Dataset Information

Rapid urine-based screening for tuberculosis in HIV-positive patients admitted to hospital in Africa (STAMP): a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Current diagnostics for HIV-associated tuberculosis are suboptimal, with missed diagnoses contributing to high hospital mortality and approximately 374 000 annual HIV-positive deaths globally. Urine-based assays have a good diagnostic yield; therefore, we aimed to assess whether urine-based screening in HIV-positive inpatients for tuberculosis improved outcomes.

Methods

We did a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial in two hospitals in Malawi and South Africa. We included HIV-positive medical inpatients aged 18 years or more who were not taking tuberculosis treatment. We randomly assigned patients (1:1), using a computer-generated list of random block size stratified by site, to either the standard-of-care or the intervention screening group, irrespective of symptoms or clinical presentation. Attending clinicians made decisions about care; and patients, clinicians, and the study team were masked to the group allocation. In both groups, sputum was tested using the Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert; Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). In the standard-of-care group, urine samples were not tested for tuberculosis. In the intervention group, urine was tested with the Alere Determine TB-LAM Ag (TB-LAM; Alere, Waltham, MA, USA), and Xpert assays. The primary outcome was all-cause 56-day mortality. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome were prespecified based on baseline CD4 count, haemoglobin, clinical suspicion for tuberculosis; and by study site and calendar time. We used an intention-to-treat principle for our analyses. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN71603869.

Findings

Between Oct 26, 2015, and Sept 19, 2017, we screened 4788 HIV-positive adults, of which 2600 (54%) were randomly assigned to the study groups (n=1300 for each group). 13 patients were excluded after randomisation from analysis in each group, leaving 2574 in the final intention-to-treat analysis (n=1287 in each group). At admission, 1861 patients were taking antiretroviral therapy and median CD4 count was 227 cells per μL (IQR 79-436). Mortality at 56 days was reported for 272 (21%) of 1287 patients in the standard-of-care group and 235 (18%) of 1287 in the intervention group (adjusted risk reduction [aRD] -2·8%, 95% CI -5·8 to 0·3; p=0·074). In three of the 12 prespecified, but underpowered subgroups, mortality was lower in the intervention group than in the standard-of-care group for CD4 counts less than 100 cells per μL (aRD -7·1%, 95% CI -13·7 to -0·4; p=0.036), severe anaemia (-9·0%, -16·6 to -1·3; p=0·021), and patients with clinically suspected tuberculosis (-5·7%, -10·9 to -0·5; p=0·033); with no difference by site or calendar period. Adverse events were similar in both groups.

Interpretation

Urine-based tuberculosis screening did not reduce overall mortality in all HIV-positive inpatients, but might benefit some high-risk subgroups. Implementation could contribute towards global targets to reduce tuberculosis mortality.

Funding

Joint Global Health Trials Scheme of the Medical Research Council, the UK Department for International Development, and the Wellcome Trust.

SUBMITTER: Gupta-Wright A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6078909 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the tolerability of malaria chemoprophylaxis regimens in non-immune travellers.DesignRandomised, double blind, study with placebo run-in phase.SettingTravel clinics in Switzerland, Germany, and Israel.Main outcome measureProportion of participants in each treatment arm with subjectively moderate or severe adverse events.Participants623 non-immune travellers to sub-Saharan Africa: 153 each received either doxycycline, mefloquine, or the fixed combination chloroquine and proguanil, and 164 received the fixed combination atovaquone and proguanil.ResultsA high proportion of patients reported adverse events, even in the initial placebo group. No events were serious. The chloroquine and proguanil arm had the highest proportion of mild to moderate adverse events (69/153; 45%, 95% confidence interval 37% to 53%), followed by mefloquine (64/153; 42%, 34% to 50%), doxycycline (51/153; 33%, 26% to 41%), and atovaquone and proguanil (53/164; 32%, 25% to 40%) (P = 0.048 for all). The mefloquine and combined chloroquine and proguanil arms had the highest proportion of more severe events (n = 19; 12%, 7% to 18% and n = 16; 11%, 6% to 15%, respectively), whereas the combined atovaquone and proguanil and doxycycline arms had the lowest (n = 11; 7%, 2% to 11% and n = 9; 6%, 2% to 10%, respectively: P = 0.137 for all). The mefloquine arm had the highest proportion of moderate to severe neuropsychological adverse events, particularly in women (n = 56; 37%, 29% to 44% versus chloroquine and proguanil, n = 46; 30%, 23% to 37%; doxycycline, n = 36; 24%, 17% to 30%; and atovaquone and proguanil, n = 32; 20%, 13% to 26%: P = 0.003 for all). The highest proportion of moderate or severe skin problems were reported in the chloroquine and proguanil arm (n = 12; 8%, 4% to 13% versus doxycycline, n = 5; 3%, 1% to 6%; atovaquone and proguanil, n = 4; 2%, 0% to 5%; mefloquine, n = 2; 1%, 0% to 3%: P = 0.013).ConclusionsCombined atovaquone and proguanil and doxycyline are well tolerated antimalarial drugs. Broader experience with both agents is needed to accumulate reports of rare adverse events.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Psoriasis vulgaris is a common skin disease that is characterised by persistent localised erythematous scaly plaques. Yinxieling is a Chinese herbal formula for psoriasis that has been used for more than 20 years in China. To facilitate application, PSORI-CM01 was developed based on the optimisation and simplification of Yinxieling tablets performed in a previous study and in clinical practice. However, the scientific evidence regarding whether PSORI-CM01 is more effective for psoriasis than the original Yinxieling remains insufficient. Therefore, we designed a randomised clinical trial to investigate the effect, safety and cost-effectiveness of PSORI-CM01 granules compared with those of Yinxieling tablets for the treatment of patients with psoriasis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This ongoing study is a two-arm parallel, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial. Five hundred and fifty-six participants with psoriasis will be recruited and then randomly allocated into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in PSORI-CM01 group will receive a 5.5?g granule of PSORI-CM01 two times daily and five placebo tablets three times daily for 12 weeks. The participants in the Yinxieling group will receive five Yinxieling tablets three times daily and a placebo granule two times daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome is the reduction of the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. The secondary outcomes include relapse rate, Visual Analogue Scale scores, body surface area and the Dermatology Life Quality Index. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a health and community care provider perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This research protocol had been reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards of three trial centres (Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (B2014-026-01), Affiliated Hospital of Tianjin Chinese Medicine Academy (2014-KY-001) and Third Hospital of Hangzhou (B2014-026-01)). The findings will be disseminated to the public through conference presentations and open-access journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-14005185); Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundGout is the most common form of rheumatic disease in which monosodium urate crystals are deposited in the joints followed by acute inflammatory reactions. There are various approved drugs that can be prescribed for pain relief during an acute gout attack. However, to date, no direct comparison of efficacy of colchicine and prednisolone for the treatment of acute gout attacks has been investigated. Furthermore, the majority of previous research studies were not only conducted in tertiary centres but also excluded patients with common comorbidities due to contraindications to naproxen.MethodsThis pragmatic, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, randomized, non-inferiority trial investigates whether prednisolone (intervention) is non-inferior to treatment with colchicine (active control) in patients with acute gout. Adult patients presenting with acute gout to their general practitioners in 60 practices across 3 university sites (Greifswald, Göttingen, and Würzburg) are eligible to participate in the study. Participants in the intervention group receive 30 mg prednisolone for 5 days. Those in the control group receive low-dose colchicine (day 1: 1.5 mg; days 2-5: 1 mg). The primary outcome is the absolute level of the most severe pain on day 3 (in the last 24 h) measured with an 11-item numerical rating scale. Day 0 is the day patients take their study medication for the first time. They are then asked to fill out a study diary the same time each day for pain quantification. Pain scores are used for comparison between the two medications. Secondary outcomes are average response to treatment, swelling, tenderness and physical function of the joint, patients' global assessment of treatment success, use of additional pain medication and non-pharmacological pain therapies. For safety reasons, potential side effects and course of systolic blood pressure are assessed.DiscussionThis trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of pain reduction and side effects of colchicine and prednisolone in acute gout in primary care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05698680 first posted on January 26, 2023 (retrospectively registered). URL of trial registry record: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05698680.