Search

Rationale: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is responsible for around 27% of global maternal deaths. Perineal tears are common in vaginal births and a significant contributor to excessive blood loss. A diversity of perineal techniques are utilised to prevent perineal trauma and reduce the incidence of PPH; however, they lack evidence-based comparisons to understand their effects., Objectives: To assess the effect of perineal techniques during the second stage of labour on the incidence of and morbidity associated with perineal trauma to prevent postpartum complications., Search Methods: We searched four databases and two trial registers up to 16 April 2024. We checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies., Eligibility Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women in the second stage of labour who intended to give birth vaginally, comparing any perineal techniques with control or another perineal technique. We excluded studies that performed perineal techniques outside the second stage of labour., Outcomes: Our critical outcomes were second-, third- and fourth-degree tears measured immediately after birth, and PPH ≥ 500 mL measured within 24 hours after birth., Risk of Bias: We used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool to assess bias in the included RCTs., Synthesis Methods: We synthesised results for each outcome within each comparison using meta-analysis where possible. Where this was not possible due to the nature of the data, we synthesised results narratively. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome., Included Studies: We included a total of 17 studies with 13,695 participants., Synthesis of Results: Hands off (or poised) versus hands on Hands off (poised) may result in little to no difference in second-degree tears (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 1.64; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and third- or fourth-degree tears when data are combined (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.99; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of hands off (poised) on third-degree tears and fourth-degree tears when reported separately (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.27; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence and RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 71.22; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Hands off (poised) may result in little to no difference in PPH ≥ 500 mL (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.47; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Hands off (poised) probably results in little to no difference in breastfeeding two days after birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.06; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and perineal pain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.01; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Vocalisation versus control Vocalisation may result in a reduction in second-degree tears (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.38; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) and third-degree tears (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.32; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but the CIs are wide and include the possibility of no effect. No events were reported for fourth-degree tears (low-certainty evidence). Vocalisation may increase maternal satisfaction (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.51; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of vocalisation on perineal pain (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.58; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Warm compress on the perineum versus control (hands off or no warm compress) Warm compress on the perineum may result in little to no difference in second-degree tears (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.21; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), but likely results in a reduction in third- or fourth-degree tears (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.79; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence from two smaller studies is very uncertain about the effect of warm compress on the perineum on third-degree tears (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.04 to 7.05; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) or fourth-degree tears (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.06; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) when reported separately. Warm compress likely results in a large reduction in perineal pain (mean difference (MD) -0.81, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.44; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of warm compress on the perineum on maternal satisfaction and PPH ≥ 500 mL. Massage of the perineum versus control (hands off or no usual care) Massage of the perineum may have little to no effect on second-degree tears (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of massage of the perineum on third-degree tears (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.02; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Massage of the perineum may reduce fourth-degree tears but the CIs are wide and include the possibility of no effect (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.61; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that massage likely results in little to no difference in perineal pain (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90, 1.05; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). One study reported 10 participants with postpartum haemorrhage across three interventions (warm compress, massage, control). Combined warm compress and massage of the perineum versus control Combined warm compress and massage of the perineum likely results in a reduction in second-degree tears when compared to a control (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.86; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on third-degree tears (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.12 to 70.72; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The intervention may result in a reduction in PPH ≥ 500 mL but the CIs are wide and include the possibility of no effect (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.35; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Combined warm compress and massage likely results in an increase in maternal satisfaction (MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.81; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Combined warm compress and massage of the perineum versus massage alone Combined warm compress and massage of the perineum may result in little to no difference in second-degree tears (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) when compared to massage alone, but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on third- or fourth-degree tears (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.49; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). It may also result in little to no difference in PPH ≥ 500 mL (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.07; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that combined warm compress and massage may result in little to no difference in maternal satisfaction (1 study; low-certainty evidence). Other perineal techniques We also assessed evidence on the following comparisons, but since they are used less frequently in global clinical practice to optimise birth outcomes, we have not presented the results summary here: Ritgen's manoeuvre versus standard care; primary delivery of posterior versus anterior shoulder; massage with enriched oil on the perineum versus massage with liquid wax; petroleum jelly on the perineum versus control; and perineal protection device versus control., Authors' Conclusions: Overall, the evidence for the effectiveness of perineal techniques to reduce perineal trauma and postpartum haemorrhage is very uncertain. Very few studies reported rates of postpartum haemorrhage, adverse events, women's or health workers' experience or other important outcomes that allow us to understand the effectiveness and acceptability of perineal techniques to reduce perineal trauma. Prior to any further large trials, research is needed to clarify the types of interventions, including a clear description of the process of development and involvement of relevant stakeholders. There is a need to clarify how the intervention is proposed to achieve its effects. Trials would benefit from process evaluation alongside, to explore context, mechanisms and effects., Funding: This Cochrane review was funded (in part) by WHO (APW 2024/1475460). TF, VL and the CIDG editorial base are funded by UK aid from the UK government for the benefit of low- and middle-income countries (project number 300342-104). The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government's official policies., Registration: Registration and protocol: PROSPERO, CRD42024537252. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024537252., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a significant cause of mortality globally, yet first-line treatment has hardly changed for fifty years. The dose of rifampicin, the most important drug in this regimen, has been historically based on pragmatic cost- and risk-benefit considerations. Evidence suggests the current recommended dose (8-12 mg/kg) may not maximise the potential benefits of this drug. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of higher doses of rifampicin in adults with presumed drug-susceptible TB., Methods: In this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Global Health databases for randomised controlled trials up to 31 July 2024 of adults with presumed drug-susceptible TB receiving first-line treatment with an intervention of rifampicin doses higher than currently recommended. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models where background regimens were the same. Risk ratio was used as the measure for treatment effect. Outcomes of interest related to efficacy and safety., Findings: Of the 5441 total records identified by our searches, nineteen studies (6332 patients, 31.0% female) were eligible for the systematic review and twelve (3763 patients, 31.0% female) for meta-analysis. Rifampicin doses varied from 8 to 35 mg/kg and implementation of the intervention varied between trials. There was no evidence for increased efficacy with higher doses of rifampicin, however the majority of trials investigated minimally increased doses (up to 20 mg/kg). At higher doses (>20 mg/kg), there may be evidence of increased risk of drug-induced liver injury, albeit with no consistent dose-response relationship., Interpretation: Evidence on the efficacy of higher doses of rifampicin in the first-line regimen for TB remains incomplete. While higher doses appear generally safe, the risk of drug-induced liver injury may be increased above doses of 20 mg/kg. Larger clinical trials reporting definitive outcomes are needed to determine whether dosing up to 40 mg/kg could safely improve treatment outcomes or reduce duration of first-line therapy., Funding: WHO, Wellcome Trust., Competing Interests: GD was supported by a consultancy contract from WHO for the initial published version of this review and chaired the Data Safety Monitoring Board for RIFASHORT and the Trial Steering Committee for TRUNCATE-TB. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

No accurate and rapid diagnostic test exists for tuberculous meningitis (TBM), leading to delayed diagnosis. We leveraged data from multiple studies to improve the predictive performance of diagnostic models across different populations, settings, and subgroups to develop a new predictive tool for TBM diagnosis. We conducted a systematic review to analyze eligible datasets with individual-level participant data (IPD). We imputed missing data and explored three approaches: stepwise logistic regression, classification and regression tree (CART), and random forest regression. We evaluated performance using calibration plots and C-statistics via internal-external cross-validation. We included 3,761 individual participants from 14 studies and nine countries. A total of 1,240 (33%) participants had "definite" (30%) or "probable" (3%) TBM by case definition. Important predictive variables included cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) glucose, blood glucose, CSF white cell count, CSF differential, cryptococcal antigen, HIV status, and fever presence. Internal validation showed that performance varied considerably between IPD datasets with C-statistic values between 0.60 and 0.89. In external validation, CART performed the worst (C = 0.82), and logistic regression and random forest had the same accuracy (C = 0.91). We developed a mobile app for TBM clinical prediction that accounted for heterogeneity and improved diagnostic performance (https://tbmcalc.github.io/tbmcalc). Further external validation is needed.

Objectives: To make inferences regarding the effectiveness of respiratory interventions and case isolation measures in reducing or preventing the transmission of mpox based on synthesis of available literature., Methods: The WHO Clinical Management and Infection Prevention and Control 2022 guideline and droplet precautions in healthcare facilities and home isolation infection prevention control measures for patients with mpox. We conducted a systematic review that included a broad search of five electronic databases. In a two-stage process, we initially sought only randomized controlled trials and observational comparative studies; when the search failed to yield eligible studies, the subsequent search included all study designs including clinical and environmental sampling studies., Results: No studies were identified that directly addressed airborne and droplet precautions and home isolation infection prevention control measures. To inform the review questions the review team synthesized route of transmission data in mpox. There were 2366/4309 (54.9%) cases in which investigators identified mpox infection occurring following transmission through direct physical sexual contact. There were no reported mpox cases in which investigators identified inhalation as a single route of transmission. There were 2/4309 cases in which investigators identified fomite as a single route of transmission. Clinical and environmental sampling studies isolated mpox virus in a minority of saliva, oropharangeal swabs, mpox skin lesions, and hospital room air., Conclusions: Current findings provide compelling evidence that transmission of mpox occurs through direct physical contact. Because investigators have not reported any cases of transmission via inhalation alone, the impact of airborne and droplet infection prevention control measures in reducing transmission will be minimal. Avoiding physical contact with others, covering mpox lesions and wearing a medical mask is likely to reduce onward mpox transmission; there may be minimal reduction in transmission from additionally physically isolating patients with mild disease at home., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Kuehn et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common childhood infectious diseases. Pain is the key symptom of AOM and central to children's and parents' experience of the illness. Because antibiotics provide only marginal benefits, analgesic treatment including paracetamol (acetaminophen) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is regarded as the cornerstone of AOM management. This is an update of a review first published in 2016., Objectives: Our primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of paracetamol (acetaminophen) or NSAIDs, alone or combined, compared with placebo or no treatment in relieving pain in children with AOM. Our secondary objective was to assess the effectiveness of NSAIDs as compared with paracetamol in children with AOM., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 5, April 2023; MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to May 2023), Embase (from 1947 to May 2023), CINAHL (from 1981 to May 2023), LILACS (from 1982 to May 2023), and Web of Science Core Collection (from 1955 to May 2023). We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for completed and ongoing trials (23 May 2023)., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, for pain relief in non-hospitalised children aged six months to 16 years with AOM. We also included trials of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, for children with fever or upper respiratory tract infections if we were able to extract subgroup data on pain relief in children with AOM either directly or after obtaining additional data from study authors. We extracted and summarised data for the following comparisons: paracetamol versus placebo, NSAIDs versus placebo, NSAIDs versus paracetamol, and NSAIDs plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We rated the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome of interest using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We included four trials (411 children) which were assessed at low to high risk of bias. Paracetamol versus placebo Data from one trial (148 children) informed this comparison. Paracetamol may be more effective than placebo in relieving pain at 48 hours (proportion of children with pain 10% versus 25%, risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.85; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on fever at 48 hours (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.12; very low-certainty evidence) and adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.93; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for our other outcomes of interest. NSAIDs versus placebo Data from one trial (146 children) informed this comparison. Ibuprofen may be more effective than placebo in relieving pain at 48 hours (proportion of children with pain 7% versus 25%, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; NNTB 6; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen on fever at 48 hours (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.57; very low-certainty evidence) and adverse events (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.44 to 7.10; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for our other outcomes of interest. NSAIDs versus paracetamol Data from four trials (411 children) informed this comparison. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol in relieving ear pain at 24 hours (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.18; 2 RCTs, 39 children; very low-certainty evidence); 48 to 72 hours (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.54; 3 RCTs, 183 children; low-certainty evidence); and four to seven days (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.23; 2 RCTs, 38 children; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol on mean pain score at 24 hours (0.29 lower, 95% CI 0.79 lower to 0.20 higher; 3 RCTs, 111 children; very low-certainty evidence); 48 to 72 hours (0.25 lower, 95% CI 0.66 lower to 0.16 higher; 3 RCTs, 108 children; very low-certainty evidence); and four to seven days (0.30 higher, 95% CI 1.78 lower to 2.38 higher; 2 RCTs, 31 children; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol in resolving fever at 24 hours (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.00; 2 RCTs, 39 children; very low-certainty evidence); 48 to 72 hours (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.44; 3 RCTs, 182 children; low-certainty evidence); and four to seven days (RR 2.75, 95% CI 0.12 to 60.70; 2 RCTs, 39 children; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol on adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.43 to 6.90; 3 RCTs, 281 children; very low-certainty evidence); reconsultations (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.40; 1 RCT, 53 children; very low-certainty evidence); and delayed antibiotic prescriptions (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.35; 1 RCT, 53 children; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available on time to resolution of pain. NSAIDs plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone Data on the effectiveness of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone came from two trials that provided crude subgroup data for 71 children with AOM. The small sample provided imprecise effect estimates, therefore we were unable to draw any firm conclusions (very low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Despite explicit guideline recommendations on the use of analgesics in children with AOM, the current evidence on the effectiveness of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, in children with AOM is limited. Paracetamol and ibuprofen as monotherapies may be more effective than placebo in relieving short-term ear pain in children with AOM. The evidence is very uncertain for the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol on relieving short-term ear pain in children with AOM, as well as for the effectiveness of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone, thereby preventing any firm conclusions. Further research is needed to provide insights into the role of ibuprofen as adjunct to paracetamol, and other analgesics such as anaesthetic eardrops, for children with AOM., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Long COVID occurs in those infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) whose symptoms persist or develop beyond the acute phase. We conducted a systematic review to determine the prevalence of persistent symptoms, functional disability, or pathological changes in adults or children at least 12 weeks postinfection., Methods: We searched key registers and databases from January 1, 2020 to November 2, 2021, limited to publications in English and studies with at least 100 participants. Studies in which all participants were critically ill were excluded. Long COVID was extracted as prevalence of at least 1 symptom or pathology, or prevalence of the most common symptom or pathology, at 12 weeks or later. Heterogeneity was quantified in absolute terms and as a proportion of total variation and explored across predefined subgroups (PROSPERO ID CRD42020218351)., Results: One hundred twenty studies in 130 publications were included. Length of follow-up varied between 12 weeks and 12 months. Few studies had low risk of bias. All complete and subgroup analyses except 1 had I 2 ≥90%, with prevalence of persistent symptoms range of 0%-93% (pooled estimate [PE], 42.1%; 95% prediction interval [PI], 6.8% to 87.9%). Studies using routine healthcare records tended to report lower prevalence (PE, 13.6%; PI, 1.2% to 68%) of persistent symptoms/pathology than self-report (PE, 43.9%; PI, 8.2% to 87.2%). However, studies systematically investigating pathology in all participants at follow up tended to report the highest estimates of all 3 (PE, 51.7%; PI, 12.3% to 89.1%). Studies of hospitalized cases had generally higher estimates than community-based studies., Conclusions: The way in which Long COVID is defined and measured affects prevalence estimation. Given the widespread nature of SARS-CoV-2 infection globally, the burden of chronic illness is likely to be substantial even using the most conservative estimates., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. DCG is a coinvestigator on the NIHR-funded LOCOMOTION study. NAA has lived experience of Long COVID, is a coinvestigator on the NIHR-funded STIMULATE-ICP and HI-COVE studies, has contributed in an advisory capacity to World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Union Commission's Expert Panel on effective ways of investing in health meetings in relation to post-COVID-19 condition, and has acted as a collaborator on some of the UK's Office for National Statistics outputs on the prevalence of Long COVID. AA has lived experience of Long COVID, is a co-founder of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, and has contributed in an advisory capacity to National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and WHO. All authors: No reported conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Mpox was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 23 July 2022, following the identification of thousands of cases in several non-endemic countries in previous months. There are currently no licenced therapeutics for treating mpox; however, some medications may be authorized for use in an outbreak. The efficacy and safety of possible therapeutic options has not been studied in humans with mpox. There is a need to investigate the evidence on safety and effectiveness of treatments for mpox in humans; should any therapeutic option be efficacious and safe, it may be approved for use around the world., Objectives: There are two parts to this Cochrane Review: a review of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and a narrative review of safety data from non-randomized studies. Randomized controlled trials review To systematically review the existing evidence on the effectiveness of therapeutics for mpox infection in humans compared to: a) another different therapeutic for mpox, or b) placebo, or c) supportive care, defined as the treatment of physical and psychological symptoms arising from the disease. Non-randomized studies review To assess the safety of therapeutics for mpox infection from non-randomized studies (NRS)., Search Methods: Randomized controlled trials review We searched the following databases up to 25 January 2023: MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), Biosis previews (Web of Science), CAB Abstracts (Web of science), and Cochrane CENTRAL (Issue 1 2023). We conducted a search of trial registries (Clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) on 25 January 2023. There were no date or language limits placed on the search. We undertook a call to experts in the field for relevant studies or ongoing trials to be considered for inclusion in the review. Non-randomized studies review We searched the following databases on 22 September 2022: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9 of 12, 2022), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); and Scopus (Elsevier). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials in progress., Selection Criteria: For the RCT review and the narrative review, any therapeutic for the treatment of mpox in humans was eligible for inclusion, including tecovirimat, brincidofovir, cidofovir, NIOCH-14, immunomodulators, and vaccine immune globulin. Randomized controlled trials review Studies were eligible for the main review if they were of randomized controlled design and investigated the effectiveness or safety of therapeutics in human mpox infection. Non-randomized studies review Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review of non-randomized studies if they were of non-randomized design and contained data concerning the safety of any therapeutic in human mpox infection., Data Collection and Analysis: Randomized controlled trials review Two review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies. If we had identified any eligible studies, we planned to assess the risk of bias, and report results with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The critical outcomes were serious adverse events, development of disease-related complications, admission to hospital for non-hospitalized participants, pain as judged by any visual or numerical pain scale, level of virus detected in clinical samples, time to healing of all skin lesions, and mortality. We planned to perform subgroup analysis to explore whether the effect of the therapeutic on the planned outcomes was modified by disease severity and days from symptom onset to therapeutic administration. We also intended to explore the following subgroups of absolute effects: immunosuppression, age, and pre-existing skin disease. Non-randomized studies review One review author applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies and extracted data. Studies of a non-randomized design containing data on the safety of therapeutics could not be meta-analyzed due to the absence of a comparator; we summarized these data narratively in an appendix., Main Results: Randomized controlled trials review We did not identify any completed RCTs investigating the effectiveness of therapeutics for treating mpox for the main review. We identified five ongoing trials that plan to assess the effectiveness of one therapeutic option, tecovirimat, for treating mpox in adults and children. One of these ongoing trials intends to include populations with, or at greater risk of, severe disease, which will allow an assessment of safety in more vulnerable populations. Non-randomized studies review Three non-randomized studies met the inclusion criteria for the narrative review, concerning data on the safety of therapeutics in mpox. Very low-certainty evidence from non-randomized studies of small numbers of people indicates no serious safety signals emerging for the use of tecovirimat in people with mpox infection, but a possible safety signal for brincidofovir. All three participants who received brincidofovir had raised alanine aminotransferase (ALT), but not bilirubin, suggesting mild liver injury. No study reported severe drug-induced liver injury with brincidofovir., Authors' Conclusions: Randomized controlled trials review This review found no evidence from randomized controlled trials concerning the efficacy and safety of therapeutics in humans with mpox. Non-randomized studies review Very low-certainty evidence from non-randomized studies indicates no serious safety signals emerging for the use of tecovirimat in people with mpox infection. In contrast, very low-certainty evidence raises a safety signal that brincidofovir may cause liver injury. This is also suggested by indirect evidence from brincidofovir use in smallpox. This warrants further investigation and monitoring. This Cochrane Review will be updated as new evidence becomes available to assist policymakers, health professionals, and consumers in making appropriate decisions for the treatment of mpox., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Human African trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness, is a severe disease affecting people in the poorest parts of Africa. It is usually fatal without treatment. Conventional treatments require days of intravenous infusion, but a recently developed drug, fexinidazole, can be given orally. Another oral drug candidate, acoziborole, is undergoing clinical development and will be considered in subsequent editions.   OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of currently used drugs for treating second-stage Trypanosoma brucei gambiense trypanosomiasis (gambiense human African trypanosomiasis, g-HAT)., Search Methods: On 14 May 2021, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also searched reference lists of included studies, contacted researchers working in the field, and contacted relevant organizations., Selection Criteria: Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that included adults and children with second-stage g-HAT, treated with anti-trypanosomal drugs currently in use., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias; a third review author acted as an arbitrator if needed. The included trial only reported dichotomous outcomes, which we presented as risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).   MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial comparing fexinidazole to nifurtimox combined with eflornithine (NECT). This trial was conducted between October 2012 and November 2016 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic, and included 394 participants. The study reported on efficacy and safety, with up to 24 months' follow-up.  We judged the study to be at low risk of bias in all domains except blinding;  as the route of administration and dosing regimens differed between treatment groups,  participants and personnel were not blinded, resulting in a high risk of performance bias.   Mortality with fexinidazole may be higher at 24 months compared to NECT. There were 9/264 deaths in the fexinidazole group and 2/130 deaths in the NECT group (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 10.11; 394 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the deaths were related to treatment. Fexinidazole likely results in an increase in the number of people relapsing during follow-up, with 14 participants in the fexinidazole group (14/264) and none in the NECT group (0/130) relapsing at 24 months (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.08; 394 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).   We are uncertain whether there is any difference between the drugs regarding the incidence of serious adverse events at 24 months. (31/264 with fexinidazole and 13/130 with NECT group at 24 months). Adverse events were common with both drugs (247/264 with fexinidazole versus 121/130 with NECT), with no difference between groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; 394 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral treatment with fexinidazole is much easier to administer than conventional treatment, but deaths and relapse appear to be more common. However, the advantages or an oral option are considerable, in terms of convenience, avoiding hospitalisation and multiple intravenous infusions, thus increasing adherence., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)