Treatment efficacy for rectal Neisseria gonorrhoeae: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

7Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Rectal gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection with increasing antimicrobial resistance requiring optimization of available treatments. Objectives: This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of current treatments, previously trialled treatments and new emerging treatments for rectal Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG). Methods: Online bibliographic databases were search from 1 January 1946 to 14 August 2020. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with rectal NG data among participants aged 15 years or above and published in English were included. Random effects meta-analyses were used to estimate overall treatment efficacy, defined as microbiological cure. Sub-group analyses included stratifying by diagnostic assay, by dual versus monotherapy, and by currently recommended treatments (e.g. ceftriaxone ± azithromycin) versus previously trialled but not recommended treatments (e.g. amoxicillin) versus emerging treatments (e.g. zoliflodacin). The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020202998). Results: 54 studies including 1813 participants and 44 treatment regimens were identified. The overall summary treatment efficacy for rectal NG was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.9%-100.0%; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.86). Efficacy estimates for monotherapies (100.0%; 95% CI: 99.88%-100.0%; I2 = 0.00%; P = 0.97) and dual therapies (100.0%; 95% CI: 97.65%-100.0%; I2 = 56.24%; P = 0.03) were similar. Efficacy was highest for current treatments (100.00%; 95% CI: 99.96%-100.00%; I2 = 0.00%; P = 0.98) versus emerging treatments (97.16%; 95% CI: 86.79%-100.00%; I2 = 0.00%; P = 0.84). There were no trials exclusively investigating rectal NG and small sample size was a limitation in most trials. Conclusions: Currently recommended treatments containing ceftriaxone, as mono or dual therapy, are effective. Emerging drugs such as zoliflodacin may be potentially useful for rectal NG but further data are needed.

References Powered by Scopus

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

48180Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

17039Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis and syphilis: Global prevalence and incidence estimates, 2016

1069Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Effect on the Resistome of Dual vs Monotherapy for the Treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial (ResistAZM Trial)

10Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

No evidence of reduced cephalosporin susceptibility of circulating strains of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the Netherlands despite nearly a decade of recommending ceftriaxone monotherapy

2Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Comment on: Treatment efficacy for rectal Neisseria gonorrhoeae: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lo, F. W. Y., Kong, F. Y. S., & Hocking, J. S. (2021, December 1). Treatment efficacy for rectal Neisseria gonorrhoeae: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkab315

Readers over time

‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25036912

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 7

54%

Researcher 4

31%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

15%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 5

50%

Immunology and Microbiology 2

20%

Nursing and Health Professions 2

20%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 1

10%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0