miun.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Interventions for the prevention of mycobacterium avium complex in adults and children with HIV
Univ Ilorin, Fac Clin Sci, Dept Epidemiol & Community Hlth, Coll Hlth Sci, Ilorin, Nigeria.
Univ Warwick, Warwick Med Sch, CAHRD, Warwick, England.
Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Human Sciences, Department of Health Sciences.
2013 (English)In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ISSN 1469-493X, E-ISSN 1469-493X, no 4, p. Art. no. CD007191-Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) infection is a common complication of advanced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) disease and is an independent predictor of mortality and shortened survival. Objectives To determine the effectiveness and safety of interventions aimed at preventing MAC infection in adults and children with HIV infection. Search methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library (search date December 2012). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials comparing different strategies for preventing MAC infection in HIV-infected individuals. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility and quality, and extracted data. Where data were incomplete or unclear, a third reviewer resolved conflicts and/or trial authors were contacted for further details. Development of MAC infection and survival were compared using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of evidence has been assessed using the GRADE methodology. Main results Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Placebo-controlled trials There was no statistically significant difference between clofazimine and no treatment groups in the number of patients that developed MAC infection (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.37 to 2.80). Rifabutin (one study; RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.67), azithromycin (three studies; RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.74) and clarithromycin (one study; RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.58) were more effective than placebo in preventing the development of MAC infection. There was no statistically significant difference between those treated with clofazimine (one study; RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.41 to 2.32), rifabutin (one study RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05), azithromycin (three studies, pooled RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.32) and placebo in number of reported deaths. One study found that the risk of death was reduced by 22% in patients treated with clarithromycin compared to those treated with placebo (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.96). Monotherapy vs. monotherapy Patients treated with clarithromycin (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.89) and azithromycin (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89) were 40% less likely to develop MAC infection than those treated with rifabutin. There was no statistically significant difference between those treated with clarithromycin (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.15), azithromycin (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.24) and rifabutin in the number of reported deaths Combination therapy versus monotherapy There was no statistically significant difference between patients treated with a combination of rifabutin and clarithromycin and those treated with clarithromycin alone (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20); and those treated with combination of rifabutin and azithromycin and those treated with azithromycin alone (RR 0.59; 95% CI 1.03). Patients treated with a combination of rifabutin plus clarithromycin were 56% less likely to develop MAC infection than those treated with rifabutin alone (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.69). Patients treated with a combination of rifabutin plus azithromycin were 65% less likely to develop MAC infection than those treated with rifabutin alone (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.59). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of reported deaths in all the four different comparisons of prophylactic agents. Authors' conclusions Based on limited data, azithromycin or clarithromycin appeared to be a prophylactic agent of choice for MAC infection. Further studies are needed, especially direct comparison of clarithromycin and azithromycin. In additions, studies that will compare different doses and regimens are needed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. no 4, p. Art. no. CD007191-
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology Infectious Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-20662DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007191.pub2ISI: 000320654400035Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84886823298OAI: oai:DiVA.org:miun-20662DiVA, id: diva2:678643
Available from: 2013-12-12 Created: 2013-12-11 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Yahaya, Ismail

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Yahaya, Ismail
By organisation
Department of Health Sciences
In the same journal
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and EpidemiologyInfectious Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 45 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf