Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26271050›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Efficacy of Ciprofloxacin for Treatment of Cholera Associated with Diminished Susceptibility to Ciprofloxacin to Vibrio cholerae O1.

Wasif Ali Khan, Debasish Saha, Sabeena Ahmed, Mohammed Abdus Salam, Michael Louis Bennish

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Microbial genomics · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Combating Cholera.F1000Research · 2019
    Review
  5. Frontiers in microbiology · 2017
    Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Wasif Ali Khanicddr, b: International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Debasish Sahaicddr, b: International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Dhaka, Bangladesh; Centre for International Health, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Sabeena Ahmedicddr, b: International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Mohammed Abdus Salamicddr, b: International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Michael Louis BennishMpilonhle, Mtubatuba, South Africa.
International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research · BDUniversity of Mpumalanga · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe identified a poor clinical response to treatment of cholera with a single 1 g dose of ciprofloxacin, a standard treatment for cholera.

methodsTo determine reasons for the poor response and better therapeutic approaches we examined the minimal inhibitor concentration (MIC, n = 275) and disc-diffusion zone sizes (n = 205) for ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid of V. cholerae O1 strains isolated in Bangladesh from 1994 to 2012, and reexamined data from 161 patients infected with Vibrio cholerae O1 recruited in four clinical trials who received single- or multiple-dose ciprofloxacin for treatment of cholera and compared their clinical response to the V. cholerae O1 susceptibility.

resultsAlthough all 275 isolates of V. cholerae O1 remained susceptible to ciprofloxacin using standard MIC and disc-diffusion thresholds, the MIC90 to ciprofloxacin increased from 0.010 in 1994 to 0.475 μgm/ml in 2012. Isolates became frankly resistant to nalidixic with the MIC90 increasing from 21 μgm/ml in 1994 to >256 μgm/ml and 166 of 205 isolates from 1994 to 2005 being frankly resistant using disc-diffusion testing. Isolates resistant to nalidixic acid by disc-diffusion testing had a median ciprofloxacin MIC of 0.190 μgm/ml (10th-90th centiles 0.022 to 0.380); nalidixic acid-susceptible isolates had a median ciprofloxacin MIC of 0.002 (0.002 to 0.012).The rate of clinical success with single-dose ciprofloxacin treatment for nalidixic acid-susceptible strains was 94% (61 of 65 patients) and bacteriologic success 97% (63/65) compared to 18% (12/67) and 8% (5/67) respectively with nalidixic acid-resistant strains (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Multiple-dose treatment with ciprofloxacin had 86% and 100% clinical and bacteriologic success rates respectively in patients infected with nalidixic acid-susceptible strains of V. cholerae O1 compared to clinical success 67% and bacteriologic success 60% with nalidixic acid-resistant strains.

conclusionsSingle-dose ciprofloxacin is not effective for treating cholera caused by V. cholerae O1 with diminished susceptibility to ciprofloxacin, and nalidixic acid disc-diffusion testing effectively screens for such isolates.

Indexed as

BangladeshCholeraCiprofloxacinDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Resistance, BacterialFemaleHumansMaleNalidixic AcidRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesVibrio choleraeCiprofloxacinNalidixic Acid

Identifiers

PMID26271050
PMCPMC4536225
OpenAlexW1142755696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.