Treatment of enteric fever (typhoid and paratyphoid fever) with cephalosporins.

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.

Antimicrobial Resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Treatment of Gonorrhea.

Gonorrhea and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Neisseria gonorrhoeae are major public health concerns globally. Dual antimicrobial therapy (mainly ceftriaxone 250-500 mg × 1 plus azithromycin 1-2 g × 1) is currently recommended in many countries. These dual therapies have high cure rates, have likely been involved in decreasing the level of cephalosporin resistance internationally, and inhibit the spread of AMR gonococcal strains. However, ceftriaxone-resistant strains are currently spreading internationally, predominately associated with travel to Asia. Furthermore, the first global treatment failure with recommended dual therapy was reported in 2016 and the first isolates with combined ceftriaxone resistance and high-level azithromycin resistance were reported in 2018 in the UK and Australia. New antimicrobials for treatment of gonorrhea are essential and, of the few antimicrobials in clinical development, zoliflodacin particularly appears promising. Holistic actions are imperative. These include an enhanced advocacy; prevention, early diagnosis, contact tracing, treatment, test-of-cure, and additional measures for effective management of anogenital and pharyngeal gonorrhea; antimicrobial stewardship; surveillance of infection, AMR and treatment failures; and intensified research, for example, regarding rapid molecular point-of-care detection of gonococci and AMR, novel AMR determinants, new antimicrobials, and an effective gonococcal vaccine, which is the only sustainable solution for management and control of gonorrhea.

Detection in the United Kingdom of the Neisseria gonorrhoeae FC428 clone, with ceftriaxone resistance and intermediate resistance to azithromycin, October to December 2018.

We describe detection in the United Kingdom (UK) of the drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae FC428 clone, with ceftriaxone resistance and intermediate azithromycin resistance. Two female patients developed infection following contact with UK-resident men from the same sexual network linked to travel to Ibiza, Spain. One case failed treatment with ceftriaxone, and azithromycin and gentamicin, before successful treatment with ertapenem. Both isolates had indistinguishable whole-genome sequences. Urgent action is essential to contain this drug-resistant strain.

Genetic relatedness of ceftriaxone-resistant and high-level azithromycin resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae cases, United Kingdom and Australia, February to April 2018.

Between February and April 2018, three ceftriaxone-resistant and high-level azithromycin-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae cases were identified; one in the United Kingdom and two in Australia. Whole genome sequencing was used to show that the isolates from these cases belong to a single gonococcal clone, which we name the A2543 clone.

Gonorrhoea treatment failure caused by a Neisseria gonorrhoeae strain with combined ceftriaxone and high-level azithromycin resistance, England, February 2018.

We describe a gonorrhoea case with combined high-level azithromycin resistance and ceftriaxone resistance. In February 2018, a heterosexual male was diagnosed with gonorrhoea in the United Kingdom following sexual intercourse with a locally resident female in Thailand and failed treatment with ceftriaxone plus doxycycline and subsequently spectinomycin. Resistance arose from two mechanisms combining for the first time in a genetic background similar to a commonly circulating strain. Urgent action is essential to prevent further spread.

Clostridium difficile surveillance: harnessing new technologies to control transmission.

Clostridium difficile surveillance allows outbreaks of cases clustered in time and space to be identified and further transmission prevented. Traditionally, manual detection of groups of cases diagnosed in the same ward or hospital, often followed by retrospective reference laboratory genotyping, has been used to identify outbreaks. However, integrated healthcare databases offer the prospect of automated real-time outbreak detection based on statistically robust methods, and accounting for contacts between cases, including those distant to the ward of diagnosis. Complementary to this, rapid benchtop whole genome sequencing, and other highly discriminatory genotyping, has the potential to distinguish which cases are part of an outbreak with high precision and in clinically relevant timescales. These new technologies are likely to shape future surveillance.