Is there a role for rifampicin, ofloxacin and minocycline (ROM) therapy in the treatment of leprosy? Systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A combination of rifampicin, ofloxacin and minocycline (ROM) is one of the newer recommendations for treatment of leprosy. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies that had evaluated the efficacy of ROM therapy in treatment of paucibacillary and multibacillary leprosy patients. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching the PubMed, Embase, LILACS and Cochrane databases. Data were abstracted from all relevant studies, and fixed effects models were used to calculate the summary estimate of effect in paucibacillary and multibacillary leprosy patients. RESULTS: Six studies comparing ROM therapy to multidrug therapy and eight studies that evaluated the effect of ROM therapy alone (no comparison group) were included in the review and meta-analysis. The combined estimate for single dose ROM vs. multidrug therapy in paucibacillary leprosy patients suggested that ROM was less effective than multidrug therapy in these patients [relative risk: 0.91, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.86-0.97]. However, the combined estimate for multiple doses of ROM vs. multidrug therapy in multibacillary leprosy patients suggested that ROM was as effective as multidrug therapy in reducing bacillary indices in these patients (proportion change: -4%, 95% CI -31% to 23%). No major side effects were reported in either the ROM or the multidrug treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose ROM therapy was less effective than multidrug therapy in paucibacillary patients. However, there are insufficient data to come to a valid conclusion on the efficacy of multidose ROM therapy in multibacillary leprosy, and additional studies with ROM therapy in multibacillary leprosy are needed. Furthermore, multiple doses may be considered as another alternative even for paucibacillary patients, and randomised controlled trials of this therapy may be useful to understand its contribution in the treatment and control of leprosy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".