Antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis

Abstract

Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health.

Relationship Between Metronidazole and Co-Trimoxazole on Eradication of Entamoeba Histolytica

“…In this study, our findings demonstrated the efficacy of 10 day course of Metronidazole in resolving diarrhea for which the causative organism was identified by microscopic examination of stool samples to be Entamoeba histolytica, so Metronidazole which is an amoebicidal and bactericidal agent with low toxicity is the drug of choice to treat acute amoebic colitis and it is found that Metronidazole is effective against amoebic liver abscess (McAuley et al, 1992;Gonzales et al, 2009), although surgical aspiration may be needed sometime, but it is demonstrated that use of another agent in addition to Metronidazole that is active against cysts is needed in some cases like Septrin which has efficacy rate of more than 90% in eradication of the amoebic cysts (McAuley et al, 1992), but the use of this agent is limited because of its adverse effects (Gastrointestinal and neurological side effects which were produced in 9% of the patients given the treatment after 14 years experience with the use of Septrin. The clinical syndrome of non-dysenteric intestinal amoebiasis or chronic amoebiasis has been a controversial entity for sometime.…”

Relationship Between Metronidazole and Co-Trimoxazole on Eradication of Entamoeba Histolytica

“…In this study, our findings demonstrated the efficacy of 10 day course of Metronidazole in resolving diarrhea for which the causative organism was identified by microscopic examination of stool samples to be Entamoeba histolytica, so Metronidazole which is an amoebicidal and bactericidal agent with low toxicity is the drug of choice to treat acute amoebic colitis and it is found that Metronidazole is effective against amoebic liver abscess (McAuley et al, 1992;Gonzales et al, 2009), although surgical aspiration may be needed sometime, but it is demonstrated that use of another agent in addition to Metronidazole that is active against cysts is needed in some cases like Septrin which has efficacy rate of more than 90% in eradication of the amoebic cysts (McAuley et al, 1992), but the use of this agent is limited because of its adverse effects (Gastrointestinal and neurological side effects which were produced in 9% of the patients given the treatment after 14 years experience with the use of Septrin. The clinical syndrome of non-dysenteric intestinal amoebiasis or chronic amoebiasis has been a controversial entity for sometime.…”

Antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis

“…Thirty‐seven trials met the inclusion criteria of the first published version of this review (Gonzales 2009). We retrieved one trial previously classified under ‘Studies awaiting classification' following the initial search (Guevara 1980), and we assessed 14 additional studies identified in updated searches conducted from the time of publication of the review in 2009 until 22 March 2018.…”

“…Trial results were not combined, and no formal statistical methods were performed to determine summary measures of drug effectiveness. Updates to the Clinical Evidence review ‐ Mackey‐Lawrence 2011 and Marie 2013 ‐ mainly summarized findings from the previous version of this current Cochrane review on antiamoebic drugs and performed GRADE evaluation of the certainty of evidence for applied interventions (Gonzales 2009). Authors of the Clinical Evidence reviews recognized the generally poor quality of the included trials, largely due to methodological flaws and limitations of diagnostic tests for amoebic infection.…”

“…This review used the Clinical Evidence search strategy and included 12 randomized controlled trials, defined therapeutic failure as persistence of symptoms or persistence of parasites or both, analysed outcomes reported together for different time points, and did not pool data to generate an overall summary measure. Subsequent updates of this Clinical Evidence review ‐ Mackey‐Lawrence 2011 and Marie 2013 ‐ mainly summarized findings of the previous version of the earlier published Cochrane review on antiamoebic drugs and included a GRADE evaluation of the certainty of evidence for interventions (Gonzales 2009). Review authors concluded that compared with placebo, ornidazole may be more effective in clearing parasites, and that secnidazole, tinidazole, and metronidazole may be as effective as ornidazole in curing amoebic dysentery.…”

Is it tinidazole-induced pancreatitis?

“…In one review, tinidazole was shown to be probably more effective and better tolerated than metronidazole in the treatment of colonic amoebiasis . The most common side effects of tinidazole are almost similar to those of metronidazole and include dyspepsia, metallic taste, pruritus and headache . However, we found no published reports of tinidazole causing acute pancreatitis …”

Relationship Between Metronidazole and Co-Trimoxazole on Eradication of Entamoeba Histolytica

“…In this study, our findings demonstrated the efficacy of 10 day course of Metronidazole in resolving diarrhea for which the causative organism was identified by microscopic examination of stool samples to be Entamoeba histolytica, so Metronidazole which is an amoebicidal and bactericidal agent with low toxicity is the drug of choice to treat acute amoebic colitis and it is found that Metronidazole is effective against amoebic liver abscess (McAuley et al, 1992;Gonzales et al, 2009), although surgical aspiration may be needed sometime, but it is demonstrated that use of another agent in addition to Metronidazole that is active against cysts is needed in some cases like Septrin which has efficacy rate of more than 90% in eradication of the amoebic cysts (McAuley et al, 1992), but the use of this agent is limited because of its adverse effects (Gastrointestinal and neurological side effects which were produced in 9% of the patients given the treatment after 14 years experience with the use of Septrin. The clinical syndrome of non-dysenteric intestinal amoebiasis or chronic amoebiasis has been a controversial entity for sometime.…”

Antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis

“…Thirty‐seven trials met the inclusion criteria of the first published version of this review (Gonzales 2009). We retrieved one trial previously classified under ‘Studies awaiting classification' following the initial search (Guevara 1980), and we assessed 14 additional studies identified in updated searches conducted from the time of publication of the review in 2009 until 22 March 2018.…”

“…Trial results were not combined, and no formal statistical methods were performed to determine summary measures of drug effectiveness. Updates to the Clinical Evidence review ‐ Mackey‐Lawrence 2011 and Marie 2013 ‐ mainly summarized findings from the previous version of this current Cochrane review on antiamoebic drugs and performed GRADE evaluation of the certainty of evidence for applied interventions (Gonzales 2009). Authors of the Clinical Evidence reviews recognized the generally poor quality of the included trials, largely due to methodological flaws and limitations of diagnostic tests for amoebic infection.…”

“…This review used the Clinical Evidence search strategy and included 12 randomized controlled trials, defined therapeutic failure as persistence of symptoms or persistence of parasites or both, analysed outcomes reported together for different time points, and did not pool data to generate an overall summary measure. Subsequent updates of this Clinical Evidence review ‐ Mackey‐Lawrence 2011 and Marie 2013 ‐ mainly summarized findings of the previous version of the earlier published Cochrane review on antiamoebic drugs and included a GRADE evaluation of the certainty of evidence for interventions (Gonzales 2009). Review authors concluded that compared with placebo, ornidazole may be more effective in clearing parasites, and that secnidazole, tinidazole, and metronidazole may be as effective as ornidazole in curing amoebic dysentery.…”

Is it tinidazole-induced pancreatitis?

“…In one review, tinidazole was shown to be probably more effective and better tolerated than metronidazole in the treatment of colonic amoebiasis . The most common side effects of tinidazole are almost similar to those of metronidazole and include dyspepsia, metallic taste, pruritus and headache . However, we found no published reports of tinidazole causing acute pancreatitis …”

Relationship Between Metronidazole and Co-Trimoxazole on Eradication of Entamoeba Histolytica

“…In this study, our findings demonstrated the efficacy of 10 day course of Metronidazole in resolving diarrhea for which the causative organism was identified by microscopic examination of stool samples to be Entamoeba histolytica, so Metronidazole which is an amoebicidal and bactericidal agent with low toxicity is the drug of choice to treat acute amoebic colitis and it is found that Metronidazole is effective against amoebic liver abscess (McAuley et al, 1992;Gonzales et al, 2009), although surgical aspiration may be needed sometime, but it is demonstrated that use of another agent in addition to Metronidazole that is active against cysts is needed in some cases like Septrin which has efficacy rate of more than 90% in eradication of the amoebic cysts (McAuley et al, 1992), but the use of this agent is limited because of its adverse effects (Gastrointestinal and neurological side effects which were produced in 9% of the patients given the treatment after 14 years experience with the use of Septrin. The clinical syndrome of non-dysenteric intestinal amoebiasis or chronic amoebiasis has been a controversial entity for sometime.…”

Antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis

“…Thirty‐seven trials met the inclusion criteria of the first published version of this review (Gonzales 2009). We retrieved one trial previously classified under ‘Studies awaiting classification' following the initial search (Guevara 1980), and we assessed 14 additional studies identified in updated searches conducted from the time of publication of the review in 2009 until 22 March 2018.…”

“…Trial results were not combined, and no formal statistical methods were performed to determine summary measures of drug effectiveness. Updates to the Clinical Evidence review ‐ Mackey‐Lawrence 2011 and Marie 2013 ‐ mainly summarized findings from the previous version of this current Cochrane review on antiamoebic drugs and performed GRADE evaluation of the certainty of evidence for applied interventions (Gonzales 2009). Authors of the Clinical Evidence reviews recognized the generally poor quality of the included trials, largely due to methodological flaws and limitations of diagnostic tests for amoebic infection.…”

“…This review used the Clinical Evidence search strategy and included 12 randomized controlled trials, defined therapeutic failure as persistence of symptoms or persistence of parasites or both, analysed outcomes reported together for different time points, and did not pool data to generate an overall summary measure. Subsequent updates of this Clinical Evidence review ‐ Mackey‐Lawrence 2011 and Marie 2013 ‐ mainly summarized findings of the previous version of the earlier published Cochrane review on antiamoebic drugs and included a GRADE evaluation of the certainty of evidence for interventions (Gonzales 2009). Review authors concluded that compared with placebo, ornidazole may be more effective in clearing parasites, and that secnidazole, tinidazole, and metronidazole may be as effective as ornidazole in curing amoebic dysentery.…”

Is it tinidazole-induced pancreatitis?

“…In one review, tinidazole was shown to be probably more effective and better tolerated than metronidazole in the treatment of colonic amoebiasis . The most common side effects of tinidazole are almost similar to those of metronidazole and include dyspepsia, metallic taste, pruritus and headache . However, we found no published reports of tinidazole causing acute pancreatitis …”