BackgroundA high level of resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae has developed against penicillins, sulphonamides, tetracyclines and quinolones, and recent surveillance data have shown a gradual reduction in sensitivity to current first-line agents with an upward drift in the minimum inhibitory concentration of ceftriaxone. Laboratory sensitivity testing suggests that gentamicin, an aminoglycoside, may be an effective treatment option for gonorrhoea infection when used as a single intramuscular dose.MethodsA search of electronic reference databases and grey literature was used to identify randomised trials and well-conducted prospective studies with concurrent controls evaluating single-dose gentamicin against placebo or a comparator regimen in the treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhoea infection in men and women aged 16 years and over. The primary outcome was microbiological cure of N. gonorrhoeae.ResultsEight hundred and thirty-nine studies were identified, of which five (1,063 total participants) were included. All five studies administered single-dose gentamicin via intramuscular injection to men with uncomplicated gonococcal urethritis. Three studies were randomised trials, one was quasi-randomised and one was non-randomised but included a comparator arm. Comparator antibiotics included an alternative aminoglycoside or antibiotic used in the syndromic management of male urethritis. Methodology was poorly described in all five included studies. The high risk of bias within studies and clinical heterogeneity between studies meant that it was inappropriate to pool data for meta-analysis. Cure rates of 62% to 98% were reported with gentamicin treatment. The relative risk of cure was comparable between gentamicin and comparator antibiotics.ConclusionsThe studies identified provide insufficient data to support or refute the efficacy and safety of single-dose intramuscular gentamicin in the treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhoea infection. Additional randomised trials to evaluate gentamicin for this indication are therefore required.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42012002490

BackgroundPelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is the result of infection ascending through the endocervix to the uterus and fallopian tubes. Inflammation driven by infected host cells appears to be central to the development of tissue damage and associated reproductive complications. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) therefore have the potential to reduce the sequelae associated with pelvic infection.MethodsA search of four electronic reference databases, an internet search for relevant grey literature and a review of the bibliographies of identified publications was used to identify studies evaluating NSAIDs in the management of PID. A predefined search strategy was used to identify studies that included women with PID aged over 16 and diagnosed after 1980. Randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, and cohort studies with comparison group data were included without language restriction. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies against agreed criteria and extracted relevant data using a standardized pro forma. A meta-analysis to calculate the relative risk associated with NSAID use was planned if appropriate.ResultsForty-three studies were identified. After reviewing abstracts or full texts, two randomized controlled trials were found to meet the selection criteria for inclusion. The use of NSAIDs was reported to improve tubal patency, reduce pelvic adhesions and reduce suprapubic pain but the studies were of poor quality with a high risk of bias. Meta-analysis of the data was not performed.ConclusionsInsufficient data is available to support or refute the efficacy of NSAIDs in the prevention of short or long-term complications of PID.