Dataset Information

Updated therapeutic options for human brucellosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Huang S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11340890 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Updated therapeutic options for human brucellosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Huang Shanjun S Xu Jiaying J Wang Hao H Li Zhuo Z Song Ruifang R Zhang Yiting Y Lu Menghan M Han Xin X Ma Tian T Wang Yingtong Y Hao Jiaxin J Song Shanshan S Zhen Qing Q Shui Tiejun T

PLoS neglected tropical diseases 20240822 8

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 ...[more]

PMID: 39172763

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundObesity, characterized by excessive fat accumulation, poses a significant public health challenge globally. Recent advancements in medical technology have heralded the emergence of endoscopic bariatric treatments (EBTs) as innovative alternatives to conventional obesity interventions. Despite previous systematic reviews and network meta-analyses, they also highlighted discrepancies in outcomes and efficacy among different EBTs. Here, we will update a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on EBTs and presents a protocol for the reproducibility and transparency.MethodsThe core protocol of this study was registered at PROSPERO database (CRD42024514249) on Jan 2024. Core databases including MEDLINE through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library will be searched relevant studies, and a systematic review with network meta-analysis will be performed. Two evaluators (EJ Gong and CS Bang) will independently screen the titles and abstracts following the eligibility criteria; (1) RCTs investigated the compared the efficacy of EBTs and controls; (2) studies published in English; and (3) studies in full-text format. We will exclude studies meeting the following criteria; (1) studies that did not report the treatment outcomes, such as percent excess weight loss or percent total body weight loss; (2) case reports and review articles; (3) ineligible research objects, for example, animals or children; and (4) insufficient data regarding treatment outcome. The primary outcomes will be the common efficacy metric found after systematic review of relevant studies, such as percent excess weight loss or percent total body weight loss with a follow-up of at least 6 months. Narrative (descriptive) synthesis is planned and quantitative synthesis will be used if the included studies are sufficiently homogenous. The quality of the identified studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool version 2.0 (ROB 2.0). All the systematic review and network meta-analysis process will be undertaken keeping the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for systematic review protocols (PRISMA-P) and PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions (PRISMA-NMA).DiscussionThis updated systematic review and network meta-analysis will provide information about comparative efficacy of various EBTs and this will help physicians in the decision-making process for the selection of treatment modalities in the clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundContinuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is a widely used standard therapy for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). Despite its effectiveness, treatment is often interrupted due to clot formation in the extracorporeal circuits. Anticoagulation is a crucial strategy for preventing extracorporeal circuit clotting during CRRT. While various anticoagulation options are available, there were still no studies synthetically comparing the efficacy and safety of these anticoagulation options.MethodsElectronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database) were searched from inception to October 31, 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the following outcomes were included: filter lifespan, all-cause mortality, length of stay, duration of CRRT, recovery of kidney function, adverse events and costs.ResultsThirty-seven RCTs from 38 articles, comprising 2648 participants with 14 comparisons, were included in this network meta-analysis (NMA). Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) are the most frequently used anticoagulants. Compared to UFH, RCA was found to be more effective in prolonging filter lifespan (MD 12.0, 95% CI 3.8 to 20.2) and reducing the risk of bleeding. Regional-UFH plus Prostaglandin I2 (Regional-UFH + PGI2) appeared to outperform RCA (MD 37.0, 95% CI 12.0 to 62.0), LMWH (MD 41.3, 95% CI 15.6 to 67.0), and other evaluated anticoagulation options in prolonging filter lifespan. However, only a single included RCT with 46 participants had evaluated Regional-UFH + PGI2. No statistically significant difference was observed in terms of length of ICU stay, all-cause mortality, duration of CRRT, recovery of kidney function, and adverse events among most evaluated anticoagulation options.ConclusionsCompared to UFH, RCA is the preferred anticoagulant for critically ill patients requiring CRRT. The SUCRA analysis and forest plot of Regional-UFH + PGI2 are limited, as only a single study was included. Additional high-quality studies are necessary before any recommendation of Regional-UFH + PGI2. Further larger high-quality RCTs are desirable to strengthen the evidence on the best choice of anticoagulation options to reduce all-cause mortality and adverse events and promote the recovery of kidney function. Trial registration The protocol of this network meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO ( CRD42022360263 ). Registered 26 September 2022.

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:BackgroundSeveral systemic agents have been approved for use in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, it is unclear which treatment is superior in either the first- or second-line settings due to the paucity of head-to-head comparative trials. Therefore, we have conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis for the indirect comparison of the systemic agents in the first line and second line settings.MethodsRandomized clinical trials evaluating systemic agents in first and second line settings in aHCC from inception to April 2020 were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases and the annual ASCO and ESMO conferences from 2017 to 2020. Studies in English reporting clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) were included. The primary outcomes of interest were pooled hazard ratios (HR) of OS and pooled odds ratios (OR) of ORR in first line studies and pooled HR of PFS and OR of ORR for second line studies. Additionally, OS for second line agents were reported in the qualitative analysis.ResultsOverall, first line studies comprised 8335 patients (13 studies) and second line studies comprised 4612 patients (11 studies). In the first line setting, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with the highest OS benefit over sorafenib (HR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.42-0.80; P-score 0.993). Additionally, lenvatinib was associated with the greatest ORR benefit (OR 3.34, 95% CI, 2.17-5.14; P-score 0.080) in the first line setting. In the second line setting, cabozantinib was associated with the highest PFS benefit over placebo (HR 0.44, 95% CI, 0.29-0.66; P-score 0.854) as well as the highest ORR benefit (OR 9.40, 95% CI, 1.25-70.83, P-score, 0.266).ConclusionAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab appears to have superior efficacy among first line agents whereas cabozantinib appears to be superior in the second line setting. Further studies are warranted to determine whether the type of prior therapy received affects the efficacy of subsequent second line therapy.

Project description:ImportanceMultiple therapies are currently available for patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), yet many therapies have not been compared head-to-head within randomized clinical trials (RCTs).ObjectiveTo assess the relative safety and efficacy of therapies for NETs.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registries, meeting abstracts, and reference lists from January 1, 1947, to March 2, 2018, were searched. Key search terms included neuroendocrine tumors, gastrointestinal neoplasms, therapy, and randomized controlled trial.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials comparing 2 or more therapies in patients with NETs (primarily gastrointestinal and pancreatic) were evaluated. Thirty RCTs met the selection criteria.Data extraction and synthesisPairs of independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A network meta-analysis with a frequentist approach was used to compare the efficacy of therapies; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was used.Main outcomes and measuresDisease control, progression-free survival, overall survival, adverse events, and quality of life.ResultsThe systematic review identified 30 relevant RCTs comprising 3895 patients (48.4% women) assigned to 22 different therapies for NETs. These therapies showed a broad range of risk for serious and nonserious adverse events. The network meta-analyses included 16 RCTs with predominantly a low risk of bias; nevertheless, precision-of-treatment estimates and estimated heterogeneity were limited. The network meta-analysis found 7 therapies for pancreatic NETs: everolimus (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35 [95% CI, 0.28-0.45]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.25-0.51]), everolimus plus bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26-0.75]), interferon (HR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.16-0.83]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.71]), somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.33-0.66]), and sunitinib (HR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26-0.67]), and 5 therapies for gastrointestinal NETs: bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.05-0.99]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.11-0.90]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.07-0.96]), Lu 177-dotatate plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.08 [95% CI, 0.03-0.26], and somatostatin analogues (HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.21-0.78]) with higher efficacy than placebo and suggests an overall superiority of combination therapies.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings from this study suggest that a range of efficient therapies with different safety profiles is available for patients with NETs.

Project description:In 2012, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding potential adverse effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) on cognition, based on the Adverse Events Reporting System and a review of the medical literature. We aimed to synthesize randomized clinical trial (RCTs) evidence on the association between statin therapy and cognitive outcomes.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL through December 2012, and reviewed published systematic reviews of statin treatment. We sought RCTs that compared statin treatment versus placebo or standard care, and reported at least one cognitive outcome (frequency of adverse cognitive events or measurements using standard neuropsychological cognitive test scores). Studies reporting sufficient information to calculate effect sizes were included in meta-analyses. Standardized and unstandardized mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes for global cognition and for pre-specified cognitive domains. The main outcome was change in cognition measured by neuropsychological tests; an outcome of secondary interest was the frequency of adverse cognitive events observed during follow-up.We identified 25 RCTs (all placebo-controlled) reporting cognitive outcomes in 46,836 subjects, of which 23 RCTs reported cognitive test results in 29,012 participants. Adverse cognitive outcomes attributable to statins were rarely reported in trials involving cognitively normal or impaired subjects. Furthermore, meta-analysis of cognitive test data (14 studies; 27,643 participants) failed to show significant adverse effects of statins on all tests of cognition in either cognitively normal subjects (standardized mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval, CI, -0.01 to 0.03, p?=?0.42) or Alzheimer's disease subjects (standardized mean difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10, p?=?0.38).Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. These results raise questions regarding the continued merit of the FDA warning about potential adverse effects of statins on cognition.

Project description:BackgroundThere is uncertainty in the treatment options for resectable hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.MethodsA systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Conference Proceedings databases and trial registries were searched until November 2020 for randomized controlled trials performed on resectable hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Two systematic review authors independently identified studies and extracted data. The primary outcomes evaluated were overall survival, disease-free survival, any recurrence, local recurrence, loco-regional recurrence, distal recurrence and laryngectomy-free survival. The secondary outcomes were response rates following neoadjuvant treatment and comparison of treatment-related toxicity. Assessment of risk of bias was performed for the selected studies using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. The studies were evaluated for the quality of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations). Risk ratios (RR), rate ratios, and hazard ratios (HR) were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.ResultsFive RCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review. The risk of bias was unclear or high for the trials. Non-organ preservation(n = 140) versus organ preservation (n = 144) (two trials): no statistically significant difference could be identified for any of the primary outcomes. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (n = 37) versus sequential chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (n = 34) (one trial): no statistically significant difference was noted between the two treatment arms for overall survival, disease-free survival and loco-regional recurrence. Laryngectomy-free survival was found to be superior in concurrent chemoradiotherapy arm (HR:0.28, 95% CI 0.13, 0.57). Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (n = 53) versus induction chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (n = 60) (one trial): no statistically significant difference was noted between the treatment arms for overall survival, disease-free survival and laryngectomy-free survival. Preoperative radiotherapy (n = 24) versus postoperative radiotherapy (n = 23) (one trial): overall survival was found to be better in the postoperative radiotherapy arm (HR:2.44, 95% CI1.18, 5.03). No statistically significant difference was noted in terms of treatment-related toxicity.ConclusionsThere are considerable uncertainties in the management of resectable hypopharyngeal cancer.Trail registrationPROSPERO registration: CRD42019155613.

Dataset Information

Updated therapeutic options for human brucellosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Updated therapeutic options for human brucellosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets