Antibiotics for treating urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in men and non-pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: The genital infection caused by Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) is a common sexually transmitted infection (STI) globally. The infection is mainly asymptomatic in women, thus it can produce infertility and chronic pelvic pain. In men infection is mainly symptomatic, but can evolve to prostatitis. Clinical practice guidelines for CT urogenital infections do not give any specific recommendation about which antibiotic use as first option OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment for CT genital infection in men and non-pregnant women. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections' (STI) Information Specialist developed the electronic searches in electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS), and trials registers. We searched studies published from inception to June 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of men, and sexually-active, non-pregnant women with CT infection (urethritis or uterine cervicitis or asymptomatic), diagnosed by cell culture for CT, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) or antigen-based detection methods, who had been treated with any of the antibiotic regimens recommended by any of the updated to 2013 CT Guidelines. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors screened evidence according to selection criteria and independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Two authors developed the 'Summary of findings' tables. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis model for combining data where it was reasonable to assume that studies were estimating the same underlying treatment effect. We estimated the pooled risk ratio in order to establish the effects of the comparisons. Our primary outcomes were microbiological failure and adverse events, and our secondary outcomes were clinical failure, antimicrobial resistance and reinfection. MAIN RESULTS: We selected 14 studies ( 2715 participants: 2147 (79.08%) men and 568 (20.92%) women). The studies were conducted mainly at STD clinics. Sample sizes ranged from 71 to 606 participants; follow-up was 29.7 days on average.For the comparison: azithromycin single dose versus doxycycline once or twice daily for 7 days, in men treated for CT, the risk of microbiological failure was higher in the azithromycin group (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.41; participants = 821; studies = 9; moderate-quality evidence), but regarding clinical failure, the results showed that the effect is uncertain (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2,05; I² = 55%; participants = 525; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). Regarding adverse events (AE) in men there could be little or no difference between the antibiotics (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; participants = 1424; studies = 6; low-quality evidence). About women treated for CT, the effect on microbiological failure was uncertain (RR = 1.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 6.16; participants = 338; studies = 5; very low-quality evidence). There were no studies assessing clinical failure or adverse events in women, however, we found that azithromycin probably has fewer adverse events in both genders (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; I² = 0%; participants = 2261; studies = 9; moderate-quality evidence).For the second comparison: doxycycline compared to ofloxacin, for men treated for CT the effect on microbiological failure was uncertain (RR 8.53, 95% CI 0.43 to 167.38, I² not applicable; participants = 80; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence), as also it was on clinical failure (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.62; participants = 36; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). The effect of in women on clinical failure was uncertain (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.25; I² = 39%; participants = 127; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).Regarding adverse events, the effect in both men and women was uncertain (RR 1.02 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; participants = 339 studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). The effect on microbiological failure in women and in men and women together, the effect on microbiological failure was not estimable. The most frequently AE reported were not serious and of gastrointestinal origin.No studies assessed antimicrobial resistance or reinfection in either comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In men, regimens with azithromycin are probably less effective than doxycycline for microbiological failure, however, there might be little or no difference for clinical failure. For women, we are uncertain whether azithromycin compared to doxycycline increases the risk of microbiological failure. Azithromycin probably slightly reduces adverse events compared to doxycycline in men and women together but may have little difference in men alone. We are uncertain whether doxycycline compared to ofloxacin reduces microbiological failure in men or women alone, or men and women together, nor if it reduces clinical failure or adverse events in men or women.Based on the fact that women suffer mainly asymptomatic infections, and in order to test the effectiveness and safety of the current recommendations (azithromycin, doxycycline and ofloxacin), for CT infection, especially in low and middle income countries, future RCTs should be designed and conducted to include a large enough sample size of women, and with low risk of bias. It is also important that future RCTs include adherence, CT resistance to antibiotic regimens, and risk of reinfection as outcomes to be measured. In addition, it is important to conduct a network meta-analysis in order to evaluate all those studies that included in one arm only the current antibiotic treatments for CT infection that are recommended by the updated clinical practice guidelines.

Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non-immunocompromised adults.

BACKGROUND: 30% of people with anogenital warts (AGW) have spontaneous regression of lesions but there is no way to determine whether a specific lesion will remain. There are a wide range of options available for treating people with AGW and selection is based on clinician's experience, patient preferences and adverse effects. The imiquimod could offer the advantages of patient-applied therapies without incurring the limitations of provider-administered treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of imiquimod for the treatment of AGW in non-immunocompromised adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Group Specialized Register (15 April 2014), CENTRAL (1991 to 15 April 2014), MEDLINE (1946 to 15 April 2014), EMBASE (1947 to 15 April 2014), LILACS (1982 to 15 April 2014), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) (15 April 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (15 April 2014), Web of Science (2001 to 15 April 2014) and OpenGrey (15 April 2014). We also handsearched conference proceedings, contacted trial authors and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of imiquimod with placebo, any other patient-applied or any other provider-administered treatment (excluding interferon and 5-fluorouracil which are assessed in other Cochrane Reviews) for the treatment of AGW in non-immunocompromised adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements through consensus. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Ten RCTs (1734 participants) met our inclusion criteria of which six were funded by industry. We judged the risk of bias of the included trials as high. Six trials (1294 participants) compared the use of imiquimod versus placebo. There was very low quality evidence that imiquimod was superior to placebo in achieving complete and partial regression (RR 4.03, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.99; RR 2.56, 95% CI 2.05 to 3.20, respectively). When compared with placebo, the effects of imiquimod on recurrence (RR 2.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 10.91), appearance of new warts (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.00) and frequency of systemic adverse reactions (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.32) were imprecise. We downgraded the quality of evidence to low or very low. There was low quality evidence that imiquimod led to more local adverse reactions (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.53) and pain (RR 11.84, 95% CI 3.36 to 41.63).Two trials (105 participants) compared the use of imiquimod versus any other patient-applied treatment (podophyllotoxin and podophyllin). The estimated effects of imiquimod on complete regression (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.48), partial regression (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.47), recurrence (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11) or the presence of local adverse reactions (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.54) were imprecise (very low quality evidence). There was low quality evidence that systemic adverse reactions were less frequent with imiquimod (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.98).Finally, two trials (335 participants) compared imiquimod with any other provider-administered treatment (ablative methods and cryotherapy). There was very low quality of evidence that imiquimod did not have a lower frequency of complete regression (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28). There was very low quality evidence that imiquimod led to a lower rate of recurrence during six-month follow-up (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.56) but this did not translate in to a lower recurrence from six to 12 months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; very low quality evidence). There was very low quality evidence that imiquimod was associated with less pain (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.54) and fewer local reactions (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The benefits and harms of imiquimod compared with placebo should be regarded with caution due to the risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency for many of the outcomes we assessed in this Cochrane Review. The evidence for many of the outcomes that show imiquimod and patient-applied treatment (podophyllotoxin or podophyllin) confer similar benefits but fewer systematic reactions with the Imiquimod, is of low or very low quality. The quality of evidence for the outcomes assessing imiquimod and other provider-administered treatment were of very low quality.

An evidence-based approach to hormonal therapies for premenopausal women with fibroids.

Ovarian steroids, particularly oestrogen, are important factors for fibroid growth. This has provided a rationale for the investigation of hormonal therapies for women with fibroids. This chapter will assess the role of hormonal therapies for pre-menopausal women with fibroids. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was undertaken in December 2006. Twenty-nine relevant randomized controlled trials and two systematic reviews were found. The included studies assessed gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) alone, GnRHa plus add-back (with either progestagen, tibolone, combined oestrogen and progestagen, or raloxifene) and GnRHa given for at least 3 months prior to surgery for fibroids. Two trials assessed the effects of raloxifene alone. One trial assessed the effects of low-dose mifepristone, and a pilot study assessed the role of the selective progesterone receptor modulator, asoprisinil. GnRHa reduce fibroid and uterine volume and heavy bleeding but are associated with menopausal symptoms and bone loss, which limit long-term use. There is some evidence that add-back therapy, either progestagen, tibolone, combined oestrogen and progestagen, or raloxifene, can reduce the menopausal symptoms associated with GnRHa and/or loss of bone density, but there is insufficient good-quality research to make definitive conclusions. GnRHa given for at least 3 months before fibroid surgery improve pre-operative haemoglobin concentration and haematocrit, reduce uterine and pelvic symptoms, and reduce the rate of vertical incisions during laparotomy. Women undergoing hysterectomy are more likely to have a vaginal than an abdominal procedure. Limited evidence suggests that raloxifene may be useful in older premenopausal women with lower concentrations of background oestradiol. Limited short-term evidence of two progestogenic therapies indicates that low-dose mifepristone may improve quality of life and bleeding in the short term, and asoprisinil may improve bleeding and fibroid-related symptoms. In conclusion, more research is required on the role of hormonal therapies for women with fibroids, particularly add-back options and selective oestrogen and progesterone receptor modulators. No definitive conclusions can be reached on the basis of the limited evidence found.