Cefamandole treatment of Salmonella bacteremia

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.

Invasive non-typhoidal Salmonella infections in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review on antimicrobial resistance and treatment

BACKGROUND

Non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS) are a frequent cause of invasive infections in sub-Saharan Africa. They are frequently multidrug resistant (co-resistant to ampicillin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and chloramphenicol), and resistance to third-generation cephalosporin and fluoroquinolone non-susceptibility have been reported. Third-generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones are often used to treat invasive NTS infections, but azithromycin might be an alternative. However, data on antibiotic treatment efficacy in invasive NTS infections are lacking. In this study, we aimed to assess the spatiotemporal distribution of antimicrobial resistance in invasive NTS infections in sub-Saharan Africa and to describe the available evidence and recommendations on antimicrobial treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of all available literature on antimicrobial resistance and treatment in invasive NTS infections. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to assess the temporal distribution of multidrug resistance, third-generation cephalosporin resistance, and fluoroquinolone non-susceptibility. We mapped these data to assess the spatial distribution. We provided a narrative synthesis of the available evidence and recommendations on antimicrobial treatment.

RESULTS

Since 2001, multidrug resistance was observed in 75% of NTS isolates from all sub-Saharan African regions (95% confidence interval, 70-80% and 65-84%). Third-generation cephalosporin resistance emerged in all sub-Saharan African regions and was present in 5% (95% confidence interval, 1-10%) after 2010. Fluoroquinolone non-susceptibility emerged in all sub-Saharan African regions but did not increase over time. Azithromycin resistance was reported in DR Congo. There were no reports on carbapenem resistance. We did not find high-quality evidence on the efficacy of antimicrobial treatment. There were no supranational guidelines. The "Access group" antibiotics ampicillin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and chloramphenicol and "Watch group" antibiotics ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, and ciprofloxacin were recommended as the first-choice antibiotics in national guidelines or reviews. These also recommended (a switch to) oral fluoroquinolones or azithromycin.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to the widespread multidrug resistance in invasive NTS infections in sub-Saharan Africa, resistance to third-generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolone non-susceptibility was present in all regions. There was a lack of data on the efficacy of antimicrobial treatment in these infections, and supranational evidence-based guidelines were absent.

Treatment of experimental endocarditis due to ampicillin-susceptible or ampicillin-resistant Salmonella enteritidis

Using two strains of Salmonella enteritidis, one susceptible and one resistant to ampicillin, we studied the efficacies of ampicillin, gentamicin, ampicillin plus gentamicin, ofloxacin, and cefotaxime for the treatment of experimental salmonella endocarditis. Rabbits were treated for 3 days with dosages of antibiotic selected to achieve concentrations in serum equivalent to those obtained in humans during therapy. Aortic salmonella endocarditis seemed to be very difficult to treat, and all antimicrobial regimens failed to achieve the complete sterilization of cardiac vegetations. In vitro studies did not accurately predict the in vivo response to therapy, and no correlations regarding the synergistic activity of the combination of ampicillin plus gentamicin were observed. For the ampicillin-susceptible S. enteritidis isolate, ampicillin and cefotaxime produced the greatest reduction in the number of organisms in vegetations, with no significant differences between them. For the ampicillin-resistant strain, the combination of ampicillin with gentamicin produced a synergistic effect that was not anticipated by the in vitro studies. Both cefotaxime and ofloxacin were effective in reducing the number of microorganisms in the vegetations, although the reduction produced by cefotaxime was less that that produced against the ampicillin-susceptible strain. Monotherapy with gentamicin exhibited only modest activity against the ampicillin-susceptible S. enteritidis strain.

The emergence of antimicrobial resistant Salmonella typhi in Qatar: epidemiology and therapeutic implications

Multiresistant Salmonella seems to be a growing problem in Qatar and its treatment remains problematic. Of 100 Salmonella bacteraemias that occurred between 1 October 1989 and 30 September 1990, 30 were caused by S. typhi resistant to one or more of the conventional antibiotics usually recommended for the treatment of typhoid fever (ampicillin, chloramphenicol, and trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole). Of those, 25 (83%) were acquired by patients during visits to the Indian subcontinent. Two patients with isolates sensitive to ampicillin were successfully treated with amoxicillin, 6 paediatric patients were cured with cefotaxime, and 20 adult patients responded favourable to ciprofloxacin. A 9 year old boy failed initial therapy with cefuroxime but responded well to ciprofloxacin. One adult patient was treated successfully with a combination of ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime. We conclude that cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin can serve as first line therapy for typhoid fever in areas where multi-resistant Salmonella is prevalent.

Treatment of typhoid fever with cefamandole

Cefamandole therapy was evaluated in nine patients with typhoid fever. Six patients, including all five who received the antibiotic by continuous intravenous drip (8.0 g daily), were cured. Dosage schedules resulting in maintenance of antibiotic concentrations in serum high above the MIC seemed to correlate well with treatment success.

Bactericidal activities of chloramphenicol and eleven other antibiotics against Salmonella spp

The bactericidal activity of chloramphenicol against 27 strains of Salmonella typhi and 33 strains of S. enteritidis was compared with those of 11 other antibiotics. The geometric mean bactericidal concentrations of chloramphenicol against susceptible strains (36.10 and 43.13 micrograms/ml for S. typhi and S. enteritidis, respectively) far exceeded those of the other 11 antibiotics, with cephalothin having the next highest values (2.67 and 8.66 micrograms/ml) and moxalactam (0.09 and 0.28 micrograms/ml), cefotaxime (0.08 and 0.28 micrograms/ml), ceftriaxone (0.07 and 0.16 micrograms/ml), norfloxacin (0.06 and 0.10 micrograms/ml), and aztreonam (0.05 and 0.20 micrograms/ml) having the lowest values. The results for imipenem (0.24 and 0.81 micrograms/ml) and ceftazidime (0.22 and 0.75 micrograms/ml) were lower than those noted for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (1.20 and 5.56 micrograms/ml), cefamandole (0.62 and 3.29 micrograms/ml), and ampicillin (0.55 and 2.78 micrograms/ml). The MBC of chloramphenicol for some isolates decreased with increased incubation times such that the proportion of susceptible isolates killed by chloramphenicol at concentrations within achievable levels in blood increased from 10% after 24 h to 26% after 48 h of incubation. Although the MBC of the other 11 antibiotics for some isolates were also lowered by prolonged incubation, all 24-h values were within achievable levels in blood. The data indicate that chloramphenicol is not uniformly bacteriostatic against S. typhi and S. enteritidis. The in vivo significance of demonstrating delayed killing by chloramphenicol is, however, uncertain.