Suppr超能文献

人类布鲁氏菌病的治疗:随机对照试验的系统评价与荟萃分析

Treatment of human brucellosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

作者信息

Skalsky Keren, Yahav Dafna, Bishara Jihad, Pitlik Silvio, Leibovici Leonard, Paul Mical

机构信息

Internal Medicine E, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva 49100, Israel.

出版信息

BMJ. 2008 Mar 29;336(7646):701-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39497.500903.25. Epub 2008 Mar 5.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To determine and quantify differences in efficacy between treatment regimens for brucellosis.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing different antibiotic regimens and durations of treatment for human brucellosis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, 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.

RESULTS

30 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.

CONCLUSIONS

There 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.

摘要

目的

确定并量化布鲁氏菌病治疗方案之间疗效的差异。

设计

对评估人类布鲁氏菌病不同抗生素方案及治疗疗程的随机对照试验进行系统评价和荟萃分析。

数据来源

PubMed、CENTRAL、Lilacs、会议论文集以及参考文献,对语言、研究年份或出版状态无限制。综述方法 检索、应用纳入和排除标准、数据提取以及方法学质量评估均独立进行两次。主要结局为初次治疗失败或复发导致的复发和总体治疗失败。计算相对风险及95%置信区间,并采用固定效应模型进行汇总。

结果

纳入30项试验和77个治疗组。与多西环素-链霉素相比,多西环素-利福平治疗的总体失败率显著更高,主要原因是复发率更高(相对风险2.80,95%置信区间1.81至4.36;13项试验,无异质性)。菌血症患者和复杂性布鲁氏菌病患者的结果一致。多西环素-链霉素治疗失败率显著高于多西环素-利福平-氨基糖苷类(三联药物方案)(2.50,1.26至5.00;两项试验)。庆大霉素不劣于链霉素(治疗失败相对风险1.45,0.52至4.00;两项试验)。喹诺酮类与利福平联合使用的疗效显著低于多西环素与利福平或链霉素联合使用(治疗失败相对风险1.83,1.11至3.02;五项试验)。在相似疗程下,单药治疗与联合治疗相比失败风险更高(2.56,1.55至4.23;五项试验)。治疗六周或更长时间比更短疗程具有优势。

结论

目前推荐的布鲁氏菌病治疗方案在有效性方面存在显著差异。首选治疗应为包含氨基糖苷类的双联或三联方案。

相似文献

1
Treatment of human brucellosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BMJ. 2008 Mar 29;336(7646):701-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39497.500903.25. Epub 2008 Mar 5.
2
Drugs for treating Buruli ulcer (Mycobacterium ulcerans disease).
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 23;8(8):CD012118. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012118.pub2.
3
Updated therapeutic options for human brucellosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2024 Aug 22;18(8):e0012405. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012405. eCollection 2024 Aug.
4
Antibiotics for treating scrub typhus.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 24;9(9):CD002150. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002150.pub2.
5
Effectiveness of rifampicin-streptomycin for treatment of Buruli ulcer: a systematic review.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2017 Jan;15(1):119-139. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-003235.
6
Efficacy and safety of therapeutic strategies for human brucellosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2024 Mar 11;18(3):e0012010. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012010. eCollection 2024 Mar.
7
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 22;12(12):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2.
9
Prophylactic antibiotics for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 15;1(1):CD013198. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013198.pub2.
10
Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 6;2(2):CD011123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2.

引用本文的文献

1
Brucellosis: Bacteriology, pathogenesis, epidemiology and role of the metallophores in virulence: a review.
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2025 Jul 8;15:1621230. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2025.1621230. eCollection 2025.
4
Febrile neutropenia in an immunocompetent patient with brucellosis: a case report and literature review.
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2025 Jan 9;87(1):383-386. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000002823. eCollection 2025 Jan.
6
A Thermosensitive and Degradable Chitin-Based Hydrogel as a Brucellosis Vaccine Adjuvant.
Polymers (Basel). 2024 Oct 4;16(19):2815. doi: 10.3390/polym16192815.
7
MRI findings and classification of brucella spondylitis: a China multicenter study.
Eur J Med Res. 2024 Sep 28;29(1):469. doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-02011-2.
8
Updated therapeutic options for human brucellosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2024 Aug 22;18(8):e0012405. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012405. eCollection 2024 Aug.
9
Factors influencing length of stay and costs in inpatient cases of human brucellosis as the primary diagnosis over a decade in Beijing, China.
Front Public Health. 2024 May 15;12:1347693. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1347693. eCollection 2024.
10
Brucellar Epididymo-Orchitis in a Brucellosis Hyperendemic Region in Türkiye.
Infect Dis Clin Microbiol. 2023 Dec 29;5(4):367-375. doi: 10.36519/idcm.2023.253. eCollection 2023 Dec.

本文引用的文献

1
Perspectives for the treatment of brucellosis in the 21st century: the Ioannina recommendations.
PLoS Med. 2007 Dec;4(12):e317. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040317.
2
Human brucellosis.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2007 Dec;7(12):775-86. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(07)70286-4.
3
The new global map of human brucellosis.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2006 Feb;6(2):91-9. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(06)70382-6.
4
Brucellosis.
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jun 2;352(22):2325-36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra050570.
5
Current status of therapy of brucellosis in human beings.
J Am Med Assoc. 1960 Feb 13;172:697-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.1960.63020070004016.
8
Joint FAO/WHO expert committee on brucellosis.
World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1986;740:1-132.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验