Is paromomycin an effective and safe treatment against cutaneous leishmaniasis? A meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: High cost, poor compliance, and systemic toxicity have limited the use of pentavalent antimony compounds (SbV), the treatment of choice for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL). Paromomycin (PR) has been developed as an alternative to SbV, but existing data are conflicting. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, without language restriction, through August 2007, to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy or safety between PR and placebo or SbV. Primary outcome was clinical cure, defined as complete healing, disappearance, or reepithelialization of all lesions. Data were extracted independently by two investigators, and pooled using a random-effects model. Fourteen trials including 1,221 patients were included. In placebo-controlled trials, topical PR appeared to have therapeutic activity against the old world and new world CL, with increased local reactions, when used with methylbenzethonium chloride (MBCL) compared to when used alone (risk ratio [RR] for clinical cure, 2.58 versus 1.01: RR for local reactions, 1.60 versus 1.07). In SbV-controlled trials, the efficacy of topical PR was not significantly different from that of intralesional SbV in the old world CL (RR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-1.89), whereas topical PR was inferior to parenteral SbV in treating the new world CL (0.67; 0.54-0.82). No significant difference in efficacy was found between parenteral PR and parenteral SbV in the new world CL (0.88; 0.56-1.38). Systemic side effects were fewer with topical or parenteral PR than parenteral SbV. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Topical PR with MBCL could be a therapeutic alternative to SbV in selected cases of the old world CL. Development of new formulations with better efficacy and tolerability remains to be an area of future research.

Bayesian generalized linear models for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests

With the recognition of the importance of evidence-based medicine, there is an emerging need for methods to systematically synthesize available data. Specifically, methods to provide accurate estimates of test characteristics for diagnostic tests are needed to help physicians make better clinical decisions. To provide more flexible approaches for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests, we developed three Bayesian generalized linear models. Two of these models, a bivariate normal and a binomial model, analyzed pairs of sensitivity and specificity values while incorporating the correlation between these two outcome variables. Noninformative independent uniform priors were used for the variance of sensitivity, specificity and correlation. We also applied an inverse Wishart prior to check the sensitivity of the results. The third model was a multinomial model where the test results were modeled as multinomial random variables. All three models can include specific imaging techniques as covariates in order to compare performance. Vague normal priors were assigned to the coefficients of the covariates. The computations were carried out using the 'Bayesian inference using Gibbs sampling' implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques. We investigated the properties of the three proposed models through extensive simulation studies. We also applied these models to a previously published meta-analysis dataset on cervical cancer as well as to an unpublished melanoma dataset. In general, our findings show that the point estimates of sensitivity and specificity were consistent among Bayesian and frequentist bivariate normal and binomial models. However, in the simulation studies, the estimates of the correlation coefficient from Bayesian bivariate models are not as good as those obtained from frequentist estimation regardless of which prior distribution was used for the covariance matrix. The Bayesian multinomial model consistently underestimated the sensitivity and specificity regardless of the sample size and correlation coefficient. In conclusion, the Bayesian bivariate binomial model provides the most flexible framework for future applications because of its following strengths: (1) it facilitates direct comparison between different tests; (2) it captures the variability in both sensitivity and specificity simultaneously as well as the intercorrelation between the two; and (3) it can be directly applied to sparse data without ad hoc correction. ^

A meta-analysis: Obesity and colorectal cancer screening

Of cancer death, colorectal cancer death ranks second in the United States. Obesity is an important risk factor for colorectal cancer (1). Early detection of colorectal cancer when it is localized can effectively reduce mortality of colorectal cancer and increase survival time of patients if they are treated. Also, previous studies showed that obese women were more likely to delay breast cancer screening and cervical cancer screening than normal weight women (2-5). However, results from prior studies demonstrating the relationship between obesity and colorectal cancer screening are not consistent. This research was done to conduct a meta-analysis of previous cross-sectional studies selected from the Medline database and to evaluate the association between obesity and colorectal cancer screening. While the odds ratio was not statistically different from one, the results from this meta-analysis under the random effects model showed that obese people are slightly less likely to have colorectal cancer screening compared to normal weight individuals (OR,0.93;95% CI 0.75-1.15). This meta-analysis was particularly sensitive to one individual study (6) and the effect of obesity on colorectal cancer screening was statistically significant (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92) after removing Heo's study. Further systematic studies focused on whether the effect of obesity on colorectal cancer screening is limited to women only are suggested. ^