Dataset Information

Gentamicin compared with ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea (G-ToG): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection for which ceftriaxone is the current first-line treatment, but antimicrobial resistance is emerging. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative to ceftriaxone (both combined with azithromycin) for treatment of gonorrhoea.

Methods

G-ToG was a multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing treatment with gentamicin to treatment with ceftriaxone for patients with gonorrhoea. The patients, treating physician, and assessing physician were masked to treatment but the treating nurse was not. The trial took place at 14 sexual health clinics in England. Adults aged 16-70 years were eligible for participation if they had a diagnosis of uncomplicated genital, pharyngeal, or rectal gonorrhoea. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single intramuscular dose of either gentamicin 240 mg (gentamicin group) or ceftriaxone 500 mg (ceftriaxone group). All participants also received a single 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by clinic and performed using a secure web-based system. The primary outcome was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all initially infected sites, defined as a negative nucleic acid amplification test 2 weeks post treatment. Primary outcome analyses included only participants who had follow-up data, irrespective of the baseline visit N gonorrhoeae test result. The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a lower confidence limit of 5% for the risk difference. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN51783227.

Findings

Of 1762 patients assessed, we enrolled 720 participants between Oct 7, 2014, and Nov 14, 2016, and randomly assigned 358 to gentamicin and 362 to ceftriaxone. Primary outcome data were available for 306 (85%) of 362 participants allocated to ceftriaxone and 292 (82%) of 358 participants allocated to gentamicin. At 2 weeks after treatment, infection had cleared for 299 (98%) of 306 participants in the ceftriaxone group compared with 267 (91%) of 292 participants in the gentamicin group (adjusted risk difference -6·4%, 95% CI -10·4% to -2·4%). Of the 328 participants who had a genital infection, 151 (98%) of 154 in the ceftriaxone group and 163 (94%) of 174 in the gentamicin group had clearance at follow-up (adjusted risk difference -4·4%, -8·7 to 0). For participants with a pharyngeal infection, a greater proportion receiving ceftriaxone had clearance at follow-up (108 [96%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 82 [80%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -15·3%, -24·0 to -6·5). Similarly, a greater proportion of participants with rectal infection in the ceftriaxone group had clearance (134 [98%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 107 [90%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -7·8%, -13·6 to -2·0). Thus, we did not find that a single dose of gentamicin 240 mg was non-inferior to a single dose of ceftriaxone 500 mg for the treatment of gonorrhoea, when both drugs were combined with a 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. The side-effect profiles were similar between groups, although severity of pain at the injection site was higher for gentamicin (mean visual analogue pain score 36 of 100 in the gentamicin group vs 21 of 100 in the ceftriaxone group).

Interpretation

Gentamicin is not appropriate as first-line treatment for gonorrhoea but remains potentially useful for patients with isolated genital infection, or for patients who are allergic or intolerant to ceftriaxone, or harbour a ceftriaxone-resistant isolate. Further research is required to identify and test new alternatives to ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea.

Funding

UK National Institute for Health Research.

SUBMITTER: Ross JDC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6620599 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundThe effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy (IPTp) may be compromised by the spread of resistance to sulphadoxine/pyrimethamine (SP) across Africa. But little information exists on alternative drugs for IPTp or alternative strategies for the prevention of malaria in pregnancy. Therefore, we have investigated whether screening with a rapid diagnostic test and treatment of those who are positive (IST) at routine antenatal clinic attendances is as effective and as safe as SP-IPTp in pregnant women.Methods and findingsDuring antenatal clinic sessions in six health facilities in Ghana held between March 2007 and September 2007, 3333 pregnant women who satisfied inclusion criteria were randomised into three intervention arms (1) standard SP-IPTp, (2) IST and treatment with SP or (3) IST and treatment with amodiaquine+artesunate (AQ+AS). All women received a long-lasting insecticide treated net. Study women had a maximum of three scheduled follow-up visits following enrollment. Haemoglobin concentration and peripheral parasitaemia were assessed between 36 and 40 weeks of gestation. Birth weight was measured at delivery or within 72 hours for babies delivered at home. Parasite prevalence at enrollment in primigravidae and in multigravidae was 29.6% and 10.2% respectively. At 36-40 weeks of gestation the prevalence of asymptomatic parasitaemia was 12.1% in study women overall and was very similar in all treatment groups. The risk of third trimester severe anaemia or low birth weight did not differ significantly between the three treatment groups regardless of gravidity. IST with AQ+AS or SP was not inferior to SP-IPTp in reducing the risk of low birth weight (RD = -1.17[95%CI; -4.39-1.02] for IST-SP vs. SP-IPTp and RD = 0.78[95%CI; -2.11-3.68] for IST-AQAS vs. SP-IPTp); third trimester severe anaemia (RD = 0.29[95%CI; -0.69-1.30] for IST-SP vs. SP-IPTp and RD = -0.36[95%CI;-1.12-0.44] for IST-AQAS vs. SP-IPTp).ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that in an area of moderately high malaria transmission, IST with SP or AS+AQ may be a safe and effective strategy for the control of malaria in pregnancy. However, it is important that these encouraging findings are confirmed in other geographical areas and that the impact of IST on placental malaria is investigated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00432367 [NCT00432367].

Project description:BackgroundBullous pemphigoid is a blistering skin disorder with increased mortality. We tested whether a strategy of starting treatment with doxycycline gives acceptable short-term blister control while conferring long-term safety advantages over starting treatment with oral corticosteroids.MethodsWe did a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial of adults with bullous pemphigoid (three or more blisters at two or more sites and linear basement membrane IgG or C3). Participants were randomly assigned to doxycycline (200 mg per day) or prednisolone (0·5 mg/kg per day) using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, and stratified by baseline severity (3-9, 10-30, and >30 blisters for mild, moderate, and severe disease, respectively). Localised adjuvant potent topical corticosteroids (<30 g per week) were permitted during weeks 1-3. The non-inferiority primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of participants with three or fewer blisters at 6 weeks. We assumed that doxycycline would be 25% less effective than corticosteroids with a 37% acceptable margin of non-inferiority. The primary safety outcome was the proportion with severe, life-threatening, or fatal (grade 3-5) treatment-related adverse events by 52 weeks. Analysis (modified intention to treat [mITT] for the superiority safety analysis and mITT and per protocol for non-inferiority effectiveness analysis) used a regression model adjusting for baseline disease severity, age, and Karnofsky score, with missing data imputed. The trial is registered at ISRCTN, number ISRCTN13704604.FindingsBetween March 1, 2009, and Oct 31, 2013, 132 patients were randomly assigned to doxycycline and 121 to prednisolone from 54 UK and seven German dermatology centres. Mean age was 77·7 years (SD 9·7) and 173 (68%) of 253 patients had moderate-to-severe baseline disease. For those starting doxycycline, 83 (74%) of 112 patients had three or fewer blisters at 6 weeks compared with 92 (91%) of 101 patients on prednisolone, an adjusted difference of 18·6% (90% CI 11·1-26·1) favouring prednisolone (upper limit of 90% CI, 26·1%, within the predefined 37% margin). Related severe, life-threatening, and fatal events at 52 weeks were 18% (22 of 121) for those starting doxycycline and 36% (41 of 113) for prednisolone (mITT), an adjusted difference of 19·0% (95% CI 7·9-30·1), p=0·001.InterpretationStarting patients on doxycycline is non-inferior to standard treatment with oral prednisolone for short-term blister control in bullous pemphigoid and significantly safer in the long-term.FundingNIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Project description:IntroductionRecent evidence suggests that larger blood pressure reductions and multiple antihypertensive drugs may be harmful in older people, particularly frail individuals with polypharmacy and multimorbidity. However, there is a lack of evidence to support deprescribing of antihypertensives, which limits the practice of medication reduction in routine clinical care. The aim of this trial is to examine whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible in older patients without significant changes in blood pressure control at follow-up.Methods and analysisThis trial will use a primary care-based, open-label, randomised controlled trial design. A total of 540 participants will be recruited, aged ≥80 years, with systolic blood pressure <150 mm Hg and receiving ≥2 antihypertensive medications. Participants will have no compelling indication for medication continuation and will be considered to potentially benefit from medication reduction due to existing polypharmacy, comorbidity and frailty. Following a baseline appointment, individuals will be randomised to a strategy of medication reduction (intervention) with optional self-monitoring or usual care (control). Those in the intervention group will have one antihypertensive medication stopped. The primary outcome will be to determine if a reduction in medication can achieve a proportion of participants with clinically safe blood pressure levels at 12-week follow-up (defined as a systolic blood pressure <150 mm Hg), which is non-inferior (within 10%) to that achieved by the usual care group. Qualitative interviews will be used to understand the barriers and facilitators to medication reduction. The study will use economic modelling to predict the long-term effects of any observed changes in blood pressure and quality of life.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol, informed consent form, participant information sheet and all other participant facing material have been approved by the Research Ethics Committee (South Central-Oxford A; ref 16/SC/0628), Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (ref 21584/0371/001-0001), host institution(s) and Health Research Authority. All research outputs will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberEudraCT 2016-004236-38; ISRCTN97503221; Pre-results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Internet based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) has been demonstrated to be cost- and clinically effective. There is a need, however, for increased therapist contact for some patient groups. Combining iCBT with traditional face-to-face (ftf) consultations in a blended format (B-CBT) may produce a new treatment format with multiple benefits from both traditional CBT and iCBT such as individual adaptation, lower costs than traditional therapy, wide geographical and temporal availability, and possibly lower threshold to implementation. The primary aim of the present study is to compare directly the clinical effectiveness of B-CBT with face-to-face CBT for adult major depressive disorder. METHODS/DESIGN:The study is designed as a two arm randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing blended CBT for adult depression with treatment as usual (TAU). In the blended condition six sessions of ftf CBT is alternated with six to eight online modules (NoDep). TAU is defined as 12 sessions of ftf CBT. The primary outcome is symptomatic change of depressive symptoms on the patient-health questionnaire (PHQ-9). Additionally, the study will include an economic evaluation. All participants must be 18 years of age or older and meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders 4th edition. Participants are randomised on an individual level by a researcher not involved in the project. The primary outcome is analysed by regressing the three-month follow-up PHQ-9 data on the baseline PHQ-9 score and a treatment group indicator using ancova. A sample size of 130 in two balanced groups will yield a power of at least 80% to detect standardised mean differences above 0.5 on a normally distributed variable. DISCUSSION:This study design will compare B-CBT and ftf CBT in a concise and direct manner with only a minimal of the variance explained by differences in therapeutic content. On the other hand, while situated in routine care, ecological validity is somewhat compromised by the controlled manner in which the study is conducted. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02796573 . Registered June 1st 2016. Currently recruiting participants.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) is non-inferior to conventional open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation.DesignMulticentre randomised controlled trial with non-inferiority design.SettingFour hospitals in the Netherlands.Participants613 patients aged 18-70 years with at least six weeks of radiating leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. The trial included a predetermined set of 125 patients receiving PTED who were the learning curve cases performed by surgeons who did not do PTED before the trial.InterventionsPTED (n=179) compared with open microdiscectomy (n=309).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was self-reported leg pain measured by a 0-100 visual analogue scale at 12 months, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5.0. Secondary outcomes included complications, reoperations, self-reported functional status as measured with the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain, health related quality of life, and self-perceived recovery. Outcomes were measured until one year after surgery and were longitudinally analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Patients belonging to the PTED learning curve were omitted from the primary analyses.ResultsAt 12 months, patients who were randomised to PTED had a statistically significantly lower visual analogue scale score for leg pain (median 7.0, interquartile range 1.0-30.0) compared with patients randomised to open microdiscectomy (16.0, 2.0-53.5) (between group difference of 7.1, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 11.3). Blood loss was less, length of hospital admission was shorter, and timing of postoperative mobilisation was earlier in the PTED group than in the open microdiscectomy group. Secondary patient reported outcomes such as the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain, health related quality of life, and self-perceived recovery, were similarly in favour of PTED. Within one year, nine (5%) in the PTED group compared with 14 (6%) in the open microdiscectomy group had repeated surgery. Per protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses including the patients of the learning curve resulted in similar outcomes to the primary analysis.ConclusionsPTED was non-inferior to open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain. PTED resulted in more favourable results for self-reported leg pain, back pain, functional status, quality of life, and recovery. These differences, however, were small and may not reach clinical relevance. PTED can be considered as an effective alternative to open microdiscectomy in treating sciatica.Trial registrationNCT02602093ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02602093.

Project description:BackgroundManagement of syphilis, a sexually transmitted infection (STI) with increasing incidence, is challenged by drug shortages, scarcity of randomised trial data, an absence of non-penicillin alternatives for pregnant women with penicillin allergy (other than desensitisation), extended parenteral administration for neurosyphilis and congenital syphilis, and macrolide resistance. Linezolid was shown to be active against Treponema pallidum, the causative agent of syphilis, in vitro and in the rabbit model. We aimed to assess the efficacy of linezolid for treating early syphilis in adults compared with the standard of care benzathine penicillin G (BPG).MethodsWe did a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of linezolid for treating early syphilis compared with BPG. We recruited participants with serological or molecular confirmation of syphilis (either primary, secondary, or early latent) at one STI unit in a public hospital and two STI community clinics in Catalonia (Spain). Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated block randomisation list with six participants per block, to receive either oral linezolid (600 mg once per day for 5 days) or intramuscular BPG (single dose of 2·4 million international units) and were assessed for signs and symptoms (once per week until week 6 and at week 12, week 24, and week 48) and reagin titres of non-treponemal antibodies (week 12, week 24, and week 48). The primary endpoint was treatment response, assessed using a composite endpoint that included clinical response, serological response, and absence of relapse. Clinical response was assessed at 2 weeks for primary syphilis and at 6 weeks for secondary syphilis following treatment initiation. Serological cure was defined as a four-fold decline in rapid plasma reagin titre or seroreversion at any of the 12-week, 24-week, or 48-week timepoints. The absence of relapse was defined as the presence of different molecular sequence types of T pallidum in recurrent syphilis. Non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates of treatment response was higher than -10%. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05069974) and was stopped for futility after interim analysis.FindingsBetween Oct 20, 2021, and Sept 15, 2022, 62 patients were assessed for eligibility, and 59 were randomly assigned to linezolid (n=29) or BPG (n=30). In the per-protocol population, after 48 weeks' follow-up, 19 (70%) of 27 participants (95% CI 49·8 to 86·2) in the linezolid group had responded to treatment and 28 (100%) of 28 participants (87·7 to 100·0) in the BPG group (treatment difference -29·6, 95% CI -50·5 to -8·8), which did not meet the non-inferiority criterion. The number of drug-related adverse events (all mild or moderate) was similar in both treatment groups (five [17%] of 29, 95% CI 5·8 to 35·8 in the linezolid group vs five [17%] of 30, 5·6 to 34·7, in the BPG group). No serious adverse events were reported during follow-up.InterpretationThe efficacy of linezolid at a daily dose of 600 mg for 5 days did not meet the non-inferiority criteria compared with BPG and, as a result, this treatment regimen should not be used to treat patients with early syphilis.FundingEuropean Research Council and Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias.