Abstract
Introduction
Treatment for Chlamydia trachomatis include azithromycin and doxycycline; however, comparative studies in cis-male populations remain limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus doxycycline for treating chlamydial infections among cis-men.
Methods
We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Google Scholar. Randomized controlled trials comparing doxycycline (100 mg twice daily for 7 days) with azithromycin (1 g single dose) in cis-men infected with Chlamydia trachomatis were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and meta-analysis was reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The primary outcome was microbiological cure at last follow-up. Pooled effect estimates were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random-effects model. Subgroup, meta-regression, publication bias and sensitivity analyses were performed. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024535957).
Results
10 randomized controlled trials comprising 1172 cis-male participants were included. Overall, 560/602 (93%) participants treated with doxycycline and 504/627 (81%) treated with azithromycin achieved microbiological cure. Meta-analysis demonstrated significantly higher odds of cure with doxycycline compared with azithromycin (OR = 2.525, 95% CI = 1.329–4.796, p = 0.005). Adverse events were not significantly different between groups (p = 0.757). Subgroup analysis showed significant superiority of doxycycline for rectal infection and chlamydia-associated nongonococcal urethritis (p < 0.05), but not for prostate infection (p = 0.745). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated strong reliability and no statistical evidence of publication bias (p > 0.05).
Conclusions
Doxycycline demonstrated superior microbiological efficacy compared with azithromycin in cis-men with Chlamydia trachomatis. However, moderate heterogeneity was detected across studies and data for rectal and prostate infections were limited. Consequently, further well-designed trials are required to confirm these findings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
