Sequential Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy in Myanmar; a randomized clinical trial of efficacy and tolerability.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: There is little published research to examine the best approach to the management of Helicobacter pylori in Myanmar. This study aimed to determine the relative efficacy and tolerability of sequential eradication therapy compared to Myanmar's current recommendation of a concomitant four drug regimen. METHODS: Patients were screened for H. pylori using monoclonal Stool Antigen Testing (SAT). Those testing positive were randomized 1:1 to receive receive Myanmar's first-line regimen of 14 days of concomitant rabeprazole, clarithromycin, amoxycillin and tinidazole (140 pills, cost US$23) or 10 days of sequential rabeprazole, clarithromycin, amoxycillin and tinidazole (60 pills, cost US$10). Adherence and adverse effects were recorded, and the efficacy of the regimens assessed with repeat SAT. RESULTS: Of the 1011 patients screened for H. pylori infection, 313 (31%) tested positive. There was no statistical difference in the cure rates of the two regimens in either intention-to-treat: 128/157 (82%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 75-87%) receiving sequential therapy versus 123/156 (79%; 95% CI: 72-85%) receiving concomitant therapy (P = 0.55) or per-protocol analysis: 125/131 (95%; 95% CI: 90-98) receiving sequential therapy versus 121/130 (93%; 95% CI: 87-96) receiving concomitant therapy (P = 0.42). Side effects of therapy were reported in 54/157 (47%) patients taking sequential therapy compared with 62/156 (53%) taking concomitant therapy, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: In this high-burden, resource-poor setting, less expensive sequential therapy was as effective and as well tolerated as the currently recommended concomitant four drug regimen for eradication of H. pylori.

Protocol for a randomized clinical trial exploring the effect of antimicrobial agents on the penile microbiota, immunology and HIV susceptibility of Ugandan men.

BACKGROUND: The foreskin is the main site of HIV acquisition in a heterosexual uncircumcised man, but many men in endemic countries are reluctant to undergo penile circumcision (PC). Observational studies suggest that proinflammatory anaerobic bacteria are enriched on the uncircumcised penis, where they may enhance HIV susceptibility through increased foreskin inflammatory cytokines and the recruitment of HIV-susceptible CD4+ target cells. This trial will examine the impact of systemic and topical antimicrobials on ex vivo foreskin HIV susceptibility. METHODS/DESIGN: This randomized, open-label clinical trial will randomize 125 HIV-negative Ugandan men requesting voluntary PC to one of five arms (n = 25 each). The control group will receive immediate PC, while the four intervention groups will defer PC for 1 month and be provided in the interim with either oral tinidazole, penile topical metronidazole, topical clindamycin, or topical hydrogen peroxide. The impact of these interventions on HIV entry into foreskin-derived CD4+ T cells will be quantified ex vivo at the time of PC using a clade A, R5 tropic HIV pseudovirus assay (primary endpoint); secondary endpoints include the impact of antimicrobials on immune parameters and the microbiota of the participant's penis and of the vagina of their female partner (if applicable), assessed by multiplex enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and 16S rRNA sequencing. DISCUSSION: There is a critical need to develop acceptable, simple, and effective means of HIV prevention in men unwilling to undergo PC. This trial will provide insight into the causative role of the foreskin microbiota on HIV susceptibility, and the impact of simple microbiota-focused clinical interventions. This may pave the way for future clinical trials using low-cost, nonsurgical intervention(s) to reduce HIV risk in uncircumcised heterosexual men. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03412071 . Retrospectively registered on 26 January 2018.

Sequential therapy for first-line Helicobacter pylori eradication: 10- or 14-day regimen?

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Standard 10-day sequential therapy is advised as first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication by current Italian guidelines. Some data suggested that a 14-day regimen may achieve higher eradication rates. This study compared the efficacy of sequential therapy administered for either 10- or 14-days. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, open-label study enrolled patients with H. pylori infection without previous treatment. Patients were receiving a sequential therapy for either 10 or 14 days with esomeprazole 40 mg and amoxicillin 1 g (5 or 7 days) followed by esomeprazole 40 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg and tinidazole 500 mg (5 or 7 days), all given twice daily. Bacterial eradication was checked using 13C-urea breath test. Eradication cure rates were calculated at both Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. RESULTS: A total of 291 patients were enrolled, including 146 patients in 10-day and 145 in the 14-day regimen. The eradication rates were 87% (95% CI = 81.5-92.4) and 90.3% (95% CI = 85.5-95.1) at ITT analysis with the 10- and 14-day regimen, respectively, and 92.7% (95% CI = 88.3-97) and 97% (95% CI = 94.2-99.9) at PP analysis (p =0.37). Among patients, who earlier had interrupted therapy, bacterial eradication was achieved in 8 out of 9 who completed the first therapy phase and performed at least >/=3 days of triple therapy in the second phase. CONCLUSION: This study found that both 10- and 14-day sequential therapies achieved a high eradication rate for first-line H. pylori therapy in clinical practice.

Antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis.

BACKGROUND: Infection with the protozoan Entamoeba histolytica is common in low- and middle-income countries, and up to 100,000 people with severe disease die every year. Adequate therapy for amoebic colitis is necessary to reduce illness, prevent development of complicated disease and extraintestinal spread, and decrease transmission. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the available literature up to 22 March 2018. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, mRCT, and conference proceedings. We contacted individual researchers, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies, and we checked reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of antiamoebic drugs given alone or in combination, compared with placebo or another antiamoebic drug, for treating adults and children with a diagnosis of amoebic colitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials and extracted and analysed the data. We calculated clinical and parasitological failure rates and rates of relapse and adverse events as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model. We determined statistical heterogeneity and explored possible sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. We carried out sensitivity analysis by using trial quality to assess the robustness of reported results. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 41 trials (4999 participants) met the inclusion criteria of this review. In this update, we added four trials to the 37 trials included in the first published review version. Thirty trials were published over 20 years ago. Only one trial used adequate methods of randomization and allocation concealment, was blinded, and analysed all randomized participants. Only one trial used an E histolytica stool antigen test, and two trials used amoebic culture.Tinidazole may be more effective than metronidazole for reducing clinical failure (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.51; 477 participants, eight trials; low-certainty evidence) and is probably associated with fewer adverse events (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.92; 477 participants, 8 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with metronidazole, combination therapy may result in fewer parasitological failures (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.86; 720 participants, 3 trials; low-certainty evidence), but we are uncertain which combination is more effective than another. Evidence is insufficient to allow conclusions regarding the efficacy of other antiamoebic drugs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with metronidazole, tinidazole may be more effective in reducing clinical failure and may be associated with fewer adverse events. Combination drug therapy may be more effective for reducing parasitological failure compared with metronidazole alone. However, these results are based mostly on small trials conducted over 20 years ago with a variety of poorly defined outcomes. Tests that detect E histolytica more accurately are needed, particularly in countries where concomitant infection with other bacteria and parasites is common.

Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Concomitant Therapy vs. Triple Therapy for the First-Line Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection.

BACKGROUND: Whether concomitant therapy is superior to triple therapy of various treatment lengths for the first-line treatment of H. pylori remains controversial. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of concomitant therapy and triple therapy given for 5-14 days. METHODS: Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of concomitant therapy for 5-14 days and proton pump inhibitor-amoxicillin-clarithromycin (PAC)-based triple therapy for 5-14 days in the first-line treatment of adult patients with H. pylori infection published from 1990 to January 2018 were searched from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Abstracts from international annual conferences were also searched. The primary and secondary outcomes were the eradication rate according to the intention-to-treat analysis and the adverse effects, respectively. Subgroup analyses were also performed according to treatment length. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017081328. RESULTS: Of the 639 articles identified, 23 RCTs including 3305 patients in the concomitant therapy group and 3327 patients in the triple therapy group were eligible. Overall, concomitant therapy was superior to triple therapy [risk ratio (RR): 1.15; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-1.21; p < 0.001]. However, there were significant heterogeneity (I2 = 74.0%, p < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, 5-day concomitant therapy was superior to 5-day triple therapy (RR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.04-1.62; p = 0.02), 5- or 7-day concomitant therapy was superior to 7-day triple therapy (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.12-1.21; p < 0.001), and 5- or 7-, or 10- or 14-day concomitant therapy was superior to 10-day triple therapy (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.08-1.23; p < 0.001). However, 5- or 10-day concomitant therapy was not superior to 14-day triple therapy (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.89-1.16; p = 0.796). The frequency of adverse effects was significantly higher in concomitant therapy than triple therapy (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.06-1.34; P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant therapy given for 5 or 10 days was superior to 5- or 7-, or 10-day PAC-based triple therapy, but was not superior to 14-day triple therapy.

Comparative study of tinidazole versus metronidazole in treatment of amebic liver abscess: A randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Metronidazole is a drug of choice for amebic liver abscess (ALA), but has long course and significant side effects. Thus, drugs like tinidazole with a better tolerability record need evaluation. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial at the Department of Gastroenterology, SMS Hospital, Jaipur, India. One hundred and fifty admitted patients were randomized into two treatment groups, metronidazole (group M, n = 75) and tinidazole (group T, n = 75). Patients were observed for clinical response, laboratory parameters, imaging, and side effects. Early clinical response (ECR) was defined as the absence of fever and abdominal pain within 72 h of treatment. Symptomatic clinical response (SCR) was defined as the absence of fever and abdominal pain irrespective of duration of treatment required. Follow up was done at 1, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: ECR was 62.3% in group T vs. 37.7% in group M (p = 0.02). SCR was shorter in group T than group M (3.29 ± 1.61 days vs. 5.67 ± 2.93, p ≤ 0.001). Mean residual volume at the end of 1 month was lower in group T (130.7 ± 108.1 vs. 184.7 ± 143.3 mL, p = 0.01) and no significant difference was seen at 3 and 6 months. Tinidazole was better tolerated with fewer side effects. Low socioeconomic status, baseline abscess volume > 500 mL, hypoalbuminemia, pleural effusion, and history of ethanol use were associated with a late clinical response on univariate analysis of which low socioeconomic status was the only associated factor. CONCLUSION: Tinidazole, as compared to metronidazole, has early clinical response, shorter treatment course, favorable rate of recovery, and high tolerability; thus, tinidazole can be preferred over metronidazole in ALA.

Comparative efficacy of drugs for treating giardiasis: a systematic update of the literature and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Background: Giardiasis is the commonest intestinal protozoal infection worldwide. The current first-choice therapy is metronidazole. Recently, other drugs with potentially higher efficacy or with fewer and milder side effects have increased in popularity, but evidence is limited by a scarcity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the many treatment options available. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a useful tool to compare multiple treatments when there is limited or no direct evidence available. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and side effects of all available drugs for the treatment of giardiasis. Methods: We selected all RCTs included in systematic reviews and expert reviews of all treatments for giardiasis published until 2014, extended the systematic literature search until 2016, and identified new studies by scanning reference lists for relevant studies. We then conducted an NMA of all available treatments for giardiasis by comparing parasitological cure (efficacy) and side effects. Results: We identified 60 RCTs from 58 reports (46 from published systematic reviews, 8 from reference lists and 4 from the updated systematic search). Data from 6714 patients, 18 treatments and 42 treatment comparisons were available. Tinidazole was associated with higher parasitological cure than metronidazole [relative risk (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 1.12-1.35] and albendazole (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.21-1.50). Taking into consideration clinical efficacy, side effects and amount of the evidence, tinidazole was found to be the most effective drug. Conclusions: We provide additional evidence that single-dose tinidazole is the best available treatment for giardiasis in symptomatic and asymptomatic children and adults.

Comparison between daily single-dose triple therapy and conventional triple therapy on patient compliance and Helicobacter pylori eradication: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The poor compliance to treatment of Helicobacter pylori-infected patients is well-known. We evaluated the efficacy of daily single-dose triple therapy as compared to conventional triple therapy on patient compliance and eradication of H. pylori infection. METHODS: In the study group, 105 patients received esomeprazole 40 mg, tinidazole 1 g, and levofloxacin 500 mg once-daily for 14 days. One hundred and seven patients in the control group received lansoprazole 30 mg, amoxicillin 1 g, and clarithromycin 500 mg twice-daily for 14 days. Four weeks after completing therapy, urea breath test was performed to assess the eradication of H. pylori infection. RESULTS: The eradication rates by intention-to-treat analysis were 86% and 90.2% and by per-protocol analyses were 90.5% and 95.3% in the control and study groups, respectively, with no significant differences. Drug compliance was significantly better in the study group compared to the control group (p = 0.04). Overall, 44.7% of the patients in the study and 47.6% in the control groups had at least one adverse event. The most common adverse event was the dysgeusia in both the groups. The occurrence of diarrhea, nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in the control group and that of arthralgia was higher in the study group. The presence of periodontal disease and drug compliance was independently associated with treatment failure. CONCLUSION: The use of single-dose PPI-based triple therapy improves drug compliance and eradication rate to standard PPI-based triple therapy. Presence of periodontal disease and drug compliance had negative influence on the eradication rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02711176 ᅟ ᅟ.

Efficacy of 5-nitroimidazoles for the treatment of giardiasis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Giardiasis is one of the most common causes of diarrheal disease worldwide and 5-nitroimidazoles (5-NI) are the most commonly prescribed drugs for the treatment of giardiasis. We evaluated the efficacy of 5-nitroimidazoles (5-NI) in the treatment of giardiasis in a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed-Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of 5-NI vs. control (placebo or active treatment) on parasitological cure in patients with parasitologically-demonstrated giardiasis. The search was performed in May 2013 with no language restriction by two authors independently. The efficacy outcome was parasitological cure, and harmful outcomes were abdominal pain, bitter or metallic taste, and headache. We included 30 RCTs (n = 3,930). There was a significant and slightly higher response rate with 5-NI in giardiasis treatment (RR 1.06, 95%CI 1.02-1.11, p = 0.005). There was high heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 72%). The response rates for metronidazole, tinidazole and secnidazole were similar (RR 1.05, 95%CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.01; RR 1.32 95%CI 1.10-1.59, p = 0.003; and RR 1.18 95%CI 0.93-1.449, p = 0.18, respectively). On subgroup analyses, the response rates did not vary substantially and high heterogeneity persisted (I2 = 57%-80%). Harmful outcomes were uncommon, and 5-NIs were associated with lower risk of abdominal pain, and higher risk of both bitter or metallic taste and headache. CONCLUSIONS: Studies investigating the efficacy of 5-NI in giardiasis treatment are highly heterogeneous. 5-NIs have a slightly better efficacy and worse profile for mild harmful outcomes in the treatment of giardiasis in comparison to controls. Larger high quality RCTs are needed to further assess efficacy and safety profiles of 5-NI.

Concomitant, sequential, and hybrid therapy for H. pylori eradication: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Since the efficacy of the standard triple therapies for Helicobacter pylori eradication has decreased, novel antibiotic regimens have been introduced, including concomitant, sequential, and hybrid therapies. We aimed to compare the cure rates achieved by these new therapy regimens. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label, pilot study enrolling consecutive non-ulcer dyspepsia patients with H. pylori infection never previously treated for the infection. Patients were randomized to receive one of the following treatments: (a) concomitant therapy: omeprazole 20mg, amoxicillin 1g, clarithromycin 500 mg, and tinidazole 500 mg for 5 days; (b) sequential therapy: omeprazole 20mg and amoxicillin 1g for 5 days followed by omeprazole 20mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, and tinidazole 500 mg for 5 days; (c) hybrid therapy: omeprazole 20mg, and amoxicillin 1g for 7 days followed by omeprazole 20mg, amoxicillin 1g, clarithromycin 500 mg, and tinidazole 500 mg, for 7 days. All drugs were administered twice daily. Bacterial eradication was checked 6 weeks after treatment by using a (13)C-urea breath test. A 10-day, second-line therapy with omeprazole 20mg, levofloxacin 250 mg, and amoxicillin 1g, all given twice daily, was offered to the eradication failure patients. RESULTS: Overall, 270 patients were enrolled, but 13 patients early interrupted treatment due to side effects. At intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol analysis (PP), the eradication rates were 85.5% and 91.6% with the concomitant regimen, 91.1% and 92.1% with the sequential therapy, and 80% and 85.7% with the hybrid regimen. Differences were not statistically significant. H. pylori infection was cured in 10 (55.6%) patients with the second-line regimen. CONCLUSION: In our study, both concomitant and sequential therapy, but not hybrid therapy, reached high eradication rates. The success rate of second-line levofloxacin-based triple therapy is decreasing.

Comparison of hybrid and sequential therapies for Helicobacter pylori eradication in Iran: a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The eradication of Helicobacter pylori has been always a concern. In the present study, we aimed to compare two novel treatments in Iran. METHOD: Four hundred and twenty patients with peptic ulcer and naïve H. pylori infection were randomized in the study. Two hundred and ten patients received hybrid therapy: pantoprazole 40 mg/b.i.d. and amoxicillin 1 g/b.i.d. for 14 days plus 500 mg clarithromycin and 500 mg tinidazole, both twice daily for the last 7 days. The other 210 patients received sequential therapy: 40 mg pantoprazole/b.i.d. for 10 days and 1 g amoxicillin/b.i.d. for the first 5 days, followed by 500 mg clarithromycin/b.i.d. and 500 mg tinidazole/b.i.d. for the last 5 days. C¹4-urea breath test was performed 8 weeks after the treatment. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-six patients (197 patients in the hybrid group and 199 patients in the sequential group) completed the study. The compliance rates were 96.7 and 98.6% for the two groups, respectively. The intention-to-treat eradication rate was 89.5% (95% CI = 85.4-93.6) for the hybrid group and 76.7% (95% CI = 71-82.4) for the sequential group (p = .001), and the per-protocol eradication rates were 92.9% (95% CI = 89.2-96.5) and 79.9% (95% CI = 74.1-85.4) for the hybrid and sequential groups (p = .001), respectively. Severe adverse effects were observed in 2.4% of patients in the hybrid group and 3.8% of those in the sequential group. CONCLUSION: According to our results, sequential regimen does not seem to be an appropriate therapy for H. pylori eradication in the Iranian population, whereas hybrid therapy showed to be more effective. However, considering the high cost of clarithromycin in Iran, we recommend further studies to compare hybrid therapy with bismuth-containing regimens or to assess the effects of hybrid therapies with periods shorter than 14 days.

Ten and eight-day sequential therapy in comparison to standard triple therapy for eradicating Helicobacter pylori infection: a randomized controlled study on efficacy and tolerability.

BACKGROUND: Sequential therapy (SQT) is effective in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori and could become an alternative to standard triple therapy (STT). AIM: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of SQT, for either 8 or 10 days, with a 7-day STT. METHODS: A total of 270 naive H. pylori-positive patients were randomized to receive: SQT for 8 days (SQT-8, n=90) or 10 days (SQT-10, n=90) including esomeprazole 20 mg twice daily (bid) associated with amoxicillin 1000 mg bid (early 4 and 5 d, respectively), followed by esomeprazole 20 mg bid associated with clarithromycin 500 mg bid plus tinidazole 500 mg bid (last 4 and 5 d, respectively); STT (n=90) including esomeprazole 20 mg bid plus amoxicillin 1000 mg bid and clarithromycin 500 mg bid for 7 days. Tolerability was assessed by scoring the severity of symptoms. RESULTS: Eradication rates after SQT-8 and SQT-10 were higher than that of after STT at both intention-to-treat (83% and 86% vs. 66%, P<0.02) and per-protocol analysis (90% and 88% vs. 75%, P<0.05), whereas no difference was found between the 2 SQTs. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that SQT, for 8 or 10 days, is well tolerated and highly effective in H. pylori eradication and could represent a valid alternative to STT. Further studies, with more power, on larger populations and from other countries are necessary to validate the present findings.

[Tinidazole: a classical anaerobical drug with multiple potential uses nowadays]. / Tinidazol: un anaerobicida clásico con múltiples usos potenciales en la actualidad.

Tinidazole is a 5-nitroimidazole active in vitro against a wide variety of anaerobic bacteria and protozoa. Tinidazole is an effective treatment against anaerobic microorganisms based on its pharmacokinetic characteristics (C(max) 51 microg/ml, t(1/2) 12.5 h) and its excellent in vitro activity. Its long half-life allows once a day regimens. Tinidazole is as effective as metronidazole in the treatment of infections caused by T. vaginalis, giardiasis and amebiasis and bacterial vaginosis, malaria, odontogenic infections, anaerobic bacterial infections (pelvic inflammatory disease, diabetic foot), surgical prophylaxis (abdominal and hysterectomy) and Helicobacter pylori eradication. Tinidazole was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of infections caused by Trichomonas vaginalis, Entamoeba histolytica and Giardia lamblia.

Tinidazol: un anaerobicida clásico con múltiples usos potenciales en la actualidad / Tinidazole: a classical anaerobical drug with multiple potential uses nowadays

El tinidazol es un 5-nitroimidazol activo in vitro frente a una amplia variedad de bacterias y protozoos anaerobios. Sus características farmacocinéticas (Cmáx 51 μg/ml, t1⁄2 12,5 h) y su actividad in vitro frente a microorganismos anaerobios hacen de tinidazol un tratamiento eficaz para muchas infecciones causadas por estos microorganismos en dosis única o una vez al día. El tinidazol es tan eficaz como metronidazol en infecciones por T. vaginalis, giardiasis y amebiasis intestinal o hepática, así como en vaginosis bacterianas, malaria, infecciones odontógenas e infecciones por bacterias anaerobias (enfermedad inflamatoria pélvica o pie diabético). Además se ha empleado en la profilaxis antibiótica de la cirugía abdominal y ginecológica y figura en todos los protocolos de erradicación de Helicobacter pylori. Tinidazol ha recibido recientemente la aprobación de la Food and Drug Administration (FDA) para el tratamiento de infecciones por Trichomonas vaginalis, Entamoeba histolytica y Giardia lamblia (AU)

Tinidazole is a 5-nitroimidazole active in vitro against a wide variety of anaerobic bacteria and protozoa. Tinidazole is an effective treatment against anaerobic microorganisms based on its pharmacokinetic characteristics (Cmáx 51 μg/ml, t1⁄2 12.5 h) and its excellent in vitro activity. Its long half-life allows once a day regimens. Tinidazole is as effective as metronidazole in the treatment of infections caused by T. vaginalis, giardiasis and amebiasis and bacterial vaginosis, malaria, odontogenic infections, anaerobic bacterial infections (pelvic inflammatory disease, diabetic foot), surgical prophylaxis (abdominal and hysterectomy) and Helicobacter pylori eradication. Tinidazole was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of infections caused by Trichomonas vaginalis, Entamoeba histolytica and Giardia lamblia (AU)

Antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis.

BACKGROUND: Entamoeba histolytica infection is common in developing countries, and up to 100,000 individuals with severe disease die every year. Adequate therapy for amoebic colitis is necessary to reduce the severity of illness, prevent development of complicated disease and extraintestinal spread, and decrease transmission. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: In September 2008, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (2008, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, mRCT, and conference proceedings. We contacted individual researchers, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies, and checked reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of antiamoebic drugs given alone or in combination, compared with placebo or another antiamoebic drug for treating adults and children diagnosed with amoebic colitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials, and extracted and analysed the data. We calculated clinical and parasitological failure rates, relapse, and adverse events as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model. We determined statistical heterogeneity and explored possible sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. We carried out sensitivity analysis using trial quality to assess the robustness of the results. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-seven trials, enrolling 4487 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Only one trial used adequate methods for randomization and allocation concealment, was blinded, and analysed all randomized participants. Only one trial used a E. histolytica stool antigen test. Tinidazole reduced clinical failure compared with metronidazole (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.51; 477 participants, eight trials) and was associated with fewer adverse events. Compared with metronidazole, combination therapy resulted in fewer parasitological failures (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.86; 720 participants, 3 trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tinidazole is more effective in reducing clinical failure compared with metronidazole and has fewer associated adverse events. Combination drug therapy is more effective in reducing parasitological failure compared with metronidazole alone. However, these results are based on trials with poor methodological quality so there is uncertainty in these conclusions. Further trials of the efficacy of antiamoebic drugs, with better methodological quality, are recommended. More accurate tests to detect E. histolytica are needed, particularly in countries where concomitant infection with other bacteria and parasites is common.

Effectiveness of two tinidazole regimens in treatment of bacterial vaginosis: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness at 21-30 days after treatment of tinidazole administered orally at 1 g once daily for 5 days and 2 g once daily for 2 days, compared with placebo, in the treatment of bacterial vaginosis, using rigorous U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended criteria to define cure. METHODS: A total of 235 women at 10 U.S. centers participated in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Presence or absence of all five following criteria was required to define diagnosis or cure of bacterial vaginosis: 1) clue cells were at least 20% of squamous cells in microscopic examination of vaginal fluid; 2) positive potassium hydroxide whiff test; 3) a homogeneous, thin, white-gray vaginal discharge; 4) vaginal pH greater than 4.5; and 5) Nugent score greater than or equal to 4 on Gram-stained vaginal fluid. Compliance, tolerability, and safety were assessed using patient diaries and interviews at 8-10 days and 21-30 days after treatment. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistical analysis with Bonferroni adjustment was used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: Superior efficacy was demonstrated by tinidazole for the 1 g once daily for 5 days regimen (36.8% cured, P<.001, number needed to treat 3.2) and for the 2 g once daily for 2 days regimen (27.4% cured, P<.001, number needed to treat 4.5), when compared with placebo (5.1% cured) in the primary endpoint analysis. Using more traditional criteria for cure, efficacy was greater. Compliance with study therapy and tolerability were comparable in the three treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Both tinidazole regimens studied provided effective treatment for bacterial vaginosis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00229216 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Tinidazole for the treatment of vaginal infections.

Tinidazole has been used for vaginal infection worldwide but not in the US for > 40 years. Recently, tinidazole has been re-introduced and approved by the FDA for trichomoniasis and restudied as an alternative to metronidazole for bacterial vaginosis. In vitro antimicrobial activity and pharmacokinetics studies indicate that tinidazole has minor but possibly relevant antimicrobial as well as pharmacokinetic advantages when compared directly with metronidazole. Clinical comparison has been infrequent although the limited head-to-head studies indicate minimal therapeutic advantage with tinidazole. Perhaps the more relevant differences relate to the enhanced tolerance and reduced toxicity of tinidazole. Ongoing, as yet incomplete, studies directly comparing the clinical efficacy of metronidazole and tinidazole for bacterial vaginosis should clarify the status of tinidazole; however, cure rates are unlikely to be significantly different. Although uncommon, high-level trichomonal metronidazole resistance can be reliably cured by using tinidazole, which is an invaluable advantage.