Non-antibiotic treatment of acute urinary tract infection in primary care: a qualitative study.

Background: The views of women with acute, uncomplicated urinary tract infection (auUTI) on the acceptability of non-antibiotic treatment options are poorly understood. Aim: To establish women’s thoughts on and experience of non-antibiotic treatment for auUTIs. Design and setting Qualitative: interview study with primary care patients in Oxfordshire, UK, embedded within the Cranberry for Urinary Tract Infection (CUTI) feasibility trial. Method: One-to-one, semi-structured interviews were conducted between August 2019 and January 2020 with some CUTI trial participants and some patients who were not part of the CUTI trial who had experienced at least one urinary tract infection (UTI) in the preceding 12 months in Oxfordshire, UK. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: In total, 26 interviews were conducted and analysed. Women expected to receive an immediate antibiotic for their UTI but were aware of the potential harms of this approach. They were keen to find a non-antibiotic, ‘natural’ alternative that could effectively manage their symptoms. In certain situations (early illness, milder illness, and with no important upcoming engagements), women indicated they would be prepared to postpone antibiotic treatment by up to 3 days, especially if offered an interim non-antibiotic option with perceived therapeutic potential. Conclusion: Many women with auUTIs are open to trying non-antibiotic treatments first in certain situations. There is scope for more dialogue between primary care clinicians and patients with auUTI around delaying antibiotic treatment and using non-antibiotic options initially, which could reduce antibiotic consumption for this common infection

Does cranberry extract reduce antibiotic use for symptoms of acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections (CUTI)?:Protocol for a feasibility study

Background: Consultations in primary care for symptoms of urinary tract infections (UTIs) are common and patients are frequently treated with antibiotics. Given increasing antimicrobial resistance, there has been interest in non-antibiotic treatment options for common infections. One such option is the use of cranberry extract to treat symptoms attributable to UTIs. Methods: A target of 45 women consulting in primary care, with symptoms suggestive of an uncomplicated UTI for whom the practitioner would normally prescribe antibiotics, will be randomised to receive one of three treatment approaches: (1) immediate prescription for antibiotics; (2) immediate prescription for antibiotics plus a 7-day course of cranberry capsules and (3) cranberry capsules plus a delayed prescription for antibiotics to be used in case their symptoms do not get better, or get worse. Follow-up will be by daily rating of symptoms and recording of treatments used for 2 weeks in an online symptom diary. Interviews will be conducted with around 10-15 study participants, as well as with around 10-15 women who have experienced a UTI but have not been approached to take part in the study. Both groups will be asked about their experience of having a UTI, their thoughts on non-antibiotic treatments for UTIs and their thoughts on, or experience of, the feasibility trial. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility of undertaking a full trial in primary care of the effectiveness of cranberry extract to reduce antibiotic use for symptoms of acute uncomplicated UTI. The secondary objective is to conduct a preliminary assessment of the extent to which cranberry might reduce antibiotic use and symptom burden. Discussion: This feasibility study with embedded interviews will inform the planning and sample size calculation of an adequately powered trial to definitively determine whether cranberry helps to alleviate the symptoms of acute uncomplicated UTIs in women and whether it can safely reduce antibiotic use. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry, ID: 10399299. Registered on 24 January 2019.</p

Does cranberry extract reduce antibiotic use for symptoms of acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections (CUTI)?:A feasibility randomised trial

Objectives To determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised trial of the effectiveness of cranberry extract in reducing antibiotic use by women with symptoms of acute, uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI). Design Open-label feasibility randomised parallel group trial. Setting Four general practices in Oxfordshire. Participants Women aged 18 years and above presenting to general practice with symptoms of acute, uncomplicated UTI. Interventions Women were randomly assigned using Research Electronic Data Capture in a 1:1:1 ratio to: (1) immediate antibiotics alone (n=15); (2) immediate antibiotics and immediate cranberry capsules for up to 7 days (n=15); or (3) immediate cranberry capsules and delayed antibiotics for self-initiation in case of non-improvement or worsening of symptoms (n=16). Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome measures were: rate of recruitment of participants; numbers lost to follow-up; proportion of electronic diaries completed by participants; and acceptability of the intervention and study procedures to participants and recruiters. Secondary outcomes included an exploration of differences in symptom burden and antibiotic use between groups. Results Four general practitioner practices (100%) were opened and recruited participants between 1 July and 2 December 2019, with nine study participants recruited per month on average. 68.7% (46/67) of eligible participants were randomised (target 45) with a mean age of 48.4 years (SD 19.9, range 18–81). 89.1% (41/46) of diaries contained some participant entered data and 69.6% (32/46) were fully complete. Three participants (6.5%) were lost to follow-up and two (4.4%) withdrew. Of women randomly assigned to take antibiotics alone (controls), one-third of respondents reported consuming cranberry products (33.3%, 4/12). There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions It appears feasible to conduct a randomised trial of the use of cranberry extract in the treatment of acute, uncomplicated UTI in general practice. Trial registration number ISRCTN Registry (ID: 10399299)

Overview of systematic reviews assessing the evidence for shorter versus longer duration antibiotic treatment for bacterial infections in secondary care

<div><p>Our objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness of shorter versus longer duration antibiotics for treatment of bacterial infections in adults and children in secondary care settings, using the evidence from published systematic reviews. We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Cinahl. Our primary outcome was clinical resolution. The quality of included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR criteria, and the quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE criteria. We included 6 systematic reviews (n = 3,162). Four reviews were rated high quality, and two of moderate quality. In adults, there was no difference between shorter versus longer duration in clinical resolution rates for peritonitis (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09, I² = 0%), ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, I² = 24%), or acute pyelonephritis and septic UTI (clinical failure: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.18). The quality of the evidence was very low to moderate. In children, there was no difference in clinical resolution rates for pneumonia (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04, I² = 48%), pyelonephritis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04) and confirmed bacterial meningitis (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11, I² = 0%). The quality of the evidence was low to moderate. In conclusion, there is currently a limited body of evidence to clearly assess the clinical benefits of shorter versus longer duration antibiotics in secondary care. High quality trials assessing strategies to shorten antibiotic treatment duration for bacterial infections in secondary care settings should now be a priority.</p></div

Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes

Background The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 μg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome. Trial registration: ISRCTN86534580. Findings The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n=2157), usual care (n=3256), and other treatments (n=3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months.,. Interpretation Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted. Funding UKRI / National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079)

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for community-based adults with COVID-19 and increased risk of adverse outcomes in the UK PANORAMIC trial

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over six months. DESIGN AND SETTING: Economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and a six-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI 0.004 to 0.007) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except those aged ≥75 years with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Molnupiravir at the current cost of £513 per course is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a six-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated COVID-19 patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease

Introduction: There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. // Methods and analysis: PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). Eligibility criteria: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18–49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial. // Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval granted by South Central–Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. // Trial registration number: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31

Randomized controlled trial of molnupiravir SARS-CoV-2 viral and antibody response in at-risk adult outpatients

Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n = 253) or Usual Care (n = 324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated. Trial registration: ISRCTN3044803

Randomized controlled trial of molnupiravir SARS-CoV-2 viral and antibody response in at-risk adult outpatients

Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not 77 been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of 78 SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n=253) or Usual Care 79 (n=324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated

Molnupiravir Plus Usual Care Versus Usual Care Alone as Early Treatment for Adults with COVID-19 at Increased Risk of Adverse Outcomes (PANORAMIC): Preliminary Analysis from the United Kingdom Randomised, Controlled Open-Label, Platform Adaptive Trial

Background: The safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, in patients in the community who are multiply-vaccinated and at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, has not been established. We aimed to determine whether molnupiravir added to usual care reduced hospital admissions/deaths among people at higher risk from COVID-19, and here report our preliminary analyses. Methods: Participants in this UK multicentre, open-label, adaptive, multi-arm, platform, randomised controlled trial were aged ≥50, or ≥18 years with comorbidities, and unwell ≤5 days with confirmed COVID-19 in the community, and were randomised to usual care or usual care plus molnupiravir (800mg twice daily for 5 days). The primary outcome measure was all-cause hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The main secondary outcome measure was time to first self-reported recovery. A sub-set of participants in each group were assessed for the virology primary outcome measure of day seven SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031 Findings: Between December 8, 2021 and April 27, 2022, 25783 participants were randomised to molnupiravir plus usual care (n=12821) or usual care alone (n=12962). Mean (range) age of participants was 56·6 years (18 to 99), 58·6% were female, and 99% had at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomisation was two days (IQR 1 – 3), the median number of days from symptom onset to starting to take the medication was three days (IQR 3 – 4), 87% (11109/11997) received their medication within five days of symptom onset, and 95·4% (n=11857) of participants randomised to molnupiravir reported taking molnupiravir for five days. Primary outcome measure data were available in 25000 (97%) participants and included in this analysis. 103/12516 (0·8%) hospitalisations/deaths occurred in the molnupiravir group versus 96/12484 (0·8%) in usual care alone with a posterior probability of superiority of 0·34 (adjusted odds ratio 1·061 (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI]) 0·80 to 1·40). Estimates were similar for all subgroups. The observed median (IQR) time-to-first-recovery from randomisation was 9 (5–23) days in molnupiravir and 15 (7–not reached) days in usual care. There was an estimated benefit of 4·2 (95% BCI: 3·8 – 4·6) days in time-to-first-recovery (TTR) giving a posterior probability of superiority of >0·999 (estimated median TTR 10·3 [10·2 – 10·6] days vs 14·5 [14·2 – 14·9] days respectively; hazard ratio [95% BCI], 1·36 [1·3–1·4] days), which met the pre-specified superiority threshold. On day 7, SARS-CoV-2 virus was below detection levels in 7/34 (21%) of the molnupiravir group, versus 1/39 (3%) in the usual care group (p=0.039), and mean viral load was lower in the molnupiravir group compared with those receiving usual care [(SD) of log10(viral load) 3·82 (1·40) in the molnupiravir group and 4.93 (1·38) in the usual care group, (P<0·001)]. 59 (0·4%) participants experienced serious adverse events in the molnupiravir group and 52 (0·4%) in usual care. Interpretation: In this preliminary analysis, we found that molnupiravir did not reduce already low hospitalisations/deaths among higher risk, vaccinated adults with COVID-19 in the community, but resulted in faster time to recovery, and reduced viral detection and load. Funding: This project is funded by the NIHR (NIHR135366). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care