Suppr超能文献

早期梅毒治疗方法的疗效比较:一项对随机对照试验和观察性研究的系统评价与网状荟萃分析

Comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

作者信息

Liu Hong-Ye, Han Yan, Chen Xiang-Sheng, Bai Li, Guo Shu-Ping, Li Li, Wu Peng, Yin Yue-Ping

机构信息

Reference STD Lab, National Center for STD Control, Chinese CDC, Institute of Dermatology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology for Skin Diseases and STIs, Nanjing, China.

Department of Dermatology and Venereology, First Affiliated Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2017 Jun 28;12(6):e0180001. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180001. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Parenteral penicillin is the first-line regimen for treating syphilis, but unsuitable for some patients due to penicillin allergy and lacking health resources. Unfortunately, the efficacy of penicillin alternatives remains poorly understood. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of ceftriaxone and doxycycline/tetracycline in treating early syphilis relative to that of penicillin, and thereby to determine which antibiotic is a better replacement for penicillin.

METHOD

By searching literature from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, the Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov and systematically screening relevant studies, eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on treatments with penicillin, doxycycline/tetracycline, and ceftriaxone for early syphilis were identified and combined in this systematic review. Estimated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized to compare their serological response and treatment failure rates. At 12-month follow up, serological response rates were compared by a direct meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), while treatment failure rates were compared with a direct meta-analysis.

RESULT

Three RCTs and seven cohort studies were included in this research. The results of NMA demonstrated that no significant differences existed in serological response rate at 12-month follow-up between any two of the three treatments (doxycycline/tetracycline vs. penicillin RR = 1.01, 95%CI 0.89-1.14; ceftriaxone vs. penicillin RR = 1.00, 95%CI 0.89-1.13; ceftriaxone vs. doxycycline/tetracycline RR = 0.99, 95%CI 0.96-1.03), which was consistent with the outcomes of the direct meta-analysis. In addition, the direct meta-analysis indicated that, at 12-month follow-up, penicillin and ceftriaxone treatment groups had similar treatment failure rates (RR = 0.92, 95%CI 0.12-6.93), while treatment failure rate was significantly lower among penicillin recipients than among doxycycline/tetracycline recipients (RR = 0.58, 95%CI 0.38-0.89).

CONCLUSION

Ceftriaxone is as effective as penicillin in treating early syphilis with regard to serological response and treatment failure rate. Compared with doxycycline/tetracycline, ceftriaxone appears to be a better choice as the substitution of penicillin.

摘要

背景

肠胃外注射青霉素是治疗梅毒的一线方案,但由于青霉素过敏和缺乏医疗资源,该方案不适用于部分患者。遗憾的是,青霉素替代药物的疗效仍鲜为人知。本研究旨在评估头孢曲松和多西环素/四环素相对于青霉素治疗早期梅毒的疗效,从而确定哪种抗生素是青霉素的更佳替代药物。

方法

通过检索PubMed、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库、Embase、科学引文索引和美国国立医学图书馆临床试验注册库中的文献,并系统筛选相关研究,本系统评价纳入了关于青霉素、多西环素/四环素和头孢曲松治疗早期梅毒的合格随机对照试验(RCT)和观察性研究。采用估计风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)比较它们的血清学反应和治疗失败率。在12个月的随访中,通过直接荟萃分析和网状荟萃分析(NMA)比较血清学反应率,而治疗失败率则通过直接荟萃分析进行比较。

结果

本研究纳入了3项RCT和7项队列研究。NMA结果表明,三种治疗方法中的任意两种在12个月随访时的血清学反应率均无显著差异(多西环素/四环素与青霉素相比RR = 1.01,95%CI 0.89 - 1.14;头孢曲松与青霉素相比RR = 1.00,95%CI 0.89 - 1.13;头孢曲松与多西环素/四环素相比RR = 0.99,95%CI 0.96 - 1.03),这与直接荟萃分析的结果一致。此外,直接荟萃分析表明,在12个月随访时,青霉素和头孢曲松治疗组的治疗失败率相似(RR = 0.92,95%CI 0.12 - 6.93),而青霉素治疗组的治疗失败率显著低于多西环素/四环素治疗组(RR = 0.58,95%CI 0.38 - 0.89)。

结论

在血清学反应和治疗失败率方面,头孢曲松治疗早期梅毒的效果与青霉素相当。与多西环素/四环素相比,头孢曲松似乎是替代青霉素的更佳选择。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bfa7/5489196/7f4d3b1985ee/pone.0180001.g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验