Treatment of human brucellosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials - PubMed (original) (raw)

Meta-Analysis

Treatment of human brucellosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Keren Skalsky et al. BMJ. 2008.

Abstract

Objectives: To determine and quantify differences in efficacy between treatment regimens for brucellosis.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing different antibiotic regimens and durations of treatment for human brucellosis.

Data sources: PubMed, CENTRAL, Lilacs, conference proceedings, and bibliographies with no restrictions on language, study year, or publication status. Review methods Search, application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality independently performed in duplicate. Primary outcomes were relapse and overall failure resulting from primary failure or relapse. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled with a fixed effect model.

Results: 30 trials and 77 treatment arms were included. Overall failure was significantly higher with doxycycline-rifampicin compared to doxycycline-streptomycin, mainly due to a higher rate of relapse (relative risk 2.80, 95% confidence interval 1.81 to 4.36; 13 trials, without heterogeneity). Results were consistent among patients with bacteraemia and complicated brucellosis. Doxycycline-streptomycin resulted in a significantly higher rate of failure than doxycycline-rifampicin-aminoglycoside (triple drug regimen) (2.50, 1.26 to 5.00; two trials). Gentamicin was not inferior to streptomycin (1.45, 0.52 to 4.00 for failure; two trials). Quinolones combined with rifampicin were significantly less effective than doxycycline combined with rifampicin or streptomycin (1.83, 1.11 to 3.02, for failure; five trials). Monotherapy was associated with a higher risk of failure than combined treatment when administered for a similar duration (2.56, 1.55 to 4.23; five trials). Treatment for six weeks or more offered an advantage over shorter treatment durations.

Conclusions: There are significant differences in effectiveness between currently recommended treatment regimens for brucellosis. The preferred treatment should be with dual or triple regimens including an aminoglycoside.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

None

Fig 1 Flow of studies through trial flow

None

Fig 2 Overall failure (defined as failure of assigned regimen or relapse) with tetracycline-rifampicin v tetracycline-streptomycin

None

Fig 3 Relapse with tetracycline-rifampicin v tetracycline-streptomycin

None

Fig 4 Overall failure (defined as failure of assigned regimen or relapse) for treatment with or without quinolone

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Pappas G, Papadimitriou P, Akritidis N, Christou L, Tsianos EV. The new global map of human brucellosis. Lancet Infect Dis 2006;6:91-9. - PubMed
    1. Pappas G, Akritidis N, Bosilkovski M, Tsianos E. Brucellosis. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2325-36. - PubMed
    1. Spink KW. Current status of therapy of brucellosis in human beings. JAMA 1960;172:697-8. - PubMed
    1. Joint WHO/FAO expert committee on brucellosis. 6th report. WHO Tech Rep Ser 1986;740:1-132. - PubMed
    1. Corbel MJ, Beeching NJ. Brucellosis. In: Kasper DL, Braunwald E, Hauser S, Longo D, Jameson JL, Fauci AS, eds. Harrison’s principles of internal medicine 16th ed. USA: McGraw-Hill, 2005

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources