Dataset Information

Early oral stepdown antibiotic therapy versus continuing intravenous therapy for uncomplicated Gram-negative bacteraemia (the INVEST trial): study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label, phase III, non-inferiority trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The 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.

Methods

This 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.

Discussion

A 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 registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05199324 . Registered 20 January 2022.

SUBMITTER: Lee IR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9295110 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Early oral stepdown antibiotic therapy versus continuing intravenous therapy for uncomplicated Gram-negative bacteraemia (the INVEST trial): study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label, phase III, non-inferiority trial.

Lee I Russel IR Tong Steven Y C SYC Davis Joshua S JS Paterson David L DL Syed-Omar Sharifah F SF Peck Kwong Ran KR Chung Doo Ryeon DR Cooke Graham S GS Libau Eshele Anak EA Rahman Siti-Nabilah B A SBA Gandhi Mihir P MP Shi Luming L Zheng Shuwei S Chaung Jenna J Tan Seow Yen SY Kalimuddin Shirin S Archuleta Sophia S Lye David C DC

Trials 20220719 1

<h4>Background</h4>The 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 ...[more]

PMID: 35854360

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAppendectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Recently the need for surgery has been challenged in both adults and children. In children there is growing clinician, patient and parental interest in non-operative treatment of acute appendicitis with antibiotics as opposed to surgery. To date no multicentre randomised controlled trials that are appropriately powered to determine efficacy of non-operative treatment (antibiotics) for acute appendicitis in children compared with surgery (appendectomy) have been performed.MethodsMulticentre, international, randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. Children (age 5-16 years) with a clinical and/or radiological diagnosis of acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either laparoscopic appendectomy or treatment with intravenous (minimum 12 hours) followed by oral antibiotics (total course 10 days). Allocation to groups will be stratified by gender, duration of symptoms (> or <48 hours) and centre. Children in both treatment groups will follow a standardised treatment pathway. Primary outcome is treatment failure defined as additional intervention related to appendicitis requiring general anaesthesia within 1 year of randomisation (including recurrent appendicitis) or negative appendectomy. Important secondary outcomes will be reported and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. The primary outcome will be analysed on a non-inferiority basis using a 20% non-inferiority margin. Planned sample size is 978 children.DiscussionThe APPY trial will be the first multicentre randomised trial comparing non-operative treatment with appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. The results of this trial have the potential to revolutionise the treatment of this common gastrointestinal emergency. The randomised design will limit the effect of bias on outcomes seen in other studies.Trial registration numberclinicaltrials.gov: NCT02687464. Registered on Jan 13th 2016.

Project description:IntroductionAntibiotic overuse drives antibiotic resistance. The optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for Gram-negative bacteraemia (GNB), a common community and hospital-associated infection, remains unknown and unstudied via randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Methods and analysisThis investigator-initiated, multicentre, non-inferiority, informatics-based point-of-care RCT will randomly assign adult hospitalised patients receiving microbiologically efficacious antibiotic(s) for GNB to (1) 14 days of antibiotic therapy, (2) 7 days of therapy or (3) an individualised duration determined by clinical response and 75% reduction in peak C reactive protein (CRP) values. The randomisation will occur in equal proportions (1:1:1) on day 5 (±1) of efficacious antibiotic therapy as determined by antibiogram; patients, their physicians and study investigators will be blind to treatment duration allocation until the day of antibiotic discontinuation. Immunosuppressed patients and those with GNB due to complicated infections (endocarditis, osteomyelitis, etc) and/or non-fermenting bacilli (Acinetobacter spp, Burkholderia spp, Pseudomonas spp) Brucella spp, Fusobacterium spp or polymicrobial growth with Gram-positive organisms will be ineligible. The primary outcome is incidence of clinical failure at day 30; secondary outcomes include clinical failure, all-cause mortality and incidence of Clostridiumdifficile infection in the 90-day study period. An interim safety analysis will be performed after the first 150 patients have been followed for ≤30 days. Given a chosen margin of 10%, the required sample size to determine non-inferiority is roughly 500 patients. Analyses will be performed on both intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the cantonal ethics committees of all three participating sites. Results of the main trial and each of the secondary endpoints will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberThis trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03101072; pre-results).

Project description:BackgroundVancomycin is the most widely used antibiotic for neonatal Gram-positive sepsis, but clinical outcome data of dosing strategies are scarce. The NeoVanc programme comprised extensive preclinical studies to inform a randomised controlled trial to assess optimised vancomycin dosing. We compared the efficacy of an optimised regimen to a standard regimen in infants with late onset sepsis that was known or suspected to be caused by Gram-positive microorganisms.MethodsNeoVanc was an open-label, multicentre, phase 2b, parallel-group, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing the efficacy and toxicity of an optimised regimen of vancomycin to a standard regimen in infants aged 90 days or younger. Infants with at least three clinical or laboratory sepsis criteria or confirmed Gram-positive sepsis with at least one clinical or laboratory criterion were enrolled from 22 neonatal intensive care units in Greece, Italy, Estonia, Spain, and the UK. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the optimised regimen (25 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 15 mg/kg every 12 h or 8 h dependent on postmenstrual age, for 5 ± 1 days) or the standard regimen (no loading dose; 15 mg/kg every 24 h, 12 h, or 8 h dependent on postmenstrual age for 10 ± 2 days). Vancomycin was administered intravenously via 60 min infusion. Group allocation was not masked to local investigators or parents. The primary endpoint was success at the test of cure visit (10 ± 1 days after the end of actual vancomycin therapy) in the per-protocol population, where success was defined as the participant being alive at the test of cure visit, having a successful outcome at the end of actual vancomycin therapy, and not having a clinically or microbiologically significant relapse or new infection requiring antistaphylococcal antibiotics for more than 24 h within 10 days of the end of actual vancomycin therapy. The non-inferiority margin was -10%. Safety was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02790996).FindingsBetween March 3, 2017, and July 29, 2019, 242 infants were randomly assigned to the standard regimen group (n=122) or the optimised regimen group (n=120). Primary outcome data in the per-protocol population were available for 90 infants in the optimised group and 92 in the standard group. 64 (71%) of 90 infants in the optimised group and 73 (79%) of 92 in the standard group had success at test of cure visit; non-inferiority was not confirmed (adjusted risk difference -7% [95% CI -15 to 2]). Incomplete resolution of clinical or laboratory signs after 5 ± 1 days of vancomycin therapy was the main factor contributing to clinical failure in the optimised group. Abnormal hearing test results were recorded in 25 (30%) of 84 infants in the optimised group and 12 (15%) of 79 in the standard group (adjusted risk ratio 1·96 [95% CI 1·07 to 3·59], p=0·030). There were six vancomycin-related adverse events in the optimised group (one serious adverse event) and four in the standard group (two serious adverse events). 11 infants in the intention-to-treat population died (six [6%] of 102 infants in the optimised group and five [5%] of 98 in the standard group).InterpretationIn the largest neonatal vancomycin efficacy trial yet conducted, no clear clinical impact of a shorter duration of treatment with a loading dose was demonstrated. The use of the optimised regimen cannot be recommended because a potential hearing safety signal was identified; long-term follow-up is being done. These results emphasise the importance of robust clinical safety assessments of novel antibiotic dosing regimens in infants.FundingEU Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if guided internet based cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus (CBT-TF) is non-inferior to individual face-to-face CBT-TF for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to one traumatic event.DesignPragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (RAPID).SettingPrimary and secondary mental health settings across the UK's NHS.Participants196 adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate PTSD were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to one of two interventions, with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% retention at 52 weeks. 19 participants and 10 therapists were purposively sampled and interviewed for evaluation of the process.InterventionsUp to 12 face-to-face, manual based, individual CBT-TF sessions, each lasting 60-90 minutes; or guided internet based CBT-TF with an eight step online programme, with up to three hours of contact with a therapist and four brief telephone calls or email contacts between sessions.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) at 16 weeks after randomisation (diagnosis of PTSD based on the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, DSM-5). Secondary outcomes included severity of PTSD symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression and anxiety, use of alcohol, and perceived social support at 16 and 52 weeks after randomisation.ResultsNon-inferiority was found at the primary endpoint of 16 weeks on the CAPS-5 (mean difference 1.01, one sided 95% confidence interval -∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority P=0.012). Improvements in CAPS-5 score of more than 60% in the two groups were maintained at 52 weeks, but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of face-to-face CBT-TF at this time point (3.20, -∞ to 6.00, P=0.15). Guided internet based CBT-TF was significantly (P<0.001) cheaper than face-to-face CBT-TF and seemed to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. The main themes of the qualitative analysis were facilitators and barriers to engagement with guided internet based CBT-TF, treatment outcomes, and considerations for its future implementation.ConclusionsGuided internet based CBT-TF for mild to moderate PTSD to one traumatic event was non-inferior to individual face-to-face CBT-TF and should be considered a first line treatment for people with this condition.Trial registrationISRCTN13697710.

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:IntroductionInsomnia is a prevalent sleep disorder that negatively impacts daytime functioning and quality of life. Breast cancer patients report higher rates of insomnia and more circadian disruption than other cancer groups. Approximately 50% of patients experience acute insomnia following breast cancer diagnosis, which often persists during cancer treatment and rehabilitation. Sleep Restriction Therapy (SRT) is a clinically effective and tolerable treatment for persistent insomnia in breast cancer survivors. However, SRT has never been tested on patients with early signs of sleep disturbance who are undergoing cancer treatment. The aim of this pilot randomised controlled trial is to explore the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of nurse delivered SRT for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients with acute insomnia. The trial has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT06294041).MethodsThe INVEST (INvestigating the Value of Early Sleep Therapy) trial will recruit 50 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients who meet criteria for acute insomnia. Patients will be recruited from breast cancer results clinics within two Scottish health boards (NHS Grampian and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde) and will be block randomised (1:1) to receive nurse delivered SRT or Sleep Hygiene Education (SHE). SRT will be delivered over 4 weekly sessions comprising two face-to-face meetings (either in person or online) and two telephone calls, whereas SHE will be administered in booklet form. Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-randomisation. Primary outcomes in this trial relate to the feasibility of SRT for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients with acute insomnia. Specifically, we will explore (i) rates of patient recruitment and retention, (ii) intervention fidelity, (iii) data collection procedures and outcome measure completion, (iv) intervention acceptability. Secondary outcomes will focus on preliminary evaluation of patient responses to SRT, including insomnia severity, rest-activity rhythms, and mental health.DisseminationOur dissemination plan comprises publishing trial outcomes in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals and on breast cancer charity websites and other patient resources. The outcomes from this pilot trial will also inform the development of a full-scale, multicentre RCT of SRT for acute insomnia in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. University of Strathclyde is the sponsor (reference: UEC23/52). Protocol version v1.2 4 October 2023.Strengths and limitations of this studyThis trial is the first to explore the value of sleep prehabilitation for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.This will be the first trial to assess the feasibility of delivering SRT during breast cancer treatment, providing valuable insight into its tolerability and preliminary effectiveness.An embedded process evaluation will assess the acceptability of SRT, providing insight into potential optimisation of the intervention and recommendations for enhancing its future scalability and translation within cancer care.Due to the nature of the SRT intervention, nurse therapists and patients cannot be blinded to treatment allocation, increasing the risk of bias.

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.

Dataset Information

Early oral stepdown antibiotic therapy versus continuing intravenous therapy for uncomplicated Gram-negative bacteraemia (the INVEST trial): study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label, phase III, non-inferiority trial.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

Early oral stepdown antibiotic therapy versus continuing intravenous therapy for uncomplicated Gram-negative bacteraemia (the INVEST trial): study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label, phase III, non-inferiority trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets