Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and reduction of depressive symptoms in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to systematically review the efficacy of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (n-3 PUFA) supplements in reducing depressive symptoms among older adults aged 60 and above. METHODS: Relevant electronic databases were searched from their inception to June 4, 2018, including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Global Health, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and Chinese Biomedical Medicine Database. Two reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. The effect size data were analyzed using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. RESULTS: Nine studies were included. The overall treatment effects of n-3 PUFA supplements in reducing depressive symptoms for older adults was not statistically significant (d = -0.202, 95% CI = -0.463, 0.060). Meta-regression found interventions with dosage of n-3 PUFA greater than 1.5 g/d had an average effect size of -0.428, with a 95% confidence interval of [-0.822, -0.035], which is statistically significant. Meta-regression did not find significant moderating effects of comorbidity, baseline depression, intervention duration, and EPA-DHA ratio, potentially due to limited statistical power. LIMITATIONS: The current review only included 9 studies based on literature search in major English and Chinese databases, which provided limited statistical power for moderator analysis and the results are suggestive only. CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis of 9 RCTs found mixed findings of the efficacy of n-3 PUFA in the treatment of depressive symptoms among older adults aged 60 and above. More high-quality, large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm the current conclusions.

Azithromycin versus penicillin G benzathine for early syphilis.

BACKGROUND: Syphilis is a complex systemic disease caused by a spirochete, Treponema pallidum. The World Health Organization estimates that at least 12 million people worldwide are currently infected with syphilis. In this review we compared two current standards of treatment for early syphilis, benzathine benzylpenicillin (penicillin G) and azithromycin. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus benzathine penicillin (penicillin G) for early syphilis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases using the search terms detailed in Appendix 1: the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Diseases Group Specialized Register (July 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) published in The Cochrane Library (Issue 7 2011), MEDLINE (1948 to July 2011), EMBASE (1980 to July 2011), PsycINFO (1806 to July 2011) and the Chinese Biological Medicine Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 2011). The search was not limited by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing azithromycin with benzathine penicillin G at any dose for the treatment of early syphilis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria to potential studies, with any disagreements resolved by discussion. The risk of bias of each study was assessed by the same two review authors. We pooled data using an odds ratio (OR). MAIN RESULTS: Three studies (generating four eligible study comparisons) were included. One study is ongoing. There was no statistically significant difference between azithromycin and benzathine penicillin treatment in the odds of cure (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.56); nor any difference at three months (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.50), six months (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.54) or nine months (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.46 to 6.42). Subgroup analysis by primary and latent syphilis and by dose of azithromycin (2 g and 4 g) did not explain the variation between the study results. The reporting of computed mild to tolerated adverse events, from two included trials, indicated no statistically significant difference between azithromycin and benzathine penicillin (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.95), although with a high level of heterogeneity (P = 0.05, I(2) = 74%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the odds of cure did not reach statistical significance when azithromycin was compared with benzathine penicillin for the treatment of early syphilis. No definitive conclusion can be made regarding the relative safety of benzathine penicillin G and azithromycin for early syphilis. Further studies on the utility of benzathine penicillin G for early syphilis are warranted.

Azithromycin vs. benzathine penicillin G for early syphilis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

The World Health Organization estimates that at least 12 million people are infected with syphilis in the world. Southeast Asia accounts for 5.8 million; Africa accounts for 3.5 million. There has been controversy in using the two kinds of antibiotics for early syphilis. A systematic review comparing these antibiotics could affect treatment guidelines. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of azithromycin vs. penicillin G benzathine for early syphilis and a meta-analysis to compare these two kinds of antibiotics for early syphilis. Four randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria; 476 patients were evaluated for their cure rate. Cure rates were 95.0% (227/239) for azithromycin and 84.0% (199/237) for penicillin G benzathine. After pooling the data, the difference in efficacy was computed. Cure rate (OR=1.37), 95% CI (1.05, 1.77) and the risk difference for cure rate between the two drugs were statistically significant. Although the gastrointestinal adverse effect of azithromycin is five times more than the adverse effect of penicillin G benzathine, the differences are not significant. Azithromycin achieved a higher cure rate than penicillin G benzathine in a long follow-up.