Author
Listed:
- Shanjun Huang
- Jiaying Xu
- Hao Wang
- Zhuo Li
- Ruifang Song
- Yiting Zhang
- Menghan Lu
- Xin Han
- Tian Ma
- Yingtong Wang
- Jiaxin Hao
- Shanshan Song
- Qing Zhen
- Tiejun Shui
Abstract
Background: 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. Methods: 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). Results: 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). Conclusions: 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. Author summary: Brucellosis, with nearly 500,000 new cases outbreak in more than 170 countries or regions worldwide each year, is a zoonotic infectious disease caused by Brucella. Due to the lack of an effective human vaccine and the impracticality of eradicating brucellosis in animals globally, treatment remains the primary strategy for addressing human brucellosis. However, there is no consensus in clinical practice guidelines regarding the initial medications for brucellosis treatment. Therefore, we compared and ranked brucellosis medications based on their efficacy and safety to aid clinicians in matching risk/benefits of drugs to brucellosis treatment. In this systematic review and network meta-analysis of 43 randomized clinical trials with 4,283 patients, 6 weeks of doxycycline plus 1 to 2 weeks of gentamicin or plus 2 to 3 weeks of streptomycin is the best therapy for human brucellosis. Six weeks of rifampicin plus quinolones treatment is considered as an alternative therapy. If finances allow, consider triple therapy. Single, Streptomycin + Tetracyclines, Streptomycin + TMP/SMX, and Rifampicin + TMP/SMX therapies cannot currently be recommended.
Suggested Citation
Shanjun Huang & Jiaying Xu & Hao Wang & Zhuo Li & Ruifang Song & Yiting Zhang & Menghan Lu & Xin Han & Tian Ma & Yingtong Wang & Jiaxin Hao & Shanshan Song & Qing Zhen & Tiejun Shui, 2024.
"Updated therapeutic options for human brucellosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,"
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(8), pages 1-17, August.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pntd00:0012405
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012405
Download full text from publisher
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0012405. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.