Despite the plethora of studies that have examined laboratory susceptibility testing for Bordetella pertussis, assessments of treatment have lagged far behind both in quality and quantity. Macrolides and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole historically served the needs of both treatment and prevention, albeit there is still controversy about the degree of protection measured both bacteriologically and clinically. As high-level macrolide resistance has emerged in some geographic regions and since macrolides have been the mainstay of therapy, alternative antibiotics need to be defined for pertussis. In vitro susceptibility testing suggests the potential for several alternatives to macrolides, including trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, specific β-lactam agents, chloramphenicol, some quinolones and possibly some tetracyclines. For the latter antibiotics, more clinical studies for treatment and prophylaxis are required in to order to establish bacteriological-clinical correlates for outcome. In the interim, if the clinical circumstances mandate the use of proposed interim alternatives to macrolides, outcomes should be assessed with test of cure by culture, since genetic amplification technologies do not discriminate bacterial viability. Whereas there may be debate in regard to using placebo or macrolides as the controls for alternative antibiotic therapy in geographies where most B. pertussis isolates are antibiotic-susceptible, both placebo and macrolide controls should be assessed along with alternative antibiotics in well-designed controlled studies in regions pressured by macrolide resistance. Outcomes of clinical response and epidemiological patterns of disease should continue to be monitored given the degree of macrolide resistance that is emerging.
Keywords: Antibiotic; Antimicrobial; Bordetella pertussis; Resistance; Susceptibility.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.