Acta ophthalmologica · 2023
Systemic antibiotic treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction-A systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ben Ephraim Noyman Dror, Chan Clara C, Mimouni Michael, Safir Margarita
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To review the efficacy and safety of oral doxycycline antibiotics versus macrolides in the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD).
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: We performed a systematic search of electronic databases for all peer-reviewed published studies which included clinical outcomes of oral antibiotic MGD treatment. Individual study data were extracted and evaluated in a weighted pooled analysis, including total sign and symptom scores, meibomian gland secretion score, tear break-up time (TBUT), fluorescein staining score and rate of complications.
RESULTS: Two thousand nine hundred and thirty-three studies were found, of which 54 were eligible for the systematic review, and six prospective studies were ultimately included for analysis, reporting on 563 cases from three countries. Age of affected patients ranged between 12 and 90 years. Overall, both treatment methods induced improvement in MGD signs and symptoms. In pooled analysis, macrolides were significantly superior in the total signs score (pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.99 to -0.03), meibomian gland secretion score (pooled SMD -0.25, 95%CI: [-0.48, -0.03]), TBUT (SMD -0.31, 95%CI: [-0.50, -0.13]) and fluorescein staining score (SMD -1.01, 95%CI: [-1.72, -0.29]). Moreover, while no severe complications were reported for both treatments, the macrolide group exhibited significantly less adverse events (pooled odds ratio 0.24 with a 95% CI of 0.16 to 0.34).
CONCLUSIONS: Both macrolides and tetracyclines are effective treatments for MGD. In this study, macrolides exhibited better efficacy and safety profile compared to tetracyclines.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: We performed a systematic search of electronic databases for all peer-reviewed published studies which included clinical outcomes of oral antibiotic MGD treatment. Individual study data were extracted and evaluated in a weighted pooled analysis, including total sign and symptom scores, meibomian gland secretion score, tear break-up time (TBUT), fluorescein staining score and rate of complications.
RESULTS: Two thousand nine hundred and thirty-three studies were found, of which 54 were eligible for the systematic review, and six prospective studies were ultimately included for analysis, reporting on 563 cases from three countries. Age of affected patients ranged between 12 and 90 years. Overall, both treatment methods induced improvement in MGD signs and symptoms. In pooled analysis, macrolides were significantly superior in the total signs score (pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.99 to -0.03), meibomian gland secretion score (pooled SMD -0.25, 95%CI: [-0.48, -0.03]), TBUT (SMD -0.31, 95%CI: [-0.50, -0.13]) and fluorescein staining score (SMD -1.01, 95%CI: [-1.72, -0.29]). Moreover, while no severe complications were reported for both treatments, the macrolide group exhibited significantly less adverse events (pooled odds ratio 0.24 with a 95% CI of 0.16 to 0.34).
CONCLUSIONS: Both macrolides and tetracyclines are effective treatments for MGD. In this study, macrolides exhibited better efficacy and safety profile compared to tetracyclines.