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.

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.

METHODS AND FINDINGS: The WHO Collaborating Centre for Sexually Transmitted Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Sydney, coordinated annual surveys of gonococcal susceptibilities with participating laboratories, and additionally undertook a systematic review of reports detailing gonococcal ceftriaxone and azithromycin susceptibility data for locations geographically in the Asia Pacific from 2011 to 2016. It was found that surveillance of gonococcal antimicrobial resistance remains limited in the Asia Pacific, with weaker surveillance of azithromycin versus ceftriaxone. Ninety-three published reports were identified (including national reports) which documented susceptibility data for ceftriaxone and azithromycin. GASP survey data was available for 21 countries, territories or areas, and suggested MICs are increasing for ceftriaxone and azithromycin. Between 2011 and 2016, the percentage of locations reporting >5% of gonococcal isolates with MICs to ceftriaxone meeting WHO's definition of decreased susceptibility (MIC ≥ 0.125 mg/L) increased from 14.3% to 35.3% and the percentage of locations reporting >5% of gonococcal isolates with azithromycin resistance (MIC ≥ 1 mg/L) increased from 14.3% to 38.9%. Published reports were available for several countries that did not provide GASP surveillance responses for ceftriaxone (n = 5) and azithromycin (n = 3) respectively. Over the study period, there was a 183% increase in the number of countries providing surveillance data for GASP for both ceftriaxone and azithromycin, and a 30.6% increase in ceftriaxone MIC testing across the Asia Pacific facilitated by this project.