of failure than combined treatment when administered for a similar duration (2.56, 1.55 to 4.23; five trials). Treatment for six weeks or more offered an advantage over shorter treatment durations.ConclusionsThere are significant differences in effectiveness between currently recommended treatment regimens for brucellosis. The preferred treatment should be with dual or triple regimens including an aminoglycoside.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the median nerve. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release remain controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnel release provides better symptom relief, validated outcome scores, short- and long-term strength, and/or digital sensibility; entails a differential risk of complications such as nerve injury, scar tenderness, pillar pain, and reoperation; allows an earlier return to work; and takes less operative time. METHODS:The English-language literature was searched using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials that compared endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was assessed with the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Symptom relief, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores, strength, digital sensibility, complications, reoperation, interval to return to work, and operative time were analyzed. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials containing 1859 hands were included. RESULTS:Endoscopically treated patients showed similar symptom relief and BCTQ scores; better early recovery of grip strength (mean difference [MD], 3.03 kg [0.08-5.98]; p = 0.04) and pinch strength (MD, 0.77 kg [0.33-1.22]; p < 0.001) but no advantage after 6 months; lower risk of scar tenderness (risk ratio [RR], 0.53 [0.35-0.82]; p = 0.005); higher risk of nerve injury (RR, 2.84 [1.08-7.46]; p = 0.03), most of which were transient neurapraxias. Similar risk of pillar pain and reoperation; an earlier return to work (MD, -8.73 days [-12.82 to -4.65]; p < 0.001); and reduced operative time (MD, -4.81 minutes [-9.23 to -0.39]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:High-level evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that endoscopic release allows earlier return to work and improved strength during the early postoperative period. Results at 6 months or later are similar according to current data except that patients undergoing endoscopic release are at greater risk of nerve injury and lower risk of scar tenderness compared with open release. While endoscopic release may appeal to patients who require an early return to work and activities, surgeons should be cognizant of its elevated incidence of transient nerve injury amid its similar overall efficacy to open carpal tunnel release. Additional research is required to define the learning curve of endoscopic release and clarify the influence of surgeon volume on its safety.

Project description:BackgroundBrucellosis is a persistent health problem in many developing countries throughout the world, and the search for simple and effective treatment continues to be of great importance.Methods and findingsA search was conducted in MEDLINE and in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Clinical trials published from 1985 to present that assess different antimicrobial regimens in cases of documented acute uncomplicated human brucellosis were included. The primary outcomes were relapse, therapeutic failure, combined variable of relapse and therapeutic failure, and adverse effect rates. A meta-analysis with a fixed effect model was performed and odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. A random effect model was used when significant heterogeneity between studies was verified. Comparison of combined doxycycline and rifampicin with a combination of doxycycline and streptomycin favors the latter regimen (OR = 3.17; CI95% = 2.05-4.91). There were no significant differences between combined doxycycline-streptomycin and combined doxycycline-gentamicin (OR = 1.89; CI95% = 0.81-4.39). Treatment with rifampicin and quinolones was similar to combined doxycycline-rifampicin (OR = 1.23; CI95% = 0.63-2.40). Only one study assessed triple therapy with aminoglycoside-doxycycline-rifampicin and only included patients with uncomplicated brucellosis. Thus this approach cannot be considered the therapy of choice until further studies have been performed. Combined doxycycline/co-trimoxazole or doxycycline monotherapy could represent a cost-effective alternative in certain patient groups, and further studies are needed in the future.ConclusionsAlthough the preferred treatment in uncomplicated human brucellosis is doxycycline-aminoglycoside combination, other treatments based on oral regimens or monotherapy should not be rejected until they are better studied. Triple therapy should not be considered the current treatment of choice.

Project description:PurposeWhether patients with smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) needed to receive early interventional treatment remains controversial. Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of early treatment over deferred treatment for patients with SMM.MethodsMEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched to May 2014 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effect of early treatment over deferred treatment. Primary outcome measure was mortality, and secondary outcome measures were progression, response rate, and adverse events.ResultsOverall, 5 trials including 449 patients were identified. There was a markedly reduced risk of disease progression with early treatment (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.07 to 0.24). There were no significant differences in mortality and response rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.45 to 1.60, and OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.32 to 1.23, respectively). More patients in the early treatment arm experienced gastrointestinal toxicities (OR = 10.02, 95%CI = 4.32 to 23.23), constipation (OR = 8.58, 95%CI = 3.20 to 23.00) and fatigue or asthenia (OR = 2.72, 95%CI = 1.30 to 5.67). No significant differences were seen with the development of acute leukemia (OR = 2.80, 95%CI = 0.42 to 18.81), hematologic cancer (OR = 2.07, 95%CI = 0.43 to 10.01), second primary tumors (OR = 3.45, 95%CI = 0.81 to 14.68), nor vertebral compression (OR = 0.18, 95%CI = 0.02 to 1.59).ConclusionsEarly treatment delayed disease progression but increased the risk of gastrointestinal toxicities, constipation and fatigue or asthenia. The differences on vertebral compression, acute leukemia, hematological cancer and second primary tumors were not statistically significant. Based on the current evidence, early treatment didn't significantly affect mortality and response rate. However, further much larger trials were needed to provide more evidence.

Project description:In clinical practice guidelines, there is no consensus about the medications that should be initially offered to patients with brucellosis. To provide informative evidence, we compared and ranked brucellosis medications based on their efficacy and safety. For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched 4 English databases and 3 Chinese databases, from the date of database inception to December 13, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adolescents with brucellosis, comparing different antibiotic regimens. We excluded studies explicitly targeting patients with spondylitis brucellosis, endocarditis brucellosis, and neuro-brucellosis. The primary outcomes were overall failure (efficacy) and side effects (safety). Secondary outcomes were relapse and therapeutic failure. Pairwise meta-analysis was first examined. Data were analyzed using random effects network meta-analysis, with subgroup and sensitivity analyses performed. The Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework was used to assess the certainty of evidence. The protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42023491331). Of the 11,747 records identified through the database search, 43 RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis. Compared with standard therapy (Doxycycline + Rifampicin), Rifampicin + Tetracyclines (RR 4.96; 95% CI 1.47 to 16.70; very low certainty of evidence), Doxycycline + TMP/SMX (RR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.52; low certainty of evidence), Doxycycline + Quinolones (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.71; low certainty of evidence), Streptomycin + Tetracyclines (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.16; low certainty of evidence), and Single (RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.16; moderate certainty of evidence) were less efficacious. Doxycycline + Gentamicin ranked the best in efficacy (SUCRA values: 0.94), the second is Triple (SUCRA values: 0.87), and the third is Doxycycline + Streptomycin (SUCRA values: 0.78). Brucellosis medications differ in efficacy and safety. Doxycycline + Gentamicin, Triple, and Doxycycline + Streptomycin have superior efficacy and safety. Treatment of brucellosis should strike a balance between efficacy, safety, and cost.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.MethodsA meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.ResultsForty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).ConclusionLA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.

Dataset Information

Rifampicin versus streptomycin for brucellosis treatment in humans: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Rifampicin versus streptomycin for brucellosis treatment in humans: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets