Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Patients with suspected enteric (typhoid and paratyphoid) fever are predominantly managed as outpatients in endemic regions. Nonspecific clinical presentation, lack of accurate diagnostic tools, and widespread antimicrobial resistance makes management challenging. Resistance has been described for all antimicrobials including chloramphenicol, amoxycillin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, ciprofloxacin, ceftriaxone, and azithromycin. No significant differences have been demonstrated between these antimicrobials in their ability to treat enteric fever in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Antimicrobial choice should be guided by local resistance patterns and national guidance. Extensively drug-resistant typhoid isolates require treatment with azithromycin and/or meropenem. Combining antimicrobials that target intracellular and extracellular typhoid bacteria is a strategy being explored in the Azithromycin and Cefixime in Typhoid Fever (ACT-SA) RCT, in progress in South Asia. Alternative antimicrobials, such as the oral carbapenem, tebipenem, need clinical evaluation. There is a paucity of evidence to guide the antimicrobial management of chronic fecal carriers.

Original publication

DOI

10.1093/ofid/ofad179

Type

Journal article

Journal

Open Forum Infect Dis

Publication Date

05/2023

Volume

10

Pages

S26 - S31

Keywords

RCTs, XDR typhoid, antimicrobial resistance, enteric fever, systematic reviews