Cargando…

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

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 cef...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Hong-ye, Han, Yan, Chen, Xiang-sheng, Bai, Li, Guo, Shu-ping, Li, Li, Wu, Peng, Yin, Yue-ping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5489196/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28658325
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180001
_version_ 1783246764097142784
author Liu, Hong-ye
Han, Yan
Chen, Xiang-sheng
Bai, Li
Guo, Shu-ping
Li, Li
Wu, Peng
Yin, Yue-ping
author_facet Liu, Hong-ye
Han, Yan
Chen, Xiang-sheng
Bai, Li
Guo, Shu-ping
Li, Li
Wu, Peng
Yin, Yue-ping
author_sort Liu, Hong-ye
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5489196
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54891962017-07-11 Comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies Liu, Hong-ye Han, Yan Chen, Xiang-sheng Bai, Li Guo, Shu-ping Li, Li Wu, Peng Yin, Yue-ping PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2017-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5489196/ /pubmed/28658325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180001 Text en © 2017 Liu et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Liu, Hong-ye
Han, Yan
Chen, Xiang-sheng
Bai, Li
Guo, Shu-ping
Li, Li
Wu, Peng
Yin, Yue-ping
Comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies
title Comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies
title_full Comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies
title_fullStr Comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies
title_short Comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies
title_sort comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5489196/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28658325
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180001
work_keys_str_mv AT liuhongye comparisonofefficacyoftreatmentsforearlysyphilisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsandobservationalstudies
AT hanyan comparisonofefficacyoftreatmentsforearlysyphilisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsandobservationalstudies
AT chenxiangsheng comparisonofefficacyoftreatmentsforearlysyphilisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsandobservationalstudies
AT baili comparisonofefficacyoftreatmentsforearlysyphilisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsandobservationalstudies
AT guoshuping comparisonofefficacyoftreatmentsforearlysyphilisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsandobservationalstudies
AT lili comparisonofefficacyoftreatmentsforearlysyphilisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsandobservationalstudies
AT wupeng comparisonofefficacyoftreatmentsforearlysyphilisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsandobservationalstudies
AT yinyueping comparisonofefficacyoftreatmentsforearlysyphilisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsandobservationalstudies