Chloramphenicol or ceftriaxone, or both, as treatment for meningitis in developing countries?
Open Access
- 1 June 2003
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in Archives of Disease in Childhood
- Vol. 88 (6) , 536-539
- https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.88.6.536
Abstract
Aims: To determine in children with meningitis whether there is any difference in mortality and neurological sequelae using chloramphenicol as first line treatment, with a change to ceftriaxone if chloramphenicol resistance is shown in vitro, compared to using ceftriaxone as first line treatment, with a change to chloramphenicol if there is no evidence of in vitro resistance. Methods: An observational study with a retrospective control group nested within a randomised trial of fluid management for bacterial meningitis where clinical care was standardised. Chloramphenicol is standard treatment for bacterial meningitis in Papua New Guinea. In the first 150 cases we used chloramphenicol and only changed treatment to ceftriaxone if chloramphenicol resistance for cerebrospinal fluid isolates was proved. After finding 20% of Haemophilus influenzae were resistant to chloramphenicol, and that most affected children had poor outcomes, we changed to an alternative strategy. In the next 196 cases first line treatment was ceftriaxone and treatment was changed to chloramphenicol if the isolated bacteria were found to be susceptible. Results: When chloramphenicol was used as first line treatment for meningitis followed by ceftriaxone when in vitro resistance was shown, there was invariably a very poor outcome in chloramphenicol resistant disease (71% of children died or had severe neurological complications). Using ceftriaxone as first line treatment was effective in reducing mortality and neurological sequelae from chloramphenicol resistant Haemophilus influenzae type (71% v 9%, relative risk 0.13; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.87; p = 0.013). Changing to chloramphenicol if there was no evidence of in vitro resistance was less than half the cost of empirical use of ceftriaxone for a full course for all children with meningitis. Conclusions: Using a third generation cephalosporin as first line treatment is effective in dealing with the problem of poor outcomes from meningitis due to Haemophilus influenzae that is resistant to chloramphenicol, and a strategy of changing to chloramphenicol if in vitro susceptibility is shown will reduce the use of expensive third generation cephalosporins without comprising on clinical outcomes. This highlights the urgent need to reduce the costs of third generation cephalosporins, to improve bacteriological services in developing countries, and to introduce effective and affordable vaccines against H influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae.Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Failure of chloramphenicol therapy in penicillin-resistant pneumococcal meningitisThe Lancet, 1992
- RANDOMISED COMPARISON OF CHLORAMPHENICOL, AMPICILLIN, CEFOTAXIME, AND CEFTRIAXONE FOR CHILDHOOD BACTERIAL MENINGITISThe Lancet, 1989
- Intramuscular Ceftriaxone Versus Ampicillin-Chloramphenicol in Childhood Bacterial MeningitisScandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1988
- Ceftazidime vs. standard therapy for pediatric meningitisThe Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 1986
- Cefotaxime vs. conventional therapy for the treatment of bacterial meningitis of infants and childrenThe Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 1986
- A prospective randomized comparison of cefotaxime vs ampicillin and chloramphenicol for bacterial meningitis in childrenThe Journal of Pediatrics, 1985
- Prospective comparative trial of ceftriaxone vs. conventional therapy for treatment of bacterial meningitis in childrenThe Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 1985
- Comparison of ceftriaxone with standard therapy for bacterial meningitisThe Journal of Pediatrics, 1983
- CEFTRIAXONE VERSUS AMPICILLIN AND CHLORAMPHENICOL FOR TREATMENT OF BACTERIAL MENINGITIS IN CHILDRENThe Lancet, 1983
- HIGH PREVALENCE OF PENICILLIN-INSENSITIVE PNEUMOCOCCI IN PORT MORESBY, PAPUA NEW GUINEAThe Lancet, 1980