Search

Background In the absence of proper guidelines and algorithms, available rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for common acute undifferentiated febrile illnesses are often used inappropriately. Methods Using prevalence data of 5 common febrile illnesses from India and Cambodia, and performance characteristics (sensitivity and specificity) of relevant pathogen-specific RDTs, we used a mathematical model to predict the probability of correct identification of each disease when diagnostic testing occurs either simultaneously or sequentially in various algorithms. We developed a web-based application of the model so as to visualize and compare output diagnostic algorithms when different disease prevalence and test performance characteristics are introduced. Results Diagnostic algorithms with appropriate sequential testing predicted correct identification of etiology in 74% and 89% of patients in India and Cambodia, respectively, compared with 46% and 49% with simultaneous testing. The optimally performing sequential diagnostic algorithms differed in India and Cambodia due to varying disease prevalence. Conclusions Simultaneous testing is not appropriate for the diagnosis of acute undifferentiated febrile illnesses with presently available tests, which should deter the unsupervised use of multiplex diagnostic tests. The implementation of adaptive algorithms can predict better diagnosis and add value to the available RDTs. The web application of the model can serve as a tool to identify the optimal diagnostic algorithm in different epidemiological settings, while taking into account the local epidemiological variables and accuracy of available tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]