Cited by 31Syphilis Diagnosis and TreatmentHistorical Medical Research and TreatmentsAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy

Antibiotic therapy for adults with neurosyphilis

Open access
Buitrago-Garcia, Diana, Martí-Carvajal, Arturo J, Jimenez, Adriana, Conterno, Lucieni O, Pardo, Rodrigo·2019·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Background Neurosyphilis is an infection of the central nervous system, caused by Treponema pallidum, a spirochete capable of infecting almost any organ or tissue in the body causing neurological complications due to the infection. This disease is a tertiary manifestation of syphilis. The first‐line treatment for neurosyphilis is aqueous crystalline penicillin. However, in cases such as penicillin allergy, other regimes of antibiotic therapy can be used. Objectives To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of antibiotic therapy for adults with neurosyphilis. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Library, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Opengrey up to April 2019. We also searched proceedings of eight congresses to a maximum of 10 years, and we contacted trial authors for additional information. Selection criteria We included randomised clinical trials that included men and women, regardless of age, with definitive diagnoses of neurosyphilis, including HIV‐seropositive patients. We compared any antibiotic regime (concentration, dose, frequency, duration), compared to any other antibiotic regime for the treatment for neurosyphilis in adults. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected eligible trials, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by involving a third review author. For dichotomous data (serological cure, clinical cure, adverse events), we presented results as summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results We identified one trial, with 36 participants​ diagnosed ​with syphilis and HIV. The participants were mainly men, with a median age of 34 years. This trial, ​funded by a pharmaceutical company, compared ceftriaxone in 18 participants (2 g daily for 10 days), with penicillin G, also in 18 participants (4 million/Units (MU)/intravenous (IV) every 4 hours for 10 days). The trial reported incomplete and inconclusive results. Three of 18 (16%) participants receiving ceftriaxone versus 2 of 18 (11%) receiving penicillin G achieved serological cure (RR 1.50; 95% CI: 0.28 to 7.93; 1 trial, 36 participants very low‐quality evidence); and 8 of 18 (44%) participants receiving ceftriaxone versus 2 of 18 (18%) participants receiving penicillin G achieved clinical cure (RR 4.00; 95% CI: 0.98 to 16.30; 1 trial, 36 participants very low‐quality evidence). Although more participants who received ceftriaxone achieved serological and clinical cure compared to those who received penicillin G, the evidence from this trial was insufficient to determine whether there was a difference between treatment with ceftriaxone or penicillin G. In this trial, the authors reported what would usually be adverse events as symptoms and signs in the follow‐up of participants. Furthermore, this trial did not evaluate recurrence of neurosyphilis, time to recovery nor quality of life. We judged risk of bias in this clinical trial to be unclear for random sequence generation, allocation, ​and blinding of participants, and high for incomplete outcome data, potential conflicts of interest (funding bias), and other bias, due to the lack of a sample size calculation. We rated the quality of evidence as very low. Authors' conclusions Due to low quality and insufficient evidence, it was not possible to determine whether there was a difference between treatment with ceftriaxone or Penicillin G. Also, the benefits to people without HIV and neurosyphilis are unknown, as is the ceftriaxone safety profile.Therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution. This conclusion does not mean that antibiotics should not be used for treating this clinical entity. This Cochrane Review has identified the need of adequately powered trials, which should be planned according to Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) recommendations, conducted and reported as recommended by the CONSORT statement. Furthermore, the outcomes should be based on patients' perspectives taking into account Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) recommendations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd011399.pub2

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Aqueous crystalline penicillin G crosses the inflamed blood-brain barrier more effectively than benzathine penicillin G.

    “which crosses the inflamed blood-brain barrier more effectively than benzathine penicillin G (44, 45).”

    From Efectividad del tratamiento de la sífilis gestacional en el último trimestre sobre la incidencia de sífilis congénita: revisión sistemática y metanálisis (2025) · cites this paper as [45]

    In “How the intervention might work” (page unavailable), the review says inflammation increases penicillin penetration into cerebrospinal fluid. In “Description of the intervention β-lactam antibiotics” (page unavailable), it recommends crystalline penicillin for neurosyphilis and says benzathine penicillin produces CSF levels too low to eliminate T. pallidum. It does not directly compare how effectively the two preparations cross an inflamed blood-brain barrier. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 77 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Ciapponi A, Glujovsky D, Bardach A, García Martí S, Comande D. EROS: a new so ware for early stage of systematic reviews. HTAi Conference, 8th annual meeting; 2011 June 27-29; Rio de Janeiro. www.htai2011.org/documentos/ HTAi_resumos_ISBN.pdf. Rio de Janeiro: Brazilian Ministry of Health, 2011.
  2. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG (editors) on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), Cochrane, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
  3. Eisen D. Doxycicline. In: Grayson LM, Crowe S, McCarthy JS, Mills J, Mouton JW, Norrby SR, et al. editor(s). Kucers' The Use of Antibiotics. 6th Edition. London, UK: Hodder Arnold, 2010:851-69.
  4. Higgins 2011a Higgins JP, Deeks JJ (editors). Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org.
  5. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), Cochrane, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
  6. ICH-GCP 1997 ICH-GCP. Expert Working Group International Conference on Harmonisation. Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. CFR & ICH Guidelines. Vol. 1, Pennsylvania: Barnett International -Parexel, 1997.
  7. Katz AR, Lee MV, Wasserman GM. Sexually transmitted disease (STD) update: a review of the CDC 2010 STD treatment guidelines and epidemiologic trends of common STDs in Hawai'i. Hawai'i Journal of Medicine & Public Health 2012;71(3):68-73.
  8. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org.
  9. Musher 2008 Musher DM. Neurosyphilis: diagnosis and response to treatment. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2008;47(7):900-2.
  10. O'Connor D, Green S, Higgins JP (editors). Chapter 5: Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org.
  11. Petri WA Jr. Penicillins, cephalosporins, and other β-lactam antibiotics. In: Hardman JG, Limbird LE editor(s). Goodman & Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 10th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Medical, 2001:1189-1218. [ISBN: 0-07-135469-7]
  12. Review Manager 2014 [Computer program] Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
  13. Rowland LP, Pedley TA, Merritt HH. Merritt's Neurology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2010.
  14. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Akl E, et al. on behalf of the Cochrane GRADEing Methods Group and the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Chapter 11: Completing 'Summary of findings' tables and grading the confidence in or quality of the evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). Cochrane, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
  15. randomly.ab. Embase.com (Elsevier) 1. 'neurosyphilis'/exp 2. neurosyphilis:ab,ti 3. (lues NEAR/5 cerebrospinalis):ab,ti 4. (nervous NEAR/5 syphilis):ab,ti 5. neurolues:ab,ti 6. (syphilis):ab,ti AND (nervous NEAR/5 system):ab,ti 7. (syphilis NEAR/5 cns):ab,ti 8. 'tabes dorsalis'/exp 9. (tabes NEAR/5 dorsalis):ab,ti 10. (tabes NEAR/5 spinalis):ab,ti 11. myelosyphilis:ab,ti 12. (spinal NEAR/5 syphilis):ab,ti 13. or/1-12 14. 'antiinfective agent'/exp 15. antiinfective*:ab,ti 16. (anti NEAR/5 infective*):ab,ti 17. antibacterial*:ab,ti 18. (anti NEAR/5 bacterial*):ab,ti 19. antimicrobial*:ab,ti 20. (anti NEAR/5 microbial*):ab,ti 21. 'antimicrobial therapy'/exp 22. 'antibiotic agent'/exp 23. antibiotic*:ab,ti 24. 'bactericide'/exp 25. bactericid*:ab,ti 26. bacteriocid*:ab,ti 27. 'microbicide'/exp 28. microbicid*:ab,ti 29. 'beta lactam'/exp 30. 'penicillin derivative'/exp 31. 'penicillin G'/exp 32. 'procaine penicillin'/exp 33. 'benzathine penicillin'/exp 34. 'penicillin G potassium plus probenecid'/exp 35. 'amoxicillin'/exp 36. 'beta lactam':ab,ti 37. penicilli*:ab,ti 38. amoxicillin:ab,ti 39. 'cephalosporin derivative'/exp 40. cephalosporin*:ab,ti 41. 'ce riaxone'/exp 42. ce riaxon*:ab,ti 43. 'tetracycline derivative'/exp 44. 'tetracycline'/exp 45. tetracyclin*:ab,ti 46. 'doxycycline'/exp 47. doxycycline:ab,ti 48. 'minocycline'/exp 49. minocycline:ab,ti 50. 'glycylcycline derivative'/exp 51. glycylcycline:ab,ti 52. 'tigecycline'/exp Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 53. tigecycline:ab,ti 54. 'macrolide'/exp 55. macrolide*:ab,ti 56. 'erythromycin'/exp 57. erythromycin:ab,ti 58. 'azithromycin'/exp 59. azithromycin:ab,ti 60. 'clarithromycin'/exp 61. clarithromycin:ab,ti 62. 'ketolide'/exp 63. ketolide*:ab,ti 64. 'telithromycin'/exp 65. telithromycin:ab,ti 66. or/14-66 67.1 'randomised controlled trial'/exp 67.2 'single blind procedure'/exp 67.3 'double blind procedure'/exp 67.4 'crossover procedure'/exp 67.5 #36.1 OR #36.2 OR #36.3 OR #36.4 67.6 random*:ab,ti 67.7 placebo*:ab,ti 67.8 allocat*:ab,ti 67.9 crossover*:ab,ti 67.10 'cross over':ab,ti 67.11 trial:ti 67.12 (doubl* NEXT/1 blind*):ab,ti 67.13 #67.6 OR #67.7 OR #67.8 OR #67.9 OR #67.10 OR #67.11 OR #67.12 67.14 #67.5 OR #67.13 67.15 'animal'/de 67.16 'animal experiment'/de 67.17 'nonhuman'/de 67.18 #67.15 OR #67.16 OR #67.17 67.19 'human'/de 67.20 #67.18 AND #67.19 67.21 #67.18 NOT #67.20 67.22 #67.14 NOT #67.21 68. #13 AND #66 AND #67 AND [embase]/lim LILACS (iAHx interface) (mh:("Neurosyphilis")) OR (ti:("neurosyphilis")) OR (ab:("neurosyphilis")) AND db:("LILACS") AND type_of_study:("clinical_trials") WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP portal neurosyphilis OR tabes dorsal ClinicalTrials.gov neurosyphilis OR tabes dorsal 2 neurosyphilis.tw. (1878) 3 (lues adj5 cerebrospinal).tw. (5) 4 (nervous adj5 syphilis).tw. (105) 5 neurolues.tw. (31) 6 (syphilis adj5 nervous adj5 system).tw. (93) 7 (syphilis adj5 cns).tw. (21) 8 exp Tabes Dorsalis/ (698) 9 (tabes adj5 dorsalis).tw. (271) 10 (tabes adj5 spinalis).tw. (0) 11 myelosyphilis.tw. (0) 12 (spinal adj5 syphilis).tw. (25) 13 or/1-12 (4155) 14 exp Anti-Bacterial Agents/ (695595) 15 anti bacterial$.tw. (2405) 16 antibacterial$.tw. (57619) 17 antibiotic$.tw. (272269) 18 bacteriocid$.tw. (533) 19 bactericid$.tw. (26584) 20 exp Anti-Infective Agents/ (1556656) 21 anti infective$.tw. (3308) 22 antiinfective$.tw. (426) 23 microbicid$.tw. (5471) 24 antimicrobial$.tw. (122743) 25 anti microbial$.tw. (2972) 26 exp beta-Lactams/ (124482) 27 exp Penicillins/ (78933) 28

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buitrago-Garcia, D., Martí-Carvajal, A. J., Jimenez, A., Conterno, L. O., & Pardo, R.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial; Cochrane Ecuador. Centro de Investigación en Salud Pública y Epidemiología Clínica (CISPEC). Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Eugenio Espejo; Quito Ecuador
  • Cochrane (GB)
  • Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud-Hospital de San José; Microbiology-Infectious Diseases; Calle 10 # 18-35 Bogota Colombia
  • University of Campinas; Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine,School of Medicine,; Rua Tessália Vieira de Camargo, 126 Cidade Universitária "Zeferino Vaz" Distrito de Barão Geraldo São Paulo Brazil 13083-887
  • Universidad Nacional de Colombia (CO)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-05-27
Volume
2019
Issue
5
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W4232811997
Cited by
30
References
77
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Syphilis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Historical Medical Research and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Antibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Keywords
neurosyphilis, Treponema pallidum, antibiotic therapy, penicillin G, ceftriaxone, penicillin allergy, serological cure, clinical cure, adverse events, HIV coinfection, adults, tertiary syphilis, treatment effectiveness and safety, drug effectiveness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review