Background: Enteric fever in Nepal is caused by infection with Salmonella typhi or Salmonella paratyphi A. The clinical presentation of these two illnesses has never been compared in a population of travelers and expatriates. If the illnesses are clinically comparable, and if S. paratyphi A infection is sufficiently common, the choice of typhoid vaccine for Nepal may have to take into account the vaccine's efficacy in preventing infection with S. paratyphi A. Methods: NonNepalese patients presenting to the CIWEC Clinic with a history of 3 days of fever or greater were considered eligible for the study. Patients with positive blood or stool cultures for S. typhi or S. paratyphi A were entered into the study (along with three patients who had positive Widal titers only). A questionnaire was administered by a physician to determine signs and symptoms. Treatment with oral chloramphenicol was openly compared to treatment with oral ciprofloxacin. Results: Forty-five cases of enteric fever were diagnosed during the 2 years of the study. Infection with S. typhi accounted for 20 cases, and S. paratyphi A was isolated in 22 cases. The illnesses were clinically indistinguishable. Treatment with chloramphenicol and ciprofloxacin was clinically comparable. Conclusions: Infection with S. paratyphi A accounts for a significant percentage of enteric fever presentations among tourists in Nepal, and the illness is comparable to infection with S. typhi. Therefore, the choice of typhoid vaccine for long-term travelers or expatriates in Nepal should take into account the vaccine's potential ability to also prevent S. paratyphi A infection. The only typhoid vaccine that can currently offer this type of cross protection is the whole-cell killed preparation.
Background: Enteric fever in Nepal is caused by infection with Salmonella typhi or Salmonella paratyphi A. The clinical presentation of these two illnesses has never been compared in a population of travelers and expatriates. If the illnesses are clinically comparable, and if S. paratyphi A infection is sufficiently common, the choice of typhoid vaccine for Nepal may have to take into account the vaccine's efficacy in preventing infection with S. paratyphi A. Methods: NonNepalese patients presenting to the CIWEC Clinic with a history of 3 days of fever or greater were considered eligible for the study. Patients with positive blood or stool cultures for S. typhi or S. paratyphi A were entered into the study (along with three patients who had positive Widal titers only). A questionnaire was administered by a physician to determine signs and symptoms. Treatment with oral chloramphenicol was openly compared to treatment with oral ciprofloxacin. Results: Forty-five cases of enteric fever were diagnosed during the 2 years of the study. Infection with S. typhi accounted for 20 cases, and S. paratyphi A was isolated in 22 cases. The illnesses were clinically indistinguishable. Treatment with chloramphenicol and ciprofloxacin was clinically comparable. Conclusions: Infection with S. paratyphi A accounts for a significant percentage of enteric fever presentations among tourists in Nepal, and the illness is comparable to infection with S. typhi. Therefore, the choice of typhoid vaccine for long-term travelers or expatriates in Nepal should take into account the vaccine's potential ability to also prevent S. paratyphi A infection. The only typhoid vaccine that can currently offer this type of cross protection is the whole-cell killed preparation.
Authors: Milan Trojánek; Daniela Dědičová; Helena Žemličková; Vladislav Jakubů; Eliška Malíková; Marie Reisingerová; Alice Gabrielová; Costas C Papagiannitsis; Jaroslav Hrabák; Blanka Horová; Pavla Urbášková; Vilma Marešová; František Stejskal Journal: Folia Microbiol (Praha) Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 2.099