title: Fluoroquinolones for treating typhoid and paratyphoid fever (enteric fever).
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Typhoid and paratyphoid are febrile illnesses, due to a bacterial infection, which remain common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends the fluoroquinolone antibiotics in areas with known resistance to the older first-line antibiotics.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate fluoroquinolone antibiotics for treating children and adults with enteric fever.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched The Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register (February 2011); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to February 2011); EMBASE (1974 to February 2011); and LILACS (1982 to February 2011). We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) in February 2011.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized controlled trials examining fluoroquinolone antibiotics, in people with blood, stool or bone marrow culture-confirmed enteric fever.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two authors independently assessed the trial's methodological quality and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Comparative effectiveness has been interpreted in the context of; length of treatment, dose, year of study, known levels of antibiotic resistance, or proxy measures of resistance such as the failure rate in the comparator arm.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Twenty-six studies, involving 3033 patients, are included in this review.Fluoroquinolones versus older antibiotics (chloramphenicol, co-trimoxazole, amoxicillin and ampicillin)In one study from Pakistan in 2003-04, high clinical failure rates were seen with both chloramphenicol and co-trimoxazole, although resistance was not confirmed microbiologically. A seven-day course of either ciprofloxacin or ofloxacin were found to be superior. Older studies of these comparisons failed to show a difference (six trials, 361 participants).In small studies conducted almost two decades ago, the fluoroquinolones were demonstrated to have fewer clinical failures than ampicillin and amoxicillin (two trials, 90 participants, RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.57).Fluoroquinolones versus current second-line options (ceftriaxone, cefalexin, and azithromycin)The two studies comparing a seven day course of oral fluoroquinolones with three days of intravenous ceftriaxone were too small to detect important differences between antibiotics should they exist (two trials, 89 participants).In Pakistan in 2003-04, no clinical or microbiological failures were seen with seven days of either ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin or cefixime (one trial, 139 participants). In Nepal in 2005, gatifloxacin reduced clinical failure and relapse compared to cefixime, despite a high prevalence of NaR in the study population (one trial, 158 participants, RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.31).Compared to a seven day course of azithromycin, a seven day course of ofloxacin had a higher rate of clinical failures in populations with both multi-drug resistance (MDR) and nalidixic acid resistance (NaR) enteric fever in Vietnam in 1998-2002 (two trials, 213 participants, RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.94). However, a more recent study from Vietnam in 2004-05, detected no difference between gatifloxacin and azithromycin with both drugs performing well (one trial, 287 participants).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Generally, fluoroquinolones performed well in treating typhoid, and maybe superior to alternatives in some settings. However, we were unable to draw firm general conclusions on comparative contemporary effectiveness given that resistance changes over time, and many studies were small. Policy makers and clinicians need to consider local resistance patterns in choosing a fluoroquinolone or alternative.There is some evidence that the newest fluoroquinolone, gatifloxacin, remains effective in some regions where resistance to older fluoroquinolones has developed. However, the different fluoroquinolones have not been compared directly in trials in these settings.
authors: Internal Medicine, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, PMB 1278, Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria.
authors: Emmanuel E
authors: EE
authors: Effa
authors: Zohra S
authors: ZS
authors: Lassi
authors: Julia A
authors: JA
authors: Critchley
authors: Paul
authors: P
authors: Garner
authors: David
authors: D
authors: Sinclair
authors: Piero L
authors: PL
authors: Olliaro
authors: Zulfiqar A
authors: ZA
authors: Bhutta
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D002648:Child; D024841:Fluoroquinolones / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D006801:Humans; D009643:Norfloxacin / Q000627:therapeutic use; D010284:Paratyphoid Fever / Q000188:drug therapy*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014435:Typhoid Fever / Q000188:drug therapy*
chemical_list: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents; D024841:Fluoroquinolones; D009643:Norfloxacin