Locally delivered 0.5% clarithromycin, as an adjunct to nonsurgical treatment in chronic periodontitis with well-controlled type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Insights into Intra Periodontal Pocket Pathogenesis, Treatment, In Vitro-In Vivo Models, Products and Patents, Challenges and Opportunity

Periodontal disease is a multifactorial pathogenic condition involving microbial infection, inflammation, and various systemic complications. Here, a systematic and comprehensive review discussing key-points such as the pros and cons of conventional methods, new advancements, challenges, patents and products, and future prospects is presented. A systematic review process was adopted here by using the following keywords: periodontal diseases, pathogenesis, models, patents, challenges, recent developments, and 3-D printing scaffolds. Search engines used were "google scholar", "web of science", "scopus", and "pubmed", along with textbooks published over the last few decades. A thorough study of the published data rendered an accurate and deep understanding of periodontal diseases, the gap of research so far, and future opportunities. Formulation scientists and doctors need to be interconnected for a better understanding of the disease to prescribe a quality product. Moreover, prime challenges (such as a lack of a vital testing model, scarcity of clinical and preclinical data, products allowing for high drug access to deeper tissue regions for prolonged residence, lack of an international monitoring body, lack of 4D or time controlled scaffolds, and lack of successful AI based tools) exist that must be addressed for designing new quality products. Generally, several products have been commercialized to treat periodontal diseases with certain limitations. Various strategic approaches have been attempted to target certain delivery regions, maximize residence time, improve efficacy, and reduce toxicity. Conclusively, the current review summarizes valuable information for researchers and healthcare professional to treat a wide range of periodontal diseases.

Comparative Study of Azithromycin Versus Doxycycline Effect on the Resistin Level in Periodontitis Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

AIM

The present study aimed to determine if azithromycin (AZM) and doxycycline therapy, as an adjunct to scaling and root planning (SRP), modulate host response and improve clinical outcomes in periodontitis patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-five periodontal sites in 15 periodontitis patients with T2DM received nonsurgical periodontal therapy (NSPT). In Group I, patients were placebo (not receiving any medication), Group II patients received systemic AZM therapy (AZM 250 mg/day for five days), and Group III patients received doxycycline (20 mg twice per day for three months. The resistin level was collected and measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were recorded at baseline, one-month, and three-month intervals.

RESULTS

All groups showed improvement in clinical parameters and resistin levels throughout the study. The mean resistin level at three months was the highest in Group I and the lowest in Group III. Patients in Group II showed a larger decrease in mean PD than those in Group I and III. Group III had the highest gain in mean CAL, with an increase of 1.78 mm in attachment.

CONCLUSION

Resistin might be a useful indicator of current disease status. In addition, benefits from adjunctive systemic use of AZM and doxycycline have been administered with non-surgical periodontal therapy.

Unusual Findings in Trials Evaluating Adjuncts to Scaling and Root Planing: Meta-analysis (Part 1)

BACKGROUND

A number of studies in patients with periodontitis have compared scaling and root planning (SRP) combined with an adjunctive treatment to SRP alone. Within that literature, an array of studies with overlapping investigators has consistently yielded substantially greater effects of adjunctive treatments than had been previously noted. This report investigates discrepancies between that cluster of research and the most recent American Dental Association (ADA) systematic review.

METHODS

This review was preregistered at https://osf.io/4meyd/. A search using the Scopus platform identified 32 articles published from 2010 to 2017 by investigators affiliated with the Government Dental College and Research Institute (GDCRI) in Bangalore, India. The primary outcome used in this meta-analysis was the change in clinical attachment level (CAL) after 6 mo. Effect sizes were estimated using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software after categorizing agents into groups based on pharmacologic similarity.

RESULTS

The search identified 32 studies encompassing 5 sets of adjunctive agents. Across the GDCRI studies, the CAL averaged 1.67 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-1.91 mm), substantially exceeding values reported in the ADA review (mean: 0.39 mm, 95% CI: 0.27-0.51 mm). For categories of studies in which comparable subgroup estimates were available, the evaluations yielded overlapping estimates of SRP alone, but CAL estimates were discrepant for both locally delivered antimicrobials (GDCRI studies: mean: 1.45 mm, 95% CI: 0.63-2.27 mm; ADA review: mean: 0.38 mm, 95% CI: 0.16 -0.60 mm) and systemic antibiotics (GDCRI studies: mean: 1.35 mm, 95% CI: 0.97-1.73 mm; ADA review: mean: 0.39 mm, 95% CI: 0.21-0.57 mm).

CONCLUSION

In the literature on adjunctive agents supplementing SRP, findings from investigators linked to GDCRI stand out as having significantly more favorable estimated effects. Meanwhile, some agents studied by GDCRI-linked investigators have not been investigated by other researchers. In the absence of a clear explanation for discrepant results, it is recommended that unusually favorable reported effects of adjunctive agents be viewed with caution.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

The present meta-analysis observed an unusually large effect size of adjunctive agents to scaling and root planning in studies conducted by the same research group. These results were not consistent with trials on adjunctive agents and previous reports. As this research group has exclusively tested most of the agents, their results must be viewed with caution until other independent groups replicate the studies and reproduce the effect size.

Clarithromycin as an adjunct to periodontal therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To collate the literature evaluating the efficacy of clarithromycin as an adjunct to non-surgical periodontal therapy and conduct meta-analyses for changes in probing pocket depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL).

METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2020 (PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE via OVID, Web of Science and OpenGrey). Clinical outcomes were extracted, pooled and meta-analyses conducted using mean difference with standard deviations.

RESULTS

Systemic delivery: 0.65 mm (95% CI: 0.02 to 1.27 mm) mean additional PPD reduction was observed at 3 months and 0.28 mm (95% CI: -0.32 to 0.87 mm) at 6 months. 0.41 mm (95% CI: -0.12 to 0.95 mm) mean additional CAL gain was observed at 3 months, and 0.16 mm (95% CI: -0.41 to 0.74 mm) at 6 months. Increased risk of adverse events was observed; RR: 5.13 (95% CI: 0.63 to 41.98). Local delivery: 1.01 mm (95% CI: 0.84 to 1.17 mm) mean additional PPD reduction was observed at 3 months, and 1.20 mm (95% CI: 0.76 to 1.64 mm) at 6 months. 0.56 mm (95% CI: 0.46 to 0.66 mm) mean additional CAL gain was observed at 3 months, and 0.83 mm (95% CI: 0.65 to 1.02 mm) at 6 months. No adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of locally delivered clarithromycin significantly improves treatment outcomes.

Professionally Delivered Local Antimicrobials in the Treatment of Patients with Periodontitis-A Narrative Review

This review sheds light on the recent published scientific evidence relating to the use of professionally delivered local antimicrobial agents (LA’s). The review also analyses drug delivery systems available to date and provides an update on the latest scientific evidence about the benefits, limitations, and clinical results obtained by use of local drugs in the treatment of periodontal disease. The search strategy revealed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of adjunctive LA’s to mechanical therapy alone. Based on the available evidence gathered from this review, we can infer that the use of local antimicrobial agents in conjunction to scaling and root debridement (SRD) delivers significant benefits in periodontal therapy and it is a useful aid, avoiding many of the side effects that systemic antibiotic therapy may involve. Local drug delivery (LDD) is an efficient and effective means of delivering drugs based on the evidence presented in the review. The authors of this review would suggest the use of local antimicrobials in cases of localized periodontitis or individual areas that do not respond to the usual mechanical therapy alone. This review summarizes the current use of local drug delivery in periodontal management ensuring that the general practitioners are able to choose an appropriate local antimicrobial.

[Efficacy of clarithromycin in the adjuvant treatment of chronic periodontitis: a Meta-analysis]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of clarithromycin (CLM) in the adjuvant treatment of chronic periodontitis systematically, obtain reasonable conclusions through evidence-based medicine, and provide guidance for clinical rational drug use.

METHODS

Literature about CLM in the adjuvant treatment of chronic periodontitis was searched in CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Embase databases from inception to February 2019 using a computer. Meta-analysis was performed on the homogeneous study using RevMan 5.3 software after two independent reviewers screened the literature, evaluated the quality of the study, extracted the data, and evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials were included in 316 subjects. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the scaling and root planning (SRP) group, the probing depth (PD) was reduced in patients with CLM and SRP [MD=-1.00, 95%CI (-1.55, -0.45), P=0.000 04]. Clinical attachment loss was obtained [MD=-0.03, 95%CI (0.43, 0.65), P<0.000 01], and the difference between the groups was statistically significant. The modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI) was reduced [MD=-0.01, 95%CI (-0.14, 0.19), P=0.66]. No significant difference was observed between the groups, but the decrease in mSBI was more significant in CLM combined with SRP group.

CONCLUSIONS

CLM combined with subgingival SRP can achieve remarkable results in treating chronic periodontitist.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Efficacy of systemic antibiotics in nonsurgical periodontal therapy for diabetic subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of systemic antibiotics as adjuncts to nonsurgical periodontal treatment (NSPT), as opposed to using NSPT alone, on periodontal clinical parameters of diabetic patients with periodontitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomised controlled trials with a follow-up of 3 months or more, assessing the effects of NSPT in combination with antibiotics, in diabetic patients with periodontitis were included. Trials published up to August 2016 were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases. Meta-analyses were conducted to determine changes in clinical attachment level (CAL), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and gingival index (GI). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in this review.

RESULTS

Of the 164 papers potentially admissible to this systematic review, 15 articles on 11 randomised clinical trials were considered as eligible. The results of the meta-analyses presented a modest additional benefit of 0.14 mm (95% confidence interval: 0.08-0.20) in reducing PPD but no further benefit in CAL gain.

CONCLUSION

When the data for all antibiotic protocols were considered together for the treatment of periodontitis patients with DM, a significant, albeit small, reduction of PPD and no improvement in CAL gain was observed. When the antibiotic protocols were analysed separately, the combination of amoxicillin plus metronidazole yielded the best results for PPD.

Efficacy of Local Antimicrobials in the Non-Surgical Treatment of Patients With Periodontitis and Diabetes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients with diabetes present a worse response to periodontal treatment. Local antimicrobials as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) provide additional benefits in the treatment of periodontitis in healthy patients. This review aims to evaluate the effects of local antimicrobials as an adjunct to SRP, compared with SRP alone, on periodontal clinical parameters of patients with chronic periodontitis (CP) and diabetes mellitus (DM).

METHODS

Only randomized controlled trials with: 1) at least 6 months of follow-up; 2) SRP, in combination with local antimicrobials; and 3) patients with periodontitis and DM were considered eligible. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS databases were searched for articles published up to January 2016. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing, and gingival index change after treatment.

RESULTS

Of 153 papers potentially relevant to this review, six were included. The majority of trials showed a significant PD reduction and CAL gain associated with use of local antimicrobials in patients with type 1 and type 2 DM. Only studies that included well-controlled patients and applied antimicrobials at the deepest sites or sites with baseline PD ≥5 mm presented significant PD reduction and CAL gain.

CONCLUSION

In patients with DM and CP, use of local antimicrobials as an adjunct to SRP may result in additional benefits compared with SRP alone in PD reduction and CAL gain, especially in well-controlled individuals and deep sites.