Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis to preventing brucellosis in accidental exposure: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent brucellosis after accidental exposure to Brucella is an important topic in public health. This study aimed to systematically review the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis following accidental exposure to Brucella in preventing human brucellosis disease. METHODS: The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023456812). The outcomes included the incidence of brucellosis disease, adverse events rate, and antibiotic prophylaxis adherence. A comprehensive literature search, conducted until 20 November, 2023, involved Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and LILACS databases. Descriptive analysis and meta-analysis using R software were performed, risk of bias was assessed using JBI Critical appraisal tools, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE tool. RESULTS: Among 3102 initially identified records, eight studies involving 97 individuals accidentally exposed, all focused on high-risk accidental exposure to Brucella in laboratory settings, were included in the review. All studies reported the prophylactic treatment comprising doxycycline at a dosage of 100 mg twice daily, combined with rifampicin at 600 mg, both administered over 21 days. Prophylaxis adherence was reported in 86% of cases, and incidence of brucellosis post-treatment was 0.01. Adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal, occurred in 26% of cases. Critical appraisal revealed limitations in reporting demographics and clinical information. The certainty of evidence was rated as 'very low,' emphasising the need for caution in interpreting the observed outcomes due to study design constraints and the absence of comparative groups. CONCLUSIONS: PEP is an alternative practice reported in the literature, used in accidents with high-risk exposure to Brucella. The currently available evidence of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis is insufficient to support a recommendation for or against the widespread use of antibiotic prophylaxis, so caution is needed in interpreting results due to the very low certainty of evidence, primarily stemming from case series and lack of comparative groups.

Promoting safe and appropriate use of miltefosine to treat tegumentary leishmaniasis in Brazil: A best practice quality improvement project.

INTRODUCTION: Miltefosine is a new drug that was recently approved for the treatment of tegumentary leishmaniasis (TL) by the Brazilian health system. It has a teratogenic potential and requires follow-up of patients undergoing treatment. Improving compliance with best practices is essential to ensure the safe and appropriate use of this drug. OBJECTIVE: This project aimed to implement best practices for the safe and appropriate use of miltefosine in the treatment of TL in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. METHODS: This project was guided by the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework. Five best practice criteria were established based on the best available evidence. A baseline audit was conducted to measure current practice against best practice. Barriers to best practice were then identified and a follow-up audit was conducted to evaluate changes after the implementation of improvement strategies. Two sites were analyzed: a leishmaniasis reference service in Belo Horizonte, the capital of Minas Gerais, and the 28 regional offices. RESULTS: The baseline audit evaluated data from 197 miltefosine requests distributed across 13 regional sites. All requests from the reference service were compliant (100%). This is in contrast to the 60% compliance rate at the regional offices. The improvement strategies included intensifying direct communication with the regional health professionals, which increased the average compliance rate to 79.5%, 6 months after the interventions were introduced. CONCLUSION: This best practice implementation project effectively increased the compliance rate for the audited procedures. Communication from the reference site with the regional health professionals successfully increased compliance with best practices and promoted the safe and appropriate use of miltefosine. These strategies should analyzed and applied to improve other programs. SPANISH ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A184.

Quality of life of patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis: A comparative analysis of the EQ-5D-3L and CLIQ questionnaires.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of the Cutaneous Leishmaniasis Impact Questionnaire (CLIQ) using the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D-3L) as a reference standard (criterion validation); to evaluate the responsiveness of the instruments and estimate a cut-off point for the CLIQ to be able to discriminate between high and low impacts of cutaneous leishmaniasis on patients. METHODS: Between 2020 and 2022, a longitudinal validation study was conducted at a reference centre for leishmaniasis in Brazil. The EQ-5D-3L and CLIQ questionnaires were administered before, during and after treatment for cutaneous leishmaniasis. The correlation between the instruments was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient, responsiveness was assessed using the Wilcoxon test, and CLIQ cut-off points were proposed based on results of the EQ-5Q-3L, dichotomized between patients reporting no problems' and 'some or extreme problems'. RESULTS: There were satisfactory correlation coefficients between the two instruments before (-0.596) and during treatment (-0.551) and a low correlation between the instruments after the end of treatment (-0.389). In general, the responsiveness of the instruments was satisfactory. The CLIC scores that maximized sensitivity and specificity for recognizing impaired health status before and during treatment were 7 points and 17 points, respectively. However, at the end of treatment, based on the results for the EQ-5D-3L, the CLIC was not able to discriminate between individuals with high and low impacts of the disease. CONCLUSION: The CLIQ corresponds well with the EQ-5D-3L when applied before and during treatment but does not seem to be appropriate for follow-up evaluations after the end of treatment.

Models and frameworks for assessing the implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is a cyclical process in which the evaluation stage can facilitate continuous improvement. Implementation science has utilized theoretical approaches, such as models and frameworks, to understand and address this process. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the models and frameworks used to assess the implementation of CPGs. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following the Cochrane methodology, with adaptations to the "selection process" due to the unique nature of this review. The findings were reported following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting guidelines. Electronic databases were searched from their inception until May 15, 2023. A predetermined strategy and manual searches were conducted to identify relevant documents from health institutions worldwide. Eligible studies presented models and frameworks for assessing the implementation of CPGs. Information on the characteristics of the documents, the context in which the models were used (specific objectives, level of use, type of health service, target group), and the characteristics of each model or framework (name, domain evaluated, and model limitations) were extracted. The domains of the models were analyzed according to the key constructs: strategies, context, outcomes, fidelity, adaptation, sustainability, process, and intervention. A subgroup analysis was performed grouping models and frameworks according to their levels of use (clinical, organizational, and policy) and type of health service (community, ambulatorial, hospital, institutional). The JBI's critical appraisal tools were utilized by two independent researchers to assess the trustworthiness, relevance, and results of the included studies. RESULTS: Database searches yielded 14,395 studies, of which 80 full texts were reviewed. Eight studies were included in the data analysis and four methodological guidelines were additionally included from the manual search. The risk of bias in the studies was considered non-critical for the results of this systematic review. A total of ten models/frameworks for assessing the implementation of CPGs were found. The level of use was mainly policy, the most common type of health service was institutional, and the major target group was professionals directly involved in clinical practice. The evaluated domains differed between the models and there were also differences in their conceptualization. All the models addressed the domain "Context", especially at the micro level (8/12), followed by the multilevel (7/12). The domains "Outcome" (9/12), "Intervention" (8/12), "Strategies" (7/12), and "Process" (5/12) were frequently addressed, while "Sustainability" was found only in one study, and "Fidelity/Adaptation" was not observed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of models and frameworks for assessing the implementation of CPGs is still incipient. This systematic review may help stakeholders choose or adapt the most appropriate model or framework to assess CPGs implementation based on their specific health context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) registration number: CRD42022335884. Registered on June 7, 2022.