-
The Lancet. Global Health Apr 2024Typhoid is a serious public health threat in many low-income and middle-income countries. Several vaccines for typhoid have been recommended by WHO for typhoid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Typhoid is a serious public health threat in many low-income and middle-income countries. Several vaccines for typhoid have been recommended by WHO for typhoid prevention in endemic countries. This study aimed to review the efficacy of typhoid vaccines against culture-confirmed Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for studies published in English between Jan 1, 1986 and Nov 2, 2023. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing typhoid vaccines with a placebo or another vaccine. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of several typhoid vaccines, including live attenuated oral Ty21a vaccine, Vi capsular polysaccharide (Vi-PS), Vi polysaccharide conjugated to recombinant Pseudomonas aeruginosa exotoxin A vaccine (Vi-rEPA), and Vi-tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine (TCV). The certainty of evidence for key outcomes was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. The outcome of interest was typhoid fever confirmed by the isolation of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi in blood and adverse events following immunisation. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021241043).
FINDINGS
We included 14 RCTs assessing four different vaccines (Ty21a: four trials; Vi-PS: five trials; Vi-rEPA: one trial; TCV: four trials) involving 585 253 participants. All trials were conducted in typhoid endemic countries and the age of participants ranged from 6 months to 50 years. The pooled efficacy against typhoid fever was 45% (95% CI 33-55%; four trials; 247 649 participants; I 59%; moderate certainty) for Ty21a and 58% (44-69%; five trials; 214 456 participants; I 34%; moderate certainty) for polysaccharide Vi-PS. The cumulative efficacy of two doses of Vi-rEPA vaccine at 2 years was 91% (88-96%; one trial; 12 008 participants; moderate certainty). The pooled efficacy of a single shot of TCV at 2 years post-immunisation was 83% (77-87%; four trials; 111 130 participants; I 0%; moderate certainty). All vaccines were safe, with no serious adverse effects reported in the trials.
INTERPRETATION
The existing data from included trials provide promising results regarding the efficacy and safety of the four recommended typhoid vaccines. TCV and Vi-rEPA were found to have the highest efficacy at 2 years post-immunisation. However, follow-up data for Vi-rEPA are scarce and only TCV is pre-qualified by WHO. Therefore, roll-out of TCV into routine immunisation programmes in typhoid endemic settings is highly recommended.
FUNDING
There was no funding source for this study.
Topics: Humans; Infant; Salmonella typhi; Typhoid Fever; Typhoid-Paratyphoid Vaccines; Pseudomonas aeruginosa Exotoxin A; Vaccines, Attenuated; Vaccines, Conjugate; Tetanus Toxoid; Polysaccharides
PubMed: 38485426
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00606-X -
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 -
Environmental Science and Pollution... Dec 2021Infectious diarrhea (ID) is an intestinal infectious disease including cholera, typhoid and paratyphoid fever, bacterial and amebic dysentery, and other infectious... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Infectious diarrhea (ID) is an intestinal infectious disease including cholera, typhoid and paratyphoid fever, bacterial and amebic dysentery, and other infectious diarrhea. There are many studies that have explored the relationship between ambient temperature and the spread of infectious diarrhea, but the results are inconsistent. It is necessary to systematically evaluate the impact of temperature on the incidence of ID. This study was based on the PRISMA statement to report this systematic review. We conducted literature searches from CNKI, VIP databases, CBM, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and other databases. The number registered in PROSPERO is CRD42021225472. After searching a total of 4915 articles in the database and references, 27 studies were included. The number of people involved exceeded 7.07 million. The overall result demonstrated when the temperature rises, the risk of infectious diarrhea increases significantly (RR=1.42, 95%CI: 1.07-1.88, RR=1.08, 95%CI: 1.03-1.14). Subgroup analysis found the effect of temperature on the bacillary dysentery group (RR=1.85, 95%CI: 1.48-2.30) and unclassified diarrhea groups (RR=1.18, 95%CI: 0.59-2.34). The result of the single-day effect subgroup analysis was similar to the result of the cumulative effect. And the sensitivity analysis proved that the results were robust. This systematic review and meta-analysis support that temperature will increase the risk of ID, which is helpful for ID prediction and early warning in the future.
Topics: Cholera; Diarrhea; Humans; Incidence; Temperature; Typhoid Fever
PubMed: 34268683
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-15395-z -
BMC Medicine Jan 2020Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an increasing threat to global health. There are > 14 million cases of enteric fever every year and > 135,000 deaths. The disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an increasing threat to global health. There are > 14 million cases of enteric fever every year and > 135,000 deaths. The disease is primarily controlled by antimicrobial treatment, but this is becoming increasingly difficult due to AMR. Our objectives were to assess the prevalence and geographic distribution of AMR in Salmonella enterica serovars Typhi and Paratyphi A infections globally, to evaluate the extent of the problem, and to facilitate the creation of geospatial maps of AMR prevalence to help targeted public health intervention.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature by searching seven databases for studies published between 1990 and 2018. We recategorised isolates to allow the analysis of fluoroquinolone resistance trends over the study period. The prevalence of multidrug resistance (MDR) and fluoroquinolone non-susceptibility (FQNS) in individual studies was illustrated by forest plots, and a random effects meta-analysis was performed, stratified by Global Burden of Disease (GBD) region and 5-year time period. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistics. We present a descriptive analysis of ceftriaxone and azithromycin resistance.
FINDINGS
We identified 4557 articles, of which 384, comprising 124,347 isolates (94,616 S. Typhi and 29,731 S. Paratyphi A) met the pre-specified inclusion criteria. The majority (276/384; 72%) of studies were from South Asia; 40 (10%) articles were identified from Sub-Saharan Africa. With the exception of MDR S. Typhi in South Asia, which declined between 1990 and 2018, and MDR S. Paratyphi A, which remained at low levels, resistance trends worsened for all antimicrobials in all regions. We identified several data gaps in Africa and the Middle East. Incomplete reporting of antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) and lack of quality assurance were identified.
INTERPRETATION
Drug-resistant enteric fever is widespread in low- and middle-income countries, and the situation is worsening. It is essential that public health and clinical measures, which include improvements in water quality and sanitation, the deployment of S. Typhi vaccination, and an informed choice of treatment are implemented. However, there is no licenced vaccine for S. Paratyphi A. The standardised reporting of AST data and rollout of external quality control assessment are urgently needed to facilitate evidence-based policy and practice.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42018029432.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Global Health; Humans; Paratyphoid Fever; Prevalence; Salmonella paratyphi A; Salmonella typhi; Typhoid Fever
PubMed: 31898501
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1443-1 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Oct 2019Our current understanding of the burden and distribution of typhoid fever in Africa relies on extrapolation of data from a small number of population-based incidence...
BACKGROUND
Our current understanding of the burden and distribution of typhoid fever in Africa relies on extrapolation of data from a small number of population-based incidence rate estimates. However, many other records on the occurrence of typhoid fever are available, and those records contain information that may enrich our understanding of the epidemiology of the disease as well as secular trends in reporting by country and over time.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of typhoid fever occurrence in Africa, published in PubMed, Embase, and ProMED (Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases).
RESULTS
At least one episode of culture-confirmed typhoid fever was reported in 42 of 57 African countries during 1900-2018. The number of reports on typhoid fever has increased over time in Africa and was highly heterogeneous between countries and over time. Outbreaks of typhoid fever were reported in 15 countries, with their frequency and size increasing over time.
CONCLUSIONS
Efforts should be made to leverage existing typhoid data, for example, by incorporating them into models for estimating the burden and distribution of typhoid fever.
Topics: Africa; Cost of Illness; Disease Outbreaks; Humans; Incidence; Paratyphoid Fever; Salmonella typhi; Typhoid Fever
PubMed: 31665777
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz525