Randomized placebo-controlled trial on azithromycin to reduce the morbidity of bronchiolitis in Indigenous Australian infants: rationale and protocol

Interventions to improve enablers and/or overcome barriers to seeking care during pregnancy, birthing and postnatal period for vulnerable women in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To reduce maternal morbidity and mortality, World Health Organization recommendations include: commencing pregnancy care before 12-weeks', at least eight antenatal and four postnatal visits, and attendance of skilled care at birthing. While lower adherence to the recommendation predominates in low- and middle-income countries, it also occurs in some settings in high-income countries. Globally, various strategies are used to optimise maternity care, in line with these recommendations. This systemic review aimed to determine if enhanced care improves maternal care-seeking, thus improving clinical outcomes for women and babies living with vulnerabilities, in high-income countries.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We searched the Cochrane Central Registers of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Proquest Dissertation and Thesis and reference lists of relevant articles. The latest search was performed June 20, 2022. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised intervention trials and cohort studies comparing effects of interventions designed to increase utilisation of maternal health services with routine care, for women at increased risk of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity in high-income countries were included. Two authors selected, extracted, assessed and analysed data. Additional information was sought from study authors. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO(CRD42021256811).

FINDINGS

Nine studies with 5,729 participants were included. Interventions to enhance care significantly increased utilisation of health services, increasing attendance at antenatal classes (Odds Ratio[OR]=15·23, 95%Confidence Interval[CI] 10·73-21·61, p<0·0001) and postnatal visits by 6-8 weeks (OR=2·66, 95%CI 1·94-3·64, p<0·0001), compared to routine care. Infants in the intervention groups were significantly less likely to be: born preterm (OR=0·68, 95%CI 0·56-0·82, p<0·0001); low birthweight (OR=0·78, 95%CI 0·64-0·95, p = 0·01) or; require neonatal intensive care (OR=0·80, 95%CI 0·66-0·96, p = 0·02).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Among women living with vulnerabilities in high-income countries, interventions to enhance care increases utilisation of maternal health services and improves outcomes.

Long-term macrolide antibiotics for the treatment of bronchiectasis in adults: an individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bronchiectasis guidelines recommend long-term macrolide treatment for patients with three or more exacerbations per year without Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. Randomised controlled trials suggest that long-term macrolide treatment can prevent exacerbations in adult patients with bronchiectasis, but these individual studies have been too small to do meaningful subgroup analyses. We did a systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to explore macrolide benefit in subpopulations, including those in which macrolide therapy is not currently recommended.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from Jan 1, 2000, to Sept 30, 2018, to identify double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials of macrolide antibiotics in adult patients with bronchiectasis. We applied no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials were eligible if treatment was defined a priori as long term and had a primary or secondary outcome of bronchiectasis exacerbations. Studies in patients with cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis were excluded. The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was frequency of exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics. Secondary endpoints were time to first exacerbation, change in quality of life according to the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and change in FEV₁. IPD meta-analysis was done using fixed effects models adjusting for age, sex, FEV₁, and trial. We did prespecified subgroup analyses for each of the primary and secondary endpoints using one-step meta-analysis only. Subgroups were defined by age, sex, previous exacerbation frequency, smoking status, inhaled corticosteroid use at baseline, body-mass index at baseline, cause, C-reactive protein at baseline, baseline FEV₁ percentage of predicted, SGRQ total score, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in sputum culture at baseline. The meta-analysis is registered with the PROSPERO international register of systematic reviews, number CRD42018102908.

FINDINGS

Of 234 identified studies, we included three randomised controlled trials, and IPD was obtained for 341 participants. Macrolide antibiotics reduced the frequency of exacerbations (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·49, 95% CI 0·36 to 0·66; p<0·0001). We also found that macrolide treatment improved the time to first exacerbation (adjusted hazard ratio 0·46, 0·34 to 0·61; p<0·0001) and was associated with improved quality of life measured by the SGRQ (mean improvement 2·93 points, 0·03 to 5·83; p=0·048). Macrolides were not associated with a significant improvement in FEV₁ (67 mL at 1 year, -22 to 112; p=0·14). Effect estimates in prespecified subgroup analyses revealed a reduced frequency of exacerbations in all prespecified subgroups, including a high level of benefit in patients with P aeruginosa infection (IRR 0·36, 0·18-0·72; p=0·0044) and in patients with one to two exacerbations per year (0·37, 0·16-0·88; p=0·025). Studies were rated as low risk of bias across all domains.

INTERPRETATION

Long-term macrolide treatment significantly reduces the frequency of exacerbations in patients with bronchiectasis, with similar benefits observed in all subgroups based on patient characteristics. This finding suggests that macrolides might be considered in patients in whom macrolides are not indicated according to the current guidelines, particularly if alternative approaches to reduce exacerbations have been unsuccessful. However, downsides of long-term macrolide treatment must also be taken into account.

FUNDING

European Respiratory Society.

HOspitalised Pneumonia Extended (HOPE) Study to reduce the long-term effects of childhood pneumonia: protocol for a multicentre, double-blind, parallel, superiority randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Early childhood pneumonia is a common problem globally with long-term complications that include bronchiectasis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is biologically plausible that these long-term effects may be minimised in young children at increased risk of such sequelae if any residual lower airway infection and inflammation in their developing lungs can be treated successfully by longer antibiotic courses. In contrast, shortened antibiotic treatments are being promoted because of concerns over inducing antimicrobial resistance. Nevertheless, the optimal treatment duration remains unknown. Outcomes from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on paediatric pneumonia have focused on short-term (usually <2 weeks) results. Indeed, no long-term RCT-generated outcome data are available currently. We hypothesise that a longer antibiotic course, compared with the standard treatment course, reduces the risk of chronic respiratory symptoms/signs or bronchiectasis 24 months after the original pneumonia episode.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multicentre, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial involving seven hospitals in six cities from three different countries commenced in May 2016. Three-hundred-and-fourteen eligible Australian Indigenous, New Zealand Māori/Pacific and Malaysian children (aged 0.25 to 5 years) hospitalised for community-acquired, chest X-ray (CXR)-proven pneumonia are being recruited. Following intravenous antibiotics and 3 days of amoxicillin-clavulanate, they are randomised (stratified by site and age group, allocation-concealed) to receive either: (i) amoxicillin-clavulanate (80 mg/kg/day (maximum 980 mg of amoxicillin) in two-divided doses or (ii) placebo (equal volume and dosing frequency) for 8 days. Clinical data, nasopharyngeal swab, bloods and CXR are collected. The primary outcome is the proportion of children without chronic respiratory symptom/signs of bronchiectasis at 24 months. The main secondary outcomes are 'clinical cure' at 4 weeks, time-to-next respiratory-related hospitalisation and antibiotic resistance of nasopharyngeal respiratory bacteria.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Human Research Ethics Committees of all the recruiting institutions (Darwin: Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research; Auckland: Starship Children's and KidsFirst Hospitals; East Malaysia: Likas Hospital and Sarawak General Hospital; Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Research Ethics Committee; and Klang: Malaysian Department of Health) have approved the research protocol version 7 (13 August 2018). The RCT and other results will be submitted for publication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12616000046404.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Physico-Chemical Properties, Aerosolization and Dissolution of Co-Spray Dried Azithromycin Particles with L-Leucine for Inhalation

PURPOSE

Inhalation therapy is popular to treat lower respiratory tract infections. Azithromycin is effective against some bacteria that cause respiratory tract infections; but it has poor water solubility that may limit its efficacy when administrated as inhalation therapy. In this study, dry powder inhaler formulations were developed by co-spray drying azithromycin with L-leucine with a purpose to improve dissolution.

METHODS

The produced powder formulations were characterized regarding particle size, morphology, surface composition and in-vitro aerosolization performance. Effects of L-leucine on the solubility and in-vitro dissolution of azithromycin were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The spray dried azithromycin alone formulation exhibited a satisfactory aerosol performance with a fine particle fraction (FPF) of 62.5 ± 4.1%. Addition of L-leucine in the formulation resulted in no significant change in particle morphology and FPF, which can be attributed to enrichment of azithromycin on the surfaces of composite particles. Importantly, compared with the spray-dried amorphous azithromycin alone powder, the co-spray dried powder formulations of azithromycin and L-leucine demonstrated a substantially enhanced in-vitro dissolution rate. Such enhanced dissolution of azithromycin could be attributed to the formation of composite system and the acidic microenvironment around azithromycin molecules created by the dissolution of acidic L-leucine in the co-spray dried powder. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopic data showed intermolecular interactions between azithromycin and L-leucine in the co-spray dried formulations.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed the dry powder formulations with satisfactory aerosol performance and enhanced dissolution for a poorly water soluble weak base, azithromycin, by co-spray drying with an amino acid, L-leucine.

Risk factors for adverse outcomes of Indigenous infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized bronchiolitis imposes a significant burden among infants, particularly among Indigenous children. Traditional or known risk factors for severe disease are well described, but there are limited data on risks for prolonged hospitalization and persistent symptoms. Our aims were to determine factors (clinical and microbiological) associated with (i) prolonged length of stay (LOS); (ii) persistent respiratory symptoms at 3 weeks; (iii) bronchiectasis up to ∼24 months post-hospitalisation; and (iv) risk of respiratory readmissions within 6 months.

METHODS

Indigenous infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis were enrolled at Royal Darwin Hospital between 2008 and 2013. Standardized forms were used to record clinical data. A nasopharyngeal swab was collected at enrolment to identify respiratory viruses and bacteria.

RESULTS

The median age of 232 infants was 5 months (interquartile range 3-9); 65% male. On multivariate regression, our 12 point severity score (including accessory muscle use) was the only factor associated with prolonged LOS but the effect was modest (+3.0 hr per point, 95%CI: 0.7, 5.1, P = 0.01). Presence of cough at 3 weeks increased the odds of bronchiectasis (OR 3.0, 95%CI: 1.1, 7.0, P = 0.03). Factors associated with respiratory readmissions were: previous respiratory hospitalization (OR 2.3, 95%CI: 1.0, 5.4, P = 0.05) and household smoke (OR 2.6, 95%CI: 1.0, 6.3, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Increased severity score is associated with prolonged LOS in Indigenous children hospitalized with bronchiolitis. As persistent symptoms at 3 weeks post-hospitalization are associated with future diagnosis of bronchiectasis, optimising clinical care beyond hospitalization is needed to improve long-term respiratory outcomes for infants at risk of respiratory disease. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2016;51:613-623. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Prevention of bacterial infections in the newborn by pre-delivery administration of azithromycin: Study protocol of a randomized efficacy trial

BACKGROUND

Neonatal deaths, estimated at approximately 4 million annually, now account for almost 40% of global mortality in children aged under-five. Bacterial sepsis is a leading cause of neonatal mortality. Assuming the mother is the main source for bacterial transmission to newborns, the primary objective of the trial is to determine the impact of one oral dose of azithromycin, given to women in labour, on the newborn's bacterial carriage in the nasopharynx. Secondary objectives include the impact of the intervention on bacterial colonization in the baby and the mother during the first month of life.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a Phase III, double -blind, placebo controlled randomized clinical trial in which 830 women in labour were randomized to either a single dose of 2 g oral azithromycin or placebo (ratio 1:1). The trial included pregnant women in labour aged 18 to 45 years attending study health centres in the Western Gambia. A post-natal check of the mother and baby was conducted at the health centre by study clinicians before discharge and 8-10 days after delivery. Home follow up visits were conducted daily during the first week and then weekly until week 8 after delivery. Vaginal swabs and breast milk samples were collected from the mothers, and the pathogens Streptococcus pneumoniae, Group B Streptococcus (GBS) and Staphylococcus aureus were isolated from the study samples. For bacterial isolates, susceptibility pattern to azithromycin was determined using disk diffusion and E-test. Eye swabs were collected from newborns with eye discharge during the follow up period, and Chlamydial infection was assessed using molecular methods.

DISCUSSION

This is a proof-of-concept study to assess the impact of antibiotic preventive treatment of women during labour on bacterial infections in the newborn. If the trial confirms this hypothesis, the next step will be to assess the impact of this intervention on neonatal sepsis. The proposed intervention should be easily implementable in developing countries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier--NCT01800942--First received: February 26, 2013.

Three-weekly doses of azithromycin for indigenous infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis: a multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Bronchiolitis is a major health burden in infants globally, particularly among Indigenous populations. It is unknown if 3 weeks of azithromycin improve clinical outcomes beyond the hospitalization period. In an international, double-blind randomized controlled trial, we determined if 3 weeks of azithromycin improved clinical outcomes in Indigenous infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis.

METHODS

Infants aged ≤24 months were enrolled from three centers and randomized to receive three once-weekly doses of either azithromycin (30 mg/kg) or placebo. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 48 h later. Primary endpoints were hospital length of stay (LOS) and duration of oxygen supplementation monitored every 12 h until judged ready for discharge. Secondary outcomes were: day-21 symptom/signs, respiratory rehospitalizations within 6 months post-discharge and impact upon nasopharyngeal bacteria and virus shedding at 48 h.

RESULTS

Two hundred nineteen infants were randomized (n = 106 azithromycin, n = 113 placebo). No significant between-group differences were found for LOS (median 54 h for each group, difference = 0 h, 95% CI: -6, 8; p = 0.8), time receiving oxygen (azithromycin = 40 h, placebo = 35 h, group difference = 5 h, 95% CI: -8, 11; p = 0.7), day-21 symptom/signs, or rehospitalization within 6 months (azithromycin n = 31, placebo n = 25 infants, p = 0.2). Azithromycin reduced nasopharyngeal bacterial carriage (between-group difference 0.4 bacteria/child, 95% CI: 0.2, 0.6; p < 0.001), but had no significant effect upon virus detection rates.

CONCLUSION

Despite reducing nasopharyngeal bacterial carriage, three large once-weekly doses of azithromycin did not confer any benefit over placebo during the bronchiolitis illness or 6 months post hospitalization. Azithromycin should not be used routinely to treat infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register: Clinical trials number: ACTRN1261000036099.

Mobile phones support adherence and retention of indigenous participants in a randomised controlled trial: strategies and lessons learnt

BACKGROUND

Ensuring adherence to treatment and retention is important in clinical trials, particularly in remote areas and minority groups. We describe a novel approach to improve adherence, retention and clinical review rates of Indigenous children.

METHODS

This descriptive study was nested within a placebo-controlled, randomised trial (RCT) on weekly azithromycin (or placebo) for 3-weeks. Indigenous children aged ≤24-months hospitalised with acute bronchiolitis were recruited from two tertiary hospitals in northern Australia (Darwin and Townsville). Using mobile phones embedded within a culturally-sensitive approach and framework, we report our strategies used and results obtained. Our main outcome measure was rates of adherence to medications, retention in the RCT and self-presentation (with child) to clinic for a clinical review on day-21.

RESULTS

Of 301 eligible children, 76 (21%) families declined participation and 39 (13%) did not have access to a mobile phone. 186 Indigenous children were randomised and received dose one under supervision in hospital. Subsequently, 182 (99%) children received dose two (day-7), 169 (93%) dose three (day-14) and 180 (97%) attended their clinical review (day-21). A median of 2 calls (IQR 1-3) were needed to verify adherence. Importantly, over 97% of children remained in the RCT until their clinical endpoint at day-21.

CONCLUSIONS

In our setting, the use of mobile phones within an Indigenous-appropriate framework has been an effective strategy to support a clinical trial involving Australian Indigenous children in urban and remote Australia. Further research is required to explore other applications of this approach, including the impact on clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12608000150347 (RCT component).

Retrospective review of 200 children hospitalised with acute asthma. Identification of intervention points: a single centre study

AIM

Indigenous Australians with asthma have higher morbidity and mortality compared with non-Indigenous Australians. In children hospitalised with acute asthma, we aimed to (i) determine if acute severity, risk factors and management differed between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children; and (ii) identify intervention points to reduce morbidity and mortality of asthma.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 200 children hospitalised to Royal Darwin Hospital with asthma. We compared admission characteristics, severity indices, treatment, discharge plans and readmissions in Indigenous and non-Indigenous children.

RESULTS

Median age was 3.6 years (interquartile range 2.2, 6.8). A significantly higher proportion of Indigenous children (95.2%) were exposed to tobacco smoke compared with non-Indigenous children (45.7%). The difference in proportions was -0.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60, -0.22). Other risk factors, asthma severity (moderate 83.9% vs. 83.3%; severe 16% vs. 16.1%), length of stay (1.9 vs. 1.3 days) and readmission rate (27.4% vs. 27.5%) were similar between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. Indigenous children were significantly more likely to be followed up in a community clinic (difference in proportions = 0.10, 95% CI 0.1, 0.17) and less likely by a paediatrician. Only 62.5% of all children had an asthma action plan on discharge.

CONCLUSION

Unlike other common respiratory diseases requiring hospitalisation, biological factors are unlikely major contributors to the known gap in asthma outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. Intervention points include better identification, documentation and management of tobacco smoke exposure, delivery of salbutamol and discharge planning (including education and utilisation of asthma action plans).

Bronchiectasis exacerbation study on azithromycin and amoxycillin-clavulanate for respiratory exacerbations in children (BEST-2): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Bronchiectasis unrelated to cystic fibrosis (CF) is being increasingly recognized in children and adults globally, both in resource-poor and in affluent countries. However, high-quality evidence to inform management is scarce. Oral amoxycillin-clavulanate is often the first antibiotic chosen for non-severe respiratory exacerbations, because of the antibiotic-susceptibility patterns detected in the respiratory pathogens commonly associated with bronchiectasis. Azithromycin has a prolonged half-life, and with its unique anti-bacterial, immunomodulatory, and anti-inflammatory properties, presents an attractive alternative. Our proposed study will test the hypothesis that oral azithromycin is non-inferior (within a 20% margin) to amoxycillin-clavulanate at achieving resolution of non-severe respiratory exacerbations by day 21 of treatment in children with non-CF bronchiectasis.

METHODS

This will be a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial involving six Australian and New Zealand centers. In total, 170 eligible children will be stratified by site and bronchiectasis etiology, and randomized (allocation concealed) to receive: 1) azithromycin (5 mg/kg daily) with placebo amoxycillin-clavulanate or 2) amoxycillin-clavulanate (22.5 mg/kg twice daily) with placebo azithromycin for 21 days as treatment for non-severe respiratory exacerbations. Clinical data and a parent-proxy cough-specific quality of life (PC-QOL) score will be obtained at baseline, at the start and resolution of exacerbations, and on day 21. In most children, blood and deep-nasal swabs will also be collected at the same time points. The primary outcome is the proportion of children whose exacerbations have resolved at day 21. The main secondary outcome is the PC-QOL score. Other outcomes are: time to next exacerbation; requirement for hospitalization; duration of exacerbation, and spirometry data. Descriptive viral and bacteriological data from nasal samples and blood inflammatory markers will be reported where available.

DISCUSSION

Currently, there are no published randomized controlled trials (RCT) to underpin effective, evidence-based management of acute respiratory exacerbations in children with non-CF bronchiectasis. To help address this information gap, we are conducting two RCTs. The first (bronchiectasis exacerbation study; BEST-1) evaluates the efficacy of azithromycin and amoxycillin-clavulanate compared with placebo, and the second RCT (BEST-2), described here, is designed to determine if azithromycin is non-inferior to amoxycillin-clavulanate in achieving symptom resolution by day 21 of treatment in children with acute respiratory exacerbations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR) number http://ACTRN12612000010897. http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?id=347879.

Antibiotics for bronchiectasis exacerbations in children: rationale and study protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite bronchiectasis being increasingly recognised as an important cause of chronic respiratory morbidity in both indigenous and non-indigenous settings globally, high quality evidence to inform management is scarce. It is assumed that antibiotics are efficacious for all bronchiectasis exacerbations, but not all practitioners agree. Inadequately treated exacerbations may risk lung function deterioration. Our study tests the hypothesis that both oral azithromycin and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid are superior to placebo at improving resolution rates of respiratory exacerbations by day 14 in children with bronchiectasis unrelated to cystic fibrosis.

METHODS

We are conducting a bronchiectasis exacerbation study (BEST), which is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial, in five centres (Brisbane, Perth, Darwin, Melbourne, Auckland). In the component of BEST presented here, 189 children fulfilling inclusion criteria are randomised (allocation-concealed) to receive amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (22.5 mg/kg twice daily) with placebo-azithromycin; azithromycin (5 mg/kg daily) with placebo-amoxicillin-clavulanic acid; or placebo-azithromycin with placebo-amoxicillin-clavulanic acid for 14 days. Clinical data and a paediatric cough-specific quality of life score are obtained at baseline, at the start and resolution of exacerbations, and at day 14. In most children, blood and deep nasal swabs are also collected at the same time points. The primary outcome is the proportion of children whose exacerbations have resolved at day 14. The main secondary outcome is the paediatric cough-specific quality of life score. Other outcomes are time to next exacerbation; requirement for hospitalisation; duration of exacerbation; and spirometry data. Descriptive viral and bacteriological data from nasal samples and blood markers will also be reported.

DISCUSSION

Effective, evidence-based management of exacerbations in people with bronchiectasis is clinically important. Yet, there are few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the neglected area of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Indeed, no published RCTs addressing the treatment of bronchiectasis exacerbations in children exist. Our multicentre, double-blind RCT is designed to determine if azithromycin and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, compared with placebo, improve symptom resolution on day 14 in children with acute respiratory exacerbations. Our planned assessment of the predictors of antibiotic response, the role of antibiotic-resistant respiratory pathogens, and whether early treatment with antibiotics affects duration and time to the next exacerbation, are also all novel.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR) number ACTRN12612000011886.