Azithromycin and cefixime combination versus azithromycin alone for the out-patient treatment of clinically suspected or confirmed uncomplicated typhoid fever in South Asia: a randomised controlled trial protocol

Background: Typhoid and paratyphoid fever (enteric fever) is a common cause of non-specific febrile infection in adults and children presenting to health care facilities in low resource settings such as the South Asia.  A 7-day course of a single oral antimicrobial such as ciprofloxacin, cefixime, or azithromycin is commonly used for its treatment. Increasing antimicrobial resistance threatens the effectiveness of these treatment choices. We hypothesize that combined treatment with azithromycin (active mainly intracellularly) and cefixime (active mainly extracellularly) will be a better option for the treatment of clinically suspected and culture-confirmed typhoid fever in South Asia.

Methods: This is a phase IV, international multi-center, multi-country, comparative participant-and observer-blind, 1:1 randomised clinical trial. Patients with suspected uncomplicated typhoid fever will be randomized to one of the two interventions: Arm A: azithromycin 20mg/kg/day oral dose once daily (maximum 1gm/day) and cefixime 20mg/kg/day oral dose in two divided doses (maximum 400mg bd) for 7 days, Arm B: azithromycin 20mg/kg/day oral dose once daily (max 1gm/day) for 7 days AND cefixime-matched placebo for 7 days. We will recruit 1500 patients across sites in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan. We will assess whether treatment outcomes are better with the combination after one week of treatment and at one- and three-months follow-up.

Discussion: Combined treatment may limit the emergence of resistance if one of the components is active against resistant sub-populations not covered by the other antimicrobial activity. If the combined treatment is better than the single antimicrobial treatment, this will be an important result for patients across South Asia and other typhoid endemic areas.

Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT04349826 (16/04/2020)

Azithromycin and cefixime combination versus azithromycin alone for the out-patient treatment of clinically suspected or confirmed uncomplicated typhoid fever in South Asia: a randomised controlled trial protocol

Background: Typhoid and paratyphoid fever (enteric fever) is a common cause of non-specific febrile infection in adults and children presenting to health care facilities in low resource settings such as the South Asia.  A 7-day course of a single oral antimicrobial such as ciprofloxacin, cefixime, or azithromycin is commonly used for its treatment. Increasing antimicrobial resistance threatens the effectiveness of these treatment choices. We hypothesize that combined treatment with azithromycin (active mainly intracellularly) and cefixime (active mainly extracellularly) will be a better option for the treatment of clinically suspected and culture-confirmed typhoid fever in South Asia. Methods: This is a phase IV, international multi-center, multi-country, comparative participant-and observer-blind, 1:1 randomised clinical trial. Patients with suspected uncomplicated typhoid fever will be randomized to one of the two interventions: Arm A: azithromycin 20mg/kg/day oral dose once daily (maximum 1gm/day) and cefixime 20mg/kg/day oral dose in two divided doses (maximum 400mg bd) for 7 days, Arm B: azithromycin 20mg/kg/day oral dose once daily (max 1gm/day) for 7 days AND cefixime-matched placebo for 7 days. We will recruit 1500 patients across sites in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan. We will assess whether treatment outcomes are better with the combination after one week of treatment and at one- and three-months follow-up. Discussion: Combined treatment may limit the emergence of resistance if one of the components is active against resistant sub-populations not covered by the other antimicrobial activity. If the combined treatment is better than the single antimicrobial treatment, this will be an important result for patients across South Asia and other typhoid endemic areas. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT04349826 (16/04/2020).

Towards a fair and transparent research participant compensation and reimbursement framework in Vietnam

Background

Providing compensation for participants in clinical research is well established and while international guidelines exist, defining a context-specific and fair compensation for participants in low-resource settings is challenging due to ethical concerns and the lack of practical, national compensation and reimbursement frameworks.

Methods

We reviewed Oxford University Clinical Research Unit (OUCRU) internal reimbursement documentation over a 10-y period and conducted a scoping literature review to expand our knowledge of compensation and reimbursement practices including ethical concerns. We developed a preliminary reimbursement framework that was presented to community advisory boards (CAB) and clinical investigators to assess its applicability, fairness and transparency.

Results

The main topics discussed at the workshops centered on fairness and whether the reimbursements could be perceived as financial incentives. Other decisive factors in the decision-making process were altruism and the loss of caregivers’ earnings. Investigators raised the issue of additional burdens, whereas the CAB members were focused on non-monetary elements such as the healthcare quality the patients would receive. All elements discussed were reviewed and, where possible, incorporated into the final framework.

Conclusion

Our new reimbursement framework provides a consistent, fair and transparent decision-making process and will be implemented across all future OUCRU clinical research in Vietnam.

Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole Versus Azithromycin for the Treatment of Undifferentiated Febrile Illness in Nepal: A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial

Background

Azithromycin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT) are widely used to treat undifferentiated febrile illness (UFI). We hypothesized that azithromycin is superior to SXT for UFI treatment, but the drugs are noninferior to each other for culture-confirmed enteric fever treatment.

Methods

We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin (20 mg/kg/day) or SXT (trimethoprim 10 mg/kg/day plus sulfamethoxazole 50 mg/kg/day) orally for 7 days for UFI treatment in Nepal. We enrolled patients >2 years and <65 years of age presenting to 2 Kathmandu hospitals with temperature ≥38.0°C for ≥4 days without localizing signs. The primary endpoint was fever clearance time (FCT); secondary endpoints were treatment failure and adverse events.

Results

From June 2016 to May 2019, we randomized 326 participants (163 in each arm); 87 (26.7%) had blood culture–confirmed enteric fever. In all participants, the median FCT was 2.7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6–3.3 days) in the SXT arm and 2.1 days (95% CI, 1.6–3.2 days) in the azithromycin arm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25 [95% CI, .99–1.58]; P = .059). The HR of treatment failures by 28 days between azithromycin and SXT was 0.62 (95% CI, .37–1.05; P = .073). Planned subgroup analysis showed that azithromycin resulted in faster FCT in those with sterile blood cultures and fewer relapses in culture-confirmed enteric fever. Nausea, vomiting, constipation, and headache were more common in the SXT arm.

Conclusions

Despite similar FCT and treatment failure in the 2 arms, significantly fewer complications and relapses make azithromycin a better choice for empirical treatment of UFI in Nepal.

Clinical Trials Registration

NCT02773407.

Co-trimoxazole versus azithromycin for the treatment of undifferentiated febrile illness in Nepal: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Undifferentiated febrile illness (UFI) includes typhoid and typhus fevers and generally designates fever without any localizing signs. UFI is a great therapeutic challenge in countries like Nepal because of the lack of available point-of-care, rapid diagnostic tests. Often patients are empirically treated as presumed enteric fever. Due to the development of high-level resistance to traditionally used fluoroquinolones against enteric fever, azithromycin is now commonly used to treat enteric fever/UFI. The re-emergence of susceptibility of Salmonella typhi to co-trimoxazole makes it a promising oral treatment for UFIs in general. We present a protocol of a randomized controlled trial of azithromycin versus co-trimoxazole for the treatment of UFI.

Methods/design

This is a parallel-group, double-blind, 1:1, randomized controlled trial of co-trimoxazole versus azithromycin for the treatment of UFI in Nepal. Participants will be patients aged 2 to 65 years, presenting with fever without clear focus for at least 4 days, complying with other study criteria and willing to provide written informed consent. Patients will be randomized either to azithromycin 20 mg/kg/day (maximum 1000 mg/day) in a single daily dose and an identical placebo or co-trimoxazole 60 mg/kg/day (maximum 3000 mg/day) in two divided doses for 7 days. Patients will be followed up with twice-daily telephone calls for 7 days or for at least 48 h after they become afebrile, whichever is later; by home visits on days 2 and 4 of treatment; and by hospital visits on days 7, 14, 28 and 63. The endpoints will be fever clearance time, treatment failure, time to treatment failure, and adverse events. The estimated sample size is 330. The primary analysis population will be all the randomized population and subanalysis will be repeated on patients with blood culture-confirmed enteric fever and culture-negative patients.

Discussion

Both azithromycin and co-trimoxazole are available in Nepal and are extensively used in the treatment of UFI. Therefore, it is important to know the better orally administered antimicrobial to treat enteric fever and other UFIs especially against the background of fluoroquinolone-resistant enteric fever.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02773407. Registered on 5 May 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2199-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.