OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effects of different antibiotic regimens for treatment of scrub typhus.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 8 January 2018: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library (2018, Issue 1); MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT). We checked references and contacted study authors for additional data. We applied no language or date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing antibiotic regimens in people with the diagnosis of scrub typhus based on clinical symptoms and compatible laboratory tests (excluding the Weil-Felix test).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors re-extracted all data and assessed the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes when appropriate, and elsewhere tabulated data to facilitate narrative analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs and one quasi-RCT with 548 participants; they took place in the Asia-Pacific region: Korea (three trials), Malaysia (one trial), and Thailand (three trials). Only one trial included children younger than 15 years (N = 57). We judged five trials to be at high risk of performance and detection bias owing to inadequate blinding. Trials were heterogenous in terms of dosing of interventions and outcome measures. Across trials, treatment failure rates were low.Two trials compared doxycycline to tetracycline. For treatment failure, the difference between doxycycline and tetracycline is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Doxycycline compared to tetracycline may make little or no difference in resolution of fever within 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.44, 55 participants; one trial; low-certainty evidence) and in time to defervescence (116 participants; one trial; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to extract data for other outcomes.Three trials compared doxycycline versus macrolides. For most outcomes, including treatment failure, resolution of fever within 48 hours, time to defervescence, and serious adverse events, we are uncertain whether study results show a difference between doxycycline and macrolides (very low-certainty evidence). Macrolides compared to doxycycline may make little or no difference in the proportion of patients with resolution of fever within five days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.10; 185 participants; two trials; low-certainty evidence). Another trial compared azithromycin versus doxycycline or chloramphenicol in children, but we were not able to disaggregate date for the doxycycline/chloramphenicol group.One trial compared doxycycline versus rifampicin. For all outcomes, we are uncertain whether study results show a difference between doxycycline and rifampicin (very low-certainty evidence). Of note, this trial deviated from the protocol after three out of eight patients who had received doxycycline and rifampicin combination therapy experienced treatment failure.Across trials, mild gastrointestinal side effects appeared to be more common with doxycycline than with comparator drugs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tetracycline, doxycycline, azithromycin, and rifampicin are effective treatment options for scrub typhus and have resulted in few treatment failures. Chloramphenicol also remains a treatment option, but we could not include this among direct comparisons in this review.Most available evidence is of low or very low certainty. For specific outcomes, some low-certainty evidence suggests there may be little or no difference between tetracycline, doxycycline, and azithromycin as treatment options. Given very low-certainty evidence for rifampicin and the risk of inducing resistance in undiagnosed tuberculosis, clinicians should not regard this as a first-line treatment option. Clinicians could consider rifampicin as a second-line treatment option after exclusion of active tuberculosis.Further research should consist of additional adequately powered trials of doxycycline versus azithromycin or other macrolides, trials of other candidate antibiotics including rifampicin, and trials of treatments for severe scrub typhus. Researchers should standardize diagnostic techniques and reporting of clinical outcomes to allow robust comparisons.
METHOD: We completed a prospective, double-blinded, randomized placebo-control trial of azithromycin among pre-school children (12 to 60 months of age) presenting to the emergency department with wheeze. Patients were randomized to receive either five days of azithromycin or placebo. Primary outcome was time to resolution of respiratory symptoms after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes included the number of days children used a Short-Acting Beta-Agonists during the 21 day follow-up and time to disease exacerbation during the following six months (unscheduled health care visit or treatment with an oral corticosteroid for acute respiratory symptoms).
RESULTS: Of the 300 wheezing children recruited, 222 and 169 were analyzed for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. The treatment groups had similar demographics and clinical parameters at baseline. Median time to resolution of respiratory symptoms was four days for both treatment arms (interquartile range (IQR) 3,6; p = 0.28). Median number of days of Short-Acting Beta-Agonist use among those who received azithromycin was four and a half days (IQR 2, 7) and five days (IQR 2, 9; p = 0.22) among those who received placebo. Participants who received azithromycin had a 0.91 hazard ratio for time to six-month exacerbation compared to placebo (95% CI 0.61, 1.36, p = 0.65). A pre-determined subgroup analysis showed no differences in outcomes for children with their first or repeat episode of wheezing. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants experiencing an adverse event.
CONCLUSION: Azithromycin neither reduced duration of respiratory symptoms nor time to respiratory exacerbation in the following six months after treatment among wheezing preschool children presenting to an emergency department. There was no significant effect among children with either first-time or prior wheezing.
Methods: A cross sectional prospective study was conducted at Shaheed Ziaur Rahman Medical College Hospital, Bogura, Bangladesh among clinically suspected urinary tract infection patients from January to December, 2018. Clean-catch midstream or catheter-catch urine samples were subjected to bacteriological culture using chromogenic agar media. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of the isolates was done by Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method following Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Descriptive statistical methods were used for data analysis.
Results: Culture yielded a total of 537 (42.8%) significant bacterial growths including 420 (78.2%) multi drug resistant uropathogens from 1255 urine samples. Escherichia coli was the most common isolate (61.6%) followed by Klebsiella spp. (22.5%), Pseudomonas spp. (7.8%), Staphylococcus aureus (5.4%) and Enterobacter spp. (2.6%) with multi drug resistance frequency of 77.6%, 71.9%, 90.5%, 86.2% and 92.9% respectively. There was female preponderance (M:F; 1:1.97; P=0.007) but insignificant differences between paediatric and adult population (43.65% vs. 42.57%) and also among different age groups. Diabetes, chronic renal failure, fever and supra-pubic pain had significant association as co-morbidities and presentations of urinary tract infections (P<0.05). Multi drug resistance ranged from 3.7 to 88.1% including moderate to high resistance found against commonly used antibiotics like ciprofloxacin, cephalosporin, azithromycin, aztreonam, cotrimoxazole and nalidixic acid (28.6 to 92.9%). Isolates showed 2.4 to 32.2% resistance to nitrofurantoin, amikacin, netilmicin and carbapenems except Pseudomonas spp. (66.7% resistance to nitrofurantoin) and Enterobacter spp. (28.6 to 42.9% resistance to carbapenems).
Conclusion: There is very high prevalence of multi drug resistant uropathogens among hospitalized patients and emergence of carbapenem resistance is an alarming situation. Antibiotic stewardship program is highly recommended for hospitals to combat antimicrobial resistance.
METHODS: The study was conducted over a span of three years with a total of 8142, 8134, and 8114 blood culture samples processed for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 respectively. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for ciprofloxacin and chloramphenicol was determined using an agar dilution method. The MIC for ciprofloxacin was also confirmed by Epsilon-test (E -test) strips.
RESULTS: Of the total 302 Salmonella spp. isolated, 257 were Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi (85.1%) and 45 (14.9%) were S. enterica serotype Paratyphi A. The majority of the isolates recovered were from the pediatric age group (54.6%) and males (60.6%). Complete susceptibility was observed to chloramphenicol, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, and azithromycin over the last two years (2009 and 2010), with an increase in resistance to nalidixic acid (100%) and ciprofloxacin (13.6%).
CONCLUSION: In our study, we found augmentation of resistance to nalidixic acid and fluoroquinolones and complete sensitivity to ceftriaxone along with reemergence of chloramphenicol sensitivity for Salmonella isolates. This report emphasises the necessity of continuous surveillance of antibiograms of enteric fever isolates in an area.
OBJECTIVE: To check the prices, availability, and affordability of the World Health Organization (WHO) key access antibiotics in private sector pharmacies of Lahore, Pakistan.
METHODOLOGY: A survey of WHO key access antibiotics from WHO essential medicine list 2017 was conducted in private sector pharmacies of 4 different regions of Lahore employing adapted WHO/HAI methodology. The comparison of prices and availability between originator brands (OB) and lowest price generics (LPG) were conducted followed by the effect of medicine price differences on patient's affordability. The data were analyzed using a preprogrammed WHO Microsoft excel workbook.
RESULTS: The mean availability of OB products was 45.20% and the availability of LPGs was 40.40%. The OBs of co-amoxiclav, clarithromycin and metronidazole and LPGs of azithromycin and ciprofloxacin were easily available (100%) in all private sector pharmacies. Whereas, antibiotics like chloramphenicol, cloxacillin, nitrofurantoin, spectinomycin, and cefazolin were totally unavailable in all the surveyed pharmacies. The OBs and LPGs with high MPRs were ceftriaxone (OB; 15.31, LPG; 6.38) and ciprofloxacin (OB; 12.42, LPG; 5.77). The median of brand premium obtained was 38.7%, which varied between the lowest brand premium of 3.97% for metronidazole and highest for ceftriaxone i.e. 140%. The cost of standard treatment was 0.5 day's wage (median) if using OB and 0.4 day's wage (median) for LPG, for a lowest paid unskilled government worker. Treatment with OB and LPG was unaffordable for ciprofloxacin (OB; 2.4, LPG; 1.1) & cefotaxime (OB; 12.7, LPG; 8.1).
CONCLUSION: There is dire need to properly implement price control policies to better regulate fragile antibiotic supply system so that the availability of both OB and LPG of key access antibiotics should be increased. The prices could be reduced by improving purchasing efficiency, excluding taxes and regulating mark-ups. This could increase the affordability of patients to complete their antibiotic therapy with subsequent reduction in antimicrobial resistance.