Efficacy of oral amantadine among patients hospitalised with COVID-19: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Amantadine has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 because it shows anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity in vitro. However, to date, no controlled study has assessed the safety and efficacy of amantadine in COVID-19.Research question
Whether amantadine is effective and safe among patients with different COVID-19 severity classifications.Study design
and Methods: This was multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled study.Patients with oxygen saturation ≤94% and no need for high-flow oxygen or ventilatory support were randomly allocated to receive oral amantadine or placebo (1:1) for 10 days in addition to standard care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery assessed over 28 days since randomisation, defined as discharge from hospital or no need for supplemental oxygen.Results
The study was terminated early due to a lack of efficacy after an interim analysis. Final data from 95 patients who received amantadine (mean age, 60.2 years; 65% male; 66% with comorbidities) and 91 patients who received placebo (mean age, 55.8 years; 60% male; 68% with comorbidities) were obtained. The median (95% CI) time to recovery was 10 days both in the amantadine (9-11) and placebo arms (8-11; subhazard ratio = 0.94 [95%CI 0.7-1.3]). The percentage of deaths and percentage of patients who required intensive care at 14 and 28 days did not significantly differ between the amantadine and placebo groups.Interpretation
Adding amantadine to standard care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 did not increase the likelihood of recovery.Clinical trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04952519; www.Clinicaltrials
gov.
SUBMITTER: Barczyk A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10015090 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Efficacy of oral amantadine among patients hospitalised with COVID-19: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study.
Barczyk Adam A Czajkowska-Malinowska Małgorzata M Farnik Małgorzata M Barczyk Marek M Boda Łukasz Ł Cofta Szczepan S Duława Jan J Dyrbuś Maciej M Harat Rafał R Huk Maciej M Kotecka Sylwia S Nahorecki Artur A Nasiłowski Jacek J Naumnik Wojciech W Przybylski Grzegorz G Słaboń-Willand Monika M Skoczyński Szymon S Wita Krystian K Zioło Grzegorz G Kuna Piotr P
Respiratory medicine 20230315
<h4>Background</h4>Amantadine has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 because it shows anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity in vitro. However, to date, no controlled study has assessed the safety and efficacy of amantadine in COVID-19.<h4>Research question</h4>Whether amantadine is effective and safe among patients with different COVID-19 severity classifications.<h4>Study design</h4>and Methods: This was multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled study.Patients with oxygen saturation ≤94% and no ne ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral levosimendan in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). This phase II, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, three-period study with 6 months open-label follow-up enrolled adults with ALS and sitting slow vital capacity (SVC) 60%-90 % of predicted from 11 sites in four countries. METHODS:Patients received levosimendan 1?mg daily, 1?mg two times a day or placebo during three 14-day crossover periods and levosimendan 1-2?mg daily during open-label follow-up. Primary endpoint was sitting SVC; secondary endpoints included supine SVC, ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R), tolerability and safety. RESULTS:Of 66 patients randomised, 59 contributed to the double-blind results and 50 entered open-label follow-up. Sitting SVC was not significantly different between the treatments. In post hoc analysis using period-wise baselines, supine SVC favoured levosimendan over placebo, estimated mean differences from baseline being -3.62% on placebo, +0.77% on levosimendan 1?mg daily (p=0.018) and +2.38% on 1?mg two times a day (p=0.001). Headache occurred in 16.7% of patients during levosimendan 1?mg daily (p=0.030), 28.6% during 1?mg two times a day (p=0.002) and 3.3% during placebo. The respective frequencies for increased heart rate were 5.1% (p=0.337), 18.5% (p=0.018) and 1.7%. No significant differences between the treatments were seen for other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:Levosimendan did not achieve the primary endpoint of improving sitting SVC in ALS. Headache and increased heart rate were increased on levosimendan, although it was otherwise well tolerated. A phase III study to evaluate the longer term effects of oral levosimendan in ALS is ongoing.
| S-EPMC6817985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. Findings Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57–0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. Interpretation Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Funding Sponsored by the University of Dundee and supported through an Investigator Initiated Research award from Insmed, Bridgewater, NJ; STOP-COVID19 trial.
| S-EPMC9442496 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundZapnometinib is an oral, non-ATP-competitive, small-molecule inhibitor of MEK1/MEK2 with immunomodulatory and antiviral properties. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of zapnometinib in patients with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial, we recruited hospitalised adults with moderate or severe COVID-19 from 18 hospitals in Germany, India, Romania, South Africa, and Spain. Those requiring ICU admission or ventilator support at screening or randomisation were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral zapnometinib (900 mg on Day 1; 600 mg on Days 2-6) or matching placebo, on top of standard of care. Randomisation, stratified by baseline clinical severity status (CSS 3 or 4, measured on a 7-point ordinal scale), was done using Interactive Response Technology. Patients, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was CSS at Day 15 and was conducted on the full analysis set (FAS: all patients who were randomised to the study, received at least one dose of study medication and had at least one post-dose assessment of CSS, as randomised). Safety analyses were conducted on the safety analysis set (all study participants who received at least one dose of study medication, as treated). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04776044) and EudraCT (2020-004206-59).FindingsThe trial was terminated early as the emergence of the Omicron variant impacted recruitment. Between 12th April 2021 and 9th August 2022, 104 of the planned 220 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 103 were treated, and 101 were included in the FAS (zapnometinib: n = 50; placebo: n = 51). The primary outcome was not significantly different between the two groups, but patients on zapnometinib had higher odds of improved CSS versus placebo (odds ratio [OR] 1.54 [95% CI 0.72-3.33]; p = 0.26). Predefined subgroup analyses identified trends for improved CSS in patients with severe disease at baseline (OR 2.57 [0.76-8.88]; p = 0.13) and non-Omicron variants (OR 2.36 [0.85-6.71]; p = 0.10); the p value of the CSS subgroup by Treatment interaction term in the model was p = 0.28. The frequency and intensity of adverse events was low and similar between arms. Twenty (39.2%) patients treated with zapnometinib experienced adverse events compared with eighteen (34.6%) patients treated with placebo. One patient receiving zapnometinib and two patients receiving placebo died during the study. None of the deaths were considered related to study medication.InterpretationThese results provide proof-of-concept for the innovative approach of targeting the Raf/MEK/ERK pathway in patients with hospitalised moderate/severe COVID-19. Further clinical studies will be required to evaluate the clinical benefit of zapnometinib in this and other indications.FundingAtriva Therapeutics GmbH and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany.
| S-EPMC10725048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMethylphenidate, modafinil, and amantadine are commonly prescribed medications for alleviating fatigue in multiple sclerosis; however, the evidence supporting their efficacy is sparse and conflicting. Our goal was to compare the efficacy of these three medications with each other and placebo in patients with multiple sclerosis fatigue.MethodsIn this randomised, placebo-controlled, four-sequence, four-period, crossover, double-blind trial, patients with multiple sclerosis who reported fatigue and had a Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) score of more than 33 were recruited at two academic multiple sclerosis centres in the USA. Participants received oral amantadine (up to 100 mg twice daily), modafinil (up to 100 mg twice daily), methylphenidate (up to 10 mg twice daily), or placebo, each given for up to 6 weeks. All patients were intended to receive all four study medications, in turn, in one of four different sequences with 2-week washout periods between medications. A biostatistician prepared a concealed allocation schedule, stratified by site, randomly assigning a sequence of medications in approximately a 1:1:1:1 ratio, in blocks of eight, to a consecutive series of numbers. The statistician and pharmacists had no role in assessing the participants or collecting data, and the participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to allocation. The primary outcome measure was the MFIS measured while taking the highest tolerated dose at week 5 of each medication period, analysed by use of a linear mixed-effect regression model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03185065 and is closed.FindingsBetween Oct 4, 2017, and Feb 27, 2019, of 169 patients screened, 141 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of four medication administration sequences: 35 (25%) patients to the amantadine, placebo, modafinil, and methylphenidate sequence; 34 (24%) patients to the placebo, methylphenidate, amantadine, and modafinil sequence; 35 (25%) patients to the modafinil, amantadine, methylphenidate, and placebo sequence; and 37 (26%) patients to the methylphenidate, modafinil, placebo, and amantadine sequence. Data from 136 participants were available for the intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome. The estimated mean values of MFIS total scores at baseline and the maximal tolerated dose were as follows: 51·3 (95% CI 49·0-53·6) at baseline, 40·6 (38·2-43·1) with placebo, 41·3 (38·8-43·7) with amantadine, 39·0 (36·6-41·4) with modafinil, and 38·6 (36·2-41·0) with methylphenidate (p=0·20 for the overall medication effect in the linear mixed-effect regression model). As compared with placebo (38 [31%] of 124 patients), higher proportions of participants reported adverse events while taking amantadine (49 [39%] of 127 patients), modafinil (50 [40%] of 125 patients), and methylphenidate (51 [40%] of 129 patients). Three serious adverse events occurred during the study (pulmonary embolism and myocarditis while taking amantadine, and a multiple sclerosis exacerbation requiring hospital admission while taking modafinil).InterpretationAmantadine, modafinil, and methylphenidate were not superior to placebo in improving multiple sclerosis fatigue and caused more frequent adverse events. The results of this study do not support an indiscriminate use of amantadine, modafinil, or methylphenidate for the treatment of fatigue in multiple sclerosis.FundingPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
| S-EPMC7772747 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-antiviral therapeutic options are required for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. CD24Fc is an immunomodulator with potential to reduce the exaggerated inflammatory response to tissue injuries. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CD24Fc in hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen support.MethodsWe conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study at nine medical centres in the USA. Hospitalised patients (age ≥18 years) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were receiving oxygen support and standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) by site-stratified block randomisation to receive a single intravenous infusion of CD24Fc 480 mg or placebo. The study funder, investigators, and patients were masked to treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement over 28 days, defined as time that elapsed between a baseline National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ordinal scale score of 2-4 and reaching a score of 5 or higher or hospital discharge. The prespecified primary interim analysis was done when 146 participants reached the time to clinical improvement endpoint. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04317040.FindingsBetween April 24 and Sept 22, 2020, 243 hospitalised patients were assessed for eligibility and 234 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive CD24Fc (n=116) or placebo (n=118). The prespecified interim analysis was done when 146 participants reached the time to clinical improvement endpoint among 197 randomised participants. In the interim analysis, the 28-day clinical improvement rate was 82% (81 of 99) for CD24Fc versus 66% (65 of 98) for placebo; median time to clinical improvement was 6·0 days (95% CI 5·0-8·0) in the CD24Fc group versus 10·0 days (7·0-15·0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·61, 95% CI 1·16-2·23; log-rank p=0·0028, which crossed the prespecified efficacy boundary [α=0·0147]). 37 participants were randomly assigned after the interim analysis data cutoff date; among the 234 randomised participants, median time to clinical improvement was 6·0 days (95% CI 5·0-9·0) in the CD24Fc group versus 10·5 days (7·0-15·0) in the placebo group (HR 1·40, 95% CI 1·02-1·92; log-rank p=0·037). The proportion of participants with disease progression within 28 days was 19% (22 of 116) in the CD24Fc group versus 31% (36 of 118) in the placebo group (HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·33-0·95; unadjusted p=0·031). The incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in both groups. No treatment-related adverse events were observed.InterpretationCD24Fc is generally well tolerated and accelerates clinical improvement of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who are receiving oxygen support. These data suggest that targeting inflammation in response to tissue injuries might provide a therapeutic option for patients hospitalised with COVID-19.FundingMerck & Co, National Cancer Institute, OncoImmune.
| S-EPMC8916779 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have found no significant difference in hospitalisation rates. However, low statistical power precluded definitive answers.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk factor for clinical deterioration were randomised (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day (BID) in the first day, 400 mg once daily (OD) thereafter for a total of seven days, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalisation due to COVID-19 at 30 days, which was assessed by an adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation and following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. An additional analysis was performed only in participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular or serology testing (modified ITT [mITT] analysis). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466540.FindingsFrom May 12, 2020 to July 07, 2021, 1372 patients were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine or placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalisation between hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (44/689 [6·4%] and 57/683 [8·3%], RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·52-1·12], respectively, p=0·16), and similar results were found in the mITT analysis with 43/478 [9·0%] and 55/471 [11·7%] events, RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·53-1·12)], respectively, p=0·17. To further complement our data, we conducted a meta-analysis which suggested no significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in reducing hospitalisation among patients with positive testing (69/1222 [5·6%], and 88/1186 [7·4%]; RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·57-1·04]).InterpretationIn outpatients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation compared to the placebo control. Our findings do not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.FundingCOALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.
| S-EPMC8968238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether oral antimicrobial prophylaxis as an adjunct to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis reduces surgical site infections after elective colorectal surgery.DesignMulticentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.Setting11 university and non-university hospitals in France between 25 May 2016 and 8 August 2019.Participants926 adults scheduled for elective colorectal surgery.InterventionPatients were randomised to receive either a single 1 g dose of ornidazole (n=463) or placebo (n=463) orally 12 hours before surgery, in addition to intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis before surgical incision.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients with surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included individual types of surgical site infections and major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grade 3 or higher) within 30 days after surgery.ResultsOf the 960 patients who were enrolled, 926 (96%) were included in the analysis. The mean age of participants was 63 years and 554 (60%) were men. Surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery occurred in 60 of 463 patients (13%) in the oral prophylaxis group and 100 of 463 (22%) in the placebo group (absolute difference -8.6%, 95% confidence interval -13.5% to -3.8%; relative risk 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.80). The proportion of patients with deep infections was 4.8% in the oral prophylaxis group and 8.0% in the placebo group (absolute difference -3.2%, 95% confidence interval -6.4% to -0.1%). The proportion of patients with organ space infections was 5.0% in the oral prophylaxis group and 8.4% in the placebo group (absolute difference -3.4%, -6.7% to -0.2%). Major postoperative complications occurred in 9.1% patients in the oral prophylaxis group and 13.6% in the placebo group (absolute difference -4.5%, -8.6% to -0.5%).ConclusionAmong adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery, the addition of a single 1 g dose of ornidazole compared with placebo before surgery significantly reduced surgical site infections.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02618720.
| S-EPMC9631300 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9126560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNo specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ?18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656.FindingsBetween Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early.InterpretationIn this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.FundingChinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.
| S-EPMC7190303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.
| S-EPMC5820409 | biostudies-literature