Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis to preventing brucellosis in accidental exposure: A systematic review

Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent brucellosis after accidental exposure to Brucella is an important topic in public health. This study aimed to systematically review the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis following accidental exposure to Brucella in preventing human brucellosis disease.

The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023456812). The outcomes included the incidence of brucellosis disease, adverse events rate, and antibiotic prophylaxis adherence. A comprehensive literature search, conducted until 20 November, 2023, involved Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and LILACS databases. Descriptive analysis and meta-analysis using R software were performed, risk of bias was assessed using JBI Critical appraisal tools, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE tool.

Among 3102 initially identified records, eight studies involving 97 individuals accidentally exposed, all focused on high-risk accidental exposure to Brucella in laboratory settings, were included in the review. All studies reported the prophylactic treatment comprising doxycycline at a dosage of 100 mg twice daily, combined with rifampicin at 600 mg, both administered over 21 days. Prophylaxis adherence was reported in 86% of cases, and incidence of brucellosis post-treatment was 0.01. Adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal, occurred in 26% of cases. Critical appraisal revealed limitations in reporting demographics and clinical information. The certainty of evidence was rated as 'very low,' emphasising the need for caution in interpreting the observed outcomes due to study design constraints and the absence of comparative groups.

PEP is an alternative practice reported in the literature, used in accidents with high-risk exposure to Brucella. The currently available evidence of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis is insufficient to support a recommendation for or against the widespread use of antibiotic prophylaxis, so caution is needed in interpreting results due to the very low certainty of evidence, primarily stemming from case series and lack of comparative groups.