Search

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., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Outbreaks of acute undifferentiated febrile illness (AUFI) are common in Nepal, but the exact etiology or risk factors for them often go unrecognized. Diseases like influenza, enteric fever and rickettsial fevers account for majority of such outbreaks. Optimal diagnostic tests to inform treatment decisions are not available at the point-of-care. A proper epidemiological and clinical characterization of such outbreaks is important for appropriate treatment and control efforts., Methods: An investigation was initiated as a response to increased presentation of patients at Patan Hospital from Chalnakhel locality in Dakchinkali municipality, Kathmandu with AUFI from June 10 to July 1, 2016. Focused group discussion with local inhabitants and the epidemiological curve of febrile patients at local primary health care centre confirmed the outbreak. The household-survey was conducted in the area with questionnaire administered on patients to characterize their illnesses and their medical records were reviewed. A different set of questionnaire was administered on the patients and controls to investigate the association with common risk factors. Water samples were collected and analyzed microbiologically., Results: Eighty one patients from 137 households suffered from febrile illness within 6 weeks window before the investigation. All the 67 sampled patients with acute fever had a generalized illness without a discernible focus of infection. Only 38% of the patients had received a clinical diagnosis while the rest were treated empirically without a diagnosis. Three patients had blood culture confirmed enteric fever. Forty-two (63%) patients had been administered antibiotics, most commonly, ofloxacin, cefixime or azithromycin with a mean fever clearance time of 4 days. There was no definite association between several risk factors and fever. Fecal contamination was noted in tap water samples., Conclusion: Based on the pattern of illness, this outbreak was most likely a mixture of self-limiting viral infections and enteric fever. This study shows that even in the absence of a confirmed diagnosis, a detailed characterization of the illness at presentation and the recovery course can suggest the diagnosis and help in formulating appropriate recommendation for treatment and control.

Background: Undifferentiated febrile illness (UFI) includes typhoid and typhus fevers and generally designates fever without any localizing signs. UFI is a great therapeutic challenge in countries like Nepal because of the lack of available point-of-care, rapid diagnostic tests. Often patients are empirically treated as presumed enteric fever. Due to the development of high-level resistance to traditionally used fluoroquinolones against enteric fever, azithromycin is now commonly used to treat enteric fever/UFI. The re-emergence of susceptibility of Salmonella typhi to co-trimoxazole makes it a promising oral treatment for UFIs in general. We present a protocol of a randomized controlled trial of azithromycin versus co-trimoxazole for the treatment of UFI., Methods/design: This is a parallel-group, double-blind, 1:1, randomized controlled trial of co-trimoxazole versus azithromycin for the treatment of UFI in Nepal. Participants will be patients aged 2 to 65 years, presenting with fever without clear focus for at least 4 days, complying with other study criteria and willing to provide written informed consent. Patients will be randomized either to azithromycin 20 mg/kg/day (maximum 1000 mg/day) in a single daily dose and an identical placebo or co-trimoxazole 60 mg/kg/day (maximum 3000 mg/day) in two divided doses for 7 days. Patients will be followed up with twice-daily telephone calls for 7 days or for at least 48 h after they become afebrile, whichever is later; by home visits on days 2 and 4 of treatment; and by hospital visits on days 7, 14, 28 and 63. The endpoints will be fever clearance time, treatment failure, time to treatment failure, and adverse events. The estimated sample size is 330. The primary analysis population will be all the randomized population and subanalysis will be repeated on patients with blood culture-confirmed enteric fever and culture-negative patients., Discussion: Both azithromycin and co-trimoxazole are available in Nepal and are extensively used in the treatment of UFI. Therefore, it is important to know the better orally administered antimicrobial to treat enteric fever and other UFIs especially against the background of fluoroquinolone-resistant enteric fever., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02773407 . Registered on 5 May 2016.