Dataset Information

Partial oral antibiotic treatment for bacterial brain abscess: an open-label randomized non-inferiority trial (ORAL)

ABSTRACT:

Background

The advised standard treatment for bacterial brain abscess following surgery is 6 to 8 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment, but an early switch to oral antibiotic treatment has been suggested to be equally effective.

Methods

This investigator-initiated, international, multi-center, parallel group, open-label, randomized (1:1 allocation) controlled trial will examine if oral treatment after 2 weeks of IV antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to standard 6–8 weeks of IV antibiotics for bacterial brain abscess in adults (≥ 18 years of age). The study will be conducted at hospitals across Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Australia, and Sweden. Exclusion criteria are severe immunocompromise or impaired gastro-intestinal absorption, pregnancy, device-related brain abscesses, and brain abscess caused by nocardia, tuberculosis, or Pseudomonas spp. The primary objective is a composite endpoint at 6 months after randomization consisting of all-cause mortality, intraventricular rupture of brain abscess, unplanned re-aspiration or excision of brain abscess, relapse, or recurrence. The primary endpoint will be adjudicated by an independent blinded endpoint committee. Secondary outcomes include extended Glasgow Outcome Scale scores and all-cause mortality at end of treatment as well as 3, 6, and 12 months since randomization, completion of assigned treatment, IV catheter associated complications, durations of admission and antibiotic treatment, severe adverse events, quality of life scores, and cognitive evaluations. The planned sample size is 450 patients for a one-sided alpha of 0.025 and a power of 90% to exclude a difference in favor of standard treatment of more than 10%. Date of initiation of first study center was November 3, 2020, with active recruitment for 3 years and follow-up for 1 year of all patients.

Discussion

The results of this study may guide future recommendations for treatment of bacterial brain abscess. If early transition to oral antibiotics proves non-inferior to standard IV treatment, this will provide considerable health and costs benefits.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04140903, first registered 28.10.2019. EudraCT number: 2019-002845-39, first registered 03.07.2019

SUBMITTER: Bodilsen J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8588941 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesIn the largest head-to-head comparison between an oral and an intravenous (IV) iron compound in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) so far, we strived to determine whether IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 is non-inferior to oral iron sulfate in the treatment of iron deficiency anemia (IDA).MethodsThis prospective, randomized, comparative, open-label, non-inferiority study was conducted at 36 sites in Europe and India. Patients with known intolerance to oral iron were excluded. A total of 338 IBD patients in clinical remission or with mild disease, a hemoglobin (Hb) <12 g/dl, and a transferrin saturation (TSAT) <20% were randomized 2:1 to receive either IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 according to the Ganzoni formula (225 patients) or oral iron sulfate 200 mg daily (equivalent to 200 mg elemental iron; 113 patients). An interactive web response system method was used to randomize the eligible patient to the treatment groups. The primary end point was change in Hb from baseline to week 8. Iron isomaltoside 1,000 and iron sulfate was compared by a non-inferiority assessment with a margin of -0.5 g/dl. The secondary end points, which tested for superiority, included change in Hb from baseline to weeks 2 and 4, change in s-ferritin, and TSAT to week 8, number of patients who discontinued study because of lack of response or intolerance of investigational drugs, change in total quality of life (QoL) score to weeks 4 and 8, and safety. Exploratory analyses included a responder analysis (proportion of patients with an increase in Hb ?2 g/dl after 8 weeks), the effect of regional differences and total iron dose level, and other potential predictors of the treatment response.ResultsNon-inferiority in change of Hb to week 8 could not be demonstrated. There was a trend for oral iron sulfate being more effective in increasing Hb than iron isomaltoside 1,000. The estimated treatment effect was -0.37 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.80, 0.06) with P=0.09 in the full analysis set (N=327) and -0.45 (95% CI: -0.88, -0.03) with P=0.04 in the per protocol analysis set (N=299). In patients treated with IV iron isomaltoside 1,000, the mean change in s-ferritin concentration was higher with an estimated treatment effect of 48.7 (95% CI: 18.6, 78.8) with P=0.002, whereas the mean change in TSAT was lower with an estimated treatment effect of -4.4 (95% CI: -7.4, -1.4) with P=0.005, compared with patients treated with oral iron. No differences in changes of QoL were observed. The safety profile was similar between the groups. The proportion of responders with Hb ?2 g/dl (IV group: 67%; oral group: 61%) were comparable between the groups (P=0.32). Iron isomaltoside 1,000 was more efficacious with higher cumulative doses of >1,000 mg IV. Significant predictors of Hb response to IV iron treatment were baseline Hb and C-reactive protein (CRP).ConclusionsWe could not demonstrate non-inferiority of IV iron isomaltoside 1,000 compared with oral iron in this study. Based on the dose-response relationship observed with the IV iron compound, we suggest that the true iron demand of IV iron was underestimated by the Ganzoni formula in our study. Alternative calculations including Hb and CRP should be explored to gauge iron stores in patients with IBD.

Project description:BackgroundNovel oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 (nOPV2) was developed by modifying the Sabin strain to increase genetic stability and reduce risk of seeding new circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 outbreaks. Bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV; containing Sabin types 1 and 3) is the vaccine of choice for type 1 and type 3 outbreak responses. We aimed to assess immunological interference between nOPV2 and bOPV when administered concomitantly.MethodsWe conducted an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial at two clinical trial sites in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Healthy infants aged 6 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using block randomisation, stratified by site, to receive nOPV2 only, nOPV2 plus bOPV, or bOPV only, at the ages of 6 weeks, 10 weeks, and 14 weeks. Eligibility criteria included singleton and full term (≥37 weeks' gestation) birth and parents intending to remain in the study area for the duration of study follow-up activities. Poliovirus neutralising antibody titres were measured at the ages of 6 weeks, 10 weeks, 14 weeks, and 18 weeks. The primary outcome was cumulative immune response for all three poliovirus types at the age of 14 weeks (after two doses) and was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which was restricted to participants with adequate blood specimens from all study visits. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study product. A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used to compare single and concomitant administration. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04579510.FindingsBetween Feb 8 and Sept 26, 2021, 736 participants (244 in the nOPV2 only group, 246 in the nOPV2 plus bOPV group, and 246 in the bOPV only group) were enrolled and included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. After two doses, 209 (86%; 95% CI 81-90) participants in the nOPV2 only group and 159 (65%; 58-70) participants in the nOPV2 plus bOPV group had a type 2 poliovirus immune response; 227 (92%; 88-95) participants in the nOPV2 plus bOPV group and 229 (93%; 89-96) participants in the bOPV only group had a type 1 response; and 216 (88%; 83-91) participants in the nOPV2 plus bOPV group and 212 (86%; 81-90) participants in the bOPV only group had a type 3 response. Co-administration was non-inferior to single administration for types 1 and 3, but not for type 2. There were 15 serious adverse events (including three deaths, one in each group, all attributable to sudden infant death syndrome); none were attributed to vaccination.InterpretationCo-administration of nOPV2 and bOPV interfered with immunogenicity for poliovirus type 2, but not for types 1 and 3. The blunted nOPV2 immunogenicity we observed would be a major drawback of using co-administration as a vaccination strategy.FundingThe US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of Gram-negative bacteraemia is rising globally and remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality. The majority of patients with Gram-negative bacteraemia initially receive intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy. However, it remains unclear whether patients can step down to oral antibiotics after appropriate clinical response has been observed without compromising outcomes. Compared with IV therapy, oral therapy eliminates the risk of catheter-associated adverse events, enhances patient quality of life and reduces healthcare costs. As current management of Gram-negative bacteraemia entails a duration of IV therapy with limited evidence to guide oral conversion, we aim to evaluate the clinical efficacy and economic impact of early stepdown to oral antibiotics.MethodsThis is an international, multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label, phase III, non-inferiority trial. To be eligible, adult participants must be clinically stable / non-critically ill inpatients with uncomplicated Gram-negative bacteraemia. Randomisation to the intervention or standard arms will be performed with 1:1 allocation ratio. Participants randomised to the intervention arm (within 72 h from index blood culture collection) will be immediately switched to an oral fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Participants randomised to the standard arm will continue to receive IV therapy for at least 24 h post-randomisation before clinical re-assessment and decision-making by the treating doctor. The recommended treatment duration is 7 days of active antibiotics (including empiric therapy), although treatment regimen may be longer than 7 days if clinically indicated. Primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality, and the key secondary outcome is health economic evaluation, including estimation of total healthcare cost as well as assessment of patient quality of life and number of quality-adjusted life years saved. Assuming a 30-day mortality of 8% in the standard and intervention arms, with 6% non-inferiority margin, the target sample size is 720 participants which provides 80% power with a one-sided 0.025 α-level after adjustment for 5% drop-out.DiscussionA finding of non-inferiority in efficacy of oral fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus IV standard of care antibiotics may hypothetically translate to wider adoption of a more cost-effective treatment strategy with better quality of life outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05199324 . Registered 20 January 2022.

Project description:BackgroundSupplementary immunisation activities with oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) are usually separated by 4 week intervals; however, shorter intervals have been used in security-compromised areas and for rapid outbreak responses. We assessed the immunogenicity of monovalent type-1 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV1) given at shorter than usual intervals in Karachi, Pakistan.MethodsThis was a multicentre, randomised, controlled, four-arm, open-label, non-inferiority trial done at five primary health-care centres in low-income communities in and around Karachi, Pakistan. Eligible participants were healthy newborn babies with a birthweight of at least 2·5 kg, for whom informed consent was provided by their parent or guardian, and lived less than 30 km from the study clinic. After receiving a birth dose of trivalent OPV, we enrolled and randomly assigned newborn babies (1:1:1:1) to receive two doses of mOPV1 with an interval of 1 week (mOPV1-1 week), 2 weeks (mOPV1-2 weeks), or 4 weeks (mOPV1-4 weeks) between doses, or two doses of bivalent OPV (bOPV) with an interval of 4 weeks between doses (bOPV-4 weeks). We gave the first study dose of OPV at age 6 weeks. We did the randomisation with a centrally generated, computerised allocation sequence with blocks of 16; participants' families and study physicians could not feasibly be masked to the allocations. Trial participants were excluded from local supplementary immunisation activities during the study period. The primary outcome was non-inferiority (within a 20% margin) between groups in seroconversion to type-1 poliovirus. The primary and safety analyses were done in the per-protocol population of infants who received all three doses of vaccine. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01586572, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween March 1, 2012, and May 31, 2013, we enrolled 1009 newborn babies, and randomly assigned 829 (82%) to treatment. 554 (67%) of the 829 babies were included in the per-protocol analysis. Proportions of seroconversion to type-1 poliovirus were 107/135 (79%, 95% CI 72·4-86·1) with mOPV1-1 week, 108/135 (80%, 73·2-86·8) with mOPV1-2 weeks, 129/148 (87%, 80·9-92·0) with mOPV1-4 weeks, and 107/136 (79%, 71·8-85·6) with bOPV-4 weeks. Non-inferiority was shown between groups and no significant differences were noted. Ten participants died during the trial. Seven of these deaths occurred during the lead-in period before randomisation (two from diarrhoea, five from unknown causes). Three infants died from sepsis after random assignment. No deaths were attributed to the procedures or vaccines. Additionally, we noted no events of vaccine-associated paralysis.InterpretationWe identified no significant differences in responses to mOPV1 given with shorter intervals between doses than with the standard 4 week intervals. The short-interval strategy could be particularly beneficial when temporary windows of opportunity for safe access can be granted in areas of conflict--eg, during cease-fire periods. In such situations, we recommend shortening the interval between OPV doses to 7 days.FundingWorld Health Organization.