Table 2.
Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus other drugs for the treatment of the same disease.
| AZM versus another drug | Disease | Authors | Year | Methods | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topical AZM 1.0% versus oral DOX | MGD | Foulks and colleagues17 | 2013 | AZM 1.0% S: 1 × 2 × 2 and then 1 × 1 × 28 DOX 100 mg S: 1 × 2 × 60 Evaluation of clinical signs and symptoms by questionnaire, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), principal component analysis (PCA), and proton nuclear magnetic resonance (1H-NMR) spectrometer |
Oral DOX therapy was vaguely less effective in enhancing foreign body sensation and the signs of MGD |
| Oral AZM versus oral DOX | MGD | Kashkouli and colleagues18 | 2015 | AZM 500 mg S: 1 × 1 × 1 and then 250 mg S: 1 × 1 × 4 DOX 200 mg S: 1 × 1 × 30 Evaluation of symptoms, signs, and side effects |
5-day oral AZM is recommended for its superior efficacy, improved total clinical response, and faster overall treatment |
| Topical AZM versus topical AZM/DEX versus topical DEX | Blepharoconjunctivitis | Hosseini and colleagues19 | 2013 | AZM 1.0% S: 1 × 2 × 12 AZM/DEX 1.0%/0.1% S: 1 × 2 × 14 DEX 0.1% S: 1 × 2 × 14 Evaluation of signs and symptoms, complete bacterial eradication at day 15 (bacterial cultures) |
AZM/DEX was superior to AZM 1.0% in clinical treatment and superior to DEX 0.1% in bacterial eradication |
| Topical AZM versus topical TOB/DEX | Blepharitis/blepharoconjunctivitis | Torkildsen and colleagues20 | 2011 | TOB/DEX 0.3%/0.05% S: 1 × 4 × 14 AZM 1.0% S: 1 × 2 × 2 and then 1 × 1 × 12 Evaluation of signs and symptoms |
TOB/DEX was faster than AZM in controlling the signs and symptoms of acute blepharitis/blepharoconjunctivitis |
| Topical AZM versus oral DOX | Posterior blepharitis | Zandian and colleagues21 | 2015 | AZM 1.0% S: 1 × 2 × 7 and then S: 1 × 1 × 14 DOX 100 mg S: 1 × 1 × 21 | Both could have similar effects on posterior blepharitis but DOX can reduce objective signs more than AZM |
| Topical AZM versus oral DOX | Ocular Rosacea in association with blepharitis | Mantelli and colleagues22 | 2013 | AZM 1.5% S: 1 × 2 × 6 DOX 100 mg S: 1 × 1 × 30 and control group Evaluation at baseline and at 1-month follow-up |
Topical AZM is an efficient treatment with a shorter duration and no gastrointestinal adverse reactions |
| Oral AZM versus oral TRIM/SULF | Toxoplasmosis | Lashay and colleagues23 | 2016 | AZM 500 mg S: 1 × 1 × 1 250 mg S: 1 × 1 × 6–12
weeks TRIM/SULF 160 mg/800 mg S: 1 × 2 × 6–12 weeks LogMAR measurement, clinical signs, and symptoms, imaging techniques |
Equal efficacy in terms of reducing the size of retinal lesions and visual improvement |
| AZM alone or in combination versus PYR + CLIN (or SULF) + corticoid | Toxoplasmosis | Prášil and colleagues24 | 2014 | Group 1: AZM alone or in combination therapy Group 2: PYR+CLIN (or SULF) + corticoid Retrospective observational study |
The authors propose according to their experience PYR + CLIN (or SULF) + corticoid as the therapy of choice for ocular toxoplasmosis |
| Oral AZM (long- and short-term treatment) versus oral DOX | AIC | Malamos and colleagues25 | 2013 | Four groups: AZM 1-day 1000 mg orally AZM 500 mg daily for 9 days AZM 500 mg daily for 14 days DOX 200 mg 21 days orally Detailed record of symptoms and signs, PCR |
Single-dose AZM should be considered as equally reliable treatment choice, comparing with long-term alternative regimens for AIC |
| Topical AZM versus topical TOB | Purulent bacterial conjunctivitis | Bremond-Gignac and colleagues26 | 2014 | AZM 1.5% S: 1 × 2 × 3 TOB 0.3% S: every 2 h for 2 days and then S: 1 × 4 × 5 Evaluation of signs, symptoms, adverse events, and microbiological assessments |
AZM provided a more rapid clinical cure than TOB 0.3% ocular suspension in the therapy of purulent bacterial conjunctivitis in children |
AZM, azithromycin; DOX, doxycycline; MGD, meibomian gland disease; AIC, adult inclusion conjunctivitis; TOB, tobramycin; DEX, dexamethasone; TRIM, trimethoprim; SULF, sulfamethoxazole.