Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Key Laboratory of Zoonosis, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, PR China.
The Second Hospital of Dalian Medical University.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2024 Aug 22;18(8):e0012405. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012405. eCollection 2024 Aug.
In clinical practice guidelines, there is no consensus about the medications that should be initially offered to patients with brucellosis. To provide informative evidence, we compared and ranked brucellosis medications based on their efficacy and safety.
For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched 4 English databases and 3 Chinese databases, from the date of database inception to December 13, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adolescents with brucellosis, comparing different antibiotic regimens. We excluded studies explicitly targeting patients with spondylitis brucellosis, endocarditis brucellosis, and neuro-brucellosis. The primary outcomes were overall failure (efficacy) and side effects (safety). Secondary outcomes were relapse and therapeutic failure. Pairwise meta-analysis was first examined. Data were analyzed using random effects network meta-analysis, with subgroup and sensitivity analyses performed. The Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework was used to assess the certainty of evidence. The protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42023491331).
Of the 11,747 records identified through the database search, 43 RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis. Compared with standard therapy (Doxycycline + Rifampicin), Rifampicin + Tetracyclines (RR 4.96; 95% CI 1.47 to 16.70; very low certainty of evidence), Doxycycline + TMP/SMX (RR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.52; low certainty of evidence), Doxycycline + Quinolones (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.71; low certainty of evidence), Streptomycin + Tetracyclines (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.16; low certainty of evidence), and Single (RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.16; moderate certainty of evidence) were less efficacious. Doxycycline + Gentamicin ranked the best in efficacy (SUCRA values: 0.94), the second is Triple (SUCRA values: 0.87), and the third is Doxycycline + Streptomycin (SUCRA values: 0.78).
Brucellosis medications differ in efficacy and safety. Doxycycline + Gentamicin, Triple, and Doxycycline + Streptomycin have superior efficacy and safety. Treatment of brucellosis should strike a balance between efficacy, safety, and cost.
在临床实践指南中,对于治疗布鲁氏菌病的首选药物尚未达成共识。为了提供有价值的证据,我们比较并根据疗效和安全性对布鲁氏菌病药物进行了排序。
本系统评价和网络荟萃分析检索了从数据库建立到 2023 年 12 月 13 日的 4 个英文数据库和 3 个中文数据库,纳入了比较不同抗生素方案的儿童和青少年布鲁氏菌病患者的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们排除了明确针对脊椎炎布鲁氏菌病、心内膜炎布鲁氏菌病和神经布鲁氏菌病患者的研究。主要结局是总失败(疗效)和副作用(安全性)。次要结局是复发和治疗失败。首先检查了两两荟萃分析。使用随机效应网络荟萃分析分析数据,并进行了亚组和敏感性分析。使用置信网络荟萃分析(CINeMA)框架评估证据的确定性。该方案已在 PROSPERO(CRD42023491331)中预先注册。
通过数据库检索共确定了 11747 条记录,其中 43 项 RCT 纳入了网络荟萃分析。与标准治疗(多西环素+利福平)相比,利福平+四环素(RR 4.96;95%CI 1.47 至 16.70;证据确定性极低)、多西环素+TMP/SMX(RR 0.18;95%CI 0.06 至 0.52;证据确定性低)、多西环素+喹诺酮类(RR 0.27;95%CI 0.11 至 0.71;证据确定性低)、链霉素+四环素(RR 0.04;95%CI 0.01 至 0.16;证据确定性低)和单一疗法(RR 0.05;95%CI 0.02 至 0.16;证据确定性中等)的疗效较差。多西环素+庆大霉素在疗效方面排名最佳(SUCRA 值:0.94),其次是三联疗法(SUCRA 值:0.87),第三是多西环素+链霉素(SUCRA 值:0.78)。
布鲁氏菌病药物的疗效和安全性存在差异。多西环素+庆大霉素、三联疗法和多西环素+链霉素具有更好的疗效和安全性。治疗布鲁氏菌病应在疗效、安全性和成本之间取得平衡。