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: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.

Project description:The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends intravenous (IV) ampicillin and gentamicin as first-line therapy to treat severe pneumonia in children under five years of age. Ampicillin needs to be administered at a six-hourly interval, which requires frequent nursing intervention and bed occupancy for 5-7 days, limiting its utility in resource-poor settings. We compared the efficacy of IV amoxicillin over IV ampicillin, which is a potential alternative drug in treating severe pneumonia in children between 2-59 months. We conducted an unblinded, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial in the Dhaka hospital of icddr,b from 1 January 2018 to 31 October 2019. Children from 2-59 months of age presenting with WHO defined severe pneumonia with respiratory danger signs were randomly assigned 1:1 to either 50 mg/kg ampicillin or 40 mg/kg amoxicillin per day with 7.5 mg/kg gentamicin. The primary outcome was treatment failure as per the standard definition of persistence of danger sign(s) of severe pneumonia beyond 48 h or deterioration within 24 h of therapy initiation. The secondary outcomes were: (i) time required for resolution of danger signs since enrolment, (ii) length of hospital stay, (iii) death during hospitalization, and (iv) rate of nosocomial infections. Among 308 enrolled participants, baseline characteristics were similar among the two groups. Sixty-two (20%) children ended up with treatment failure, 21 (14%) in amoxicillin, and 41 (27%) in ampicillin arm, which is statistically significant (relative risk [RR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.82; p = 0.004). We reported 14 deaths for serious adverse events, 4 (3%) and 10 (6%) among amoxicillin and ampicillin arm, respectively. IV amoxicillin and IV gentamicin combination is not inferior to combined IV ampicillin and IV gentamicin in treating severe pneumonia in under-five children in Bangladesh. Considering the less frequent dosing and more compliance, IV amoxicillin is a better choice for treating children with severe pneumonia in resource-limited settings.