Dataset Information

Azithromycin for uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Given the high risk of infectious mortality among children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM), the World Health Organization recommends routine administration of a broad-spectrum antibiotic like amoxicillin as part of the management of uncomplicated SAM. However, evidence for the efficacy of amoxicillin to improve nutritional recovery or reduce mortality has been mixed. With a long half-life and evidence of efficacy to reduce mortality in high-risk populations, azithromycin is a potential alternative to amoxicillin in the management of SAM. In this pilot study, we aim to compare the efficacy of azithromycin to amoxicillin to improve nutritional outcomes in children with uncomplicated SAM.

Methods

This pilot randomized controlled trial will enroll 300 children with uncomplicated SAM from 6 Centre de Santé et de Promotion Sociale in the Boromo health district in Burkina Faso. Eligible children are randomized to receive a single directly observed dose of oral azithromycin or a 7-day course of oral amoxicillin in addition to the standard package of care for uncomplicated SAM. Enrolled children are followed weekly until nutritional recovery, and all children return for a final study visit at 8 weeks after enrollment. Anthropometric indicators, vital status, and clinical outcomes are monitored at each visit and compared by arm. Primary feasibility outcomes include enrollment potential, refusals, loss to follow-up, and completeness of data collection. The primary clinical outcome is weight gain (g/kg/day) over the 8-week study period.

Discussion

This pilot trial will establish the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial to evaluate alternative antibiotics in this setting and provide preliminary evidence for the efficacy of azithromycin compared to amoxicillin to improve outcomes for children with SAM.

Trial registration

This trial was first registered on clinicaltrials.gov on 26 June 2018 ( NCT03568643 ).

SUBMITTER: O'Brien KS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8056624 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Children hospitalised with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) are frequently complicated (>50%) by diarrhoea ( ≥3 watery stools/day) which is accompanied by poor outcomes. Rehydration guidelines for SAM are exceptionally conservative and controversial, based upon expert opinion. The guidelines only permit use of intravenous fluids for cases with advanced shock and exclusive use of low sodium intravenous and oral rehydration solutions (ORS) for fear of fluid and/or sodium overload. Children managed in accordance to these guidelines have a very high mortality. The proposed GASTROSAM trial is the first step in reappraising current recommendations. We hypothesize that liberal rehydration strategies for both intravenous and oral rehydration in SAM children with diarrhoea may reduce adverse outcomes. Methods An open Phase II trial, with a partial factorial design, enrolling Ugandan and Kenyan children aged 6 months to 12 years with SAM hospitalised with gastroenteritis (>3 loose stools/day) and signs of moderate and severe dehydration. In Stratum A (severe dehydration) children will be randomised (1:1:2) to WHO plan C (100mls/kg Ringers Lactate (RL) with intravenous rehydration given over 3-6 hours according to age including boluses for shock), slow rehydration (100 mls/kg RL over 8 hours (no boluses)) or WHO SAM rehydration regime (ORS only (boluses for shock (standard of care)). Stratum B incorporates all children with moderate dehydration and severe dehydration post-intravenous rehydration and compares (1:1 ratio) standard WHO ORS given for non-SAM (experimental) versus WHO SAM-recommended low-sodium ReSoMal. The primary outcome for intravenous rehydration is urine output (mls/kg/hour at 8 hours post-randomisation), and for oral rehydration a change in sodium levels at 24 hours post-randomisation. This trial will also generate feasibility, safety and preliminary data on survival to 28 days. Discussion. If current rehydration strategies for non-malnourished children are safe in SAM this could prompt future evaluation in Phase III trials.

Project description:BackgroundBenzodiazepines are considered first-line treatment for patients experiencing severe acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome (sAAWS). Although several medications have been evaluated as potential adjuvant treatments for sAAWS, barbiturates show particular promise.ObjectiveIn the PHENOMANAL trial, we will assess the feasibility of conducting an allocation-concealed, quadruple-blinded, randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing symptom-triggered benzodiazepine therapy with either a single dose of adjuvant intravenous (IV) phenobarbital (7.5 mg/kg of ideal body weight) or a single dose of matching IV placebo for patients with sAAWS.MethodsWe will recruit adult patients from the Emergency Department, Intensive Care Unit, or hospital wards with a Clinical Institute of Withdrawal - Adult revised (CIWA-Ar) score of 16 or more after receipt of at least 60 mg of diazepam or equivalent within 16 h of diagnosis of sAAWS, and an anticipated need for hospitalization. We will randomize participants (n=39) in a 2:1 manner to treatment and placebo groups, respectively. The primary objective of the PHENOMANAL pilot trial will be to demonstrate our ability to recruit the desired population over the trial period. As secondary objectives, we will evaluate clinician compliance with the treatment protocols, assess crossover rates from the placebo arm to the treatment arm, and obtain preliminary estimates of treatment effect. All trial participants will be followed for 7 days or until hospital discharge.RelevanceThe PHENOMANAL trial is novel in investigating a new treatment for a common and understudied condition, repurposing an existing medication for a novel indication, and addressing an important evidence gap. Through conduct of the multidisciplinary pilot trial, we aim to advance methodology in acute care research through the use of a hybrid consent model and inform the design of a large-scale trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Registration NCT03586089 ; first registered July 13, 2018.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent (1999) World Health Organization guidelines recommend giving routine antibiotics (AB) for all children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM), even if they have uncomplicated disease with no clinically obvious infections. We examined the evidence behind this recommendation.Methods and findingsOVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, GLOBAL-HEALTH, CINAHL, POPLINE, AFRICA-WIDE-NiPAD, and LILACS were searched for AB efficacy, bacterial resistance, and infection rates in SAM. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Three randomised controlled trials (RCT), five Cochrane reviews, and 37 observational studies were identified. One cohort-study showed no increase in nutritional-cure and mortality in uncomplicated SAM where no AB were used. (p>0.05). However, an unpublished RCT in this setting did show mortality benefits. Another RCT did not show superiority of ceftriaxone over amoxicilllin for these same outcomes, but adressed SAM children with and without complications (p?=?0.27). Another RCT showed no difference between amoxicillin and cotrimoxazole efficacies for pneumonia in underweight, but not SAM. Our meta-analysis of 12 pooled susceptibility-studies for all types of bacterial isolates, including 2767 stricly SAM children, favoured amoxicillin over cotrimoxazole for susceptibility medians: 42% (IQR 27-55%) vs 22% (IQR 17-23%) and population-weighted-means 52.9% (range 23-57%) vs 35.4% (range 6.7-42%). Susceptibilities to second-line AB were better, above 80%. Prevalence of serious infections in SAM, pooled from 24 studies, ranged from 17% to 35.2%. No study infered any association of infection prevalence with AB regimens in SAM.ConclusionsThe evidence underlying current antibiotic recommendations for uncomplicated SAM is weak. Susceptibility-studies favour amoxicillin over cotrimoxazole. However, given that these antibiotics have side-effects, costs, and risks as well as benefits, their routine use needs urgent testing. With reliable monitoring, we believe that there is sufficient equipoise for placebo controlled RCTs, the only robust way to demonstrate true efficacy.

Project description:To assess the efficacy of ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF), centrally produced RUTF (RUTF-C) or locally prepared RUTF (RUTF-L) for home-based management of uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition (SAM) compared with micronutrient-enriched (augmented) energy-dense home-prepared foods (A-HPF, the comparison group).In an individually randomised multicentre trial, we enrolled 906 children aged 6-59?months with uncomplicated SAM. The children enrolled were randomised to receive RUTF-C, RUTF-L or A-HPF. We provided foods, counselling and feeding support until recovery or 16?weeks, whichever was earlier and measured outcomes weekly (treatment phase). We subsequently facilitated access to government nutrition services and measured outcomes once 16?weeks later (sustenance phase). The primary outcome was recovery during treatment phase (weight-for-height ?-2 SD and absence of oedema of feet).Recovery rates with RUTF-L, RUTF-C and A-HPF were 56.9%, 47.5% and 42.8%, respectively. The adjusted OR was 1.71 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.43; p=0.003) for RUTF-L and 1.28 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.82; p=0.164) for RUTF-C compared with A-HPF. Weight gain in the RUTF-L group was higher than in the A-HPF group (adjusted difference 0.90?g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; p=0.003). Time to recovery was shorter in both RUTF groups. Morbidity was high and similar across groups. At the end of the study, the proportion of children with weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ) >-2 was similar (adjusted OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.95; p=0.464), higher for moderate malnutrition (WHZ<-2 and ?-3; adjusted OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.08; p=0.039), and lower for those with SAM (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; p=0.005) in the RUTF-L when compared with the A-HPF group.This first randomised trial comparing options for home management of uncomplicated SAM confirms that RUTF-L is more efficacious than A-HPF at home. Recovery rates were lower than in African studies, despite longer treatment and greater support for feeding.NCT01705769; Pre-results.