No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundDiarrhoea is a major cause of death and disease, especially among young children in low-income countries. In these settings, many infectious agents associated with diarrhoea are spread through water contaminated with faeces.In remote and low-income settings, source-based water quality improvement includes providing protected groundwater (springs, wells, and bore holes), or harvested rainwater as an alternative to surface sources (rivers and lakes). Point-of-use water quality improvement interventions include boiling, chlorination, flocculation, filtration, or solar disinfection, mainly conducted at home.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (11 November 2014), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library, 7 November 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to 10 November 2014), EMBASE (1974 to 10 November 2014), and LILACS (1982 to 7 November 2014). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, contacted researchers and organizations working in the field, and checked references from identified studies through 11 November 2014.Selection criteriaRandomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBA) comparing interventions aimed at improving the microbiological quality of drinking water with no intervention in children and adults.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect, where appropriate, and investigated potential sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsForty-five cluster-RCTs, two quasi-RCTs, and eight CBA studies, including over 84,000 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most included studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) (50 studies) with unimproved water sources (30 studies) and unimproved or unclear sanitation (34 studies). The primary outcome in most studies was self-reported diarrhoea, which is at high risk of bias due to the lack of blinding in over 80% of the included studies.Source-based water quality improvementsThere is currently insufficient evidence to know if source-based improvements such as protected wells, communal tap stands, or chlorination/filtration of community sources consistently reduce diarrhoea (one cluster-RCT, five CBA studies, very low quality evidence). We found no studies evaluating reliable piped-in water supplies delivered to households.Point-of-use water quality interventionsOn average, distributing water disinfection products for use at the household level may reduce diarrhoea by around one quarter (Home chlorination products: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.91; 14 trials, 30,746 participants, low quality evidence; flocculation and disinfection sachets: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82, four trials, 11,788 participants, moderate quality evidence). However, there was substantial h...

Background Patient adherence to medications, particularly for conditions requiring prolonged treatment such as tuberculosis (TB), is frequently less than ideal and can result in poor treatment outcomes. Material incentives to reward good behaviour and enablers to remove economic barriers to accessing care are sometimes given in the form of cash, vouchers, or food to improve adherence. Objectives To evaluate the effects of material incentives and enablers in patients undergoing diagnostic testing, or receiving prophylactic or curative therapy, for TB. Search methods We undertook a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; Science Citation Index; and reference lists of relevant publications up to 5 June 2015. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials of material incentives in patients being investigated for TB, or on treatment for latent or active TB. Data collection and analysis At least two review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. We compared the effects of interventions using risk ratios (RR), and presented RRs with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Main results We identified 12 eligible trials. Ten were conducted in the USA: in adolescents (one trial), in injection drug or cocaine users (four trials), in homeless adults (three trials), and in prisoners (two trials). The remaining two trials, in general adult populations, were conducted in Timor‐Leste and South Africa. Sustained incentive programmes Only two trials have assessed whether material incentives and enablers can improve long‐term adherence and completion of treatment for active TB, and neither demonstrated a clear benefit (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.14; two trials, 4356 participants; low quality evidence ). In one trial, the incentive, given as a daily hot meal, was not well received by the population due to the inconvenience of attending the clinic at midday, whilst in the other trial, nurses distributing the vouchers chose to "ration" their distribution among eligible patients, giving only to those whom they felt were most deprived. Three trials assessed the effects of material incentives and enablers on completion of TB prophylaxis with mixed results ( low quality evidence ). A large effect was seen with regular cash incentives given to drug users at each clinic visit in a setting with extremely low treatment completion in the control group (treatment completion 52.8% intervention versus 3.6% control; RR 14.53, 95% CI 3.64 to 57.98; one trial, 108 participants), but no effects were seen in one trial assessing a cash incentive for...

Background Cholera is an acute watery diarrhoea caused by infection with the bacterium Vibrio cholerae, which if severe can cause rapid dehydration and death. Effective management requires early diagnosis and rehydration using oral rehydration salts or intravenous fluids. In this review, we evaluate the additional benefits of treating cholera with antimicrobial drugs. Objectives To quantify the benefit of antimicrobial treatment for patients with cholera, and determine whether there are differences between classes of antimicrobials or dosing schedules. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; African Index Medicus; LILACS; Science Citation Index; metaRegister of Controlled Trials; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; conference proceedings; and reference lists to March 2014. Selection criteria Randomized and quasi‐randomized controlled clinical trials in adults and children with cholera that compared: 1) any antimicrobial treatment with placebo or no treatment; 2) different antimicrobials head‐to‐head; or 3) different dosing schedules or different durations of treatment with the same antimicrobial. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, and extracted data from included trials. Diarrhoea duration and stool volume were defined as primary outcomes. We calculated mean difference (MD) or ratio of means (ROM) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and pooled data using a random‐effects meta‐analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Main results Thirty‐nine trials were included in this review with 4623 participants. Antimicrobials versus placebo or no treatment Overall, antimicrobial therapy shortened the mean duration of diarrhoea by about a day and a half compared to placebo or no treatment (MD ‐36.77 hours, 95% CI ‐43.51 to ‐30.03, 19 trials, 1013 participants, moderate quality evidence ). Antimicrobial therapy also reduced the total stool volume by 50% (ROM 0.5, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.56, 18 trials, 1042 participants, moderate quality evidence ) and reduced the amount of rehydration fluids required by 40% (ROM 0.60, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.68, 11 trials, 1201 participants, moderate quality evidence ). The mean duration of fecal excretion of vibrios was reduced by almost three days (MD 2.74 days, 95% CI ‐3.07 to ‐2.40, 12 trials, 740 participants, moderate quality evidence). There was substantial heterogeneity in the size of these benefits, probably due to differences in the antibiotic used, the trial methods (particularly effective randomization), and the tim...

Background Urinary schistosomiasis is caused by an intravascular infection with parasitic Schistosoma haematobium worms. The adult worms typically migrate to the venous plexus of the human bladder and excrete eggs which the infected person passes in their urine. Chronic infection can cause substantial morbidity and long‐term complications as the eggs become trapped in human tissues causing inflammation and fibrosis. We summarised evidence of drugs active against the infection. This is new edition of a review first published in 1997. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of drugs for treating urinary schistosomiasis. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and LILACS and reference lists of articles up to 23 May 2014. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antischistosomal drugs and drug combinations compared to placebo, no intervention, or each other. Data collection and analysis Two researchers independently screened the records, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. The primary efficacy outcomes were parasitological failure (defined as the continued presence of S. haematobium eggs in the urine at time points greater than one month after treatment), and percent reduction of egg counts from baseline. We presented dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR), and continuous data as mean difference (MD), alongside their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate we combined trials in meta analyses or tables. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results We included 30 RCTs enrolling 8165 participants in this review. Twenty‐four trials were conducted in children in sub‐Saharan Africa, and 21 trials were over 20 years old. Many studies were assessed as being at unclear risk of bias due to inadequate descriptions of study methods. Praziquantel On average, a single 40 mg/kg dose of praziquantel reduced the proportion of people still excreting eggs in their urine by around 60% compared to placebo at one to two months after treatment (treatment failure: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.59, 864 participants, seven trials, high quality evidence ). The proportion of people cured with praziquantel varied substantially between trials, from 22.5% to 83.3%, but was higher than 60% in five of the seven trials. At one to two months following praziquantel treatment at 40 mg/kg, the mean number of schistosome eggs in the urine was reduced by over 95% in five out of six trials (678 participants, six trials, high quality evidence ). Splitting praziquantel 40 mg/kg into two doses over 12 hours probably has no benefits over a single dose, and in a single trial of 220 participants the...

[reaction: see text] m- or p-Diiodobenzene undergoes selective double coupling reactions with arylboronic acids and esters. Selectivity for double coupling over single coupling is remarkably strong: even with a diiodobenzene:monoboronic acid ratio of 10:1, the products of double coupling are formed in good yields. Steric hindrance and electronic influences of the boronic acid or ester, and reaction conditions do not appear to impact significantly upon the outcome of the reaction. In contrast, m- and p-dibromobenzenes undergo single couplings with aryl boronic acids with high selectivity.

BackgroundMefloquine is one of four antimalarial agents commonly recommended for preventing malaria in travellers to malaria-endemic areas. Despite its high efficacy, there is controversy about its psychological side effects.ObjectivesTo summarize the efficacy and safety of mefloquine used as prophylaxis for malaria in travellers.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published on the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase (OVID); TOXLINE (https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/newtoxnet/toxline.htm); and LILACS. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home) for trials in progress, using 'mefloquine', 'Lariam', and 'malaria' as search terms. The search date was 22 June 2017.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (for efficacy and safety) and non-randomized cohort studies (for safety). We compared prophylactic mefloquine with placebo, no treatment, or an alternative recommended antimalarial agent. Our study populations included all adults and children, including pregnant women.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of trials, extracted and analysed data. We compared dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Prespecified adverse outcomes are included in 'Summary of findings' tables, with the best available estimate of the absolute frequency of each outcome in short-term international travellers. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe included 20 RCTs (11,470 participants); 35 cohort studies (198,493 participants); and four large retrospective analyses of health records (800,652 participants). Nine RCTs explicitly excluded participants with a psychiatric history, and 25 cohort studies stated that the choice of antimalarial agent was based on medical history and personal preference. Most RCTs and cohort studies collected data on self-reported or clinician-assessed symptoms, rather than formal medical diagnoses.Mefloquine efficacyOf 12 trials comparing mefloquine and placebo, none were performed in short-term international travellers, and most populations had a degree of immunity to malaria. The percentage of people developing a malaria episode in the control arm varied from 1% to 82% (median 22%) and 0% to 13% in the mefloquine group (median 1%).In four RCTs that directly compared mefloquine, atovaquone-proguanil and doxycycline in non-immune, short-term international travellers, only one clinical case of malaria occurred (4 trials, 1822 participants).Mefloquine safety versus atovaquone-proguanilParticipants receiving mefloquine were more likely to discontinue their medication due to adverse effects than atovaquone-proguanil users (RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.31; 3 RCTs, 1438 participants; high-certainty evidence)....