Therapeutic Options for Melioidosis: A Systematic Review
Therapeutic Options for Melioidosis: A Systematic Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51473/rcmos.v1i1.2026.2042Keywords:
melioidosis, Burkholderia pseudomallei, TreatmentAbstract
Introduction: Melioidosis is a disease caused by the bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei, common in tropical regions. It is poorly understood and studied by health professionals, but some antibiotics reduce mortality from infection by 50%. Method: This review aimed to evaluate the quality of the literature on basic information characteristic of melioidosis by comparing the diagnostic methods and medications used according to the PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criteria were individuals infected with the bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei, and the exclusion criteria were individuals under 3 years of age and over 70 years of age. Results: Immunochromatography assay results were insensitive. PCR use can reduce the time to a definitive diagnosis by up to 36 hours. API 20NE and 20E identified 98% and 99% of B. pseudomallei isolates, respectively. AKI, advanced age, or DM did not worsen mortality. Treatment with ceftazidime was associated with good activity compared to conventional therapy. In severe sepsis, meropenem resulted in lower mortality than ceftazidime. Hepatic and bacteremic comorbidities had a worse prognosis. Treatment with ceftazidime, meropenem, TMP-SMX plus doxycycline is therapeutic in non-septicemia. Doxycycline alone is not recommended as treatment of choice. Conclusion: Through comparative research, the culture method remains the preferred method for investigation, despite the time it takes to produce results. Regarding treatment, the medication evaluated as first-line is ceftazidime.
Downloads
References
BIRYUKOV, SERGEI S. et al. Comparison of homologous and heterologous vaccination strategies for combating disease caused by Burkholderia pseudomallei. Frontiers in Immunology, v. 16, p. 1596265, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1596265
CHAOWAGUL, W. et al. A comparison of chloramphenicol, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and doxycycline with doxycycline alone as maintenance therapy for melioidosis. Clinical Infectious Diseases, v. 29, n. 2, p. 375–380, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/520218
CHENG, A. C. et al. Outcomes of patients with melioidosis treated with meropenem. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, v. 48, n. 5, p. 1763–1765, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.48.5.1763-1765.2004
CHETCHOTISAKD, P. et al. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus doxycycline as oral eradicative treatment for melioidosis (MERTH): a multicentre, double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, v. 383, n. 9919, p. 807–814, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61951-0
DESAKORN, V. et al. Detection of Pseudomonas pseudomallei antigen in urine for the diagnosis of melioidosis. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, v. 51, n. 5, p. 627–633, 1994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.1994.51.627
INGLIS, T. J. J. et al. Comparison of diagnostic laboratory methods for identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, v. 43, n. 5, p. 2201–2206, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.43.5.2201-2206.2005
KUNAKORN, M. et al. Comparison of three PCR primer sets for diagnosis of septicemic melioidosis. Acta Tropica, v. 74, n. 2–3, p. 247–251, 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-706X(99)00077-7
LOWE, P.; ENGLER, C.; NORTON, R. Comparison of automated and nonautomated systems for identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, v. 40, n. 12, p. 4625–4627, 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.40.12.4625-4627.2002
SENGYEE, SINEENART et al. Melioidosis vaccines: recent advances and future directions. Frontiers in Immunology, v. 16, p. 1582113, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1582113
SETTLES, ERIK W. et al. Development and evaluation of a multiplex serodiagnostic bead assay (BurkPx) for accurate melioidosis diagnosis. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, v. 17, n. 2, p. e0011072, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011072
SIMPSON, A. J. H. et al. Differential antibiotic-induced endotoxin release in severe melioidosis. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, v. 181, n. 3, p. 1014–1019, 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/315306
SIMPSON, A. J. et al. A comparison of lysis centrifugation, pour plate, and conventional blood culture methods in the diagnosis of septicaemic melioidosis. Journal of Clinical Pathology, v. 52, n. 8, p. 616–619, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.52.8.616
SIRISINHA, S. et al. Recent developments in laboratory diagnosis of melioidosis. Acta Tropica, v. 74, n. 2–3, p. 235–245, 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-706X(99)00076-5
SUNTORNSUT, P. et al. Effectiveness of a multifaceted prevention programme for melioidosis in diabetics (PREMEL): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, v. 15, n. 6, p. e0009060, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009060
SUPUTTAMONGKOL, Y. et al. Ceftazidime vs. amoxicillin/clavulanate in the treatment of severe melioidosis. Clinical Infectious Diseases, v. 19, n. 5, p. 846–853, 1994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/clinids/19.5.846
WAJANAROGANA, S. et al. Potential of recombinant flagellin fragment from Burkholderia thailandensis as an antigen for melioidosis antibody detection by indirect ELISA. Molecular and Cellular Probes, v. 27, n. 2, p. 98–102, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcp.2012.11.001
WHITE, N. J. et al. Halving of mortality of severe melioidosis by ceftazidime. The Lancet, v. 334, n. 8665, p. 697–701, 1989. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(89)90768-X
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Herlice do Nascimento Veras, Kátia Thamiris dos Santos Lima, Sarah Aragão Carvalho (Autor)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This means you are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The use of this material is conditioned upon proper attribution to the original author(s), providing a link to the license, and indicating if changes were made. The license does not require permission from the author or the publisher as long as these conditions are met.
The Creative Commons license logo is displayed permanently in the footer of the journal.
The copyright of the manuscript can be retained by the authors without restrictions and can be requested at any time, even after publication in the journal.
How to Cite
