Antibiotic prophylaxis for leptospirosis.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Mar 2024
14 Mar 2024
Historique:
pmc-release:
14
03
2025
medline:
15
3
2024
pubmed:
14
3
2024
entrez:
14
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Leptospirosis is a global zoonotic and waterborne disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are used as a strategy for prevention of leptospirosis, in particular in travellers and high-risk groups. However, the clinical benefits are unknown, especially when considering possible treatment-associated adverse effects. This review assesses the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in leptospirosis and is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Library (2009, Issue 3). To evaluate the benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis for human leptospirosis. We identified randomised clinical trials through electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and other resources. We searched online clinical trial registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. We checked reference lists of the retrieved studies for further trials. The last date of search was 17 April 2023. We included randomised clinical trials of any trial design, assessing antibiotics for prevention of leptospirosis, and with no restrictions on age, sex, occupation, or comorbidity of trial participants. We looked for trials assessing antibiotics irrespective of route of administration, dosage, and schedule versus placebo or no intervention. We also included trials assessing antibiotics versus other antibiotics using these criteria, or the same antibiotic but with another dose or schedule. We followed Cochrane methodology. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (inclusive of asymptomatic cases), clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation, clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (exclusive of asymptomatic cases), and serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were quality of life and the proportion of people with non-serious adverse events. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using the RoB 2 tool and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a random-effects model for our main analyses and the fixed-effect model for sensitivity analyses. Our primary outcome analyses included trial data at the longest follow-up. We identified five randomised clinical trials comprising 2593 participants that compared antibiotics (doxycycline, azithromycin, or penicillin) with placebo, or one antibiotic compared with another. Four trials assessed doxycycline with different durations, one trial assessed azithromycin, and one trial assessed penicillin. One trial had three intervention groups: doxycycline, azithromycin, and placebo. Three trials assessed pre-exposure prophylaxis, one trial assessed postexposure prophylaxis, and one did not report this clearly. Four trials recruited residents in endemic areas, and one trial recruited soldiers who experienced limited time exposure. The participants' ages in the included trials were 10 to 80 years. Follow-up ranged from one to three months. Antibiotics versus placebo Doxycycline compared with placebo may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.83; 1 trial, 782 participants; low-certainty evidence). Prophylactic antibiotics may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.26; 5 trials, 2593 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics may result in little to no difference in the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of laboratory confirmation (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.08; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis with laboratory confirmation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.26; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics compared with placebo may increase non-serious adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 10.13, 95% CI 2.40 to 42.71; 3 trials, 1909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One antibiotic versus another antibiotic One trial assessed doxycycline versus azithromycin but did not report mortality. Compared to azithromycin, doxycycline may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.32; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), and on non-serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.48; 1 trial, 137 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. None of the five included trials reported serious adverse events or assessed quality of life. One study is awaiting classification. Funding Four of the five trials included statements disclosing their funding/supporting sources, and the remaining trial did not include this. Three of the four trials that disclosed their supporting sources received the supply of trial drugs directly from the same pharmaceutical company, and the remaining trial received financial support from a governmental source. We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo or another antibiotic has little or have no effect on all-cause mortality or leptospirosis infection because the certainty of evidence is low or very low. We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo may increase the overall risk of non-serious adverse events because of very low-certainty evidence. We lack definitive rigorous data from randomised trials to support the use of antibiotics for the prophylaxis of leptospirosis infection. We lack trials reporting data on clinically relevant outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Leptospirosis is a global zoonotic and waterborne disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are used as a strategy for prevention of leptospirosis, in particular in travellers and high-risk groups. However, the clinical benefits are unknown, especially when considering possible treatment-associated adverse effects. This review assesses the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in leptospirosis and is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Library (2009, Issue 3).
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis for human leptospirosis.
SEARCH METHODS
METHODS
We identified randomised clinical trials through electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and other resources. We searched online clinical trial registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. We checked reference lists of the retrieved studies for further trials. The last date of search was 17 April 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
METHODS
We included randomised clinical trials of any trial design, assessing antibiotics for prevention of leptospirosis, and with no restrictions on age, sex, occupation, or comorbidity of trial participants. We looked for trials assessing antibiotics irrespective of route of administration, dosage, and schedule versus placebo or no intervention. We also included trials assessing antibiotics versus other antibiotics using these criteria, or the same antibiotic but with another dose or schedule.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
METHODS
We followed Cochrane methodology. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (inclusive of asymptomatic cases), clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation, clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (exclusive of asymptomatic cases), and serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were quality of life and the proportion of people with non-serious adverse events. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using the RoB 2 tool and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a random-effects model for our main analyses and the fixed-effect model for sensitivity analyses. Our primary outcome analyses included trial data at the longest follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified five randomised clinical trials comprising 2593 participants that compared antibiotics (doxycycline, azithromycin, or penicillin) with placebo, or one antibiotic compared with another. Four trials assessed doxycycline with different durations, one trial assessed azithromycin, and one trial assessed penicillin. One trial had three intervention groups: doxycycline, azithromycin, and placebo. Three trials assessed pre-exposure prophylaxis, one trial assessed postexposure prophylaxis, and one did not report this clearly. Four trials recruited residents in endemic areas, and one trial recruited soldiers who experienced limited time exposure. The participants' ages in the included trials were 10 to 80 years. Follow-up ranged from one to three months. Antibiotics versus placebo Doxycycline compared with placebo may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.83; 1 trial, 782 participants; low-certainty evidence). Prophylactic antibiotics may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.26; 5 trials, 2593 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics may result in little to no difference in the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of laboratory confirmation (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.08; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis with laboratory confirmation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.26; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics compared with placebo may increase non-serious adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 10.13, 95% CI 2.40 to 42.71; 3 trials, 1909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One antibiotic versus another antibiotic One trial assessed doxycycline versus azithromycin but did not report mortality. Compared to azithromycin, doxycycline may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.32; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), and on non-serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.48; 1 trial, 137 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. None of the five included trials reported serious adverse events or assessed quality of life. One study is awaiting classification. Funding Four of the five trials included statements disclosing their funding/supporting sources, and the remaining trial did not include this. Three of the four trials that disclosed their supporting sources received the supply of trial drugs directly from the same pharmaceutical company, and the remaining trial received financial support from a governmental source.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo or another antibiotic has little or have no effect on all-cause mortality or leptospirosis infection because the certainty of evidence is low or very low. We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo may increase the overall risk of non-serious adverse events because of very low-certainty evidence. We lack definitive rigorous data from randomised trials to support the use of antibiotics for the prophylaxis of leptospirosis infection. We lack trials reporting data on clinically relevant outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38483067
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014959.pub2
pmc: PMC10938880
doi:
Substances chimiques
Doxycycline
N12000U13O
Azithromycin
83905-01-5
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Penicillins
0
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD014959Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Mar 14;3:CD014959
pubmed: 38483067
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011 Jul;41(7):496-504
pubmed: 21725192
Eur Spine J. 2006 Jan;15 Suppl 1:S44-51
pubmed: 16320032
J Biosci. 2008 Nov;33(4):557-69
pubmed: 19208981
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000 Feb;13(4):249-55
pubmed: 10755239
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;(2):CD008264
pubmed: 22336839
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020 Jun 30;18(1):208
pubmed: 32605649
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 16;2:MR000033
pubmed: 28207928
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011 Sep;85(3):471-8
pubmed: 21896807
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
J Infect Chemother. 2001 Jun;7(2):59-68
pubmed: 11455495
Evid Based Ment Health. 2014 Aug;17(3):85-9
pubmed: 25009175
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Dec 30;9:86
pubmed: 20042080
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(4):CD001305
pubmed: 11034711
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Mar 6;17(1):39
pubmed: 28264661
J Clin Diagn Res. 2014 Jan;8(1):199-202
pubmed: 24596774
J Infect Chemother. 2014 Nov;20(11):709-15
pubmed: 25172777
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2014 Dec;108(12):743-50
pubmed: 25266477
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 May 09;5:CD012069
pubmed: 29744873
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Feb;106:50-59
pubmed: 30342970
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2006 Dec;19(6):533-7
pubmed: 17075327
Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2015;387:65-97
pubmed: 25388133
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Jan;61(1):64-75
pubmed: 18083463
BMJ. 2002 Sep 21;325(7365):652-4
pubmed: 12242181
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Jun 03;14(6):
pubmed: 28587195
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Afr Health Sci. 2010 Jun;10(2):199-200
pubmed: 21326976
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2001 Apr;14(2):296-326
pubmed: 11292640
Lancet Infect Dis. 2003 Dec;3(12):757-71
pubmed: 14652202
Syst Rev. 2018 Jul 28;7(1):110
pubmed: 30055658
BMJ. 2001 Jun 16;322(7300):1479-80
pubmed: 11408310
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Nov 21;14:120
pubmed: 25416419
Methods Mol Biol. 2020;2134:277-287
pubmed: 32632878
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Oct 02;9(10):e0004122
pubmed: 26431366
Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Aug 09;2:57-66
pubmed: 20865104
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):CD007342
pubmed: 19588424
N Engl J Med. 1984 Feb 23;310(8):497-500
pubmed: 6363930
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Sep 17;9(9):e0003898
pubmed: 26379143
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2008 Sep;39(5):882-4
pubmed: 19058584
Acta Trop. 2008 May;106(2):128-31
pubmed: 18395178
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Aug;61(8):763-9
pubmed: 18411040
Res Rep Trop Med. 2016 Sep 28;7:49-62
pubmed: 30050339
Mayo Clin Proc. 2011 Jul;86(7):686-701
pubmed: 21719623
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160
pubmed: 33781993
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2020 Jul 15;44:e78
pubmed: 32684917
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020 May;39(5):835-846
pubmed: 31898795
Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 1998 Jan-Feb;40(1):59-61
pubmed: 9713140
Medicina (B Aires). 2021;81(1):107-110
pubmed: 33611253
Int J Epidemiol. 2009 Feb;38(1):287-98
pubmed: 18824466
Pathogens. 2021 Sep 02;10(9):
pubmed: 34578157
J Infect Dev Ctries. 2018 Nov 30;12(11):991-995
pubmed: 32012129