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.

Oral fosfomycin for treatment of urinary tract infection: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Fosfomycin is increasingly called upon for the treatment of multi drug-resistant (MDR) organisms causing urinary tract infection (UTI). We reviewed oral fosfomycin use for UTI treatment in a large UK hospital. The primary goal was to audit our clinical practice against current national guidelines. Secondary aims were to identify factors associated with treatment failure, and to investigate the potential for using fosfomycin in patients with co-morbidities. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 75 adult patients with UTI who received 151 episodes of treatment with fosfomycin from March 2013 to June 2015. We collected clinical data from our electronic patient record, and microbiology data pre- and post- fosfomycin treatment. We recorded additional data for patients receiving prolonged courses in order to make a preliminary assessment of safety and efficacy. We also reviewed >18,000 urinary tract isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. processed by our laboratory over the final year of our study period to determine the prevalence of fosfomycin resistance. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in fosfomycin treatment episodes over the course of the study period. Co-morbidities were present in 71 % of patients. The majority had E. coli infection (69 %), of which 59 % were extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producers. Klebsiella infections were more likely than E. coli to fail treatment, and more likely to be reported as fosfomycin resistant in cases of relapse following treatment. There were no adverse events in five patients treated with prolonged fosfomycin. Among all urinary isolates collected over a year, fosfomycin resistance was documented in 1 % of E. coli vs. 19 % of Klebsiella spp. (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We report an important role for oral fosfomycin for MDR UTI treatment in a UK hospital population, and based on the findings from this study, we present our own local guidelines for its use. We present preliminary data suggesting that fosfomycin is safe and effective for use in patients with complex comorbidities and over prolonged time periods, but may be less effective against Klebsiella than E. coli.

Antimicrobial susceptibility of uropathogens isolated from Cambodian children.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial resistance to commonly used antimicrobials is an increasing problem in Asia but information concerning the antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria causing urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children is limited. METHODS: This was a 5-year retrospective study of children with suspected UTI attending a paediatric hospital in north-west Cambodia. Urines with a positive culture containing a single organism with a count of >10(5) colony-forming units (CFU)/ml were considered diagnostic of infection. The organism was identified and the resistance pattern (using CLSI guidelines) and presence of an extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL) phenotype was determined. RESULTS: In total, there were 217 episodes of infection, 210 (97%) with Gram-negative bacteria. Escherichia coli was the most common infecting isolate with high levels of resistance to most oral antibiotics, except nitrofurantoin. Nearly half of the E. coli (44%) were extended-spectrum cephalosporin (ESC)-resistant with the proportion increasing significantly over the 5-year period. ESC-resistant E. coli were more likely to be multi-drug-resistant and 91% demonstrated an ESBL phenotype. CONCLUSION: The data highlight the importance of microbiological surveillance of UTIs in children, particularly in areas where there are known to be multiply resistant organisms.