Suppr超能文献

旅行者疟疾疫区备用紧急治疗(SBET):系统评价和荟萃分析。

Malaria standby emergency treatment (SBET) for travellers visiting malaria endemic areas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Travel Clinic, Department of Research, Innovation and Training, Unisanté, Center for Primary Care and Public Health, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Medical Library, Research and Education Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Rue du Bugnon 46, Lausanne, Switzerland.

出版信息

J Travel Med. 2019 Jun 1;26(4). doi: 10.1093/jtm/taz027.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Malaria prevention methods for travellers to low or moderate malaria risk areas vary and remain controversial. Standby emergency treatment (SBET) for malaria is one possible strategy increasingly recommended since 1988 with little evidence on its effectiveness or how it is truly being used.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed based on a structured search in Embase, Medline, PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science on 7 September 2018. The primary outcome was the overall prevalence of SBET use in travellers, and secondary outcomes were the proportion carrying SBET, the response to fever [use of SBET, health facility attendance and use of malaria rapid diagnostic test (mRDT)], adverse events to SBET and the proportion using SBET incorrectly (incorrect dosage/duration). The pooled SBET use prevalence was analysed using a random effects model. A descriptive summary was done to present secondary outcomes. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO CRD42018103703.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies were eligible for inclusion among the 1027 titles identified by our search. The studies included 7/11 prospective cohort studies that recruited pre-travel clinic attendees in Europe and 4/11 cross-sectional studies, of which 3 recruited travellers at airports before their return home from Southeast Asia and Africa and 1 from an employee registry including long-term travellers. The overall pooled prevalence of SBET use among the 26 403 travellers was 2.5% (95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.3%; range, 0.4-10.8%). There was significant variation in the proportion of travellers carrying SBET medication (40-100%), the proportion of travellers with appropriate response to fever (23-100%), adverse events (0-33%) and incorrect dosage/duration of SBET (0-100%).

CONCLUSION

Adherence to the proposed recommendations for SBET use, notably the response to fever, was poor. If the use of SBET is to be pursued, modifications to the current SBET strategy should be considered, such as better selection of travellers at higher risk for malaria and the potential addition of mRDTs.

摘要

背景

前往低或中疟疾风险地区的旅行者的疟疾预防方法各不相同,且仍存在争议。备用紧急治疗(SBET)是自 1988 年以来越来越多被推荐的一种可能的策略,但关于其有效性或实际使用情况的证据很少。

方法

基于 2018 年 9 月 7 日在 Embase、Medline、PubMed、Cochrane 和 Web of Science 中进行的结构化搜索,进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。主要结局是旅行者中 SBET 使用的总体流行率,次要结局是携带 SBET 的比例、发热的反应[SBET 的使用、就诊和使用疟疾快速诊断检测(mRDT)]、SBET 的不良反应以及不正确使用 SBET 的比例(不正确的剂量/持续时间)。使用随机效应模型分析了汇总的 SBET 使用流行率。对次要结局进行了描述性总结。该研究方案在 PROSPERO CRD42018103703 中进行了注册。

结果

在我们的搜索中确定的 1027 个标题中,共有 11 项研究符合纳入标准。这些研究包括 7/11 项在欧洲招募旅行前诊所就诊者的前瞻性队列研究和 4/11 项横断面研究,其中 3/4 项研究在东南亚和非洲旅行返回前在机场招募旅行者,1/4 项研究从包括长期旅行者的员工登记处招募旅行者。在 26403 名旅行者中,SBET 使用的总体汇总流行率为 2.5%(95%置信区间,1.1-4.3%;范围,0.4-10.8%)。携带 SBET 药物的旅行者比例(40-100%)、发热时适当反应的旅行者比例(23-100%)、不良反应(0-33%)和 SBET 剂量/持续时间不正确的旅行者比例(0-100%)存在显著差异。

结论

对 SBET 使用建议的遵守情况,特别是对发热的反应情况不佳。如果要继续使用 SBET,应考虑对当前 SBET 策略进行修改,例如更好地选择疟疾风险较高的旅行者,并可能添加 mRDT。

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