The CIPAZ study protocol: an open label randomised controlled trial of azithromycin versus ciprofloxacin for the treatment of children hospitalised with dysentery in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Background: Diarrhoeal disease remains a common cause of illness and death in children <5 years of age. Faecal-oral infection by Shigella spp. causing bacillary dysentery is a leading cause of moderate-to-severe diarrhoea, particularly in low and middle-income countries. In Southeast Asia, S. sonnei predominates and infections are frequently resistant to first-line treatment with the fluoroquinolone, ciprofloxacin. While resistance to all antimicrobials is increasing, there may be theoretical and clinical benefits to prioritizing treatment of bacillary dysentery with the azalide, azithromycin. In this study we aim to measure the efficacy of treatment with azithromycin compared with ciprofloxacin, the current standard of care, for the treatment of children with bacillary dysentery. Methods and analysis: We will perform a multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial of two therapeutic options for the antimicrobial treatment of children hospitalised with dysentery. Children (6–60 months of age) presenting with symptoms and signs of dysentery at Children’s Hospital 2 in Ho Chi Minh City will be randomised (1:1) to treatment with either oral ciprofloxacin (15mg/kg/twice daily for 3 days, standard-of-care) or oral azithromycin (10mg/kg/daily for 3 days). The primary endpoint will be the proportion of treatment failure (defined by clinical and microbiological parameters) by day 28 (+3 days) and will be compared between study arms by logistic regression modelling using treatment allocation as the main variable. Ethics and dissemination: The study protocol (version 1.2 dated 27th December 2018) has been approved by the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee (47–18) and the ethical review boards of Children's Hospital 2 (1341/NĐ2-CĐT). The study has also been approved by the Vietnamese Ministry of Health (5044/QĐ-BYT). Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03854929 (February 26th 2019)

Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint infections: the OVIVA non-inferiority RCT

Background Management of bone and joint infection commonly includes 4–6 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics, but there is little evidence to suggest that oral (PO) therapy results in worse outcomes. Objective To determine whether or not PO antibiotics are non-inferior to IV antibiotics in treating bone and joint infection. Design Parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1), open-label, non-inferiority trial. The non-inferiority margin was 7.5%. Setting Twenty-six NHS hospitals. Participants Adults with a clinical diagnosis of bone, joint or orthopaedic metalware-associated infection who would ordinarily receive at least 6 weeks of antibiotics, and who had received ≤ 7 days of IV therapy from definitive surgery (or start of planned curative treatment in patients managed non-operatively). Interventions Participants were centrally computer-randomised to PO or IV antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on PO therapy was permitted in either arm. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing treatment failure within 1 year. An associated cost-effectiveness evaluation assessed health resource use and quality-of-life data. Results Out of 1054 participants (527 in each arm), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.30%) participants. Treatment failure was identified in 141 out of 1015 (13.89%) participants: 74 out of 506 (14.62%) and 67 out of 509 (13.16%) of those participants randomised to IV and PO therapy, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, using multiple imputation to include all participants, the imputed risk difference between PO and IV therapy for definitive treatment failure was –1.38% (90% confidence interval –4.94% to 2.19%), thus meeting the non-inferiority criterion. A complete-case analysis, a per-protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses for missing data each confirmed this result. With the exception of IV catheter complications [49/523 (9.37%) in the IV arm vs. 5/523 (0.96%) in the PO arm)], there was no significant difference between the two arms in the incidence of serious adverse events. PO therapy was highly cost-effective, yielding a saving of £2740 per patient without any significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two arms of the trial. Limitations The OVIVA (Oral Versus IntraVenous Antibiotics) trial was an open-label trial, but bias was limited by assessing all potential end points by a blinded adjudication committee. The population was heterogenous, which facilitated generalisability but limited the statistical power of subgroup analyses. Participants were only followed up for 1 year so differences in late recurrence cannot be excluded. Conclusions PO antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to IV therapy when used during the first 6 weeks in the treatment for bone and joint infection, as assessed by definitive treatment failure within 1 year of randomisation. These findings challenge the current standard of care and provide an opportunity to realise significant benefits for patients, antimicrobial stewardship and the health economy. Future work Further work is required to define the optimal total duration of therapy for bone and joint infection in the context of specific surgical interventions. Currently, wide variation in clinical practice suggests significant redundancy that likely contributes to the excess and unnecessary use of antibiotics. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91566927. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

The influence of human genetic variation on early transcriptional responses and protective immunity following immunization with Rotarix vaccine in infants in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam : a study protocol for an open single-arm interventional trial [awaiting peer review]

Background: Rotavirus (RoV) remains the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis in infants and children aged under five years in both high- and low-middle-income countries (LMICs). In LMICs, RoV infections are associated with substantial mortality. Two RoV vaccines (Rotarix and Rotateq) are widely available for use in infants, both of which have been shown to be highly efficacious in Europe and North America. However, for unknown reasons, these RoV vaccines have markedly lower efficacy in LMICs. We hypothesize that poor RoV vaccine efficacy across in certain regions may be associated with genetic heritability or gene expression in the human host. Methods/design: We designed an open-label single-arm interventional trial with the Rotarix RoV vaccine to identify genetic and transcriptomic markers associated with generating a protective immune response against RoV. Overall, 1,000 infants will be recruited prior to Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) vaccinations at two months of age and vaccinated with oral Rotarix vaccine at two and three months, after which the infants will be followed-up for diarrheal disease until 18 months of age. Blood sampling for genetics, transcriptomics, and immunological analysis will be conducted before each Rotarix vaccination, 2-3 days post-vaccination, and at each follow-up visit (i.e. 6, 12 and 18 months of age). Stool samples will be collected during each diarrheal episode to identify RoV infection. The primary outcome will be Rotarix vaccine failure events (i.e. symptomatic RoV infection despite vaccination), secondary outcomes will be antibody responses and genotypic characterization of the infection virus in Rotarix failure events. Discussion: This study will be the largest and best powered study of its kind to be conducted to date in infants, and will be critical for our understanding of RoV immunity, human genetics in the Vietnam population, and mechanisms determining RoV vaccine-mediated protection. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03587389. Registered on 16 July 2018

Xpert MTB/RIF ultra for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis: a small step forward

The delayed diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis (TBM) leads to poor outcomes, yet the current diagnostic methods for identifying Mycobacterium tuberculosis in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are inadequate. The first comparative study of the new GeneXpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) for TBM diagnosis suggested increased sensitivity of Xpert Ultra. Two subsequent studies have shown Xpert Ultra has improved sensitivity, but has insufficient negative predictive value to exclude TBM. Collecting and processing large volumes of CSF for mycobacterial testing are important for optimal diagnostic test performance. But clinical, radiological, and laboratory parameters remain essential for TBM diagnosis and empiric therapy is often needed. We therefore caution against the use of Xpert Ultra as a single diagnostic test for TBM; it cannot be used to “rule out” TBM

Developing an antimicrobial resistance reference laboratory and surveillance programme in Vietnam

Contains fulltext : 182465.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Improving the microbiological diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis: A prospective, international, multicentre comparison of conventional and modified Ziehl-Neelsen stain, GeneXpert, and culture of cerebrospinal fluid

Contains fulltext : 199483.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

Identification of tuberculosis susceptibility genes with human macrophage gene expression profiles

10.1371/journal.ppat.1000229PLoS Pathogens412e100022