CLINICAL EFFICACY OF ORAL AZITHROMYCIN VERSUS OTHER ANTIMICROBIAL DRUGS IN THE TREATMENT OF TYPHOID PATIENTS ACROSS ALL AGE GROUPS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

Authors

  • Muhammad Uzair Federal Medical College, Islamabad-Pakistan
  • Saad Wali Federal Medical College, Islamabad-Pakistan
  • Anees Ur Rehman Federal Medical College, Islamabad-Pakistan
  • Afaq Ahmad Department of General Surgery, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad-Pakistan
  • Muhammad Hamza Rafique Department of ENT Head & Neck Surgery, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad-Pakistan
  • Muhammad Bilal Nadeem Federal Medical College, Islamabad-Pakistan

Keywords:

Keywords: clinical efficacy, azithromycin, typhoid, systematic review

Abstract

Background: Typhoid is a major health concern. Drug-resistant cases of typhoid have given rise to new debates. Azithromycin has shown adequate results. The study is designed to determine the clinical efficacy of oral azithromycin versus other antimicrobial drugs in typhoid patients. Method: The studies included in the systematic review are randomized controlled trials, comparing the clinical efficacy of azithromycin to other antimicrobial drugs on typhoid patients. We searched 1180 articles from Google Scholar, PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, PLOS ONE, and JSTOR on 16th October, 2023. The risk of bias was analyzed by visualizing the funnel plot, Begg’s and Egger’s test, and plotting risk of bias graphs. Forest plots are created to display the findings. Results: We identified 14 research articles (1556 participants). Odds ratios of the treatment outcomes were extracted. In a forest plot, the overall effect of the treatment outcome (CI=95%) of azithromycin, in comparison to fluoroquinolones appeared to be favourable (Random Effect Model (REM)=2.15, heterogeneity: I2=37%, τ2= 0.1729, p=0.15, the overall pooled effect was towards right side). Compared to chloramphenicol, azithromycin showed a high odds ratio (1.23). However, there was no difference in outcome among ceftriaxone and azithromycin groups (REM=0.67, heterogeneity: I2=0%, τ2=0%, p=0.78, the overall pooled effect touched the no-effect line). Conclusion: Azithromycin is more clinically efficacious than fluoroquinolones and chloramphenicol. The drug has fewer documented relapses in comparison with other antimicrobial drugs. Fever clearance time of azithromycin is greater than ceftriaxone and chloramphenicol.

References

Brockett S, Wolfe MK, Hamot A, Appiah GD, Mintz ED, Lantagne D. Associations among Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene, and Food Exposures and Typhoid Fever in Case-Control Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2020;103(3):1020–31.

GBD 2017 Typhoid and Paratyphoid Collaborators. The global burden of typhoid and paratyphoid fevers: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Infect Dis 2019;19(4):369–81.

Essa F, Hussain SZ, Batool D, Usman A, Khalid U, Yaqoob U, et al. Study of socio-demographic factors affecting the prevalence of typhoid. Morb Mortal 2019;1(2):9.

Akram J, Khan AS, Khan HA, Gilani SA, Akram SJ, Ahmad FJ, et al. Extensively drug-resistant (XDR) typhoid: evolution, prevention, and its management. Biomed Res Int 2020;2020:6432580.

Walker J, Chaguza C, Grubaugh ND, Carey M, Baker S, Khan K, et al. Assessing the global risk of typhoid outbreaks caused by extensively drug resistant Salmonella Typhi. Nat Commun 2023;14(1):6502.

Jin C, Gibani MM, Pennington SH, Liu X, Ardrey A, Aljayyoussi G, et al. Treatment responses to azithromycin and ciprofloxacin in uncomplicated Salmonella Typhi infection: a comparison of clinical and microbiological data from a controlled human infection model. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2019;13(12):e0007955.

Siddiqi FG, Rais H, Zafar F, Bina TA, Ally Z, Kumar A, et al. Treatment of 21st-Century typhoid fever in children with mono vs combination drug therapy: An open-label randomized comparative trial. Int J Endorsing Health Sci Res 2021;9(3):384–94.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg 2021;88:105906.

Faryad N, Riaz L, Hanif HH, Tariq A, Asghar M, Raza SMA. Efficacy of Oral Azithromycin in Treatment of Uncomplicated Enteric Fever in Children. Pak J Med Health Sci 2022;16(7):301–2.

Antolis Y, Rampengan T, Wilar R, Rampengan NH. Azithromycin vs. chloramphenicol for uncomplicated typhoid fever in children. Paediatr Indones 2013;53(3):155–9.

Hussain I, Faisal MS, Khan A, Jamal A, Hayat W. Clinical effectiveness of azithromycin versus ciprofloxacin in the treatment of uncomplicated enteric fever in children. J Med Sci 2020;28(4):372–6.

Saeed B, Riaz T. Comparison of efficacy of oral azithromycin with intravenous ceftriaxone for the treatment of uncomplicated enteric fever. Isra Med J 2016;8(4):228–32.

Nair B, Simalti A, Sharma S. Study comparing ceftriaxone with azithromycin for the treatment of uncomplicated typhoid fever in children of India. Ann Trop Med Public Health 2017;10(1):205.

Butler T, Sridhar CB, Daga MK, Pathak K, Pandit RB, Khakhria R, et al. Treatment of typhoid fever with azithromycin versus chloramphenicol in a randomized multicentre trial in India. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999;44(2):243–50.

Riaz S, Hussain G, Javed Z, Yaqoob N, Rasheed S, Safir N. Clinical Efficacy of Azithromycin Versus Ciprofloxacin in Treatment of Typhoid Fever in Children. Pak J Med Health Sci 2022;16(7):678–80.

Dolecek C, Phi La TT, Rang NN, Phuong LT, Vinh H, Tuan PQ, et al. A multi-center randomised controlled trial of gatifloxacin versus azithromycin for the treatment of uncomplicated typhoid fever in children and adults in Vietnam. PLoS One 2008;3(5):e2188.

Khokar I, Afzal S, Khokar SN, Afzal S, Naeemullah S. Comparison of Oral Azithromycin and Intra Venous Ceftriaxone for Treatment of Uncomplicated Enteric Fever in Children. J Rawal Med Coll 2019;23(2):1097.

Frenck Jr RW, Mansour A, Nakhla I, Sultan Y, Putnam S, Wierzba T, et al. Short‐Course Azithromycin for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Typhoid Fever in Children and Adolescents. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38(7):951–7.

Chinh NT, Parry CM, Ly NT, Ha HD, Thong MX, Diep TS, et al. A Randomized Controlled Comparison of Azithromycin and Ofloxacin for Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant or Nalidixic Acid-Resistant Enteric Fever. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44(7):1855–9.

Girgis NI, Butler T, Frenck RW, Sultan Y, Brown FM, Tribble D, et al. Azithromycin versus ciprofloxacin for treatment of uncomplicated typhoid fever in a randomized trial in Egypt that included patients with multidrug resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999;43(6):1441–4.

Frenck Jr RW, Nakhla I, Sultan Y, Bassily SB, Girgis YF, David J, et al. Azithromycin versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of uncomplicated typhoid fever in children. Clin Infect Dis 2000;31(5):1134–8.

Manzoor A, Mahmood T, Zulfiqar R. Azithromycin Versus Ofloxacin in Treatment of Enteric Fever in Children. J Rawal Med Coll 2014;18(2):335618660.

Islam MA, Mobarak MR, Hasan AR, Hanif M. Clinical Efficacy of Azithromycin in Typhoid and Paratyphoid Fever in Children. J Enam Med Coll 2015;5(1):34–8.

Parry CM, Ho VA, Phuong LT, Bay PV, Lanh MN, Tung LT, et al. Randomized controlled comparison of ofloxacin, azithromycin, and an ofloxacin-azithromycin combination for treatment of multidrug-resistant and nalidixic acid-resistant typhoid fever. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007;51(3):819–25.

Published

2024-09-12

Issue

Vol. 36 No. 3 (2024): JOURNAL OF AYUB MEDICAL COLLEGE ABBOTTABAD

Section

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Muhammad Uzair Uzair, Saad Wali, Anees Ur Rehman, Afaq Ahmad, Muhammad Hamza Rafique, Muhammad Bilal Nadeem

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL which means that all content is FREELY available without charge to all users whether registered with the journal or not. The work published by J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad is licensed and distributed under the creative commons License  CC BY ND Attribution-NoDerivs. Material printed in this journal is OPEN to access, and are FREE for use in academic and research work with proper citation. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad accepts only original material for publication with the understanding that except for abstracts, no part of the data has been published or will be submitted for publication elsewhere before appearing in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. The Editorial Board of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad makes every effort to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of material printed in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. However, conclusions and statements expressed are views of the authors and do not reflect the opinion/policy of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad or the Editorial Board.

USERS are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.

AUTHORS retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.eu, and social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and any other professional or academic networking site.