LSTM Home > LSTM Research > LSTM Online Archive

Antibiotics for treating scrub typhus

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

El Sayed, Iman, Qin, Liu, Wee, Ian and Hine, Paul (2018) 'Antibiotics for treating scrub typhus'. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Vol 9, CD002150.

[img]
Preview
Text
El Sayed 2018.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.

Download (77kB) | Preview

Abstract

Abstract

Background
Scrub typhus, an important cause of acute fever in Asia, is caused by Orientia tsutsugamushi, an obligate intracellular bacterium. Antibiotics currently used to treat scrub typhus include tetracyclines, chloramphenicol, macrolides, and rifampicin.

Objectives
To assess and compare the effects of different antibiotic regimens for treatment of scrub typhus.

Search methods
We searched the following databases up to 8 January 2018: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library (2018, Issue 1); MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT). We checked references and contacted study authors for additional data. We applied no language or date restrictions.

Selection criteria
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi‐RCTs comparing antibiotic regimens in people with the diagnosis of scrub typhus based on clinical symptoms and compatible laboratory tests (excluding the Weil‐Felix test).

Data collection and analysis
For this update, two review authors re‐extracted all data and assessed the certainty of evidence. We meta‐analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes when appropriate, and elsewhere tabulated data to facilitate narrative analysis.

Main results
We included six RCTs and one quasi‐RCT with 548 participants; they took place in the Asia‐Pacific region: Korea (three trials), Malaysia (one trial), and Thailand (three trials). Only one trial included children younger than 15 years (N = 57). We judged five trials to be at high risk of performance and detection bias owing to inadequate blinding. Trials were heterogenous in terms of dosing of interventions and outcome measures. Across trials, treatment failure rates were low.

Two trials compared doxycycline to tetracycline. For treatment failure, the difference between doxycycline and tetracycline is uncertain (very low‐certainty evidence). Doxycycline compared to tetracycline may make little or no difference in resolution of fever within 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.44, 55 participants; one trial; low‐certainty evidence) and in time to defervescence (116 participants; one trial; low‐certainty evidence). We were unable to extract data for other outcomes.

Three trials compared doxycycline versus macrolides. For most outcomes, including treatment failure, resolution of fever within 48 hours, time to defervescence, and serious adverse events, we are uncertain whether study results show a difference between doxycycline and macrolides (very low‐certainty evidence). Macrolides compared to doxycycline may make little or no difference in the proportion of patients with resolution of fever within five days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.10; 185 participants; two trials; low‐certainty evidence). Another trial compared azithromycin versus doxycycline or chloramphenicol in children, but we were not able to disaggregate date for the doxycycline/chloramphenicol group.

One trial compared doxycycline versus rifampicin. For all outcomes, we are uncertain whether study results show a difference between doxycycline and rifampicin (very low‐certainty evidence). Of note, this trial deviated from the protocol after three out of eight patients who had received doxycycline and rifampicin combination therapy experienced treatment failure.

Across trials, mild gastrointestinal side effects appeared to be more common with doxycycline than with comparator drugs.

Authors' conclusions
Tetracycline, doxycycline, azithromycin, and rifampicin are effective treatment options for scrub typhus and have resulted in few treatment failures. Chloramphenicol also remains a treatment option, but we could not include this among direct comparisons in this review.

Most available evidence is of low or very low certainty. For specific outcomes, some low‐certainty evidence suggests there may be little or no difference between tetracycline, doxycycline, and azithromycin as treatment options. Given very low‐certainty evidence for rifampicin and the risk of inducing resistance in undiagnosed tuberculosis, clinicians should not regard this as a first‐line treatment option. Clinicians could consider rifampicin as a second‐line treatment option after exclusion of active tuberculosis.

Further research should consist of additional adequately powered trials of doxycycline versus azithromycin or other macrolides, trials of other candidate antibiotics including rifampicin, and trials of treatments for severe scrub typhus. Researchers should standardize diagnostic techniques and reporting of clinical outcomes to allow robust comparisons.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: QV Pharmacology > Anti-Bacterial Agents. Tissue Extracts > QV 350 Anti-bacterial agents (General or not elsewhere classified)
WC Communicable Diseases > Rickettsiaceae Infections. Chlamydiaceae Infections > WC 630 Scrub typhus
Faculty: Department: Clinical Sciences & International Health > Clinical Sciences Department
Digital Object Identifer (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013117
Depositing User: Stacy Murtagh
Date Deposited: 10 Oct 2018 15:53
Last Modified: 11 Oct 2018 10:11
URI: https://archive.lstmed.ac.uk/id/eprint/9435

Statistics

View details

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item