Efficacy and Safety of Injectable and Oral Antibiotics in Treating Gonorrhea: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Gonorrhea is the second most frequently reported sexually transmitted infectious disease of bacterial origin in the world. Current empiric therapies rely on broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, treatment options are becoming limited due to the rise of drug-resistant gonorrhea. To control the rise of drug-resistant gonorrhea and to identify alternative treatment options, clinicians will have to increasingly rely on experimental evidence for the treatment of gonorrhea patients. Thus, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials about the efficacy and safety of various antibiotic regimens in adults with gonorrhea. We searched all references in Embase and PubMed from the date of their inception to January 2019, and then an updated search was performed in March 2019. Of the 28,843 identified references, 44 fulfilled our selection criteria. We used a network meta-analysis based on a frequentist approach to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 12 injectable and 11 oral antibiotics. The efficacy of treatments was ranked by p score and inconsistency was assessed by a back-calculation method. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by the GRADE system. For injectable drugs, there was no difference in efficacy between a reference antibiotic and other drugs. However, ceftriaxone had significantly better efficacy than cefuroxime (OR, 12.03; 95% CI 3.73–38.79), cephaloridine (OR, 42.41; 95% CI 8.77–205.07), kanamycin (OR, 5.45; 95% CI 1.25–23.70), penicillin (OR, 13.11; 95% CI 4.48–38.37), and spectinomycin (OR, 4.70; 95% CI 1.62–13.62). Thus, ceftriaxone was the most effective injectable drug (p score of 0.924). As for oral drugs, azithromycin was the most effective compound (p score of 0.8633). There were no significant differences in safety between injectable and oral treatments. In our systematic review of randomized controlled trials, we found azithromycin and ceftriaxone to be the most effective antibiotics for the treatment of gonorrhea. This is in line with current guidelines which recommend a combination therapy of azithromycin and ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhea due to increased antimicrobial resistance. Our analysis identified gentamicin and ofloxacin as alternative therapeutics to treat drug-resistant gonorrhea.

Download Full-text

1578. Treatments for complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) caused by multidrug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative (GN) pathogens- a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1758 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S787-S787

Author(s):

Tim Reason ◽

Karan Gill ◽

Christopher Longshaw ◽

Rachael McCool ◽

Katy Wilson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health Economics ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Treatment Options ◽

Final Analysis ◽

Similar Efficacy ◽

Global Public Health ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Support Unit ◽

Tract Infections

Abstract Background Antimicrobial resistance is a major and growing threat to global public health. Cefiderocol (CFDC) is a new siderophore-cephalosporin with a wide activity spectrum covering all aerobic GN pathogens including all WHO critical priority pathogens, that was recently approved by FDA for the treatment of GN cUTI in susceptible organisms. We aim to understand the relative efficacy and safety of current treatment options for cUTI caused by MDR GN pathogens. Methods We conducted a systematic review to identify all relevant trials that investigated the efficacy and safety of antimicrobial regimens, for the treatment of GN pathogens in cUTI. Outcomes of interest included clinical cure and microbiological eradication (ME) at time of cure (TOC) and sustained follow up (SFU), and safety. Evidence networks were constructed using data for outcomes of interest and analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using NMA methods outlined by the NICE decision support unit using the netmeta package in R. Results A total of 5 studies, 6 interventions and 2,349 randomised patients were included in the final analysis. Interventions included CFDC, imipenem-cilastatin (IPM-CIL), ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ/AVI), doripenem (DOR), levofloxacin and ceftolozane-tazobactam (CEF/TAZ). Trials included predominantly Enterobacterales, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa and very few Acinetobacter baumannii. The patient population presented some clinical differences across trials, which were not adjusted for the NMA. Overall, there were numerical differences (especially in endpoints at SFU favouring CFDC), but all treatments showed similar efficacy and safety, with exception of higher ME rate at TOC for CFDC vs IPM, Table 1, also observed at SFU, consistent with the data from the individual clinical trial. Table 1- Results for microbiological eradication Table 1- Results for microbiological eradication Conclusion This NMA, showed superiority of CFDC vs IPM-CIL in ME at TOC and SFU and similar efficacy and safety vs all other comparators, with numeric differences favouring CFDC for outcomes at SFU. These traditional methodologies for NMA, are only valid within a similar pathogens pool and population across the trials, and may not reflect the full value of breadth of coverage that new therapeutic options bring for the treatment of MDR GN pathogens. Disclosures Tim Reason, PhD, Shionogi (Consultant) Karan Gill, MSc, Shionogi BV (Employee) Christopher Longshaw, PhD, Shionogi B.V. (Employee) Rachael McCool, PhD, York Health Economics Consortium (Employee, YHEC was commissioned by Shionogi to conduct the systematic review) Katy Wilson, PhD, York Health Economics Consortium (Employee, Shionogi commissioned YHEC to conduct the systematic review) Sara Lopes, PharmD, Shionogi BV (Employee)

Download Full-text