Dataset Information

Randomised controlled trial of intravenous antibiotic treatment for cellulitis at home compared with hospital.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of treatment with intravenous antibiotics for cellulitis at home and in hospital.

Design

Prospective randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Christchurch, New Zealand.

Participants

200 patients presenting or referred to the only emergency department in Christchurch who were thought to require intravenous antibiotic treatment for cellulitis and who did not have any contraindications to home care were randomly assigned to receive treatment either at home or in hospital.

Main outcome measures

Days to no advancement of cellulitis was the primary outcome measure. Days on intravenous and oral antibiotics, days in hospital or in the home care programme, complications, degree of functioning and pain, and satisfaction with site of care were also recorded.

Results

The two treatment groups did not differ significantly for the primary outcome of days to no advancement of cellulitis, with a mean of 1.50 days (SD 0.11) for the group receiving treatment at home and 1.49 days (SD 0.10) for the group receiving treatment in hospital (mean difference 0.01 days, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 0.28). None of the other outcome measures differed significantly except for patients' satisfaction, which was greater in patients treated at home.

Conclusions

Treatment of cellulitis requiring intravenous antibiotics can be safely delivered at home. Patients prefer home treatment, but in this study only about one third of patients presenting at hospital for intravenous treatment of cellulitis were considered suitable for home treatment.

SUBMITTER: Corwin P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC544431 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Children needing intravenous antibiotics for cellulitis are usually admitted to hospital, whereas adults commonly receive intravenous treatment at home. This is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of intravenous antibiotic treatment of cellulitis in children comparing administration of ceftriaxone at home with standard care of flucloxacillin in hospital. The study aims to compare (1) the rate of treatment failure at home versus hospital (2) the safety of treatment at home versus hospital; and (3) the effect of exposure to short course ceftriaxone versus flucloxacillin on nasal and gut micro-organism resistance patterns and the clinical implications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: INCLUSION CRITERIA:children aged 6 months to <18 years with uncomplicated moderate/severe cellulitis, requiring intravenous antibiotics. EXCLUSIONS:complicated cellulitis (eg, orbital, foreign body) and immunosuppressed or toxic patients. The study is a single-centre, open-label, non-inferiority RCT. It is set in the emergency department (ED) at the Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) in Melbourne, Australia and the Hospital-in-the-Home (HITH) programme; a home-care programme, which provides outreach from RCH. Recruitment will occur in ED from January 2015 to December 2016. Participants will be randomised to either treatment in hospital, or transfer home under the HITH programme. The calculated sample size is 188 patients (94 per group) and data will be analysed by intention-to-treat. PRIMARY OUTCOME:treatment failure defined as a change in treatment due to lack of clinical improvement according to the treating physician or adverse events, within 48 h SECONDARY OUTCOMES:readmission to hospital, representation, adverse events, length of stay, microbiological results, development of resistance, cost-effectiveness, patient/parent satisfaction. This study has started recruitment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the RCH Melbourne (34254C) and registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT02334124). We aim to disseminate the findings through international peer-reviewed journals and conferences. CLINICAL TRIAL:Pre-results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Bone 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. METHODS:The 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). DISCUSSION:If 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 REGISTRATION:ISRCTN91566927 - 14/02/2013.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) improves neurological outcomes in children with encephalitis when administered early in the illness.DesignPhase 3b multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.SettingTwenty-one hospitals in the UK.ParticipantsChildren aged 6 months to 16 years with a diagnosis of acute or subacute encephalitis, with a planned sample size of 308.InterventionTwo doses (1 g/kg/dose) of either IVIG or matching placebo given 24-36 hours apart, in addition to standard treatment.Main outcome measureThe primary outcome was a 'good recovery' at 12 months after randomisation, defined as a score of≤2 on the Paediatric Glasgow Outcome Score Extended.Secondary outcome measuresThe secondary outcomes were clinical, neurological, neuroimaging and neuropsychological results, identification of the proportion of children with immune-mediated encephalitis, and IVIG safety data.Results18 participants were recruited from 12 hospitals and randomised to receive either IVIG (n=10) or placebo (n=8) between 23 December 2015 and 26 September 2017. The study was terminated early following withdrawal of funding due to slower than anticipated recruitment, and therefore did not reach the predetermined sample size required to achieve the primary study objective; thus, the results are descriptive. At 12 months after randomisation, 9 of the 18 participants (IVIG n=5/10 (50%), placebo n=4/8 (50%)) made a good recovery and 5 participants (IVIG n=3/10 (30%), placebo n=2/8 (25%)) made a poor recovery. Three participants (IVIG n=1/10 (10%), placebo n=2/8 (25%)) had a new diagnosis of epilepsy during the study period. Two participants were found to have specific autoantibodies associated with autoimmune encephalitis. No serious adverse events were reported in participants receiving IVIG.ConclusionsThe IgNiTE (ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis) study findings support existing evidence of poor neurological outcomes in children with encephalitis. However, the study was halted prematurely and was therefore underpowered to evaluate the effect of early IVIG treatment compared with placebo in childhood encephalitis.Trial registration numberClinical Trials.gov NCT02308982; ICRCTN registry ISRCTN15791925.

Project description:Care closer to home is being explored as a means of improving patient experience as well as efficiency in terms of cost savings. Evidence that community cancer services improve care quality and/or generate cost savings is currently limited. A randomised study was undertaken to compare delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital with two different community settings.Ninety-seven patients being offered outpatient-based cancer treatment were randomised to treatment delivered in a hospital day unit, at the patient's home or in local general practice (GP) surgeries. The primary outcome was patient-perceived benefits, using the emotional function domain of the EORTC quality of life (QOL) QLQC30 questionnaire evaluated after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional QOL measures, patient satisfaction, safety and health economics.There was no statistically significant QOL difference between treatment in the combined community locations relative to hospital (difference of -7.2, 95% confidence interval: -19·5 to +5·2, P=0.25). There was a significant difference between the two community locations in favour of home (+15·2, 1·3 to 29·1, P=0.033). Hospital anxiety and depression scale scores were consistent with the primary outcome measure. There was no evidence that community treatment compromised patient safety and no significant difference between treatment arms in terms of overall costs or Quality Adjusted Life Year. Seventy-eight percent of patients expressed satisfaction with their treatment whatever their location, whereas 57% of patients preferred future treatment to continue at the hospital, 81% at GP surgeries and 90% at home. Although initial pre-trial interviews revealed concerns among health-care professionals and some patients regarding community treatment, opinions were largely more favourable in post-trial interviews.Patient QOL favours delivering cancer treatment in the home rather than GP surgeries. Nevertheless, both community settings were acceptable to and preferred by patients compared with hospital, were safe, with no detrimental impact on overall health-care costs.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of oral antibiotic treatment alone with treatment started parenterally and completed orally in children with a first episode of acute pyelonephritis.DesignMulticentre, randomised controlled, open labelled, parallel group, non-inferiority trial.Setting28 paediatric units in north east Italy.Participants502 children aged 1 month to <7 years with clinical pyelonephritis.InterventionOral co-amoxiclav (50 mg/kg/day in three doses for 10 days) or parenteral ceftriaxone (50 mg/kg/day in a single parenteral dose) for three days, followed by oral co-amoxiclav (50 mg/kg/day in three divided doses for seven days). Main outcomes measures Primary outcome was the rate of renal scarring. Secondary measures of efficacy were time to defervescence (<37 degrees C), reduction in inflammatory indices, and percentage with sterile urine after 72 hours. An exploratory subgroup analysis was conducted in the children in whom pyelonephritis was confirmed by dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) scintigraphy within 10 days after study entry.ResultsIntention to treat analysis showed no significant differences between oral (n=244) and parenteral (n=258) treatment, both in the primary outcome (scarring scintigraphy at 12 months 27/197 (13.7%) v 36/203 (17.7%), difference in risk -4%, 95% confidence interval -11.1% to 3.1%) and secondary outcomes (time to defervescence 36.9 hours (SD 19.7) v 34.3 hours (SD 20), mean difference 2.6 (-0.9 to 6.0); white cell count 9.8x10(9)/l (SD 3.5) v 9.5x10(9)/l (SD 3.1), mean difference 0.3 (-0.3 to 0.9); percentage with sterile urine 185/186 v 203/204, risk difference -0.05% (-1.5% to 1.4%)). Similar results were found in the subgroup of 278 children with confirmed acute pyelonephritis on scintigraphy at study entry.ConclusionsTreatment with oral antibiotics is as effective as parenteral then oral treatment in the management of the first episode of clinical pyelonephritis in children.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT00161330 [ClinicalTrials.gov].

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether, in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes who were not acutely unwell, management at home for initiation of insulin treatment and education of the child and family, would result in improved clinical and psychological outcomes at 2?years postdiagnosis.DesignA multicentre randomised controlled trial (January 2008/October 2013).SettingEight paediatric diabetes centres in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.Participants203 clinically well children aged under 17 years, with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes and their carers.InterventionManagement of the initiation period from diagnosis at home, for a minimum of 3?days, to include at least six supervised injections and delivery of pragmatic educational care.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration at 24 months postdiagnosis. Secondary outcomes included coping, anxiety, quality of life and use of NHS resources.Results203 children, newly diagnosed, were randomised to commence management at home (n=101) or in hospital (n=102). At the 24?month primary end point, there was one withdrawal and a follow-up rate of 194/202 (96%). Mean HbA1c in the home treatment arm was 72.1?mmol/mol and in the hospital treated arm 72.6?mmol/mol. There was a negligible difference between the mean HbA1c levels in the two arms adjusted for baseline (1.01, 95%?CI 0.93 to 1.09). There were mostly no differences in secondary outcomes at 24 months, apart from better child self-esteem in the home-arm. No home-arm children were admitted to hospital during initiation and there were no adverse events at that time. The number of investigations was higher in hospital patients during the follow-up period. There were no differences in insulin regimens between the two arms.ConclusionsThere is no evidence of a difference between home-based and hospital-based initiation of care in children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes across relevant outcomes.Trial registration numberISRCTN78114042.

Project description:BackgroundPeople who present to hospital after intentionally harming themselves pose a common and important problem. Previous reviews of interventions have been inconclusive as existing trials have been under powered and done on unrepresentative populations. These reviews have however indicated that problem solving therapy and regular written communications after the self-harm attempt may be an effective treatment. This protocol describes a large pragmatic trial of a package of measures which include problem solving therapy, regular written communication, patient support, cultural assessment, improved access to primary care and a risk management strategy in people who present to hospital after self-harm using a novel design.MethodsWe propose to use a double consent Zelen design where participants are randomised prior to giving consent to enroll a large representative cohort of patients. The main outcome will be hospital attendance following repetition of self-harm, in the 12 months after recruitment with secondary outcomes of self reported self-harm, hopelessness, anxiety, depression, quality of life, social function and hospital use at three months and one year.DiscussionA strength of the study is that it is a pragmatic trial which aims to recruit large numbers and does not exclude people if English is not their first language. A potential limitation is the analysis of the results which is complex and may underestimate any effect if a large number of people refuse their consent in the group randomised to problem solving therapy as they will effectively cross over to the treatment as usual group. However the primary analysis is a true intention to treat analysis of everyone randomised which includes both those who consent and do not consent to participate in the study. This provides information about how the intervention will work in practice in a representative population which is a major advance in this study compared to what has been done before.Trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12609000641291.