Suppr超能文献

预防成人和儿童HIV感染者鸟分枝杆菌复合体的干预措施。

Interventions for the prevention of mycobacterium avium complex in adults and children with HIV.

作者信息

Uthman Muhammed Mubashir B, Uthman Olalekan A, Yahaya Ismail

机构信息

Department of Epidemiology & Community Health, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of Ilorin,Ilorin, Nigeria.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 30;2013(4):CD007191. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007191.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) infection is a common complication of advanced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) disease and is an independent predictor of mortality and shortened survival.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of interventions aimed at preventing MAC infection in adults and children with HIV infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library (search date December 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing different strategies for preventing MAC infection in HIV-infected individuals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility and quality, and extracted data. Where data were incomplete or unclear, a third reviewer resolved conflicts and/or trial authors were contacted for further details. Development of MAC infection and survival were compared using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of evidence has been assessed using the GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Placebo-controlled trials: There was no statistically significant difference between clofazimine and no treatment groups in the number of patients that developed MAC infection (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.37 to 2.80). Rifabutin (one study; RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.67), azithromycin (three studies; RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.74) and clarithromycin (one study; RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.58) were more effective than placebo in preventing the development of MAC infection. There was no statistically significant difference between those treated with clofazimine (one study; RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.41 to 2.32), rifabutin (one study RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05), azithromycin (three studies, pooled RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.32) and placebo in number of reported deaths. One study found that the risk of death was reduced by 22% in patients treated with clarithromycin compared to those treated with placebo (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.96). Monotherapy vs. monotherapy: Patients treated with clarithromycin (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.89) and azithromycin (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89) were 40% less likely to develop MAC infection than those treated with rifabutin. There was no statistically significant difference between those treated with clarithromycin (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.15), azithromycin (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.24) and rifabutin in the number of reported deaths. Combination therapy versus monotherapy: There was no statistically significant difference between patients treated with a combination of rifabutin and clarithromycin and those treated with clarithromycin alone (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20); and those treated with combination of rifabutin and azithromycin and those treated with azithromycin alone (RR 0.59; 95% CI 1.03). Patients treated with a combination of rifabutin plus clarithromycin were 56% less likely to develop MAC infection than those treated with rifabutin alone (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.69). Patients treated with a combination of rifabutin plus azithromycin were 65% less likely to develop MAC infection than those treated with rifabutin alone (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.59). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of reported deaths in all the four different comparisons of prophylactic agents.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on limited data, azithromycin or clarithromycin appeared to be a prophylactic agent of choice for MAC infection. Further studies are needed, especially direct comparison of clarithromycin and azithromycin. In additions, studies that will compare different doses and regimens are needed.

摘要

背景

鸟分枝杆菌复合体(MAC)感染是晚期获得性免疫缺陷综合征(AIDS)的常见并发症,是死亡率和缩短生存期的独立预测因素。

目的

确定旨在预防HIV感染的成人和儿童发生MAC感染的干预措施的有效性和安全性。

检索方法

我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆(检索日期为2012年12月)。

入选标准

比较预防HIV感染者MAC感染的不同策略的随机对照试验。

数据收集与分析

两名评价员独立评估试验的合格性和质量,并提取数据。若数据不完整或不清楚,由第三名评价员解决冲突和/或与试验作者联系以获取更多细节。使用风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)比较MAC感染的发生情况和生存率。采用GRADE方法评估证据质量。

主要结果

八项研究符合纳入标准。安慰剂对照试验:氯法齐明组与未治疗组发生MAC感染的患者数量无统计学显著差异(RR 1.01;95%CI 0.37至2.80)。利福布汀(一项研究;RR 0.48;95%CI 0.35至0.67)、阿奇霉素(三项研究;RR 0.37;95%CI 0.19至0.74)和克拉霉素(一项研究;RR 0.35;95%CI 0.21至0.58)在预防MAC感染方面比安慰剂更有效。氯法齐明治疗组(一项研究;RR 0.98;95%CI 0.41至2.32)、利福布汀治疗组(一项研究,RR 0.91;95%CI 0.78至1.05)、阿奇霉素治疗组(三项研究,合并RR 0.96;95%CI 0.69至1.32)与安慰剂组报告的死亡人数无统计学显著差异。一项研究发现,与安慰剂治疗组相比,克拉霉素治疗组患者的死亡风险降低了22%(RR 0.78;95%CI 0.64至0.96)。单药治疗与单药治疗比较:克拉霉素治疗组(RR 0.60;95%CI 0.41至0.89)和阿奇霉素治疗组(RR 0.60;95%CI 0.40至0.89)发生MAC感染的可能性比利福布汀治疗组低40%。克拉霉素治疗组(RR 0.98;95%CI 0.83至1.15)、阿奇霉素治疗组(RR 0.98;95%CI 0.77至1.24)与利福布汀治疗组报告的死亡人数无统计学显著差异。联合治疗与单药治疗比较:利福布汀与克拉霉素联合治疗组与单独使用克拉霉素治疗组之间无统计学显著差异(RR 0.74;95%CI 0.46至1.20);利福布汀与阿奇霉素联合治疗组与单独使用阿奇霉素治疗组之间无统计学显著差异(RR 0.59;95%CI 1.03)。利福布汀加克拉霉素联合治疗组发生MAC感染的可能性比单独使用利福布汀治疗组低56%(RR 0.44;95%CI 0.29至0.69)。利福布汀加阿奇霉素联合治疗组发生MAC感染的可能性比单独使用利福布汀治疗组低65%(RR 0.35;95%CI 0.21至0.59)。在所有四种不同预防药物的比较中,报告的死亡人数无统计学显著差异。

作者结论

基于有限的数据,阿奇霉素或克拉霉素似乎是预防MAC感染的首选药物。需要进一步研究,尤其是克拉霉素和阿奇霉素的直接比较。此外,还需要比较不同剂量和给药方案的研究。

相似文献

2
Sertindole for schizophrenia.用于治疗精神分裂症的舍吲哚。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jul 20;2005(3):CD001715. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001715.pub2.
6
Drugs for treating Buruli ulcer (Mycobacterium ulcerans disease).治疗布鲁里溃疡(溃疡分枝杆菌病)的药物。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 23;8(8):CD012118. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012118.pub2.
8
Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.转移性皮肤黑色素瘤的全身治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 6;2(2):CD011123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2.

本文引用的文献

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