Callado Gustavo Yano, Gutfreund Maria Celidonio, Pardo Isabele, Hsieh Mariana Kim, Lin Vivian, Sampson Mindy Marie, Nava Guillermo Rodriguez, Marins Tássia Aporta, Deliberato Rodrigo Octávio, Martino Marinês Dalla Valle, Holubar Marisa, Salinas Jorge L, Marra Alexandre R
Faculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Division of Infectious Diseases & Geographic Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2024 Mar 13;11(4):ofae142. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofae142. eCollection 2024 Apr.
Penicillin's long-standing role as the reference standard in syphilis treatment has led to global reliance. However, this dependence presents challenges, prompting the need for alternative strategies. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of these alternative treatments against nonneurological syphilis.
We searched MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science from database inception to 28 August 2023, and we included studies that compared penicillin or amoxicillin monotherapy to other treatments for the management of nonneurological syphilis. Our primary outcome was serological cure rates. Random-effect models were used to obtain pooled mean differences, and heterogeneity was assessed using the test.
Of 6478 screened studies, 27 met the inclusion criteria, summing 6710 patients. The studies were considerably homogeneous, and stratified analyses considering each alternative treatment separately revealed that penicillin monotherapy did not outperform ceftriaxone (pooled odds ratio, 1.66 [95% confidence interval, .97-2.84]; = 0%), azithromycin (0.92; [.73-1.18]; = 0%), or doxycycline (0.82 [.61-1.10]; = 1%) monotherapies with respect to serological conversion.
Alternative treatment strategies have serological cure rates equivalent to penicillin, potentially reducing global dependence on this antibiotic.
青霉素长期以来作为梅毒治疗的参考标准,已导致全球对其产生依赖。然而,这种依赖带来了挑战,促使人们需要寻找替代策略。我们进行了一项系统的文献综述和荟萃分析,以评估这些替代疗法治疗非神经梅毒的疗效。
我们检索了MEDLINE、护理学与健康相关文献累积索引、Embase、Cochrane、Scopus和Web of Science,检索时间从各数据库建库至2023年8月28日,纳入了比较青霉素或阿莫西林单药治疗与其他治疗非神经梅毒方法的研究。我们的主要结局是血清学治愈率。采用随机效应模型获得合并平均差,并使用 检验评估异质性。
在6478项筛选研究中,27项符合纳入标准,共计6710例患者。这些研究具有相当的同质性,分别对每种替代疗法进行分层分析显示,在血清学转阴方面,青霉素单药治疗并不优于头孢曲松(合并优势比,1.66 [95%置信区间,0.97 - 2.84]; = 0%)、阿奇霉素(0.92;[0.73 - 1.18]; = 0%)或多西环素(0.82 [0.61 - 1.10]; = 1%)单药治疗。
替代治疗策略的血清学治愈率与青霉素相当,可能会降低全球对这种抗生素的依赖。