Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Pathog Glob Health. 2013 Jun;107(4):162-9. doi: 10.1179/2047773213Y.0000000094.
The efficacy of different treatment regimens in clinical syndromes of toxoplasmosis were assessed by conducting a systematic review of published randomized clinical trials through extensive searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS with no date limits, as well as manual review of journals. Outcome measures varied depending on the clinical entity of toxoplasmosis. Risk of bias was evaluated and quality of evidence was graded. Fourteen randomized trials were included of which one was a non-comparative study. One well-designed trial showed that trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole was more effective than placebo for clinical recovery of toxoplasmic lymphadenopathy in immunocompetent hosts. For toxoplasmic encephalopathy, efficacy of pyrimethamine+sulphadiazine and trimethoprim+sulphamethoxazole were similar, whereas pyrimethamine+sulphadiazine versus pyrimathamine+clindamycin showed no difference, irrespective of the outcome. Intravitreal clindamycin+dexamethasone and conventional treatment with oral pyrimethamine+sulphadiazine had similar efficacy with regard to all outcome measures in ocular toxoplasmosis, and intravitreal therapy was found to be safe. Adverse effects seemed more common with pyrimethamine+sulphadiazine. Most trials for encephalitis and ocular manifestations had a high risk of bias and were of poor methodological quality. There were no trials evaluating drugs for toxoplasmosis in pregnancy, or for congenital toxoplasmosis. Pyrimethamine+sulphadiazine is an effective therapy for treatment of toxoplasmic encephalitis; trimethoprim+sulphamethoxazole and pyrimethamine+clindamycin are possible alternatives. Treatment with either oral or intravitreal antibiotics seems reasonable for ocular toxoplasmosis. Overall, trial evidence for the efficacy of these drugs for toxoplasmosis is poor, and further well-designed trials are needed.
我们通过在 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 SCOPUS 中进行广泛搜索(无时间限制)以及手动查阅期刊,对已发表的随机临床试验进行了系统评价,以评估不同治疗方案在弓形虫病临床综合征中的疗效。结局指标因弓形虫病的临床实体而异。我们评估了偏倚风险,并对证据质量进行了分级。纳入了 14 项随机试验,其中 1 项为非对照研究。一项设计良好的试验表明,复方新诺明治疗免疫功能正常宿主的弓形虫淋巴结病的临床康复效果优于安慰剂。对于弓形虫性脑炎,乙胺嘧啶+磺胺嘧啶和甲氧苄啶+磺胺甲噁唑的疗效相似,而乙胺嘧啶+磺胺嘧啶与乙胺嘧啶+克林霉素的疗效无差异,无论结局如何。对于眼弓形体病,玻璃体内注射克林霉素+地塞米松与口服乙胺嘧啶+磺胺嘧啶的常规治疗在所有结局指标方面均具有相似的疗效,且玻璃体内治疗是安全的。乙胺嘧啶+磺胺嘧啶的不良反应似乎更为常见。大多数脑炎和眼部表现的试验存在高偏倚风险,且方法学质量较差。没有评估药物治疗妊娠期或先天性弓形体病的试验。乙胺嘧啶+磺胺嘧啶是治疗弓形虫性脑炎的有效疗法;甲氧苄啶+磺胺甲噁唑和乙胺嘧啶+克林霉素可能是替代疗法。对于眼弓形体病,口服或玻璃体内抗生素治疗似乎都是合理的。总体而言,这些药物治疗弓形体病的疗效证据较差,需要进一步进行精心设计的试验。