SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005
Antibiotics for preventing meningococcal infections.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotics for preventing meningococcal infections.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Prophylactic use of antibiotics for prevention of meningococcal infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2005Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeningococcal disease is a contagious bacterial disease caused by Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis). The highest documented risk of disease is for household contacts during the first seven days of a case being detected. Prophylaxis is considered for those in close contact with people with a meningococcal infection and in populations with known high carriage rates as carriers are at increased risk of disease and may pose a risk of infection to others.
objectivesTo study the effectiveness of different prophylactic treatment regimens in: (1) preventing secondary cases of meningococcal disease after contact with a case; (2) preventing cases of meningococcal disease in populations with a high rate of N. meningitidis carriers; (3) eradicating N. meningitidis from the pharynx in healthy carriers of N. meningitidis;This review also addresses the issues of adverse affects and development of drug resistance. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches on The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2004), EMBASE (1980 to September 2004), LILACS (1982 to July 2004), and searches of references of all identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials addressing the effectiveness of different antibiotic treatments for (a) prophylaxis of/against meningococcal disease; (b) eradication of N. meningitidis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently appraised the quality of each trial and extracted data from the included trials. Dichotomous data were analysed by calculating the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval for each trial. MAIN
resultsThere were no cases of meningococcal disease during follow up in any of the trials, thus effectiveness regarding prevention of future disease cannot be directly assessed. Ciprofloxacin (relative risk (RR) 0.04; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.12), rifampin (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.12 0.24), minocycline (RR = 0.30; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.45) and ampicillin (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.25 0.66) proved effective at eradicating N. meningitidis one week after treatment, compared with placebo. However, after one to two weeks only rifampin (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.29) and ciprofloxacin (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.42) still proved effective. No trials evaluated ceftriaxone against placebo. Ceftriaxone was more effective than rifampin, after one to two weeks of follow up (RR 5.93; 95% CI 1.22 to 28.68). Rifampin continued to be effective compared to placebo until up to four weeks of post treatment follow up but resistant isolates were seen following prophylactic treatment. AUTHORS'
conclusionsGiven the fact that the use of rifampin in an outbreak setting might lead to the circulation of isolates resistant to rifampin, use of ciprofloxacin or ceftriaxone should be considered.Placebo-controlled trials do not seem ethical as prophylactic treatment has been proven to reduce the risk of disease among household contacts. More trials comparing the effectiveness of ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin and rifampin for eradicating N. meningitidis could provide important insights.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.