Oral-only antibiotics for bone and joint infections in children: study protocol for a nationwide randomised open-label non-inferiority trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Children with bone and joint infections are traditionally treated with intravenous antibiotics for 3-10 days, followed by oral antibiotics. Oral-only treatment has not been tested in randomised trials.Methods and analysis
Children (3 months to 18 years) will be randomised 1:1 with the experimental group receiving high-dose oral antibiotics and the control group receiving intravenous antibiotics with a shift in both groups to standard oral antibiotics after clinical and paraclinical improvement. Children in need of acute surgery or systemic features requiring intravenous therapy, including septic shock, are excluded. The primary outcome is defined as a normal blinded standardised clinical assessment 6 months after end of treatment. Secondary outcomes are non-acute treatment failure and recurrent infection. Outcomes will be compared by a non-inferiority assumption with an inferiority margin of 5%.Ethics and dissemination
The trial has the potential to reduce unnecessary hospitalisation and use of intravenous antibiotics in children with bone or joint infections. Due to the close follow-up, exclusion of severely ill children and predefined criteria for discontinuation of the allocated therapy, we expect the risk of treatment failure to be minimal.Trial registration number
NCT04563325.
SUBMITTER: Bybeck Nielsen A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10254855 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Oral-only antibiotics for bone and joint infections in children: study protocol for a nationwide randomised open-label non-inferiority trial.
Bybeck Nielsen Allan A Borch Luise L Damkjaer Mads M Glenthøj Jonathan Peter JP Hartling Ulla U Hoffmann Thomas Ulrik TU Holm Mette M Helleskov Rasmussen Annett A Schmidt Lisbeth Samsø LS Schmiegelow Kjeld K Stensballe Lone Graff LG Nygaard Ulrikka U
BMJ open 20230601 6
<h4>Introduction</h4>Children with bone and joint infections are traditionally treated with intravenous antibiotics for 3-10 days, followed by oral antibiotics. Oral-only treatment has not been tested in randomised trials.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>Children (3 months to 18 years) will be randomised 1:1 with the experimental group receiving high-dose oral antibiotics and the control group receiving intravenous antibiotics with a shift in both groups to standard oral antibiotics after clinical a ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo test and compare the efficacy of methenamine hippurate for prevention of recurrent urinary tract infections with the current standard prophylaxis of daily low dose antibiotics.DesignMulticentre, open label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.SettingEight centres in the UK, recruiting from June 2016 to June 2018.ParticipantsWomen aged ≥18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections, requiring prophylactic treatment.InterventionsRandom assignment (1:1, using permuted blocks of variable length via a web based system) to receive antibiotic prophylaxis or methenamine hippurate for 12 months. Treatment allocation was not masked and crossover between arms was allowed.Main outcome measureAbsolute difference in incidence of symptomatic, antibiotic treated, urinary tract infections during treatment. A patient and public involvement group predefined the non-inferiority margin as one episode of urinary tract infection per person year. Analyses performed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprised all participants observed for at least six months.ResultsParticipants were randomly assigned to antibiotic prophylaxis (n=120) or methenamine hippurate (n=120). The modified intention-to-treat analysis comprised 205 (85%) participants (antibiotics, n=102 (85%); methenamine hippurate, n=103 (86%)). Incidence of antibiotic treated urinary tract infections during the 12 month treatment period was 0.89 episodes per person year (95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.12) in the antibiotics group and 1.38 (1.05 to 1.72) in the methenamine hippurate group, with an absolute difference of 0.49 (90% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.84) confirming non-inferiority. Adverse reactions were reported by 34/142 (24%) in the antibiotic group and 35/127 (28%) in the methenamine group and most reactions were mild.ConclusionNon-antibiotic prophylactic treatment with methenamine hippurate might be appropriate for women with a history of recurrent episodes of urinary tract infections, informed by patient preferences and antibiotic stewardship initiatives, given the demonstration of non-inferiority to daily antibiotic prophylaxis seen in this trial.Trial registrationISRCTN70219762.
| S-EPMC8905684 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough intravenous antibiotics have historically been the standard of care for bone and joint infections, clinical trial data have highlighted the safety and efficacy of oral antibiotics. Despite this, intravenous antibiotics are still commonly used, and evaluations of institutional guidelines advancing oral antibiotic use are limited.MethodsIn April 2023, we implemented a new institutional guideline to preferentially treat patients with bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics. The postguideline cohort was compared with a historical preguideline cohort via retrospective chart review. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients discharged exclusively on oral antibiotics. Secondary outcomes included 90-day treatment failure, length of stay, and adverse effects.ResultsOne hundred eighty-six patients (53 preguideline and 133 postguideline) were included in the analysis. Patients in the postguideline cohort were more likely to be discharged exclusively on oral antibiotics (25% vs 70%; P < .01), with no difference in 90-day treatment failure (8% vs 9%; P = .75). Patients in the postguideline cohort had a shorter length of stay than preguideline (median, 8 vs 7 days; P = .04) and trended toward fewer peripherally inserted central catheter-related adverse events (6% vs 1%; P = .07).ConclusionsAn institutional guideline was effective in increasing the proportion of patients with bone and joint infections discharged on oral antibiotics. We observed similar clinical outcomes after implementing the guidelines while reducing length of hospital stay.
| S-EPMC11629981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication.MethodsWe enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points.ResultsAmong the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of -1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, -5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P=0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%).ConclusionsOral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927 .).
| S-EPMC6522347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Bone and joint infections are becoming increasingly common and are usually treated with surgery and a course of intravenous antibiotics. However, there is no evidence to support the superiority of intravenous therapy and there is a growing body of literature showing that oral therapy is effective in treating these infections.Given this lack of evidence the clinical trial 'Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics' (OVIVA) was designed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous versus oral antibiotics for the treatment of bone and joint infections, using a non-inferiority design. Clinical results from the trial indicate that oral antibiotics are non-inferior to intravenous antibiotics. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous compared to oral antibiotics for treating bone and joint infections, using data from OVIVA. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was carried out, the main economic outcome measure was the quality adjusted life-year, measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 12-months follow-up. Results: Results show that costs were significantly lower in the oral arm compared to the intravenous arm, a difference of £2,740 (95% confidence interval £1,488 to £3,992). Results of four sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case results. QALYs were marginally higher in the oral arm, however this difference was not statistically significant; -0.007 (95% confidence interval -0.045 to 0.031). Conclusions: Treating patients with bone and joint infections for the first six weeks of therapy with oral antibiotics is both less costly and does not result in detectable differences in quality of life compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Adopting a practice of treating bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics early in the course of therapy could potentially save the UK National Health Service over £17 million annually.
| S-EPMC6944252 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNovel oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 (nOPV2) was developed by modifying the Sabin strain to increase genetic stability and reduce risk of seeding new circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 outbreaks. Bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV; containing Sabin types 1 and 3) is the vaccine of choice for type 1 and type 3 outbreak responses. We aimed to assess immunological interference between nOPV2 and bOPV when administered concomitantly.MethodsWe conducted an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial at two clinical trial sites in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Healthy infants aged 6 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using block randomisation, stratified by site, to receive nOPV2 only, nOPV2 plus bOPV, or bOPV only, at the ages of 6 weeks, 10 weeks, and 14 weeks. Eligibility criteria included singleton and full term (≥37 weeks' gestation) birth and parents intending to remain in the study area for the duration of study follow-up activities. Poliovirus neutralising antibody titres were measured at the ages of 6 weeks, 10 weeks, 14 weeks, and 18 weeks. The primary outcome was cumulative immune response for all three poliovirus types at the age of 14 weeks (after two doses) and was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which was restricted to participants with adequate blood specimens from all study visits. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study product. A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used to compare single and concomitant administration. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04579510.FindingsBetween Feb 8 and Sept 26, 2021, 736 participants (244 in the nOPV2 only group, 246 in the nOPV2 plus bOPV group, and 246 in the bOPV only group) were enrolled and included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. After two doses, 209 (86%; 95% CI 81-90) participants in the nOPV2 only group and 159 (65%; 58-70) participants in the nOPV2 plus bOPV group had a type 2 poliovirus immune response; 227 (92%; 88-95) participants in the nOPV2 plus bOPV group and 229 (93%; 89-96) participants in the bOPV only group had a type 1 response; and 216 (88%; 83-91) participants in the nOPV2 plus bOPV group and 212 (86%; 81-90) participants in the bOPV only group had a type 3 response. Co-administration was non-inferior to single administration for types 1 and 3, but not for type 2. There were 15 serious adverse events (including three deaths, one in each group, all attributable to sudden infant death syndrome); none were attributed to vaccination.InterpretationCo-administration of nOPV2 and bOPV interfered with immunogenicity for poliovirus type 2, but not for types 1 and 3. The blunted nOPV2 immunogenicity we observed would be a major drawback of using co-administration as a vaccination strategy.FundingThe US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
| S-EPMC10503264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe advised standard treatment for bacterial brain abscess following surgery is 6 to 8 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment, but an early switch to oral antibiotic treatment has been suggested to be equally effective.MethodsThis investigator-initiated, international, multi-center, parallel group, open-label, randomized (1:1 allocation) controlled trial will examine if oral treatment after 2 weeks of IV antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to standard 6-8 weeks of IV antibiotics for bacterial brain abscess in adults (≥ 18 years of age). The study will be conducted at hospitals across Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Australia, and Sweden. Exclusion criteria are severe immunocompromise or impaired gastro-intestinal absorption, pregnancy, device-related brain abscesses, and brain abscess caused by nocardia, tuberculosis, or Pseudomonas spp. The primary objective is a composite endpoint at 6 months after randomization consisting of all-cause mortality, intraventricular rupture of brain abscess, unplanned re-aspiration or excision of brain abscess, relapse, or recurrence. The primary endpoint will be adjudicated by an independent blinded endpoint committee. Secondary outcomes include extended Glasgow Outcome Scale scores and all-cause mortality at end of treatment as well as 3, 6, and 12 months since randomization, completion of assigned treatment, IV catheter associated complications, durations of admission and antibiotic treatment, severe adverse events, quality of life scores, and cognitive evaluations. The planned sample size is 450 patients for a one-sided alpha of 0.025 and a power of 90% to exclude a difference in favor of standard treatment of more than 10%. Date of initiation of first study center was November 3, 2020, with active recruitment for 3 years and follow-up for 1 year of all patients.DiscussionThe results of this study may guide future recommendations for treatment of bacterial brain abscess. If early transition to oral antibiotics proves non-inferior to standard IV treatment, this will provide considerable health and costs benefits.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04140903, first registered 28.10.2019. EudraCT number: 2019-002845-39, first registered 03.07.2019.
| S-EPMC8588941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSupplementary immunisation activities with oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) are usually separated by 4 week intervals; however, shorter intervals have been used in security-compromised areas and for rapid outbreak responses. We assessed the immunogenicity of monovalent type-1 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV1) given at shorter than usual intervals in Karachi, Pakistan.MethodsThis was a multicentre, randomised, controlled, four-arm, open-label, non-inferiority trial done at five primary health-care centres in low-income communities in and around Karachi, Pakistan. Eligible participants were healthy newborn babies with a birthweight of at least 2·5 kg, for whom informed consent was provided by their parent or guardian, and lived less than 30 km from the study clinic. After receiving a birth dose of trivalent OPV, we enrolled and randomly assigned newborn babies (1:1:1:1) to receive two doses of mOPV1 with an interval of 1 week (mOPV1-1 week), 2 weeks (mOPV1-2 weeks), or 4 weeks (mOPV1-4 weeks) between doses, or two doses of bivalent OPV (bOPV) with an interval of 4 weeks between doses (bOPV-4 weeks). We gave the first study dose of OPV at age 6 weeks. We did the randomisation with a centrally generated, computerised allocation sequence with blocks of 16; participants' families and study physicians could not feasibly be masked to the allocations. Trial participants were excluded from local supplementary immunisation activities during the study period. The primary outcome was non-inferiority (within a 20% margin) between groups in seroconversion to type-1 poliovirus. The primary and safety analyses were done in the per-protocol population of infants who received all three doses of vaccine. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01586572, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween March 1, 2012, and May 31, 2013, we enrolled 1009 newborn babies, and randomly assigned 829 (82%) to treatment. 554 (67%) of the 829 babies were included in the per-protocol analysis. Proportions of seroconversion to type-1 poliovirus were 107/135 (79%, 95% CI 72·4-86·1) with mOPV1-1 week, 108/135 (80%, 73·2-86·8) with mOPV1-2 weeks, 129/148 (87%, 80·9-92·0) with mOPV1-4 weeks, and 107/136 (79%, 71·8-85·6) with bOPV-4 weeks. Non-inferiority was shown between groups and no significant differences were noted. Ten participants died during the trial. Seven of these deaths occurred during the lead-in period before randomisation (two from diarrhoea, five from unknown causes). Three infants died from sepsis after random assignment. No deaths were attributed to the procedures or vaccines. Additionally, we noted no events of vaccine-associated paralysis.InterpretationWe identified no significant differences in responses to mOPV1 given with shorter intervals between doses than with the standard 4 week intervals. The short-interval strategy could be particularly beneficial when temporary windows of opportunity for safe access can be granted in areas of conflict--eg, during cease-fire periods. In such situations, we recommend shortening the interval between OPV doses to 7 days.FundingWorld Health Organization.
| S-EPMC4644524 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBone and joint infection in adults arises most commonly as a complication of joint replacement surgery, fracture fixation and diabetic foot infection. The associated morbidity can be devastating to patients and costs the National Health Service an estimated £20,000 to £40,000 per patient. Current standard of care in most UK centres includes a prolonged course (4-6 weeks) of intravenous antibiotics supported, if available, by an outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy service. Intravenous therapy carries with it substantial risks and inconvenience to patients, and the antibiotic-related costs are approximately ten times that of oral therapy. Despite this, there is no evidence to suggest that oral therapy results in inferior outcomes. We hypothesise that, by selecting oral agents with high bioavailability, good tissue penetration and activity against the known or likely pathogens, key outcomes in patients managed primarily with oral therapy are non-inferior to those in patients treated by intravenous therapy.MethodsThe OVIVA trial is a parallel group, randomised (1:1), un-blinded, non-inferiority trial conducted in thirty hospitals across the UK. Eligible participants are adults (>18 years) with a clinical syndrome consistent with a bone, joint or metalware-associated infection who have received ≤7 days of intravenous antibiotic therapy from the date of definitive surgery (or the start of planned curative therapy in patients treated without surgical intervention). Participants are randomised to receive either oral or intravenous antibiotics, selected by a specialist infection physician, for the first 6 weeks of therapy. The primary outcome measure is definite treatment failure within one year of randomisation, as assessed by a blinded endpoint committee, according to pre-defined microbiological, histological and clinical criteria. Enrolling 1,050 subjects will provide 90 % power to demonstrate non-inferiority, defined as less than 7.5 % absolute increase in treatment failure rate in patients randomised to oral therapy as compared to intravenous therapy (one-sided alpha of 0.05).DiscussionIf our results demonstrate non-inferiority of orally administered antibiotic therapy, this trial is likely to facilitate a dramatically improved patient experience and alleviate a substantial financial burden on healthcare services.Trial registrationISRCTN91566927 - 14/02/2013.
| S-EPMC4687165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM.MethodsThe SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNTR6134; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC6701578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe ideal treatment for idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM) remains unclear. In a prospective, single-centre, pilot study, we reported that ductal lavage treatment for non-lactational mastitis patients had a 1-year clinical complete response (cCR) rate of >90%, without any significant adverse events. Thus, in this multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we will aim to compare the effectiveness and safety of ductal lavage vs oral corticosteroids as the first-line treatment for patients with IGM.Methods and analysisThe trial will be conducted at the Breast Tumor Center of Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital in China and at least at one participating regional centre. We plan to recruit 140 eligible IGM patients who will be randomised into the ductal lavage group or oral corticosteroid group with a 1:1 ratio. The patients in the oral corticosteroid group will receive meprednisone or prednisone for 6 months. The patients in the ductal lavage group will receive ductal lavage and breast massage, as previously reported. All the participants will be followed up at the clinic for 1 year post randomisation. The primary endpoint of this trial will be the 1-year cCR rate, and the secondary endpoints will include the time to cCR, treatment failure rate, relapse rate and protocol compliance rate. The trial was designed to determine whether ductal lavage is non-inferior to oral corticosteroids (1-year cCR rate assumed to be 90%), with a non-inferiority margin of 15%.Ethics and disseminationThe ethics committee of Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital at Sun Yat-sen University approved the study (2018-Lun-Shen-Yan-No. 30). The results of the trial will be communicated to the participating primary care practices, published in international journals and presented at international clinical and scientific conferences.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03724903); Pre-results.
| S-EPMC7552910 | biostudies-literature