What Should We Be Recommending for the Treatment of Enteric Fever?

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

Social cohesion among healthcare workers during COVID-19: qualitative research in Indonesia, Nepal, and Vietnam

Existing literature has portrayed numerous challenges that healthcare workers (HCWs) faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as heightened risks of transmission against the scarcity of protective equipment, burgeoning workload, and emotional distress, to name a few. However, most studies explored HCWs' experiences at the individual level rather than examining the collective responses. Exploring these experiences could reveal the social-cultural locality of the pandemic while identifying the system constraints in public health emergencies. As part of a mixed-method study on COVID-19 pandemic impacts, we analysed qualitative interview data with 129 HCWs and health-related staff to explore their experiences during the pandemic between 2020 and 2021 in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Nepal. Using Bahers' sociological framework, Community of Fate, we describe five themes reflecting the formation of a community of HCWs and the social cohesion underlying their efforts to survive hardship. The first three themes characterise the HCW community of fate, including (1) Recognition of extreme work-related danger, (2) physical and figurative closures where HCWs restrict themselves from the outside world, (3) chronic ordeals with overwhelming workload and responsibilities, encompassing recurrent mental health challenges. Against such extreme hardship, cohesive bonding and social resilience are reflected through two additional themes: (4) a mutual sense of moral and professional duty to protect communities, (5) the vertical and horizontal convergence among HCWs across levels and among government departments. We discuss these HCWs’ challenges in relation to systemic vulnerabilities while advocating for increasing investment in public health and collaboration across government sectors to prepare for emergency situation

Azithromycin and cefixime combination versus azithromycin alone for the out-patient treatment of clinically suspected or confirmed uncomplicated typhoid fever in South Asia: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

Background: Typhoid and paratyphoid fever (enteric fever) is a common cause of non-specific febrile infection in adults and children presenting to health care facilities in low resource settings such as the South Asia.  A 7-day course of a single oral antimicrobial such as ciprofloxacin, cefixime, or azithromycin is commonly used for its treatment. Increasing antimicrobial resistance threatens the effectiveness of these treatment choices. We hypothesize that combined treatment with azithromycin (active mainly intracellularly) and cefixime (active mainly extracellularly) will be a better option for the treatment of clinically suspected and culture-confirmed typhoid fever in South Asia. Methods: This is a phase IV, international multi-center, multi-country, comparative participant-and observer-blind, 1:1 randomised clinical trial. Patients with suspected uncomplicated typhoid fever will be randomized to one of the two interventions: Arm A: azithromycin 20mg/kg/day oral dose once daily (maximum 1gm/day) and cefixime 20mg/kg/day oral dose in two divided doses (maximum 400mg bd) for 7 days, Arm B: azithromycin 20mg/kg/day oral dose once daily (max 1gm/day) for 7 days AND cefixime-matched placebo for 7 days. We will recruit 1500 patients across sites in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan. We will assess whether treatment outcomes are better with the combination after one week of treatment and at one- and three-months follow-up. Discussion: Combined treatment may limit the emergence of resistance if one of the components is active against resistant sub-populations not covered by the other antimicrobial activity. If the combined treatment is better than the single antimicrobial treatment, this will be an important result for patients across South Asia and other typhoid endemic areas. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT04349826 (16/04/2020)

Evaluation of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19 (COPCOV): A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has proved ineffective in treating patients hospitalised with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but uncertainty remains over its safety and efficacy in chemoprevention. Previous chemoprevention randomised controlled trials (RCTs) did not individually show benefit of HCQ against COVID-19 and, although meta-analysis did suggest clinical benefit, guidelines recommend against its use. Methods and findings: Healthy adult participants from the healthcare setting, and later from the community, were enrolled in 26 centres in 11 countries to a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of COVID-19 chemoprevention. HCQ was evaluated in Europe and Africa, and chloroquine (CQ) was evaluated in Asia, (both base equivalent of 155 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was symptomatic COVID-19, confirmed by PCR or seroconversion during the 3-month follow-up period. The secondary and tertiary endpoints were: asymptomatic laboratory-confirmed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; severity of COVID-19 symptoms; all-cause PCR-confirmed symptomatic acute respiratory illness (including SARS-CoV-2 infection); participant reported number of workdays lost; genetic and baseline biochemical markers associated with symptomatic COVID-19, respiratory illness and disease severity (not reported here); and health economic analyses of HCQ and CQ prophylaxis on costs and quality of life measures (not reported here). The primary and safety analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Recruitment of 40,000 (20,000 HCQ arm, 20,000 CQ arm) participants was planned but was not possible because of protracted delays resulting from controversies over efficacy and adverse events with HCQ use, vaccine rollout in some countries, and other factors. Between 29 April 2020 and 10 March 2022, 4,652 participants (46% females) were enrolled (HCQ/CQ n = 2,320; placebo n = 2,332). The median (IQR) age was 29 (23 to 39) years. SARS-CoV-2 infections (symptomatic and asymptomatic) occurred in 1,071 (23%) participants. For the primary endpoint the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 was 240/2,320 in the HCQ/CQ versus 284/2,332 in the placebo arms (risk ratio (RR) 0.85 [95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.00; p = 0.05]). For the secondary and tertiary outcomes asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred in 11.5% of HCQ/CQ recipients and 12.0% of placebo recipients: RR: 0.96 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.12; p = 0.6). There were no differences in the severity of symptoms between the groups and no severe illnesses. HCQ/CQ chemoprevention was associated with fewer PCR-confirmed all-cause respiratory infections (predominantly SARS-CoV-2): RR 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.88; p = 0.009) and fewer days lost to work because of illness: 104 days per 1,000 participants over 90 days (95% CI, 12 to 199 days; p < 0.001). The prespecified meta-analysis of all published pre-exposure RCTs indicates that HCQ/CQ prophylaxis provided a moderate protective benefit against symptomatic COVID-19: RR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91). Both drugs were well tolerated with no drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Study limitations include the smaller than planned study size, the relatively low number of PCR-confirmed infections, and the lower comparative accuracy of serology endpoints (in particular, the adapted dried blood spot method) compared to the PCR endpoint. The COPCOV trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; number NCT04303507. Interpretation: In this large placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised trial, HCQ and CQ were safe and well tolerated in COVID-19 chemoprevention, and there was evidence of moderate protective benefit in a meta-analysis including this trial and similar RCTs. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04303507; ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN10207947

COVID-19 Social Science and Public Engagement Action Research in Vietnam, Indonesia and Nepal (SPEAR): Protocol for a mixed methods study exploring the experiences and impacts of COVID-19 for healthcare workers and vulnerable communities

Background: When the novel coronavirus – SARS-CoV-2 – started to spread globally, there was a call for social and behavioral scientists to conduct research to explore the wider socio-cultural contexts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), to understand vulnerabilities, as well as to increase engagement within communities to facilitate adoption of public health measures. In this manuscript, we describe the protocol for a study conducted in Indonesia, Nepal, and Vietnam. In the study, we explore how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting individuals and their communities. We focus on the wider health and economic impacts of COVID-19, in particular emerging and increased burden on mental health, as well as new or deepened vulnerabilities in the communities. The introduction of vaccines has added another layer of complexity and highlights differences in acceptance and inequalities around access.  Methods: We use mixed methods, combining survey methods and social media surveillance to gain a picture of the general situation within each country, with in-depth qualitative methods to gain a deeper understanding of issues, coupled with a synergistic engagement component. We also include an exploration of the role of social media in revealing or driving perceptions of the pandemic more broadly. Participants include health workers and members of communities from 13 sites across the three countries. Data collection is spread across two phases. Phase 1 is concerned with exploring lived experiences, impacts on working lives and livelihoods, mental health and coping strategies. Phase 2 is concerned with acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, factors that increase and reduce acceptance, and factors that influence access. Conclusions: We will disseminate findings in multiple ways including short reports and policy briefs, articles in peer-reviewed journals, and digital diaries will be edited into short films and uploaded onto social media sites.</ns3:p

What should we be recommending for the treatment of enteric fever?

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

What Should We Be Recommending for the Treatment of Enteric Fever?

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

Conducting Social Science Research During Epidemics and Pandemics: Lessons Learnt

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on how field-based research is being conducted globally. Given the challenges of undertaking fieldwork during epidemics and the need for mixed methods research to address the social, political, and economic issues related to epidemics, there is a small but growing body of evidence in this area. To contribute to the logistical and ethical considerations for conducting research during a pandemic, we draw on the challenges and lessons learnt from adapting methods for two research studies conducted in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings: (1) in-person research in Uganda and (2) combined remote and in-person research in South and Southeast Asia. Our case studies focus on data collection and demonstrate the feasibility of conducting mixed methods research, even with many logistical and operational constraints. Social science research is often used to identify the context of specific issues, to provide a needs assessment, or inform longer-term planning; however, these case studies have shown the need to integrate social science research from the start of a health emergency and in a systematic way. Social science research during future health emergencies can also inform public health responses during the emergency. It is also crucial to collect social science data after health emergencies to inform future pandemic preparedness. Finally, researchers need to continue research on other public health issues that are ongoing even during a public health emergency

Social cohesion among healthcare workers during COVID-19: Qualitative research in Indonesia, Nepal, and Vietnam

Existing literature has portrayed numerous challenges that healthcare workers (HCWs) faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as heightened risks of transmission against the scarcity of protective equipment, burgeoning workload, and emotional distress, to name a few. However, most studies explored HCWs' experiences at the individual level rather than examining the collective responses. Exploring these experiences could reveal the social-cultural locality of the pandemic while identifying the system constraints in public health emergencies. As part of a mixed-method study on COVID-19 pandemic impacts, we analysed qualitative interview data with 129 HCWs and health-related staff to explore their experiences during the pandemic between 2020 and 2021 in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Nepal. Using Bahers' sociological framework, Community of Fate, we describe five themes reflecting the formation of a community of HCWs and the social cohesion underlying their efforts to survive hardship. The first three themes characterise the HCW community of fate, including (1) Recognition of extreme work-related danger, (2) physical and figurative closures where HCWs restrict themselves from the outside world, (3) chronic ordeals with overwhelming workload and responsibilities, encompassing recurrent mental health challenges. Against such extreme hardship, cohesive bonding and social resilience are reflected through two additional themes: (4) a mutual sense of moral and professional duty to protect communities, (5) the vertical and horizontal convergence among HCWs across levels and among government departments. We discuss these HCWs’ challenges in relation to systemic vulnerabilities while advocating for increasing investment in public health and collaboration across government sectors to prepare for emergency situations