Dataset Information

Levofloxacin prophylaxis in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma (TEAMM): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Myeloma causes profound immunodeficiency and recurrent, serious infections. Around 5500 new cases of myeloma are diagnosed per year in the UK, and a quarter of patients will have a serious infection within 3 months of diagnosis. We aimed to assess whether patients newly diagnosed with myeloma benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection, and to investigate the effect on antibiotic-resistant organism carriage and health care-associated infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.

Methods

TEAMM was a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in patients aged 21 years and older with newly diagnosed myeloma in 93 UK hospitals. All enrolled patients were within 14 days of starting active myeloma treatment. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to levofloxacin or placebo with a computerised minimisation algorithm. Allocation was stratified by centre, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and intention to proceed to high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. All investigators, patients, laboratory, and trial co-ordination staff were masked to the treatment allocation. Patients were given 500 mg of levofloxacin (two 250 mg tablets), orally once daily for 12 weeks, or placebo tablets (two tablets, orally once daily for 12 weeks), with dose reduction according to estimated glomerular filtration rate every 4 weeks. Follow-up visits occurred every 4 weeks up to week 16, and at 1 year. The primary outcome was time to first febrile episode or death from all causes within the first 12 weeks of trial treatment. All randomised patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis of the primary endpoint. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN51731976, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, number 2011-000366-35.

Findings

Between Aug 15, 2012, and April 29, 2016, we enrolled and randomly assigned 977 patients to receive levofloxacin prophylaxis (489 patients) or placebo (488 patients). Median follow-up was 12 months (IQR 8-13). 95 (19%) first febrile episodes or deaths occurred in 489 patients in the levofloxacin group versus 134 (27%) in 488 patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·51-0·86; p=0·0018. 597 serious adverse events were reported up to 16 weeks from the start of trial treatment (308 [52%] of which were in the levofloxacin group and 289 [48%] of which were in the placebo group). Serious adverse events were similar between the two groups except for five episodes (1%) of mostly reversible tendonitis in the levofloxacin group.

Interpretation

Addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment during the first 12 weeks of therapy significantly reduced febrile episodes and deaths compared with placebo without increasing health care-associated infections. These results suggest that prophylactic levofloxacin could be used for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma undergoing anti-myeloma therapy.

Funding

UK National Institute for Health Research.

SUBMITTER: Drayson MT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6891230 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction:Resistant Gram-positive organisms, such as methicillin-resistant staphylococci, account for a significant proportion of infections following joint replacement surgery. Current surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines recommend the use of first-generation or second-generation cephalosporin antibiotics, such as cefazolin. Cefazolin, however, does not prevent infections due to these resistant organisms; therefore, new prevention strategies need to be examined. One proposed strategy is to combine a glycopeptide antibiotic with cefazolin for prophylaxis. The clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of this combination therapy compared with usual therapy, however, have not been established.Methods and analysis:This randomised, double-blind, parallel, superiority, placebo-controlled, phase 4 trial will compare the incidence of all surgical site infections (SSIs) including superficial, deep and organ/space (prosthetic joint) infections, safety and cost-effectiveness of surgical prophylaxis with cefazolin plus vancomycin to that with cefazolin plus placebo. The study will be performed in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery. In the microbiological sub-studies, we will examine the incidence of SSIs in participants with preoperative staphylococci colonisation (Sub-Study 1) and incidence of VRE acquisition (Sub-Study 2). The trial will recruit 4450 participants over a 4-year period across 13 orthopaedic centres in Australia. The primary outcome is the incidence of SSI at 90 days post index surgery. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of SSI according to joint and microorganism and other healthcare associated infections. Safety endpoints include the incidence of acute kidney injury, hypersensitivity reactions and all-cause mortality. The primary and secondary analysis will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis consisting of all randomised participants who undergo eligible surgery. We will also perform a per-protocol analysis.Ethics and dissemination:The study protocol was reviewed and approved by The Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/18/Alfred/102) on 9 July 2018. Study findings will be disseminated in the printed media, and learnt forums.Trial registration number:ACTRN12618000642280.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether oral antimicrobial prophylaxis as an adjunct to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis reduces surgical site infections after elective colorectal surgery.DesignMulticentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.Setting11 university and non-university hospitals in France between 25 May 2016 and 8 August 2019.Participants926 adults scheduled for elective colorectal surgery.InterventionPatients were randomised to receive either a single 1 g dose of ornidazole (n=463) or placebo (n=463) orally 12 hours before surgery, in addition to intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis before surgical incision.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients with surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included individual types of surgical site infections and major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grade 3 or higher) within 30 days after surgery.ResultsOf the 960 patients who were enrolled, 926 (96%) were included in the analysis. The mean age of participants was 63 years and 554 (60%) were men. Surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery occurred in 60 of 463 patients (13%) in the oral prophylaxis group and 100 of 463 (22%) in the placebo group (absolute difference -8.6%, 95% confidence interval -13.5% to -3.8%; relative risk 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.80). The proportion of patients with deep infections was 4.8% in the oral prophylaxis group and 8.0% in the placebo group (absolute difference -3.2%, 95% confidence interval -6.4% to -0.1%). The proportion of patients with organ space infections was 5.0% in the oral prophylaxis group and 8.4% in the placebo group (absolute difference -3.4%, -6.7% to -0.2%). Major postoperative complications occurred in 9.1% patients in the oral prophylaxis group and 13.6% in the placebo group (absolute difference -4.5%, -8.6% to -0.5%).ConclusionAmong adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery, the addition of a single 1 g dose of ornidazole compared with placebo before surgery significantly reduced surgical site infections.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02618720.

Project description:BackgroundChildren with complicated severe acute malnutrition (SAM) have a greatly increased risk of mortality from infections while in hospital and after discharge. In HIV-infected children, mortality and admission to hospital are prevented by daily co-trimoxazole prophylaxis, despite locally reported bacterial resistance to co-trimoxazole. We aimed to assess the efficacy of daily co-trimoxazole prophylaxis on survival in children without HIV being treated for complicated SAM.MethodsWe did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study in four hospitals in Kenya (two rural hospitals in Kilifi and Malindi, and two urban hospitals in Mombasa and Nairobi) with children aged 60 days to 59 months without HIV admitted to hospital and diagnosed with SAM. We randomly assigned eligible participants (1:1) to 6 months of either daily oral co-trimoxazole prophylaxis (given as water-dispersible tablets; 120 mg per day for age <6 months, 240 mg per day for age 6 months to 5 years) or matching placebo. Assignment was done with computer-generated randomisation in permuted blocks of 20, stratified by centre and age younger or older than 6 months. Treatment allocation was concealed in opaque, sealed envelopes and patients, their families, and all trial staff were masked to treatment assignment. Children were given recommended medical care and feeding, and followed up for 12 months. The primary endpoint was mortality, assessed each month for the first 6 months, then every 2 months for the second 6 months. Secondary endpoints were nutritional recovery, readmission to hospital, and illness episodes treated as an outpatient. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00934492.FindingsBetween Nov 20, 2009, and March 14, 2013, we recruited and assigned 1778 eligible children to treatment (887 to co-trimoxazole prophylaxis and 891 to placebo). Median age was 11 months (IQR 7-16 months), 306 (17%) were younger than 6 months, 300 (17%) had oedematous malnutrition (kwashiorkor), and 1221 (69%) were stunted (length-for-age Z score <-2). During 1527 child-years of observation, 122 (14%) of 887 children in the co-trimoxazole group died, compared with 135 (15%) of 891 in the placebo group (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·71-1·16, p=0·429; 16·0 vs 17·7 events per 100 child-years observed (CYO); difference -1·7 events per 100 CYO, 95% CI -5·8 to 2·4]). In the first 6 months of the study (while participants received study medication), 63 suspected grade 3 or 4 associated adverse events were recorded among 57 (3%) children; 31 (2%) in the co-trimoxazole group and 32 (2%) in the placebo group (incidence rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·58-1·65). The most common adverse events of these grades were urticarial rash (grade 3, equally common in both groups), neutropenia (grade 4, more common in the co-trimoxazole group), and anaemia (both grades equally common in both groups). One child in the placebo group had fatal toxic epidermal necrolysis with concurrent Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteraemia.InterpretationDaily co-trimoxazole prophylaxis did not reduce mortality in children with complicated SAM without HIV. Other strategies need to be tested in clinical trials to reduce deaths in this population.FundingWellcome Trust, UK.

Project description:BackgroundProgesterone administration has been shown to reduce the risk of preterm birth and neonatal morbidity in women at high risk, but there is uncertainty about longer term effects on the child.MethodsWe did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of vaginal progesterone, 200 mg daily taken from 22-24 to 34 weeks of gestation, on pregnancy and infant outcomes in women at risk of preterm birth (because of previous spontaneous birth at ≤34 weeks and 0 days of gestation, or a cervical length ≤25 mm, or because of a positive fetal fibronectin test combined with other clinical risk factors for preterm birth [any one of a history in a previous pregnancy of preterm birth, second trimester loss, preterm premature fetal membrane rupture, or a history of a cervical procedure to treat abnormal smears]). The objective of the study was to determine whether vaginal progesterone prophylaxis given to reduce the risk of preterm birth affects neonatal and childhood outcomes. We defined three primary outcomes: fetal death or birth before 34 weeks and 0 days gestation (obstetric), a composite of death, brain injury, or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (neonatal), and a standardised cognitive score at 2 years of age (childhood), imputing values for deaths. Randomisation was done through a web portal, with participants, investigators, and others involved in giving the intervention, assessing outcomes, or analysing data masked to treatment allocation until the end of the study. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN14568373.FindingsBetween Feb 2, 2009, and April 12, 2013, we randomly assigned 1228 women to the placebo group (n=610) and the progesterone group (n=618). In the placebo group, data from 597, 587, and 439 women or babies were available for analysis of obstetric, neonatal, and childhood outcomes, respectively; in the progesterone group the corresponding numbers were 600, 589, and 430. After correction for multiple outcomes, progesterone had no significant effect on the primary obstetric outcome (odds ratio adjusted for multiple comparisons [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·61-1·22) or neonatal outcome (OR 0·62, 0·38-1·03), nor on the childhood outcome (cognitive score, progesterone group vs placebo group, 97·3 [SD 17·9] vs 97·7 [17·5]; difference in means -0·48, 95% CI -2·77 to 1·81). Maternal or child serious adverse events were reported in 70 (11%) of 610 patients in the placebo group and 59 (10%) of 616 patients in the progesterone group (p=0·27).InterpretationVaginal progesterone was not associated with reduced risk of preterm birth or composite neonatal adverse outcomes, and had no long-term benefit or harm on outcomes in children at 2 years of age.FundingEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. The EME Programme is funded by the MRC and NIHR, with contributions from the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and National Institute for Social Care and Research in Wales.

Project description:BackgroundMultiple myeloma (MM) is known for its immune disturbance and patients suffering from MM are thus vulnerable to opportunistic infections, including herpes zoster (HZ). As HZ infection remarkably affects patients' quality of life and poses huge economic burdens on the health system, we aim to identify the risk factors of HZ infection and evaluate the effects of different dosages, types, and durations of anti-HZ prophylaxis drugs to prevent HZ infection.Methods551 MM patients at Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taiwan between January 1, 2009 and August 31, 2021 were restrospectively analyzed. The patients' baseline characteristics were recorded. The primary endpoint of the study was the incidence of HZ infection among the studied patient population. Due to the lack of cost coverage from Taiwanese public health insurance on HZ prophylaxis drugs, the use of anti-HZ drugs mainly depends on physicians' preferences and patients' choices.ResultsIn our study, prophylaxis was given to 283 of the patients. In the multivariate analysis, we included non-prophylaxis, age ≥ 60, corrected serum calcium ≥12 mg/dl, serum creatinine ≥2 mg/dl, serum β2-microglobulin ≥5500 mg/L, autologous stem cell transplant (SCT), and allogeneic SCT for analysis. Our results demonstrated that the non-prophylaxis group (HR: 2.37, 95% CI 1.57-3.57) and patients receiving autologous SCT (HR: 2.22, 95% CI 1.28-3.86) and allogeneic SCT (HR: 5.12, 95% CI 1.13-23.22) had higher risk of HZ infection. The difference in dosage and types of anti-HZ drugs showed similar protective effects. In patients who stopped anti-HZ prophylaxis before active cancer-related treatment, a higher risk of getting HZ infection compared to the corresponding group was also observed (adjusted HR 3.09, 95% CI 1.35-7.07, p = 0.008).ConclusionsWe concluded that MM patients should receive HZ prophylaxis drugs while receiving active cancer-related treatment. Patients receiving SCT are also at high risk of getting HZ infection, even under prophylaxis.

Project description:BackgroundNo specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ?18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656.FindingsBetween Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early.InterpretationIn this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.FundingChinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.

Project description:BackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.