Dataset Information

Non-Antibiotic Herbal Therapy (BNO 1045) versus Antibiotic Therapy (Fosfomycin Trometamol) for the Treatment of Acute Lower Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Women: A Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Randomized, Multicentre, Non-Inferiority Phase III Trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:This randomized, controlled, Phase III non-inferiority clinical trial aimed to determine whether herbal therapy with Canephron® N (BNO 1045) is non-inferior to fosfomycin trometamol (FT) in treating acute lower uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Women aged 18-70 years with typical symptoms of newly diagnosed acute lower uUTIs were randomized to BNO 1045 (n = 325) or FT (n = 334), with corresponding matched placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received additional antibiotics (ABs) to treat uUTIs between Days 1 and 38 ±3. RESULTS:Between Days 1 and 38, 238 (83.5%) patients in the BNO 1045 group and 272 (89.8%) patients in the FT group received no additional ABs. At a 15% non-inferiority margin, BNO 1045 was non-inferior to FT in treating uUTIs (non-AB rate difference: -6.26%; 95% CI -11.99 to -0.53%; 2-sided p = 0.0014). Adverse event rates were similar between groups, with higher rates of gastrointestinal disorders in the FT group and pyelonephritis in the BNO 1045 group. During the trial, no patient died or discontinued due to a treatment-related adverse event. CONCLUSIONS:BNO 1045 has the potential to reduce outpatient use of ABs for uUTIs and thus may have a significant impact on antimicrobial stewardship strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02639520, EudraCT number 2013-004529-99.

SUBMITTER: Wagenlehner FM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6262678 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Non-Antibiotic Herbal Therapy (BNO 1045) versus Antibiotic Therapy (Fosfomycin Trometamol) for the Treatment of Acute Lower Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Women: A Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Randomized, Multicentre, Non-Inferiority Phase III Trial.

Wagenlehner Florian M FM Abramov-Sommariva Dimitri D Höller Martina M Steindl Hubert H Naber Kurt G KG

Urologia internationalis 20180919 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>This randomized, controlled, Phase III non-inferiority clinical trial aimed to determine whether herbal therapy with Canephron® N (BNO 1045) is non-inferior to fosfomycin trometamol (FT) in treating acute lower uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs).<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Women aged 18-70 years with typical symptoms of newly diagnosed acute lower uUTIs were randomized to BNO 1045 (n = 325) or FT (n = 334), with corresponding matched placebo. The primary endpoi ...[more]

PMID: 30231252

Similar Datasets

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:Background:Appendectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Recently the need for surgery has been challenged in both adults and children. In children there is growing clinician, patient and parental interest in non-operative treatment of acute appendicitis with antibiotics as opposed to surgery. To date no multicentre randomised controlled trials that are appropriately powered to determine efficacy of non-operative treatment (antibiotics) for acute appendicitis in children compared with surgery (appendectomy) have been performed. Methods:Multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. Children (age 5-16 years) with a clinical and/or radiological diagnosis of acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either laparoscopic appendectomy or treatment with intravenous (minimum 12?hours) followed by oral antibiotics (total course 10 days). Allocation to groups will be stratified by gender, duration of symptoms (> or <48?hours) and centre. Children in both treatment groups will follow a standardised treatment pathway. Primary outcome is treatment failure defined as additional intervention related to appendicitis requiring general anaesthesia within 1?year of randomisation (including recurrent appendicitis) or negative appendectomy. Important secondary outcomes will be reported and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. The primary outcome will be analysed on a non-inferiority basis using a 20% non-inferiority margin. Planned sample size is 978 children. Discussion:The APPY trial will be the first multicentre randomised trial comparing non-operative treatment with appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. The results of this trial have the potential to revolutionise the treatment of this common gastrointestinal emergency. The randomised design will limit the effect of bias on outcomes seen in other studies. Trial registration number:clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02687464. Registered on Jan 13th 2016.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:This article presents an overview of a prospective randomised controlled non-inferiority study designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of non-operative management (NOM) with operative management in children with acute uncomplicated appendicitis (AUA). Here, we present the study protocol for this APRES study, a multicentre Australian study. The rationale and details of future analysis, in particular, non-inferiority calculations, cost-effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of each intervention. DESIGN:A multicentre, prospective randomised controlled clinical trial, conducted in 2 Australian tertiary paediatric hospitals. PARTICIPANTS:Children who meet the inclusion criteria of an age between 5 and 15?years and a clinical diagnosis of AUA will be invited to participate, and after consent will be randomised via a computer-based program into treatment groups. The study started in June 2016, and the target recruitment is 220 patients. INTERVENTIONS:Children in the control group will be treated with prophylactic antibiotics and appendicectomy, and those in the intervention group will be treated with antibiotic therapy alone. Primary outcome measures include unplanned or unnecessary operation and complications at 30?days. Secondary outcomes include longer term complications within 1 year, length of stay, time off work and school analgesic requirements and cost. ANALYSIS:Data analyses will be on the intention-to-treat principle using non-inferiority analysis. Analysis will include the Pearson ?2 test for categorical variables and independent sample t-test or Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables. Non-inferiority for NOM will be tested using 1-sided Wald tests with an ? level of 0.05. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The research has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Sydney Children's Hospital Network. In addition, results will be reported through academic journals, seminars and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS:NCT02795793; ACTRN12616000788471.

Project description:BackgroundAmid growing antimicrobial resistance, there is an increasing focus on antibiotic stewardship efforts to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. In this context, novel approaches for treating infections without antibiotics are being explored. One such strategy is the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the rates of symptom resolution and infectious complications in adult women with uncomplicated UTIs treated with antibiotics versus NSAIDs.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, CINHAL, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until January 13, 2020, for randomized controlled trials comparing NSAIDs with antibiotics for treatment of uncomplicated UTIs in adult women. Studies comparing symptom resolution between groups were eligible. Two authors screened all studies independently and in duplicate; data were abstracted using a standardized template. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.ResultsFive randomized trials that included 1309 women with uncomplicated UTI met inclusion criteria. Three studies (1130 patients) favored antibiotic therapy in terms of symptom resolution. Two studies (179 patients) found no difference between NSAIDs and antibiotics in terms of symptom resolution. Three studies reported rates of pyelonephritis, two of which found higher rates in patients treated with NSAIDs versus antibiotics. Between two studies that reported this outcome (747 patients), patients randomized to NSAIDs received fewer antibiotic prescriptions compared with those in the antibiotics group. Three studies were at low risk of bias, one had an unclear risk of bias, and one was at high risk of bias.DiscussionFor the outcomes of symptom resolution and complications in adult women with UTI, evidence favors antibiotics over NSAIDs.ProsperoCRD42018114133.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if guided internet based cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus (CBT-TF) is non-inferior to individual face-to-face CBT-TF for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to one traumatic event.DesignPragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (RAPID).SettingPrimary and secondary mental health settings across the UK's NHS.Participants196 adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate PTSD were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to one of two interventions, with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% retention at 52 weeks. 19 participants and 10 therapists were purposively sampled and interviewed for evaluation of the process.InterventionsUp to 12 face-to-face, manual based, individual CBT-TF sessions, each lasting 60-90 minutes; or guided internet based CBT-TF with an eight step online programme, with up to three hours of contact with a therapist and four brief telephone calls or email contacts between sessions.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) at 16 weeks after randomisation (diagnosis of PTSD based on the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, DSM-5). Secondary outcomes included severity of PTSD symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression and anxiety, use of alcohol, and perceived social support at 16 and 52 weeks after randomisation.ResultsNon-inferiority was found at the primary endpoint of 16 weeks on the CAPS-5 (mean difference 1.01, one sided 95% confidence interval -∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority P=0.012). Improvements in CAPS-5 score of more than 60% in the two groups were maintained at 52 weeks, but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of face-to-face CBT-TF at this time point (3.20, -∞ to 6.00, P=0.15). Guided internet based CBT-TF was significantly (P<0.001) cheaper than face-to-face CBT-TF and seemed to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. The main themes of the qualitative analysis were facilitators and barriers to engagement with guided internet based CBT-TF, treatment outcomes, and considerations for its future implementation.ConclusionsGuided internet based CBT-TF for mild to moderate PTSD to one traumatic event was non-inferior to individual face-to-face CBT-TF and should be considered a first line treatment for people with this condition.Trial registrationISRCTN13697710.

Project description:IntroductionRecent studies show that antibiotic therapy is safe and feasible for CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Spontaneous resolution of acute appendicitis has already been observed over a hundred years ago. In CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute diverticulitis (left-sided appendicitis), studies have shown no benefit from antibiotics compared with symptomatic treatment, but this shift from antibiotics to symptomatic treatment has not yet been widely implemented in clinical practice. Recently, symptomatic treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis has been demonstrated in a Korean open-label study. However, a double-blinded placebo-controlled study to illustrate the role of antibiotics and spontaneous resolution of uncomplicated acute appendicitis is still lacking.Methods and analysisThe APPAC III (APPendicitis ACuta III) trial is a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, superiority randomised study comparing antibiotic therapy with placebo in the treatment CT scan-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis aiming to evaluate the role of antibiotics in the resolution of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Adult patients (18-60 years) with CT scan-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis (the absence of appendicolith, abscess, perforation and tumour) will be enrolled in five Finnish university hospitals.Primary endpoint is success of the randomised treatment, defined as resolution of acute appendicitis resulting in discharge from the hospital without surgical intervention within 10 days after initiating randomised treatment (treatment efficacy). Secondary endpoints include postintervention complications, recurrent symptoms after treatment up to 1 year, late recurrence of acute appendicitis after 1 year, duration of hospital stay, sick leave, treatment costs and quality of life. A decrease of 15 percentage points in success rate is considered clinically important difference. The superiority of antibiotic treatment compared with placebo will be analysed using Fisher's one-sided test and CI will be calculated for proportion difference.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Turku University Hospital and the Finnish Medicines Agency (FIMEA). The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed academic journals.Trial registration numberNCT03234296; Pre-results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) are often self-limiting, most patients will be prescribed antibiotic treatment. We assessed whether treatment with ibuprofen was non-inferior to pivmecillinam in achieving symptomatic resolution by day 4, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%. METHODS AND FINDINGS:This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind non-inferiority trial. We recruited patients from 16 sites in a general practice setting in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Non-pregnant women aged 18-60 years presenting with symptoms of uncomplicated UTI were screened for eligibility from 11 April 2013 to 22 April 2016. Patients with informed consent were randomized (1:1 ratio) to treatment with either 600 mg ibuprofen or 200 mg pivmecillinam 3 times a day for 3 days. The patient, treating physician, and study personnel were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who felt cured by day 4, as assessed from a patient diary. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients in need of secondary treatment with antibiotics and cases of pyelonephritis. A total of 383 women were randomly assigned to treatment with either ibuprofen (n = 194, 181 analyzed) or pivmecillinam (n = 189, 178 analyzed). By day 4, 38.7% of the patients in the ibuprofen group felt cured versus 73.6% in the pivmecillinam group. The adjusted risk difference with 90% confidence interval was 35% (27% to 43%) in favor of pivmecillinam, which crossed the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Secondary endpoints were generally in favor of pivmecillinam. After 4 weeks' follow-up, 53% of patients in the ibuprofen group recovered without antibiotic treatment. Seven cases of pyelonephritis occurred, all in the ibuprofen group, giving a number needed to harm of 26 (95% CI 13 to 103). Five of these patients were hospitalized and classified as having serious adverse events; 2 recovered as outpatients. A limitation of the study was the extensive list of exclusion criteria, eliminating almost half of the patients screened. We did not register symptoms in the screening process; hence, we do not know the symptom burden for those who declined to participate. This might make our results less generalizable. CONCLUSIONS:Ibuprofen was inferior to pivmecillinam for treating uncomplicated UTIs. More than half of the women in the ibuprofen group recovered without antibiotics. However, pyelonephritis occurred in 7 out of 181 women using ibuprofen. Until we can identify those women who will develop complications, we cannot recommend ibuprofen alone as initial treatment to women with uncomplicated UTIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01849926 EU Clinical Trials Register (EU-CTR), EudraCT Number 2012-002776-14.

Dataset Information

Non-Antibiotic Herbal Therapy (BNO 1045) versus Antibiotic Therapy (Fosfomycin Trometamol) for the Treatment of Acute Lower Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Women: A Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Randomized, Multicentre, Non-Inferiority Phase III Trial.

Publications

Non-Antibiotic Herbal Therapy (BNO 1045) versus Antibiotic Therapy (Fosfomycin Trometamol) for the Treatment of Acute Lower Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Women: A Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Randomized, Multicentre, Non-Inferiority Phase III Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets