-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric fever) are febrile bacterial illnesses common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric fever) are febrile bacterial illnesses common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends treatment with azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, or ceftriaxone due to widespread resistance to older, first-line antimicrobials. Resistance patterns vary in different locations and are changing over time. Fluoroquinolone resistance in South Asia often precludes the use of ciprofloxacin. Extensively drug-resistant strains of enteric fever have emerged in Pakistan. In some areas of the world, susceptibility to old first-line antimicrobials, such as chloramphenicol, has re-appeared. A Cochrane Review of the use of fluoroquinolones and azithromycin in the treatment of enteric fever has previously been undertaken, but the use of cephalosporins has not been systematically investigated and the optimal choice of drug and duration of treatment are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of cephalosporins for treating enteric fever in children and adults compared to other antimicrobials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 24 November 2021. We also searched reference lists of included trials, contacted researchers working in the field, and contacted relevant organizations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and children with enteric fever that compared a cephalosporin to another antimicrobial, a different cephalosporin, or a different treatment duration of the intervention cephalosporin. Enteric fever was diagnosed on the basis of blood culture, bone marrow culture, or molecular tests.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse. Our secondary outcomes were time to defervescence, duration of hospital admission, convalescent faecal carriage, and adverse effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 RCTs with 2231 total participants published between 1986 and 2016 across Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the Caribbean, with comparisons between cephalosporins and other antimicrobials used for the treatment of enteric fever in children and adults. The main comparisons are between antimicrobials in most common clinical use, namely cephalosporins compared to a fluoroquinolone and cephalosporins compared to azithromycin. Cephalosporin (cefixime) versus fluoroquinolones Clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse may be increased in patients treated with cefixime compared to fluoroquinolones in three small trials published over 14 years ago: clinical failure (risk ratio (RR) 13.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.24 to 55.39; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 4.07, 95% CI 0.46 to 36.41; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 4.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 17.84; 2 trials, 220 participants; low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with cefixime may be longer compared to participants treated with fluoroquinolones (mean difference (MD) 1.74 days, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.98, 3 trials, 425 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus azithromycin Ceftriaxone may result in a decrease in clinical failure compared to azithromycin, and it is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on microbiological failure compared to azithromycin in two small trials published over 18 years ago and in one more recent trial, all conducted in participants under 18 years of age: clinical failure (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.57; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.64, 3 trials, 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone increases or decreases relapse compared to azithromycin (RR 10.05, 95% CI 1.93 to 52.38; 3 trials, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with ceftriaxone may be shorter compared to participants treated with azithromycin (mean difference of -0.52 days, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.12; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus fluoroquinolones It is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on clinical failure, microbiological failure, relapse, and time to defervescence compared to fluoroquinolones in three trials published over 28 years ago and two more recent trials: clinical failure (RR 3.77, 95% CI 0.72 to 19.81; 4 trials, 359 participants; very low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 6.83; 3 trials, 316 participants; very low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.92; 3 trials, 297 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and time to defervescence (MD 2.73 days, 95% CI -0.37 to 5.84; 3 trials, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone decreases convalescent faecal carriage compared to the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.72; 1 trial, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and length of hospital stay may be longer in participants treated with ceftriaxone compared to participants treated with the fluoroquinolone ofloxacin (mean of 12 days (range 7 to 23 days) in the ceftriaxone group compared to a mean of 9 days (range 6 to 13 days) in the ofloxacin group; 1 trial, 47 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on very low- to low-certainty evidence, ceftriaxone is an effective treatment for adults and children with enteric fever, with few adverse effects. Trials suggest that there may be no difference in the performance of ceftriaxone compared with azithromycin, fluoroquinolones, or chloramphenicol. Cefixime can also be used for treatment of enteric fever but may not perform as well as fluoroquinolones. We are unable to draw firm general conclusions on comparative contemporary effectiveness given that most trials were small and conducted over 20 years previously. Clinicians need to take into account current, local resistance patterns in addition to route of administration when choosing an antimicrobial.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Paratyphoid Fever; Typhoid Fever; Cephalosporins; Azithromycin; Ceftriaxone; Cefixime; Fluoroquinolones; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chloramphenicol; Anti-Infective Agents; Monobactams; Ciprofloxacin; Ofloxacin; Recurrence; Pakistan
PubMed: 36420914
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010452.pub2 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Apr 2019Efforts to quantify the global burden of enteric fever are valuable for understanding the health lost and the large-scale spatial distribution of the disease. We present... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Efforts to quantify the global burden of enteric fever are valuable for understanding the health lost and the large-scale spatial distribution of the disease. We present the estimates of typhoid and paratyphoid fever burden from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017, and the approach taken to produce them.
METHODS
For this systematic analysis we broke down the relative contributions of typhoid and paratyphoid fevers by country, year, and age, and analysed trends in incidence and mortality. We modelled the combined incidence of typhoid and paratyphoid fevers and split these total cases proportionally between typhoid and paratyphoid fevers using aetiological proportion models. We estimated deaths using vital registration data for countries with sufficiently high data completeness and using a natural history approach for other locations. We also estimated disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for typhoid and paratyphoid fevers.
FINDINGS
Globally, 14·3 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 12·5-16·3) cases of typhoid and paratyphoid fevers occurred in 2017, a 44·6% (42·2-47·0) decline from 25·9 million (22·0-29·9) in 1990. Age-standardised incidence rates declined by 54·9% (53·4-56·5), from 439·2 (376·7-507·7) per 100 000 person-years in 1990, to 197·8 (172·0-226·2) per 100 000 person-years in 2017. In 2017, Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi caused 76·3% (71·8-80·5) of cases of enteric fever. We estimated a global case fatality of 0·95% (0·54-1·53) in 2017, with higher case fatality estimates among children and older adults, and among those living in lower-income countries. We therefore estimated 135·9 thousand (76·9-218·9) deaths from typhoid and paratyphoid fever globally in 2017, a 41·0% (33·6-48·3) decline from 230·5 thousand (131·2-372·6) in 1990. Overall, typhoid and paratyphoid fevers were responsible for 9·8 million (5·6-15·8) DALYs in 2017, down 43·0% (35·5-50·6) from 17·2 million (9·9-27·8) DALYs in 1990.
INTERPRETATION
Despite notable progress, typhoid and paratyphoid fevers remain major causes of disability and death, with billions of people likely to be exposed to the pathogens. Although improvements in water and sanitation remain essential, increased vaccine use (including with typhoid conjugate vaccines that are effective in infants and young children and protective for longer periods) and improved data and surveillance to inform vaccine rollout are likely to drive the greatest improvements in the global burden of the disease.
FUNDING
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cause of Death; Child; Child, Preschool; Disabled Persons; Female; Global Burden of Disease; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Life Expectancy; Male; Mass Vaccination; Middle Aged; Paratyphoid Fever; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Risk Factors; Salmonella enterica; Sanitation; Typhoid Fever; Typhoid-Paratyphoid Vaccines; Young Adult
PubMed: 30792131
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30685-6 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Apr 2016Typhoid is an important public health challenge for India, especially with the spread of antimicrobial resistance. The decision about whether to introduce a public... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Typhoid is an important public health challenge for India, especially with the spread of antimicrobial resistance. The decision about whether to introduce a public vaccination programme needs to be based on an understanding of disease burden and the age-groups and geographic areas at risk.
METHODS
We searched Medline and Web of Science databases for studies reporting the incidence or prevalence of typhoid and paratyphoid fever confirmed by culture and/or serology, conducted in India and published between 1950 and 2015. We used binomial and Poisson mixed-effects meta-regression models to estimate prevalence and incidence from hospital and community studies, and to identify risk-factors.
RESULTS
We identified 791 titles and abstracts, and included 37 studies of typhoid and 18 studies of paratyphoid in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The estimated prevalence of laboratory-confirmed typhoid and paratyphoid among individuals with fever across all hospital studies was 9.7% (95% CI: 5.7-16.0%) and 0.9% (0.5-1.7%) respectively. There was significant heterogeneity among studies (p-values<0.001). Typhoid was more likely to be detected among clinically suspected cases or during outbreaks and showed a significant decline in prevalence over time (odds ratio for each yearly increase in study date was 0.96 (0.92-0.99) in the multivariate meta-regression model). Paratyphoid did not show any trend over time and there was no clear association with risk-factors. Incidence of typhoid and paratyphoid was reported in 3 and 2 community cohort studies respectively (in Kolkata and Delhi, or Kolkata alone). Pooled estimates of incidence were 377 (178-801) and 105 (74-148) per 100,000 person years respectively, with significant heterogeneity between locations for typhoid (p<0.001). Children 2-4 years old had the highest incidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Typhoid remains a significant burden in India, particularly among young children, despite apparent declines in prevalence. Infant immunisation with newly-licensed conjugate vaccines could address this challenge.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Age Factors; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Child, Preschool; Cohort Studies; Humans; Incidence; India; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Middle Aged; Paratyphoid Fever; Prevalence; Topography, Medical; Typhoid Fever; Young Adult
PubMed: 27082958
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004616 -
Scientific Reports May 2018Typhoid and paratyphoid fever may follow a seasonal pattern, but this pattern is not well characterized. Moreover, the environmental drivers that influence seasonal...
Typhoid and paratyphoid fever may follow a seasonal pattern, but this pattern is not well characterized. Moreover, the environmental drivers that influence seasonal dynamics are not fully understood, although increasing evidence suggests that rainfall and temperature may play an important role. We compiled a database of typhoid, paratyphoid, or enteric fever and their potential environmental drivers. We assessed the seasonal dynamics by region and latitude, quantifying the mean timing of peak prevalence and seasonal variability. Moreover, we investigated the potential drivers of the seasonal dynamics and compared the seasonal dynamics for typhoid and paratyphoid fever. We observed a distinct seasonal pattern for enteric and typhoid fever by latitude, with seasonal variability more pronounced further from the equator. We also found evidence of a positive association between preceding rainfall and enteric fever among settings 35°-11°N and a more consistent positive association between temperature and enteric fever incidence across most regions of the world. In conclusion, we identified varying seasonal dynamics for enteric or typhoid fever in association with environmental factors. The underlying mechanisms that drive the seasonality of enteric fever are likely dependent on the local context and should be taken into account in future control efforts.
Topics: Humans; Paratyphoid Fever; Seasons; Typhoid Fever
PubMed: 29720736
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-25234-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Differentiating both typhoid (Salmonella Typhi) and paratyphoid (Salmonella Paratyphi A) infection from other causes of fever in endemic areas is a diagnostic challenge.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Differentiating both typhoid (Salmonella Typhi) and paratyphoid (Salmonella Paratyphi A) infection from other causes of fever in endemic areas is a diagnostic challenge. Although commercial point-of-care rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for enteric fever are available as alternatives to the current reference standard test of blood or bone marrow culture, or to the widely used Widal Test, their diagnostic accuracy is unclear. If accurate, they could potentially replace blood culture as the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended main diagnostic test for enteric fever.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of commercially available rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and prototypes for detecting Salmonella Typhi or Paratyphi A infection in symptomatic persons living in endemic areas.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, IndMED, African Index Medicus, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 4 March 2016. We manually searched WHO reports, and papers from international conferences on Salmonella infections. We also contacted test manufacturers to identify studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included diagnostic accuracy studies of enteric fever RDTs in patients with fever or with symptoms suggestive of enteric fever living in endemic areas. We classified the reference standard used as either Grade 1 (result from a blood culture and a bone marrow culture) or Grade 2 (result from blood culture and blood polymerase chain reaction, or from blood culture alone).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted the test result data. We used a modified QUADAS-2 extraction form to assess methodological quality. We performed a meta-analysis when there were sufficient studies for the test and heterogeneity was reasonable.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria and included a total of 5080 participants (range 50 to 1732). Enteric fever prevalence rates in the study populations ranged from 1% to 75% (median prevalence 24%, interquartile range (IQR) 11% to 46%). The included studies evaluated 16 different RDTs, and 16 studies compared two or more different RDTs. Only three studies used the Grade 1 reference standard, and only 11 studies recruited unselected febrile patients. Most included studies were from Asia, with five studies from sub-Saharan Africa. All of the RDTs were designed to detect S.Typhi infection only.Most studies evaluated three RDTs and their variants: TUBEX in 14 studies; Typhidot (Typhidot, Typhidot-M, and TyphiRapid-Tr02) in 22 studies; and the Test-It Typhoid immunochromatographic lateral flow assay, and its earlier prototypes (dipstick, latex agglutination) developed by the Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam (KIT) in nine studies. Meta-analyses showed an average sensitivity of 78% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71% to 85%) and specificity of 87% (95% CI 82% to 91%) for TUBEX; and an average sensitivity of 69% (95% CI 59% to 78%) and specificity of 90% (95% CI 78% to 93%) for all Test-It Typhoid and prototype tests (KIT). Across all forms of the Typhidot test, the average sensitivity was 84% (95% CI 73% to 91%) and specificity was 79% (95% CI 70% to 87%). When we based the analysis on the 13 studies of the Typhidot test that either reported indeterminate test results or where the test format means there are no indeterminate results, the average sensitivity was 78% (95% CI 65% to 87%) and specificity was 77% (95% CI 66% to 86%). We did not identify any difference in either sensitivity or specificity between TUBEX, Typhidot, and Test-it Typhoid tests when based on comparison to the 13 Typhidot studies where indeterminate results are either reported or not applicable. If TUBEX and Test-it Typhoid are compared to all Typhidot studies, the sensitivity of Typhidot was higher than Test-it Typhoid (15% (95% CI 2% to 28%), but other comparisons did not show a difference at the 95% level of CIs.In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients presenting with fever where 30% (300 patients) have enteric fever, on average Typhidot tests reporting indeterminate results or where tests do not produce indeterminate results will miss the diagnosis in 66 patients with enteric fever, TUBEX will miss 66, and Test-It Typhoid and prototype (KIT) tests will miss 93. In the 700 people without enteric fever, the number of people incorrectly diagnosed with enteric fever would be 161 with Typhidot tests, 91 with TUBEX, and 70 with Test-It Typhoid and prototype (KIT) tests. The CIs around these estimates were wide, with no difference in false positive results shown between tests.The quality of the data for each study was evaluated using a standardized checklist called QUADAS-2. Overall, the certainty of the evidence in the studies that evaluated enteric fever RDTs was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In 37 studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs for enteric fever, few studies were at a low risk of bias. The three main RDT tests and variants had moderate diagnostic accuracy. There was no evidence of a difference between the average sensitivity and specificity of the three main RDT tests. More robust evaluations of alternative RDTs for enteric fever are needed.
Topics: Adult; Child; False Negative Reactions; False Positive Reactions; Humans; Immunoassay; Paratyphoid Fever; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Reagent Kits, Diagnostic; Reference Standards; Sensitivity and Specificity; Typhoid Fever
PubMed: 28545155
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008892.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2011Typhoid and paratyphoid are febrile illnesses, due to a bacterial infection, which remain common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Typhoid and paratyphoid are febrile illnesses, due to a bacterial infection, which remain common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends the fluoroquinolone antibiotics in areas with known resistance to the older first-line antibiotics.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate fluoroquinolone antibiotics for treating children and adults with enteric fever.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched The Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register (February 2011); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to February 2011); EMBASE (1974 to February 2011); and LILACS (1982 to February 2011). We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) in February 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials examining fluoroquinolone antibiotics, in people with blood, stool or bone marrow culture-confirmed enteric fever.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the trial's methodological quality and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Comparative effectiveness has been interpreted in the context of; length of treatment, dose, year of study, known levels of antibiotic resistance, or proxy measures of resistance such as the failure rate in the comparator arm.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-six studies, involving 3033 patients, are included in this review.Fluoroquinolones versus older antibiotics (chloramphenicol, co-trimoxazole, amoxicillin and ampicillin)In one study from Pakistan in 2003-04, high clinical failure rates were seen with both chloramphenicol and co-trimoxazole, although resistance was not confirmed microbiologically. A seven-day course of either ciprofloxacin or ofloxacin were found to be superior. Older studies of these comparisons failed to show a difference (six trials, 361 participants).In small studies conducted almost two decades ago, the fluoroquinolones were demonstrated to have fewer clinical failures than ampicillin and amoxicillin (two trials, 90 participants, RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.57).Fluoroquinolones versus current second-line options (ceftriaxone, cefalexin, and azithromycin)The two studies comparing a seven day course of oral fluoroquinolones with three days of intravenous ceftriaxone were too small to detect important differences between antibiotics should they exist (two trials, 89 participants).In Pakistan in 2003-04, no clinical or microbiological failures were seen with seven days of either ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin or cefixime (one trial, 139 participants). In Nepal in 2005, gatifloxacin reduced clinical failure and relapse compared to cefixime, despite a high prevalence of NaR in the study population (one trial, 158 participants, RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.31).Compared to a seven day course of azithromycin, a seven day course of ofloxacin had a higher rate of clinical failures in populations with both multi-drug resistance (MDR) and nalidixic acid resistance (NaR) enteric fever in Vietnam in 1998-2002 (two trials, 213 participants, RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.94). However, a more recent study from Vietnam in 2004-05, detected no difference between gatifloxacin and azithromycin with both drugs performing well (one trial, 287 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Generally, fluoroquinolones performed well in treating typhoid, and maybe superior to alternatives in some settings. However, we were unable to draw firm general conclusions on comparative contemporary effectiveness given that resistance changes over time, and many studies were small. Policy makers and clinicians need to consider local resistance patterns in choosing a fluoroquinolone or alternative.There is some evidence that the newest fluoroquinolone, gatifloxacin, remains effective in some regions where resistance to older fluoroquinolones has developed. However, the different fluoroquinolones have not been compared directly in trials in these settings.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Norfloxacin; Paratyphoid Fever; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Typhoid Fever
PubMed: 21975746
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004530.pub4 -
Journal of Global Health Jun 2012Typhoid and paratyphoid fever remain important causes of morbidity worldwide. Accurate disease burden estimates are needed to guide policy decisions and prevention and...
BACKGROUND
Typhoid and paratyphoid fever remain important causes of morbidity worldwide. Accurate disease burden estimates are needed to guide policy decisions and prevention and control strategies.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature review of the PubMed and Scopus databases using pre-defined criteria to identify population-based studies with typhoid fever incidence data published between 1980 and 2009. We also abstracted data from annual reports of notifiable diseases in countries with advanced surveillance systems. Typhoid and paratyphoid fever input data were grouped into regions and regional incidence and mortality rates were estimated. Incidence data were extrapolated across regions for those lacking data. Age-specific incidence rates were derived for regions where age-specific data were available. Crude and adjusted estimates of the global typhoid fever burden were calculated.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies were identified, all of which contained incidence data on typhoid fever and 12 on paratyphoid fever. Five advanced surveillance systems contributed data on typhoid fever; 2 on paratyphoid fever. Regional typhoid fever incidence rates ranged from <0.1/100 000 cases/y in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia to 724.6/100 000 cases/y in Sub-Saharan Africa. Regional paratyphoid incidence rates ranged from 0.8/100 000 cases/y in North Africa/Middle East to 77.4/100 000 cases/y in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The estimated total number of typhoid fever episodes in 2010 was 13.5 million (interquartile range 9.1-17.8 million). The adjusted estimate accounting for the low sensitivity of blood cultures for isolation of the bacteria was 26.9 million (interquartile range 18.3-35.7 million) episodes. These findings are comparable to the most recent analysis of global typhoid fever morbidity, which reported crude and adjusted estimates of 10.8 million and 21.7 million typhoid fever episodes globally in 2000.
CONCLUSION
Typhoid fever remains a significant health burden, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Despite the availability of more recent data on both enteric fevers, additional research is needed in many regions, particularly Africa, Latin America and other developing countries.
PubMed: 23198130
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.02.010401 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Mar 2019Contemporary incidence estimates of typhoid fever are needed to guide policy decisions and control measures and to improve future epidemiological studies. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Contemporary incidence estimates of typhoid fever are needed to guide policy decisions and control measures and to improve future epidemiological studies.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed 3 databases (Ovid Medline, PubMed, and Scopus) without restriction on age, country, language, or time for studies reporting the incidence of blood culture-confirmed typhoid fever. Outbreak, travel-associated, and passive government surveillance reports were excluded. We performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model to calculate estimates of pooled incidence, stratifying by studies that reported the incidence of typhoid fever and those that estimated incidence by using multipliers.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies were included in the analysis. There were 26 study sites from 16 countries reporting typhoid cases from population-based incidence studies, and 17 sites in 9 countries used multipliers to account for underascertainment in sentinel surveillance data. We identified Africa and Asia as regions with studies showing high typhoid incidence while noting considerable variation of typhoid incidence in time and place, including in consecutive years at the same location. Overall, more recent studies reported lower typhoid incidence compared to years prior to 2000. We identified variation in the criteria for collecting a blood culture, and among multiplier studies we identified a lack of a standardization for the types of multipliers being used to estimate incidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Typhoid fever incidence remains high at many sites. Additional and more accurate typhoid incidence studies are needed to support country decisions about typhoid conjugate vaccine adoption. Standardization of multiplier types applied in multiplier studies is recommended.
Topics: Africa; Asia; Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Salmonella typhi; Travel; Typhoid Fever; Typhoid-Paratyphoid Vaccines
PubMed: 30845336
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciy1094 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2011Review status: Current question - no update intended. Azithromycin treatments are included in the review: Fluoroquinolones for treating typhoid and paratyphoid fever... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Review status: Current question - no update intended. Azithromycin treatments are included in the review: Fluoroquinolones for treating typhoid and paratyphoid fever (enteric fever). (Thaver D, Zaidi AKM, Critchley JA, Azmatullah A, Madni SA, Bhutta ZA. Fluoroquinolones for treating typhoid and paratyphoid fever (enteric fever). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD004530. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004530.pub3.) This latter review is being updated, and will be published in late 2011.Enteric fever (typhoid and paratyphoid fever) is potentially fatal. Infection with drug-resistant strains of the causative organism Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi or Paratyphi increases morbidity and mortality. Azithromycin may have better outcomes in people with uncomplicated forms of the disease.
OBJECTIVES
To compare azithromycin with other antibiotics for treating uncomplicated enteric fever.
SEARCH STRATEGY
In August 2008, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and mRCT. We also searched conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted researchers and a pharmaceutical company.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing azithromycin with other antibiotics for treating children and adults with uncomplicated enteric fever confirmed by cultures of S. Typhi or Paratyphi in blood and/or stool.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Both authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Dichotomous data were presented and compared using the odds ratio, and continuous data were reported as arithmetic means with standard deviations and were combined using the mean difference (MD). Both were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Seven trials involving 773 participants met the inclusion criteria. The trials used adequate methods to generate the allocation sequence and conceal allocation, and were open label. Three trials exclusively included adults, two included children, and two included both adults and children; all were hospital inpatients. One trial evaluated azithromycin against chloramphenicol and did not demonstrate a difference for any outcome (77 participants, 1 trial). When compared with fluoroquinolones in four trials, azithromycin significantly reduced clinical failure (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.89; 564 participants, 4 trials) and duration of hospital stay (MD -1.04 days, 95% CI -1.73 to -0.34 days; 213 participants, 2 trials); all four trials included people with multiple-drug-resistant or nalidixic acid-resistant strains of S. Typhi or S. Paratyphi. We detected no statistically significant difference in the other outcomes. Compared with ceftriaxone, azithromycin significantly reduced relapse (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.70; 132 participants, 2 trials) and not other outcome measures. Few adverse events were reported, and most were mild and self limiting.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Azithromycin appears better than fluoroquinolone drugs in populations that included participants with drug-resistant strains. Azithromycin may perform better than ceftriaxone.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Child; Humans; Paratyphoid Fever; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Typhoid Fever
PubMed: 21975751
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006083.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2008Fluoroquinolones are recommended as first-line therapy for typhoid and paratyphoid fever (enteric fever), but how they compare with other antibiotics and different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fluoroquinolones are recommended as first-line therapy for typhoid and paratyphoid fever (enteric fever), but how they compare with other antibiotics and different fluoroquinolones is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate fluoroquinolone antibiotics for treating enteric fever in children and adults compared with other antibiotics, different fluoroquinolones, and different durations of fluoroquinolone treatment.
SEARCH STRATEGY
In November 2007, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, mRCT, conference proceedings, and reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials of fluoroquinolones in people with blood or bone marrow culture-confirmed enteric fever.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the trials' methodological quality and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed trials with greater than 60% children separately from trials of mostly adults.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 38 included trials, 22 had unclear allocation concealment and 34 did not use blinding. Four trials included exclusively children, seven had both adults and children, and three studied outpatients.
ADULTS
Among primary outcomes (clinical failure, microbiological failure, and relapse), compared with chloramphenicol, fluoroquinolones were not statistically significantly different for clinical failure (594 participants) or microbiological failure (378 participants), but they reduced clinical relapse (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.50; 467 participants, 6 trials). We detected no statistically significant difference versus co-trimoxazole (82 participants, 2 trials) or azithromycin (152 participants, 2 trials). Fluoroquinolones reduced clinical failure compared with ceftriaxone (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.45; 120 participants, 3 trials), but not microbiological failure or relapse. Versus cefixime, fluoroquinolones reduced clinical failure (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.24; 238 participants; 2 trials) and relapse (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.91; 218 participants, 2 trials).
CHILDREN
In children with high proportions of nalidixic acid-resistant strains, older fluoroquinolones increased clinical failures compared with azithromycin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.16 to 6.11; 125 participants, 1 trial), with no differences using newer fluoroquinolones (285 participants, 1 trial). Fluoroquinolones and cefixime were not statistically significantly different (82 participants, 1 trial). Trials comparing different durations of fluoroquinolone treatment were not statistically significantly different (889 participants, 9 trials). Norfloxacin had more clinical failures than other fluoroquinolones (417 participants, 5 trials).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Trials were small and methodological quality varied. In adults, fluoroquinolones may be better for reducing clinical relapse rates compared to chloramphenicol. Data are limited for other comparisons, particularly in children.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Norfloxacin; Paratyphoid Fever; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Typhoid Fever
PubMed: 18843659
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004530.pub3