Treatment of intestinal amoebiasis and vaginal trichpmoniasis with panidazole and its comparison with metronidazole

Botero, David; Perez, A Varas

doi:10.1016/0035-9203(77)90145-6

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three trials stratified participants during the analysis of outcomes into those with acute amoebic dysentery and those with non‐dysenteric amoebic colitis (Botero 1974; Botero 1977; Swami 1977). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two trials reported the duration of time from start of treatment to disappearance of E histolytica from stools (Naoemar 1973; Pudjiadi 1973). Four trials reported on the number of stools passed at different periods: during treatment (Savas‐Erdeve 2009); after treatment (Pudjiadi 1973); and during treatment and on follow‐up after treatment (Botero 1977; Tripathi 1986), while another reported average daily frequency of stools on admission and at the end of days 5 and 10 of treatment (Asrani 1995). One trial assessed clinical and parasitological outcomes jointly as ‘cure' (Prasad 1985); only dichotomous outcomes were included in the analysis because of inconsistency in reporting continuous data (see Table 18).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One trial reported blinding of participants and the microscopist assessing stool specimens but did not mention blinding of the outcome assessor for clinical outcomes (Chunge 1989), and another reported blinding only of the microscopist assessing stool specimens but not of care providers or outcome assessors for clinical outcomes (Pamba 1990). Eleven trials were reported to be ‘double‐blind', but most of these (nine trials) did not describe the procedure for blinding, the person(s) blinded, similarity of the appearance of drugs, or the use of placebo (Donckaster 1964; Botero 1974; Botero 1977; Guevara 1980; Huggins 1982; Sitepu 1982; Tripathi 1986; Davila 2002; Shah 2016). One trial mentioned blinding only of participants and care providers but was unclear about blinding of outcome assessors for clinical and parasitological outcomes (Panggabean 1980), and one trial mentioned blinding only of laboratory personnel assessing the stool specimens (Siddiqui 2015).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other alternative drugs tested were ornidazole (155 participants, 3 trials; Naoemar 1973;Pudjiadi 1973;Botero 1974), secnidazole (44 participants, 1 trial; Karabay 1999), panidazole (86 participants, 1 trial; Botero 1977), and satranidazole (40 participants, 1 trial; Tripathi 1986). The number of participants in these trials comparing other nitroimidazoles versus metronidazole was inadequate to allow detection of any significant difference in clinical failure or parasitological failure 1 to 14 days after end of treatment (Analysis 1.1 and Analysis 1.3), or 15 to 60 days after end of treatment (Analysis 1.2 and Analysis 1.4).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three trials comparing ornidazole versus metronidazole reported adverse events (Naoemar 1973; Pudjiadi 1973; Botero 1974), as did one trial comparing panidazole with metronidazole ‐ Botero 1977 ‐ and another trial comparing satranidazole with metronidazole ‐ Tripathi 1986. No trials reported serious adverse events or withdrawals resulting from adverse events, except one ‐ Botero 1974 ‐ in which one participant given ornidazole developed temporary numbness of the hands and tongue with difficulty speaking that disappeared after treatment was stopped.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis

Gonzales

Dans

Sio‐Aguilar

2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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, m RCT, 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 failur...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%