IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0180001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies

Author

Listed:
  • Hong-ye Liu
  • Yan Han
  • Xiang-sheng Chen
  • Li Bai
  • Shu-ping Guo
  • Li Li
  • Peng Wu
  • Yue-ping Yin

Abstract

Background: Parenteral penicillin is the first-line regimen for treating syphilis, but unsuitable for some patients due to penicillin allergy and lacking health resources. Unfortunately, the efficacy of penicillin alternatives remains poorly understood. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of ceftriaxone and doxycycline/tetracycline in treating early syphilis relative to that of penicillin, and thereby to determine which antibiotic is a better replacement for penicillin. Method: By searching literature from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, the Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov and systematically screening relevant studies, eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on treatments with penicillin, doxycycline/tetracycline, and ceftriaxone for early syphilis were identified and combined in this systematic review. Estimated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized to compare their serological response and treatment failure rates. At 12-month follow up, serological response rates were compared by a direct meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), while treatment failure rates were compared with a direct meta-analysis. Result: Three RCTs and seven cohort studies were included in this research. The results of NMA demonstrated that no significant differences existed in serological response rate at 12-month follow-up between any two of the three treatments (doxycycline/tetracycline vs. penicillin RR = 1.01, 95%CI 0.89–1.14; ceftriaxone vs. penicillin RR = 1.00, 95%CI 0.89–1.13; ceftriaxone vs. doxycycline/tetracycline RR = 0.99, 95%CI 0.96–1.03), which was consistent with the outcomes of the direct meta-analysis. In addition, the direct meta-analysis indicated that, at 12-month follow-up, penicillin and ceftriaxone treatment groups had similar treatment failure rates (RR = 0.92, 95%CI 0.12–6.93), while treatment failure rate was significantly lower among penicillin recipients than among doxycycline/tetracycline recipients (RR = 0.58, 95%CI 0.38–0.89). Conclusion: Ceftriaxone is as effective as penicillin in treating early syphilis with regard to serological response and treatment failure rate. Compared with doxycycline/tetracycline, ceftriaxone appears to be a better choice as the substitution of penicillin.

Suggested Citation

  • Hong-ye Liu & Yan Han & Xiang-sheng Chen & Li Bai & Shu-ping Guo & Li Li & Peng Wu & Yue-ping Yin, 2017. "Comparison of efficacy of treatments for early syphilis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0180001
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180001
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180001&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0180001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0180001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.