To Study the Effectiveness of Oral Azithromycin as Compared to Parenteral Ceftriaxone in the Treatment of Uncomplicated Enteric Fever

Abstract

Aim This study aims to compare the effectiveness of oral azithromycin and intravenous ceftriaxone in the treatment of uncomplicated enteric fever in children aged between 2 and 12 years.

Methods This prospective randomized open-labeled study was conducted in the Department of Pediatrics in a medical college of South India. A total of 126 children with proven enteric fever were randomized into two treatment groups. One group received oral azithromycin (20 mg/kg/d) and the other group received parenteral ceftriaxone (75 mg/kg/d), both of which were given for a duration of 7 days. The study population was observed for fever defervescence, duration of hospital stay, and relapse.

Results The mean time for fever defervescence was 3.68 ± 2.109 and 4.08 ± 1.903 days in the azithromycin group and the ceftriaxone group, respectively. The mean duration of hospital stay was 7.35 ± 2.604 days in the azithromycin group and 9.44 ± 0.249 days in the ceftriaxone group. In the azithromycin group three children had treatment failure and had to crossover to ceftriaxone group. Among the four treatment failures in the ceftriaxone group, two cases relapsed within 4-week follow-up period. There was no relapse in the azithromycin group.

Conclusion Oral azithromycin is as effective as intravenous ceftriaxone in treating uncomplicated typhoid fever in children with respect to fever defervescence, duration of hospital stay, and relapse.

Keywords

randomized - enteric fever - azithromycin - ceftriaxone

• References

• 1 Crump JA, Mintz ED. Global trends in typhoid and paratyphoid Fever. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50 (2) 241-246
• 2 Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K , et al. Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012; 380 (9859): 2095-2128
• 3 Zaki SA, Karande S. Multidrug-resistant typhoid fever: a review. J Infect Dev Ctries 2011; 5 (5) 324-337
• 4 Kalra A, Kumar P. Current trends in the management of typhoid fever. In: Ghosh TK, , ed. Infectious Diseases in Children and Newer Vaccines. 1st ed. New Delhi, India: Jaypee Publishers; 2007: 59-64
• 5 Frenck Jr RW, Mansour A, Nakhla I , et al. Short-course azithromycin for the treatment of uncomplicated typhoid fever in children and adolescents. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38 (7) 951-957
• 6 Gupta A, Swarnkar NK, Choudhary SP. Changing antibiotic sensitivity in enteric fever. J Trop Pediatr 2001; 47 (6) 369-371
• 7 Aggarwal A, Ghosh A, Gomber S, Mitra M, Parikh AO. Efficacy and safety of azithromycin for uncomplicated typhoid fever: an open label non-comparative study. Indian Pediatr 2011; 48 (7) 553-556
• 8 Hussain W, Ahmad A, Lamichhane A, Tariq A, Khan MA. Use of Azithromycin in uncomplicated enteric fever as first line antibiotic. Pak Pediatr J 2012; 36 (2) 81-86
• 9 Bhutta ZA. Therapeutic aspects of typhoidal salmonellosis in childhood: the Karachi experience. Ann Trop Paediatr 1996; 16 (4) 299-306
• 10 Parry CM, Ho VA, Phuong T , 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) 819-825
• 11 Dutta P, Mitra U, Dutta S, De A, Chatterjee MK, Bhattacharya SK. Ceftriaxone therapy in ciprofloxacin treatment failure typhoid fever in children. Indian J Med Res 2001; 113: 210-213
• 12 Girgis NI, Butler T, Frenck RW , 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) 1441-1444
• 13 Chandey M, Multani AS. A comparative study of efficacy and safety of azithromycin and ofloxacin in uncomplicated typhoid fever: a randomised, open labelled study. J Clin Diagn Res 2012; 6 (10) 1736-1739