• Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Feb 2019

    Meta Analysis

    Interventions for primary vesicoureteric reflux.

    • Gabrielle Williams, Elisabeth M Hodson, and Jonathan C Craig.
    • Analytics Assist, NSW Ministry of Health, 73 Miller St, North Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2060.
    • Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2019 Feb 20; 2: CD001532.

    BackgroundVesicoureteric reflux (VUR) results in urine passing retrograde up the ureter. Urinary tract infections (UTI) associated with VUR have been considered a cause of permanent renal parenchymal damage in children with VUR. Management has been directed at preventing UTI by antibiotic prophylaxis and/or surgical correction of VUR. This is an update of a review first published in 2004 and updated in 2007 and 2011.ObjectivesThe aim of this review was to evaluate the available evidence for both benefits and harms of the currently available treatment options for primary VUR: operative, non-operative or no intervention.Search MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 3 May 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings, and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.Selection CriteriaRCTs in any language comparing any treatment of VUR and any combination of therapies.Data Collection And AnalysisTwo authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed quality and extracted data. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous data as mean differences (MD) with 95% CI. Data were pooled using the random effects model.Main ResultsThirty four studies involving 4001 children were included. Interventions included; long-term low-dose antibiotics, surgical reimplantation of ureters, endoscopic injection treatment, probiotics, cranberry products, circumcision, and oxybutynin. Interventions were used alone and in combinations. The quality of conduct and reporting of these studies was variable, with many studies omitting crucial methodological information used to assess the risk of bias. Only four of the 34 studies were considered at low risk of bias across all fields of study quality. The majority of studies had many areas of uncertainty in the risk of bias fields, reflecting missing detail rather than stated poor design.Low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis compared to no treatment/placebo may make little or no difference to the risk of repeat symptomatic UTI (9 studies, 1667 children: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.09; low certainty evidence) and febrile UTI (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.21; low certainty evidence) at one to two years. At one to three years, antibiotic prophylaxis made little or no difference to the risk of new or progressive renal damage on DMSA scan (8 studies, 1503 children: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.61; low certainty evidence). Adverse events were reported in four studies with little or no difference between treatment groups (1056 children: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08; ), but antibiotics increased the likelihood of bacterial drug resistance threefold (187 UTIs: RR 2.97, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.74; moderate certainty evidence).Seven studies compared long-term antibiotic prophylaxis alone with surgical reimplantation of ureters plus antibiotics, but only two reported the outcome febrile UTI (429 children). Surgery plus antibiotic treatment may reduce the risk of repeat febrile UTI by 57% (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.70; moderate certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in the risk of new kidney defects detected using intravenous pyelogram at 4 to 5 years (4 studies, 572 children, RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.49; moderate certainty evidence)Four studies compared endoscopic injection with antibiotics alone and three reported the outcome febrile UTI. This analysis showed little or no difference in the risk of febrile UTI with endoscopic injection compared to antibiotics (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.78; low certainty evidence). Four studies involving 425 children compared two different materials for endoscopic injection under the ureters (polydimethylsiloxane (Macroplastique) versus dextranomer/hyaluronic acid polymer (Deflux), glutaraldehyde cross-linked (GAX) collagen (GAX) 35 versus GAX 65 and Deflux versus polyacrylate polyalcohol copolymer (VANTRIS)) but only one study (255 children, low certainty evidence) had the outcome of febrile UTI and it reported no difference between the materials. All four studies reported rates of resolution of VUR, and the two studies comparing Macroplastique with Deflux showed that Macroplastique was probably superior to dextranomer/hyaluronic acid polymer (3 months: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.78; 12 months: RR 0.54 95% CI 0.35 to 0.83; low certainty evidence)Two studies compared probiotic treatment with antibiotics and showed little or no difference in risk of repeat symptomatic UTI (RR 0.82 95% CI 0.56 to 1.21; low certainty evidence)Single studies compared circumcision with antibiotics, cranberry products with no treatment, oxybutynin with placebo, two different surgical techniques and endoscopic injection with no treatment.Authors' ConclusionsCompared with no treatment, the use of long-term, low-dose antibiotics may make little or no difference to the number of repeat symptomatic and febrile UTIs in children with VUR (low certainty evidence). Considerable variation in the study designs and subsequent findings prevented drawing firm conclusions on efficacy of antibiotic treatment.The added benefit of surgical or endoscopic correction of VUR over antibiotic treatment alone remains unclear since few studies comparing the same treatment and with relevant clinical outcomes were available for analysis.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.