Treatment of intestinal amoebiasis with diloxanide furoate, tetracycline and chloroquine

Botero, Restrepo

doi:10.1016/0035-9203(67)90032-6

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both the primary trial and the subsidiary trial by Biagi are probably duplicate publications of the same study because the 2 trials are similar in all aspectsBiagi 1978Not an RCTBlanc 1965Not an RCT. Reports (1965 and 1966) by Blanc are probably duplicate publications of the same study because the 2 trials are similar in all aspectsBlessman 2002Ineligible study population: RCT comparing paromomycin with diloxanide furoate for treatment of asymptomatic carriers of E histolytica Blessman 2003aWrong intervention and ineligible study population: RCT comparing metronidazole alone with ultrasound‐guided needle aspiration of the abscess in addition to metronidazole in patients with amoebic liver abscessBotero 1967Not an RCTCampos 1969Not an RCTCapparelli 2016Not an RCT: a phase 1, open‐label study with 15 healthy adult participants to determine the pharmacokinetics of gold, given as auranofin, during and after 7 days of once‐daily oral dose administrationCardoso Salles 1970Not an RCT: alternate allocation of patients with intestinal amoebiasis to receive 2 different doses of ethylchlordipheneCariry 1969Not an RCTChari 1970Not an RCTChaudhuri 1966Not an RCTCho 1972Not reported to be randomized but described as a double‐blind trial comparing Ro 7‐0207 vs metronidazole in treating participants with intestinal amoebiasis or E histolytica asymptomatic carriers; repeated attempts to gather more details from study authors were unsuccessful because the primary study author is deceased and the other study authors cannot be contactedCohen 1975Ineligible study population: RCT comparing chloroquine and metronidazole for treatment of amoebic liver abscessda Cunha 1977Not an RCTDatta 1974Ineligible study population: amoebic liver abscessde Carvalho 1965Not an RCTde la Rey 1989Wrong intervention and ineligible study population: RCT that randomized participants with amoebic liver abscess to either metronidazole alone or ultrasound‐guided aspiration of the abscess in addition to metronidazolede Oliveira 1969Not an RCTDelgado 1971…”

Section: Characteristics Of Excluded Studies [Ordered By Study Id]mentioning

confidence: 99%

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