Search

Background Vaccination and single-dose rifampin are the main proven effective intervention types for preventing leprosy among contacts of Mycobacterium leprae endemic areas. Currently, no high-quality evidence is available regarding the best prophylactic intervention. Objectives Our primary study aim is to detect the most effective prophylactic intervention for the prevention of leprosy. Methods In May 2019, 12 databases were searched systematically. Updated search terms were developed in March 2020 to complete an updated search. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the different types of chemoprophylactic and immunoprophylactic interventions in leprosy prevention were included. Our participants were contacts of patients with leprosy or people residing in leprosy endemic communities. We searched for different types of chemoprophylactic and immunoprophylactic interventions used in leprosy prevention. We used network meta-analysis and meta-analysis. Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane Risk of Bias for included RCTs, in which all included RCTs were rated to be low to moderate risk. We registered our protocol in Prospero with ID CRD42019143207. Results Among 11 included studies (326 264 patients) from original and updated search terms, eight were eligible for network meta-analysis (NMA) while four were eligible for MA. Findings suggest that Bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG) vaccination was the most effective intervention compared to placebo (risk ratios (RRs) 0.49 (0.30, 0.80), p 0.77), followed by combined BCG vaccination and single-dose rifampicin (SDR) with similarly low values (RR 48%, p 0.77). BCG revaccination was the least effective intervention compared to placebo (RR 1.08 (0.36, 3.22), p 0.26). Conclusion Compared to placebo, the BCG vaccine was the most effective prophylactic intervention. The combination of BCG vaccination + SDR had nearly the same efficacy as BCG vaccination alone, while BCG revaccination was the least effective. Thus, vaccination proved to be a more effective treatment than SDR alone. A well-designed multicenter RCT is warranted to evaluate the safety of these vaccines.

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, face masks are among the most common and practical control measures used globally in reducing the risk of infection and disease transmission. Although several studies have investigated the efficacy of various face masks and respirators in preventing infection, the results have been inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of the randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the actual efficacy of face masks in preventing respiratory infections. We searched nine electronic databases up to July 2020 to find potential articles. We accepted trials reporting the protective efficacy of face masks against respiratory infections, of which the primary endpoint was the presence of respiratory infections. We used the ROB-2 Cochrane tool to grade the trial quality. We initially registered the protocol for this study in PROSPERO (CRD42020178516). Sixteen RCTs involving 17 048 individuals were included for NMA. Overall, evidence was weak, lacking statistical power due to the small number of participants, and there was substantial inconsistency in our findings. In comparison to those without face masks, participants with fit-tested N95 respirators were likely to have lesser infection risk (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38–1.19, P-score 0.80), followed by those with non-fit-tested N95 and non-fit-tested FFP2 respirators that shared the similar risk, (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.12–4.36, P-score 0.63) and (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.38–1.71, P-score 0.63), respectively. Next, participants who donned face masks with and without hand hygiene practices showed modest risk improvement alike (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67–1.17, P-score 0.55) and (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70–1.22, P-score 0.51). Otherwise, participants donning double-layered cloth masks were prone to infection (RR 4.80, 95% CI 1.42–16.27, P-score 0.01). Eleven out of 16 RCTs that underwent a pairwise meta-analysis revealed a substantially lower infection risk in those donning medical face masks (MFMs) than those without face masks (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.71–0.96). Given the body of evidence through a systematic review and meta-analyses, our findings supported the protective benefits of MFMs in reducing respiratory transmissions, and the universal mask-wearing should be applied—especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. More clinical data is required to conclude the efficiency of cloth masks; in the short term, users should not use cloth face masks in the outbreak hot spots and places where social distancing is impossible.