Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of lyme disease

To determine if antibiotic prophylaxis following a dear tick bite is effective in reducing the risk of developing Lyme disease. Meta-analysis of published trials. Clinical trials were identified by a computerised literature search of MEDLINE and by an assessment of the bibliographies of published st...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM 1996-06, Vol.11 (6), p.329-333
Hauptverfasser: WARSHAFSKY, S, NOWAKOWSK, J, NADELMAN, R. B, KAMER, R. S, PETERSON, S. J, WORMSER, G. P
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 333
container_issue 6
container_start_page 329
container_title Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM
container_volume 11
creator WARSHAFSKY, S
NOWAKOWSK, J
NADELMAN, R. B
KAMER, R. S
PETERSON, S. J
WORMSER, G. P
description To determine if antibiotic prophylaxis following a dear tick bite is effective in reducing the risk of developing Lyme disease. Meta-analysis of published trials. Clinical trials were identified by a computerised literature search of MEDLINE and by an assessment of the bibliographies of published studies. Trials were included in the analysis if their patients were randomly allocated to a treatment or control group, enrolled within 72 hours following an Ixodes tick bite, and had no clinical evidence of Lyme disease at enrollment. Three trials were selected for review after inclusion criteria were applied. Data were extracted for details of study design, patient characteristics, interventions, duration of therapy, and number of adverse events in each arm of therapy. Among the 600 patients with Ixodes tick bites, the rate of infection in the placebo group was 1.4%. In contrast, patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis had a 0% infection rate. The pooled odds ratio, comparing prophylaxis to placebo, was 0.0 (95% confidence interval 0.0, 1.5) (p = .12). The available evidence to date suggests that the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of Lyme disease remains uncertain. Meta-analysis of the controlled trials failed to establish definitive treatment efficacy owing to the small sample size of the combined trials and the low rates of infection following a deer tick bite. A larger randomized trial is needed to demonstrate definitively that prophylaxis is more effective than placebo in reducing the risk of early Lyme disease in endemic areas.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/BF02600042
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1007_BF02600042</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>8803738</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c311t-65cf102f9d067e24e408b7348c8d1e72fca254ff38e4e044b4d6a27bf3bd4b563</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkE1Lw0AQhhdRaq1evAs5eBKisx_Jbo-1tCoUvOg57G5mcCVtwm4V8--b0lJPw_A8vMy8jN1yeOQA-ul5CaIEACXO2JgXosi5mupzNgZjVG60VJfsKqVvAC6FMCM2MgaklmbMZgui4K3vs5Yyu9kGF9pt8FkX2-6rb-xfSBm1cdjxFwfcbvZi068xq0NCm_CaXZBtEt4c54R9Lhcf89d89f7yNp-tci853-Zl4YmDoGkNpUahUIFxw2XGm5qjFuStKBSRNKgQlHKqLq3QjqSrlStKOWEPh1wf25QiUtXFsLaxrzhU-xqq_xoG-e4gdz9ujfVJPf498Psjt8nbhqLd-JBOmuQSTMHlDpxwY-8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of lyme disease</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>WARSHAFSKY, S ; NOWAKOWSK, J ; NADELMAN, R. B ; KAMER, R. S ; PETERSON, S. J ; WORMSER, G. P</creator><creatorcontrib>WARSHAFSKY, S ; NOWAKOWSK, J ; NADELMAN, R. B ; KAMER, R. S ; PETERSON, S. J ; WORMSER, G. P</creatorcontrib><description>To determine if antibiotic prophylaxis following a dear tick bite is effective in reducing the risk of developing Lyme disease. Meta-analysis of published trials. Clinical trials were identified by a computerised literature search of MEDLINE and by an assessment of the bibliographies of published studies. Trials were included in the analysis if their patients were randomly allocated to a treatment or control group, enrolled within 72 hours following an Ixodes tick bite, and had no clinical evidence of Lyme disease at enrollment. Three trials were selected for review after inclusion criteria were applied. Data were extracted for details of study design, patient characteristics, interventions, duration of therapy, and number of adverse events in each arm of therapy. Among the 600 patients with Ixodes tick bites, the rate of infection in the placebo group was 1.4%. In contrast, patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis had a 0% infection rate. The pooled odds ratio, comparing prophylaxis to placebo, was 0.0 (95% confidence interval 0.0, 1.5) (p = .12). The available evidence to date suggests that the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of Lyme disease remains uncertain. Meta-analysis of the controlled trials failed to establish definitive treatment efficacy owing to the small sample size of the combined trials and the low rates of infection following a deer tick bite. A larger randomized trial is needed to demonstrate definitively that prophylaxis is more effective than placebo in reducing the risk of early Lyme disease in endemic areas.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0884-8734</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-1497</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/BF02600042</identifier><identifier>PMID: 8803738</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Heidelberg: Springer</publisher><subject>Amoxicillin - therapeutic use ; Animals ; Antibiotic Prophylaxis ; Biological and medical sciences ; Bites and Stings ; Dermatology ; Humans ; Ixodes ; Lyme Disease - epidemiology ; Lyme Disease - prevention &amp; control ; Lyme Disease - transmission ; Medical sciences ; Penicillins - therapeutic use ; Risk Factors ; Skin involvement in other diseases. Miscellaneous. General aspects ; Tetracycline - therapeutic use</subject><ispartof>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 1996-06, Vol.11 (6), p.329-333</ispartof><rights>1996 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c311t-65cf102f9d067e24e408b7348c8d1e72fca254ff38e4e044b4d6a27bf3bd4b563</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c311t-65cf102f9d067e24e408b7348c8d1e72fca254ff38e4e044b4d6a27bf3bd4b563</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=3130851$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8803738$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>WARSHAFSKY, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NOWAKOWSK, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NADELMAN, R. B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KAMER, R. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PETERSON, S. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WORMSER, G. P</creatorcontrib><title>Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of lyme disease</title><title>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</title><addtitle>J Gen Intern Med</addtitle><description>To determine if antibiotic prophylaxis following a dear tick bite is effective in reducing the risk of developing Lyme disease. Meta-analysis of published trials. Clinical trials were identified by a computerised literature search of MEDLINE and by an assessment of the bibliographies of published studies. Trials were included in the analysis if their patients were randomly allocated to a treatment or control group, enrolled within 72 hours following an Ixodes tick bite, and had no clinical evidence of Lyme disease at enrollment. Three trials were selected for review after inclusion criteria were applied. Data were extracted for details of study design, patient characteristics, interventions, duration of therapy, and number of adverse events in each arm of therapy. Among the 600 patients with Ixodes tick bites, the rate of infection in the placebo group was 1.4%. In contrast, patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis had a 0% infection rate. The pooled odds ratio, comparing prophylaxis to placebo, was 0.0 (95% confidence interval 0.0, 1.5) (p = .12). The available evidence to date suggests that the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of Lyme disease remains uncertain. Meta-analysis of the controlled trials failed to establish definitive treatment efficacy owing to the small sample size of the combined trials and the low rates of infection following a deer tick bite. A larger randomized trial is needed to demonstrate definitively that prophylaxis is more effective than placebo in reducing the risk of early Lyme disease in endemic areas.</description><subject>Amoxicillin - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Antibiotic Prophylaxis</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Bites and Stings</subject><subject>Dermatology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Ixodes</subject><subject>Lyme Disease - epidemiology</subject><subject>Lyme Disease - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Lyme Disease - transmission</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Penicillins - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Skin involvement in other diseases. Miscellaneous. General aspects</subject><subject>Tetracycline - therapeutic use</subject><issn>0884-8734</issn><issn>1525-1497</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkE1Lw0AQhhdRaq1evAs5eBKisx_Jbo-1tCoUvOg57G5mcCVtwm4V8--b0lJPw_A8vMy8jN1yeOQA-ul5CaIEACXO2JgXosi5mupzNgZjVG60VJfsKqVvAC6FMCM2MgaklmbMZgui4K3vs5Yyu9kGF9pt8FkX2-6rb-xfSBm1cdjxFwfcbvZi068xq0NCm_CaXZBtEt4c54R9Lhcf89d89f7yNp-tci853-Zl4YmDoGkNpUahUIFxw2XGm5qjFuStKBSRNKgQlHKqLq3QjqSrlStKOWEPh1wf25QiUtXFsLaxrzhU-xqq_xoG-e4gdz9ujfVJPf498Psjt8nbhqLd-JBOmuQSTMHlDpxwY-8</recordid><startdate>19960601</startdate><enddate>19960601</enddate><creator>WARSHAFSKY, S</creator><creator>NOWAKOWSK, J</creator><creator>NADELMAN, R. B</creator><creator>KAMER, R. S</creator><creator>PETERSON, S. J</creator><creator>WORMSER, G. P</creator><general>Springer</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19960601</creationdate><title>Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of lyme disease</title><author>WARSHAFSKY, S ; NOWAKOWSK, J ; NADELMAN, R. B ; KAMER, R. S ; PETERSON, S. J ; WORMSER, G. P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c311t-65cf102f9d067e24e408b7348c8d1e72fca254ff38e4e044b4d6a27bf3bd4b563</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Amoxicillin - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Antibiotic Prophylaxis</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Bites and Stings</topic><topic>Dermatology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Ixodes</topic><topic>Lyme Disease - epidemiology</topic><topic>Lyme Disease - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Lyme Disease - transmission</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Penicillins - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Skin involvement in other diseases. Miscellaneous. General aspects</topic><topic>Tetracycline - therapeutic use</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>WARSHAFSKY, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NOWAKOWSK, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NADELMAN, R. B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KAMER, R. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PETERSON, S. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WORMSER, G. P</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>WARSHAFSKY, S</au><au>NOWAKOWSK, J</au><au>NADELMAN, R. B</au><au>KAMER, R. S</au><au>PETERSON, S. J</au><au>WORMSER, G. P</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of lyme disease</atitle><jtitle>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</jtitle><addtitle>J Gen Intern Med</addtitle><date>1996-06-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>329</spage><epage>333</epage><pages>329-333</pages><issn>0884-8734</issn><eissn>1525-1497</eissn><abstract>To determine if antibiotic prophylaxis following a dear tick bite is effective in reducing the risk of developing Lyme disease. Meta-analysis of published trials. Clinical trials were identified by a computerised literature search of MEDLINE and by an assessment of the bibliographies of published studies. Trials were included in the analysis if their patients were randomly allocated to a treatment or control group, enrolled within 72 hours following an Ixodes tick bite, and had no clinical evidence of Lyme disease at enrollment. Three trials were selected for review after inclusion criteria were applied. Data were extracted for details of study design, patient characteristics, interventions, duration of therapy, and number of adverse events in each arm of therapy. Among the 600 patients with Ixodes tick bites, the rate of infection in the placebo group was 1.4%. In contrast, patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis had a 0% infection rate. The pooled odds ratio, comparing prophylaxis to placebo, was 0.0 (95% confidence interval 0.0, 1.5) (p = .12). The available evidence to date suggests that the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of Lyme disease remains uncertain. Meta-analysis of the controlled trials failed to establish definitive treatment efficacy owing to the small sample size of the combined trials and the low rates of infection following a deer tick bite. A larger randomized trial is needed to demonstrate definitively that prophylaxis is more effective than placebo in reducing the risk of early Lyme disease in endemic areas.</abstract><cop>Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>8803738</pmid><doi>10.1007/BF02600042</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0884-8734
ispartof Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 1996-06, Vol.11 (6), p.329-333
issn 0884-8734
1525-1497
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1007_BF02600042
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Amoxicillin - therapeutic use
Animals
Antibiotic Prophylaxis
Biological and medical sciences
Bites and Stings
Dermatology
Humans
Ixodes
Lyme Disease - epidemiology
Lyme Disease - prevention & control
Lyme Disease - transmission
Medical sciences
Penicillins - therapeutic use
Risk Factors
Skin involvement in other diseases. Miscellaneous. General aspects
Tetracycline - therapeutic use
title Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of lyme disease
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T08%3A46%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Efficacy%20of%20antibiotic%20prophylaxis%20for%20prevention%20of%20lyme%20disease&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20general%20internal%20medicine%20:%20JGIM&rft.au=WARSHAFSKY,%20S&rft.date=1996-06-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=329&rft.epage=333&rft.pages=329-333&rft.issn=0884-8734&rft.eissn=1525-1497&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/BF02600042&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_cross%3E8803738%3C/pubmed_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/8803738&rfr_iscdi=true