Travel medicine and infectious disease · 2022
Doxycycline as an antimalarial: Impact on travellers' diarrhoea and doxycycline resistance among various stool bacteria - Prospective study and literature review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kantele Anu, Mero Sointu, Lääveri Tinja
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Antibiotics predispose travellers to acquire multidrug-resistant bacteria, such as extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-PE). Although widely used in antimalarial prophylaxis, doxycycline has scarcely been studied in this respect.
METHODS: We explored the impact of doxycycline on rates of traveller's diarrhoea (TD), ESBL-PE acquisition and, particularly, doxycycline co-resistance among travel-acquired ESBL-PE in a sample of 412 visitors to low- and middle-income countries. We reviewed the literature on traveller studies of doxycycline/tetracycline resistance among stool pathogens and the impact of doxycycline on TD rates, ESBL-PE acquisition, and doxycycline/tetracycline resistance.
RESULTS: The TD rates were similar for doxycycline users (32/46; 69.6%) and non-users (256/366; 69.9%). Of the 90 travel-acquired ESBL-PE isolates, 84.4% were co-resistant to doxycycline: 100% (11/11) among users and 82.3% (65/79) among non-users. The literature on doxycycline's effect on TD was not conclusive nor did it support a recent decline in doxycycline resistance. Although doxycycline did not increase ESBL-PE acquisition, doxycycline-resistance among stool pathogens proved more frequent for users than non-users.
CONCLUSIONS: Our prospective data and the literature review together suggest the following: 1) doxycycline does not prevent TD; 2) doxycycline use favours acquisition of doxy/tetracycline-co-resistant intestinal bacteria; 3) although doxycycline does not predispose to travel-related ESBL-PE acquisition per se, it selects ESBL-PE strains co-resistant to doxycycline; 4) doxycycline resistance rates are high among stool bacteria in general with no evidence of any tendency to decrease.
METHODS: We explored the impact of doxycycline on rates of traveller's diarrhoea (TD), ESBL-PE acquisition and, particularly, doxycycline co-resistance among travel-acquired ESBL-PE in a sample of 412 visitors to low- and middle-income countries. We reviewed the literature on traveller studies of doxycycline/tetracycline resistance among stool pathogens and the impact of doxycycline on TD rates, ESBL-PE acquisition, and doxycycline/tetracycline resistance.
RESULTS: The TD rates were similar for doxycycline users (32/46; 69.6%) and non-users (256/366; 69.9%). Of the 90 travel-acquired ESBL-PE isolates, 84.4% were co-resistant to doxycycline: 100% (11/11) among users and 82.3% (65/79) among non-users. The literature on doxycycline's effect on TD was not conclusive nor did it support a recent decline in doxycycline resistance. Although doxycycline did not increase ESBL-PE acquisition, doxycycline-resistance among stool pathogens proved more frequent for users than non-users.
CONCLUSIONS: Our prospective data and the literature review together suggest the following: 1) doxycycline does not prevent TD; 2) doxycycline use favours acquisition of doxy/tetracycline-co-resistant intestinal bacteria; 3) although doxycycline does not predispose to travel-related ESBL-PE acquisition per se, it selects ESBL-PE strains co-resistant to doxycycline; 4) doxycycline resistance rates are high among stool bacteria in general with no evidence of any tendency to decrease.