Sand Fly Fever: What Have We Learned in One Hundred Years?

Sand fly fever has severely impacted military missions in southern Europe and the Middle East for hundreds of years. After a brief respite following the malaria eradication programs of World War II, it has returned as a significant disease among residents in and travelers to the Mediterranean rim. It is a more severe disease now, with potential vectors in the United States. Sand fly fever is discussed in terms of its viruses, vectors, disease, control, and potential domestic impact

Antibiotics for Leptospirosis

BACKGROUND: Leptospirosis has a wide-ranging clinical and public health impact. Leptospira are globally distributed. Case attack rates are as high as 1:4 to 2:5 persons in exposed populations. In some settings mortality has exceeded 10% of infected people. The benefit of antibiotic therapy in the disease has been unclear. OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterise the risks and benefits associated with use of antibiotic therapy in the management of leptospirosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded regardless of study language. This was augmented by a manual search. The last date of search was November, 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: To be included in assessment of benefits, trials had to specifically assess the use of antibiotics in a randomised clinical trial. A broad range of study types were incorporated to seek potential harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Included trials were systematically abstracted, as were excluded studies for the purposes of assessing harms. Analyses were conducted in accordance with The Cochrane Handbook and practices of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. MAIN RESULTS: Seven randomised trials were included. Four trials with 403 patients compared an antibiotic with placebo or no intervention. Three trials compared at least one antibiotic regimen with another antibiotic regimen. The trials all had high risk of bias. The trials varied in the severity of leptospirosis among trial patients. The ability to group data for meta-analysis was limited. While all four trials that compared antibiotics with placebo reported mortality and used parenteral penicillin, there were no deaths in two of them. Since odds ratio calculations cannot employ zero-event trials, only two trials contributed to this estimate. The number of deaths were 16/200 (8.0%) in the antibiotic arm versus 11/203 (5.4%) in the placebo arm giving a fixed-effect OR 1.56 (95% CI 0.70 to 3.46). The random-effects OR is 1.16 (95% CI 0.23 to 5.95). The heterogeneity among these four trials for the mortality outcome was moderate (I(2)= 50%). Only one trial (253 patients) reported days of hospitalisation. It compared parenteral penicillin to placebo without significant effect of therapy (8.9 versus 8.8 days; mean difference (MD) 0.10 days, 95% CI -0.83 to 1.03). The difference in days of clinical illness was reported in two of these trials (71 patients). While parenteral penicillin therapy conferred 4.7 to 5.6 days of clinical illness in contrast to 7.7 to 11.6 days in the placebo arm, the size of the estimate of effect increased but statistical significance was lost under the random-effect model (fixed-effect: MD -2.13 days, 95% CI -2.46 to -1.80; random-effects: MD -4.04, 95% CI -8.66 to 0.58). I(2) for this outcome was high (81%). When duration of fever alone was assessed between antibiotics and placebo in a single trial (79 patients), no significant difference existed (6.9 versus 6.6 days; MD 0.30, 95% CI -1.26 to 1.86). Two trials with 332 patients in relatively severe and possibly late leptospirosis, resulted in trends towards increased dialysis when penicillin was used rather than placebo, but the estimate of effect was small and did not reach statistical significance (42/163 (25.8%) versus 31/169 (18.4%); OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.60). When one antibiotic was assessed against another antibiotic, there were no statistically significant results. For mortality in particular, these comparisons included cephalosporin versus penicillin (2 trials, 6/176 (3.4%) versus 9/175 (5.2%); fixed-effect: OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.87, I(2)= 16%), doxycycline versus penicillin (1 trial, 2/81 (2.5%) versus 4/89 (4.5); OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.02), cephalosporin versus doxycycline (1 trial, 1/88 (1.1%) versus 2/81 (2.5%); OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.10). There were no adverse events of therapy which reached statistical significance. AUTHORS\u27 CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient evidence is available to advocate for or against the use of antibiotics in the therapy for leptospirosis. Among survivors who were hospitalised for leptospirosis, use of antibiotics for leptospirosis may have decreased the duration of clinical illness by two to four days, though this result was not statistically significant. When electing to treat with an antibiotic, selection of penicillin, doxycycline, or cephalosporin does not seem to impact mortality nor duration of fever. The benefit of antibiotic therapy in the treatment of leptospirosis remains unclear, particularly for severe disease. Further clinical research is needed to include broader panels of therapy tested against placebo

Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Leptospirosis

BACKGROUND: Leptospira infection is a global zoonosis with significant health impact for agricultural workers and those persons whose work or recreation takes them into endemic areas. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review assessed the current literature for evidence for or against use of antibiotic prophylaxis against Leptospira infection (leptospirosis). SEARCH STRATEGY: The authors searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCI-Expanded as well as relevant professional society meeting abstracts until January 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective, randomised clinical trials studying antibiotic prophylaxis against leptospirosis were selected. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection abstracted participant demographics and outcomes as well as features of trial design and quality. Trial results were analysed to independently determine outcomes, while multiple trial data was pooled when relevant. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials were included, all of which evaluated doxycyline use. Trial quality suffered from a lack of intention-to-treat analysis and variability across trials in methodology and targeted outcomes. One trial assessed post-exposure prophylaxis in an indigenous population after a flood without apparent efficacy in reduction of clinical or laboratory identified Leptospira infection. Two trials assessed pre-exposure prophylaxis, one among deployed soldiers and another in an indigenous population. Despite an odds ratio of 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.36) for laboratory-identified infection among deployed soldiers on doxycyline in one of these two trials, pooled data showed no statistically significant reduction in Leptospira infection among participants (Odds ratio 0.28 (95% CI 0.01 to 7.48). Minor adverse events (predominantly nausea and vomiting) were more common among those on doxycycline with an odds ratio of 11 (95% CI 2.1 to 60). AUTHORS\u27 CONCLUSIONS: Regular use of weekly oral doxycycline 200 mg increases the odds for nausea and vomiting with unclear benefit in reducing Leptospira seroconversion or clinical consequences of infection

Risk Mitigation for Travelers: Managing Endemic and Emerging Threats

International travel continues to increase in numbers and complexity. Despite the availability of pretravel health advice, travelers remain at risk for exposure to common organisms as well as emerging pathogens. With low rates of travel clinic utilization, it is important for the general practitioner to remain aware of the importance of travel health, risk factors unique to individual patients, and evolving threats. This review highlights important considerations when evaluating ill travelers, incorporating emerging infectious threats

Fielding Vaccines-Challenges and Opportunities in Outbreaks, Complex Emergencies, and Mass Gatherings

With the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of vaccine development, distribution, and uptake has come to the forefront of the public eye. Effectively fielding vaccines during an emergency-whether that emergency is a result of an infectious disease or not-requires an understanding of usual vaccine-related processes; the impact of outbreak, complex emergencies, mass gatherings, and other events on patients, communities, and health systems; and ways in which diverse resources can be applied to successfully achieve needed vaccine uptake. In this review, both the emergency setting and briefly vaccine product design are discussed in these contexts in order to provide a concise source of general knowledge from experts in fielding vaccines that can aid in future vaccine ventures and increase general awareness of the process and barriers in various settings

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: We Need to Start Now

In this perspective, we discuss the importance of developing a vaccine to help curb transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The question remains: Once a safe and effective vaccine is developed, will the public be willing to get it? We present information from one of the first tracking polls to assess public attitudes and perceptions toward a possible coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine that suggests public hesitancy over a potential vaccine, concern regarding accelerating clinical trials, and unease over the vaccine approval process. Public health experts, government officials, advocates, and others in the scientific community should respect the signals of hesitancy and communicate sensitivity, applying lessons not only to how we message, but also in how we build this urgently needed vaccine if we are to have successful uptake once available