Azithromycin and cefixime combination versus azithromycin alone for the out-patient treatment of clinically suspected or confirmed uncomplicated typhoid fever in South Asia: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

Background: Typhoid and paratyphoid fever (enteric fever) is a common cause of non-specific febrile infection in adults and children presenting to health care facilities in low resource settings such as the South Asia.  A 7-day course of a single oral antimicrobial such as ciprofloxacin, cefixime or azithromycin is commonly used for its treatment. Increasing antimicrobial resistance threatens the effectiveness of these treatment choices. We hypothesize that combined treatment with azithromycin (active mainly intracellularly) and cefixime (active mainly extracellularly) will be a better option for the treatment of typhoid fever in South Asia. Methods: This is a phase IV, international multi-centre, multi-country, comparative participant-and observer-blind, 1:1 randomised clinical trial. Patients with suspected uncomplicated typhoid fever will be randomised to one of the two interventions: Arm A: azithromycin 20mg/kg/day oral dose once daily (maximum 1gm/day) and cefixime 20mg/kg/day oral dose in two divided doses (maximum 400mg bd) for 7 days, Arm B: azithromycin 20mg/kg/day oral dose once daily (max 1gm/day) for 7 days AND cefixime-matched placebo for 7 days. We will recruit 1500 patients across sites in Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan. We will assess whether treatment outcomes are better with the combination after one week of treatment and at one- and three-months follow-up. Discussion: Combined treatment may limit the emergence of resistance if one of the components is active against resistant sub-populations not covered by the other antimicrobial's activity. If the combined treatment is better than the single antimicrobial treatment, this will be an important result for patients across South Asia and other typhoid endemic areas. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT04349826 (16/04/2020).

Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole Versus Azithromycin for the Treatment of Undifferentiated Febrile Illness in Nepal: A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Azithromycin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT) are widely used to treat undifferentiated febrile illness (UFI). We hypothesized that azithromycin is superior to SXT for UFI treatment, but the drugs are noninferior to each other for culture-confirmed enteric fever treatment. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin (20 mg/kg/day) or SXT (trimethoprim 10 mg/kg/day plus sulfamethoxazole 50 mg/kg/day) orally for 7 days for UFI treatment in Nepal. We enrolled patients >2 years and <65 years of age presenting to 2 Kathmandu hospitals with temperature ≥38.0°C for ≥4 days without localizing signs. The primary endpoint was fever clearance time (FCT); secondary endpoints were treatment failure and adverse events. RESULTS: From June 2016 to May 2019, we randomized 326 participants (163 in each arm); 87 (26.7%) had blood culture-confirmed enteric fever. In all participants, the median FCT was 2.7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-3.3 days) in the SXT arm and 2.1 days (95% CI, 1.6-3.2 days) in the azithromycin arm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25 [95% CI, .99-1.58]; P = .059). The HR of treatment failures by 28 days between azithromycin and SXT was 0.62 (95% CI, .37-1.05; P = .073). Planned subgroup analysis showed that azithromycin resulted in faster FCT in those with sterile blood cultures and fewer relapses in culture-confirmed enteric fever. Nausea, vomiting, constipation, and headache were more common in the SXT arm. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar FCT and treatment failure in the 2 arms, significantly fewer complications and relapses make azithromycin a better choice for empirical treatment of UFI in Nepal. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02773407.

Gatifloxacin versus ceftriaxone for uncomplicated enteric fever in Nepal: an open-label, two-centre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Because treatment with third-generation cephalosporins is associated with slow clinical improvement and high relapse burden for enteric fever, whereas the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin is associated with rapid fever clearance and low relapse burden, we postulated that gatifloxacin would be superior to the cephalosporin ceftriaxone in treating enteric fever. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, controlled, superiority trial at two hospitals in the Kathmandu valley, Nepal. Eligible participants were children (aged 2-13 years) and adult (aged 14-45 years) with criteria for suspected enteric fever (body temperature ≥38·0°C for ≥4 days without a focus of infection). We randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) without stratification to 7 days of either oral gatifloxacin (10 mg/kg per day) or intravenous ceftriaxone (60 mg/kg up to 2 g per day for patients aged 2-13 years, or 2 g per day for patients aged ≥14 years). The randomisation list was computer-generated using blocks of four and six. The primary outcome was a composite of treatment failure, defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following: fever clearance time of more than 7 days after treatment initiation; the need for rescue treatment on day 8; microbiological failure (ie, blood cultures positive for Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi, or Paratyphi A, B, or C) on day 8; or relapse or disease-related complications within 28 days of treatment initiation. We did the analyses in the modified intention-to-treat population, and subpopulations with either confirmed blood-culture positivity, or blood-culture negativity. The trial was powered to detect an increase of 20% in the risk of failure. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01421693, and is now closed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2011, and July 14, 2014, we screened 725 patients for eligibility. On July 14, 2014, the trial was stopped early by the data safety and monitoring board because S Typhi strains with high-level resistance to ciprofloxacin and gatifloxacin had emerged. At this point, 239 were in the modified intention-to-treat population (120 assigned to gatifloxacin, 119 to ceftriaxone). 18 (15%) patients who received gatifloxacin had treatment failure, compared with 19 (16%) who received ceftriaxone (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·55-1·98]; p=0·91). In the culture-confirmed population, 16 (26%) of 62 patients who received gatifloxacin failed treatment, compared with four (7%) of 54 who received ceftriaxone (HR 0·24 [95% CI 0·08-0·73]; p=0·01). Treatment failure was associated with the emergence of S Typhi exhibiting resistance against fluoroquinolones, requiring the trial to be stopped. By contrast, in patients with a negative blood culture, only two (3%) of 58 who received gatifloxacin failed treatment versus 15 (23%) of 65 who received ceftriaxone (HR 7·50 [95% CI 1·71-32·80]; p=0·01). A similar number of non-serious adverse events occurred in each treatment group, and no serious events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that fluoroquinolones should no longer be used for treatment of enteric fever in Nepal. Additionally, under our study conditions, ceftriaxone was suboptimum in a high proportion of patients with culture-negative enteric fever. Since antimicrobials, specifically fluoroquinolones, are one of the only routinely used control measures for enteric fever, the assessment of novel diagnostics, new treatment options, and use of existing vaccines and development of next-generation vaccines are now a high priority. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust and Li Ka Shing Foundation.