Dataset Information

Moxifloxacin versus ofloxacin plus metronidazole in uncomplicated pelvic inflammatory disease: results of a multicentre, double blind, randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: This multinational, multicentre, prospective, randomised, double blind, parallel group, non-inferiority study compared the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin monotherapy with ofloxacin plus metronidazole in women with uncomplicated pelvic inflammatory disease. METHODS: Women from hospitals throughout 13 countries received a 14 day course of either oral moxifloxacin, 400 mg once daily (n = 384), or oral ofloxacin, 400 mg twice daily plus oral metronidazole, 500 mg twice daily (n = 365). RESULTS: Of the 741 patients in the intent to treat (ITT) population, 564 (74.2%) were valid for the per protocol (PP) analyses; 112 (19.9%) of these were included in the microbiologically valid population (MBV). Clinical resolution rates in the PP population at the test of cure visit (TOC, 5-24 days post-therapy, primary efficacy end point) were 90.2% (248/275) for moxifloxacin and 90.7% (262/289) for ofloxacin plus metronidazole (95% CI: -5.7% to 4.0%). At follow up (28-42 days post-therapy), resolution rates in the PP population were 85.8% (236/275) and 87.9% (254/289) for moxifloxacin and comparator, respectively (95% CI: -8.0% to 3.1%). Bacteriological success rates in the MBV population at TOC were 87.5% (49/56) for moxifloxacin and 82.1% (46/56) for comparator (95% CI: -8.3% to 18.8%). Against Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae, bacteriological success rates with moxifloxacin were 88.5% (23/26) and 100% (13/13) and for comparator 85.7% (18/21) and 81.8% (18/22), respectively. Drug related adverse events occurred less frequently with moxifloxacin (22.5% (85/378)) versus the comparator (30.9% (112/363)) (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In uncomplicated PID, once daily moxifloxacin monotherapy was clinically and bacteriologically as efficacious as twice daily ofloxacin plus metronidazole therapy and was associated with fewer drug related adverse events.

SUBMITTER: Ross JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2563874 | biostudies-other | 2006 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Moxifloxacin versus ofloxacin plus metronidazole in uncomplicated pelvic inflammatory disease: results of a multicentre, double blind, randomised trial.

Ross J D C JD Cronjé H S HS Paszkowski T T Rakoczi I I Vildaite D D Kureishi A A Alefelder M M Arvis P P Reimnitz P P

Sexually transmitted infections 20060524 6

<h4>Objective</h4>This multinational, multicentre, prospective, randomised, double blind, parallel group, non-inferiority study compared the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin monotherapy with ofloxacin plus metronidazole in women with uncomplicated pelvic inflammatory disease.<h4>Methods</h4>Women from hospitals throughout 13 countries received a 14 day course of either oral moxifloxacin, 400 mg once daily (n = 384), or oral ofloxacin, 400 mg twice daily plus oral metronidazole, 500 mg twice d ...[more]

PMID: 16723364

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic pelvic pain affects 2-24% of women worldwide and evidence for medical treatments is scarce. Gabapentin is effective in treating some chronic pain conditions. We aimed to measure the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in women with chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.MethodsWe performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 39 UK hospital centres. Eligible participants were women with chronic pelvic pain (with or without dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia) of at least 3 months duration. Inclusion criteria were 18-50 years of age, use or willingness to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and no obvious pelvic pathology at laparoscopy, which must have taken place at least 2 weeks before consent but less than 36 months previously. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive gabapentin (titrated to a maximum dose of 2700 mg daily) or matching placebo for 16 weeks. The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence or absence of dysmenorrhoea, psychological distress, current use of hormonal contraceptives, and hospital centre. The appearance, route, and administration of the assigned intervention were identical in both groups. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were unaware of the trial group assignments throughout the trial. Participants were unmasked once they had provided all outcome data at week 16-17, or sooner if a serious adverse event requiring knowledge of the study drug occurred. The dual primary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population. Self-reported adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN77451762.FindingsParticipants were screened between Nov 30, 2015, and March 6, 2019, and 306 were randomly assigned (153 to gabapentin and 153 to placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after randomisation. The mean worst NRS pain score was 7·1 (standard deviation [SD] 2·6) in the gabapentin group and 7·4 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·4 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and -1·2 (SD 2·1) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·20 [97·5% CI -0·81 to 0·42]; p=0·47). The mean average NRS pain score was 4·3 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and 4·5 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·1 (SD 2·0) in the gabapentin group and -0·9 (SD 1·8) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·18 [97·5% CI -0·71 to 0·35]; p=0·45). More women had a serious adverse event in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group (10 [7%] of 153 in the gabapentin group compared with 3 [2%] of 153 in the placebo group; p=0·04). Dizziness, drowsiness, and visual disturbances were more common in the gabapentin group.InterpretationThis study was adequately powered, but treatment with gabapentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was associated with higher rates of side-effects than placebo. Given the increasing reports of abuse and evidence of potential harms associated with gabapentin use, it is important that clinicians consider alternative treatment options to off-label gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundNew treatments are needed to shorten the time required to cure tuberculosis and to treat drug-resistant strains. The fluoroquinolone moxifloxacin is a promising new agent that might have additive activity to existing antituberculosis agents. We assessed the activity and safety of moxifloxacin in the initial stage of tuberculosis treatment.MethodsWe undertook a phase II, double-blind, randomised controlled trial of a regimen that included moxifloxacin in adults with sputum smear-positive tuberculosis at one hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 170 participants received isoniazid, rifampicin, and pyrazinamide at standard doses and were assigned by permuted block randomisation to receive either moxifloxacin (400 mg) with an ethambutol placebo (n=85) or ethambutol (15-20 mg/kg) plus moxifloxacin placebo (n=85) 5 days per week for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients whose sputum culture had converted to negative by week 8. Analysis was by modified intention to treat (ITT); patients whose baseline cultures were negative, contaminated, or contained drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis were excluded from the analysis. Additionally, all missing 8-week results were deemed treatment failures. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00082173.Findings74 patients assigned to the moxifloxacin group and 72 in the ethambutol group were included in the modified ITT population. 125 patients had 8-week data (moxifloxacin n=64, ethambutol n=61); the main reason for absence of data was culture contamination. At 8 weeks, culture conversion to negative had occurred in 59 (80%) of 74 patients in the moxifloxacin group compared with 45 (63%) of 72 in the ethambutol group (difference 17.2%, 95% CI 2.8-31.7; p=0.03). There were 16 adverse events (eight in each group) in 12 patients. Only one event was judged related to study drug (grade 3 cutaneous reaction in the ethambutol group).InterpretationMoxifloxacin improved culture conversion in the initial phase of tuberculosis treatment. Trials to assess whether moxifloxacin can be used to shorten the duration of tuberculosis treatment are justified.

Project description:BackgroundMelioidosis, an infectious disease caused by the Gram-negative bacillus Burkholderia pseudomallei, is difficult to cure. Antimicrobial treatment comprises intravenous drugs for at least 10 days, followed by oral drugs for at least 12 weeks. The standard oral regimen based on trial evidence is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxaxole (TMP-SMX) plus doxycycline. This regimen is used in Thailand but is associated with side-effects and poor adherence by patients, and TMP-SMX alone is recommended in Australia. We compared the efficacy and side-effects of TMP-SMX with TMP-SMX plus doxycycline for the oral phase of melioidosis treatment.MethodsFor this multi-centre, double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled patients (aged ≥15 years) from five centres in northeast Thailand with culture-confirmed melioidosis who had received a course of parenteral antimicrobial drugs. Using a computer-generated sequence, we randomly assigned patients to receive TMP-SMX plus placebo or TMP-SMX plus doxycycline for 20 weeks (1:1; block size of ten, stratified by study site). We followed patients up every 4 months for 1 year and annually thereafter to the end of the study. The primary endpoint was culture-confirmed recurrent melioidosis, and the non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7. This study is registered with www.controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN86140460.FindingsWe enrolled and randomly assigned 626 patients: 311 to TMP-SMX plus placebo and 315 to TMP-SMX plus doxycycline. 16 patients (5%) in the TMP-SMX plus placebo group and 21 patients (7%) in the TMP-SMX plus doxycycline group developed culture-confirmed recurrent melioidosis (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.42-1.55). The criterion for non-inferiority was met (p=0.01). Adverse drug reactions were less common in the TMP-SMX plus placebo group than in the TMP-SMX plus doxycycline group (122 [39%] vs 167 [53%]).InterpretationOur findings suggest that TMP-SMX is not inferior to TMP-SMX plus doxycycline for the oral phase of melioidosis treatment, and is preferable on the basis of safety and tolerance by patients.FundingThailand Research Fund, the Melioidosis Research Center, the Center of Excellence in Specific Health Problems in Greater Mekong Sub-region cluster, and the Wellcome Trust.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The oral AKT inhibitor ipatasertib is being investigated in cancers with a high prevalence of PI3K/AKT pathway activation, including triple-negative breast cancer. The LOTUS trial investigated the addition of ipatasertib to paclitaxel as first-line therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. METHODS:In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial, women aged 18 years or older with measurable, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer previously untreated with systemic therapy were recruited from 44 hospitals in South Korea, the USA, France, Spain, Taiwan, Singapore, Italy, and Belgium. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15) with either ipatasertib 400 mg or placebo once per day (days 1-21) every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was by stratified permuted blocks (block size of four) using an interactive web-response system with three stratification criteria: previous (neo)adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy-free interval, and tumour PTEN status. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population and progression-free survival in the PTEN-low (by immunohistochemistry) population. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02162719). FINDINGS:Between Sept 2, 2014, and Feb 4, 2016, 166 patients were assessed for eligibility and 124 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to paclitaxel plus ipatasertib (n=62) or paclitaxel plus placebo (n=62). Median follow-up was 10·4 months (IQR 6·5-14·1) in the ipatasertib group and 10·2 months (6·0-13·6) in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 6·2 months (95% CI 3·8-9·0) with ipatasertib versus 4·9 months (3·6-5·4) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·60, 95% CI 0·37-0·98; p=0·037) and in the 48 patients with PTEN-low tumours, median progression-free survival was 6·2 months (95% CI 3·6-9·1) with ipatasertib versus 3·7 months (1·9-7·3) with placebo (stratified HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·26-1·32, p=0·18). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were diarrhoea (14 [23%] of 61 ipatasertib-treated patients vs none of 62 placebo-treated patients), neutrophil count decreased (five [8%] vs four [6%]), and neutropenia (six [10%] vs one [2%]). No colitis, grade 4 diarrhoea, or treatment-related deaths were reported with ipatasertib. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 17 (28%) of 61 patients in the ipatasertib group and nine (15%) of 62 patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION:Progression-free survival was longer in patients who received ipatasertib than in those who received placebo. To our knowledge, these are the first results supporting AKT-targeted therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. Ipatasertib warrants further investigation for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer. FUNDING:F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Project description:BackgroundNo phase 3 trial has yet shown improved survival for patients with pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in these patients.MethodsThis was a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 24 hospitals in the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically confirmed pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, who had received previous first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and had radiological evidence of disease progression, were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks over 30 min intravenously or placebo until disease progression or a maximum of 12 months. The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system (Alea); patients were stratified according to epithelioid versus non-epithelioid histology and were assigned in random block sizes of 3 and 6. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed according to the treatment policy estimand (an equivalent of the intention-to-treat principle). All patients who were randomly assigned were included in the safety population, reported according to group allocation. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03063450.FindingsBetween May 10, 2017, and March 30, 2020, 332 patients were recruited, of whom 221 (67%) were randomly assigned to the nivolumab group and 111 (33%) were assigned to the placebo group). Median follow-up was 11·6 months (IQR 7·2-16·8). Median progression-free survival was 3·0 months (95% CI 2·8-4·1) in the nivolumab group versus 1·8 months (1·4-2·6) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·67 [95% CI 0·53-0·85; p=0·0012). Median overall survival was 10·2 months (95% CI 8·5-12·1) in the nivolumab group versus 6·9 months (5·0-8·0) in the placebo group (adjusted HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52-0·91]; p=0·0090). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (six [3%] of 221 in the nivolumab group vs two [2%] of 111 in the placebo group) and infusion-related reaction (six [3%] vs none). Serious adverse events occurred in 90 (41%) patients in the nivolumab group and 49 (44%) patients in the placebo group. There were no treatment-related deaths in either group.InterpretationNivolumab represents a treatment that might be beneficial to patients with malignant mesothelioma who have progressed on first-line therapy.FundingStand up to Cancer-Cancer Research UK and Bristol Myers Squibb.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Psoriasis vulgaris is a common skin disease that is characterised by persistent localised erythematous scaly plaques. Yinxieling is a Chinese herbal formula for psoriasis that has been used for more than 20 years in China. To facilitate application, PSORI-CM01 was developed based on the optimisation and simplification of Yinxieling tablets performed in a previous study and in clinical practice. However, the scientific evidence regarding whether PSORI-CM01 is more effective for psoriasis than the original Yinxieling remains insufficient. Therefore, we designed a randomised clinical trial to investigate the effect, safety and cost-effectiveness of PSORI-CM01 granules compared with those of Yinxieling tablets for the treatment of patients with psoriasis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This ongoing study is a two-arm parallel, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial. Five hundred and fifty-six participants with psoriasis will be recruited and then randomly allocated into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in PSORI-CM01 group will receive a 5.5?g granule of PSORI-CM01 two times daily and five placebo tablets three times daily for 12 weeks. The participants in the Yinxieling group will receive five Yinxieling tablets three times daily and a placebo granule two times daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome is the reduction of the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. The secondary outcomes include relapse rate, Visual Analogue Scale scores, body surface area and the Dermatology Life Quality Index. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a health and community care provider perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This research protocol had been reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards of three trial centres (Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (B2014-026-01), Affiliated Hospital of Tianjin Chinese Medicine Academy (2014-KY-001) and Third Hospital of Hangzhou (B2014-026-01)). The findings will be disseminated to the public through conference presentations and open-access journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-14005185); Pre-results.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of chondroitin sulfate plus glucosamine hydrochloride (CS+GH) versus celecoxib in patients with knee osteoarthritis and severe pain.MethodsDouble-blind Multicentre Osteoarthritis interVEntion trial with SYSADOA (MOVES) conducted in France, Germany, Poland and Spain evaluating treatment with CS+GH versus celecoxib in 606 patients with Kellgren and Lawrence grades 2-3 knee osteoarthritis and moderate-to-severe pain (Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score ?301; 0-500 scale). Patients were randomised to receive 400 mg CS plus 500 mg GH three times a day or 200 mg celecoxib every day for 6 months. The primary outcome was the mean decrease in WOMAC pain from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC function and stiffness, visual analogue scale for pain, presence of joint swelling/effusion, rescue medication consumption, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria and EuroQoL-5D.ResultsThe adjusted mean change (95% CI) in WOMAC pain was -185.7 (-200.3 to -171.1) (50.1% decrease) with CS+GH and -186.8 (-201.7 to -171.9) (50.2% decrease) with celecoxib, meeting the non-inferiority margin of -40: -1.11 (-22.0 to 19.8; p=0.92). All sensitivity analyses were consistent with that result. At 6 months, 79.7% of patients in the combination group and 79.2% in the celecoxib group fulfilled OMERACT-OARSI criteria. Both groups elicited a reduction >50% in the presence of joint swelling; a similar reduction was seen for effusion. No differences were observed for the other secondary outcomes. Adverse events were low and similarly distributed between groups.ConclusionsCS+GH has comparable efficacy to celecoxib in reducing pain, stiffness, functional limitation and joint swelling/effusion after 6 months in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis, with a good safety profile.Trial registration numberNCT01425853.

Project description:Background:To investigate if a 5-day course pivmecillinam (amdinocillin pivoxil) 400?mg three times daily is superior to a 3-day course in women with uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI). Methods:A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at nine primary care centres in Denmark. 368 women (18-70?years) with symptoms compatible with UTI were randomised to blinded therapy of 5 days [5d] or 3 days followed by 2 days of placebo [3d] from May 2015 to November 2017. Clinical data were assessed using a validated questionnaire at inclusion (day-0), daily the following 7 days and once again within the 2nd to 6th week after intervention. Bacteriological data were collected prior to intervention and twice between day 7 and 42. Main clinical endpoints were days to symptom resolution within 7?days after inclusion and proportions with clinical success at the end of intervention. Main bacteriological endpoint was proportion of participants with significant reduction of bacteriuria (? 102 CFU/mL) in 1st control urine sample. ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu: 2014-001321-32. Findings:180 (5d) and 188 (3d) participants were included in the study (mean age: 35.4 [5d] and 34.9 [3d]). Of these, 125 (70% [5d]) and 122 (66% [3d]) had a positive baseline urine culture. Forty-four participants were lost to follow-up, leaving 161 [5d] and 163 [3d] participants for analysis, respectively. Mean time to symptom resolution was 2.91 (SD 1.46; [5d]) days and 2.94 (SD 1.42; [3d]) days (P?=?.894). Clinical success at the end of treatment occurred for 117 of 153 (76%) receiving the 5d-course and for 115 of 157 (73%) receiving the 3d course (difference 3.2% [95% CI -7.1% - 13.5%]; P?=?.601). Bacteriological success was seen in 92 of 104 (88%) participants given the 5d course and in 86 of 99 (87%) given the 3d course (difference 1.6% [95% CI -8.4%-11.6%]; P?=?.895). Interpretations:A 5-day course of pivmecillinam was not superior to a 3-day course in clinical or bacteriological outcomes for UTI. Primary funding source:The Danish Regions [no. 14/217].

Dataset Information

Moxifloxacin versus ofloxacin plus metronidazole in uncomplicated pelvic inflammatory disease: results of a multicentre, double blind, randomised trial.

Publications

Moxifloxacin versus ofloxacin plus metronidazole in uncomplicated pelvic inflammatory disease: results of a multicentre, double blind, randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure