Trial-of-antibiotics to assist tuberculosis diagnosis in symptomatic adults in Malawi (ACT-TB study): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice and diagnostic algorithms often assume that tuberculosis can be ruled out in mycobacteriology-negative individuals whose symptoms improve with a trial-of-antibiotics. We aimed to investigate diagnostic performance, clinical benefit, and antimicrobial resistance using a randomised controlled trial. METHODS: In this three-arm, individually randomised, open-label, controlled trial, we enrolled Malawian adults (aged ≥18 years) attending primary care who reported being unwell for at least 14 days (including cough) with no immediate indication for hospitalisation at Limbe and Ndirande Health Centres in Blantyre. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg taken once per day for 3 days), amoxicillin (1 g taken three times per day for 5 days), or standard of care with no immediate antibiotics, stratified by study site. Sputum at enrolment and day 8 was tested for tuberculosis (microscopy, Xpert MTB/RIF, and culture). The primary efficacy outcome was day 8 specificity (percentage with symptom improvement among mycobacteriology-negative participants), and day 29 clinical outcome (death, hospitalisation, or missed tuberculosis diagnosis) among all randomised participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03545373. FINDINGS: Between Feb 25, 2019, and March 14, 2020, 5825 adults were screened and 1583 (mean age 36 years; 236 [14·9%] HIV positive) were randomly assigned to standard of care (530 participants), azithromycin (527 participants), or amoxicillin (526 participants) groups. Overall, 6·3% (100 of 1583 participants) had positive baseline sputum mycobacteriology. 310 (79·1%) of 392 patients receiving standard of care reported symptom improvement at day 8, compared with 340 (88·7%) of 383 patients receiving azithromycin (adjusted difference 8·6%, 95% CI 3·9-13·3%; p<0·0004) and 346 (89·4%) of 387 receiving amoxicillin (adjusted difference 8·8%, 4·0-13·6%; p=0·0003). The proportion of participants with day 29 composite clinical outcomes was similar between groups (standard of care 1% [7 of 530 participants], azithromycin 1% [6 of 527 participants], amoxicillin 2% [12 of 526 participants]). INTERPRETATION: Routine outpatient trial-of-antibiotics during tuberculosis investigations modestly improved diagnostic specificity for mycobacteriologically confirmed tuberculosis but had no appreciable effect on death, hospitalisation, and missed tuberculosis diagnosis. These results confirm the limited benefit of trial-of-antibiotics, presenting an opportunity for discontinuation of trial-of-antibiotics and improved antimicrobial stewardship during tuberculosis screening, without affecting clinical outcomes. FUNDING: Northern Norway Regional Health Authority (Helse Nord RHF), Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the UK, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, and the UK Department for International Development.

Accuracy and consequences of using trial-of-antibiotics for TB diagnosis (ACT-TB study): protocol for a randomised controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Over 40% of global tuberculosis case notifications are diagnosed clinically without mycobacteriological confirmation. Standard diagnostic algorithms include 'trial-of-antibiotics'-empirical antibiotic treatment given to mycobacteriology-negative individuals to treat infectious causes of symptoms other than tuberculosis, as a 'rule-out' diagnostic test for tuberculosis. Potentially 26.5 million such antibiotic courses/year are prescribed globally for the 5.3 million/year mycobacteriology-negative patients, making trial-of-antibiotics the most common tuberculosis diagnostic, and a global-scale risk for antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Our systematic review found no randomised controlled trial (RCT) to support use of trial-of-antibiotic. The RCT aims to determine the diagnostic and clinical value and AMR consequences of trial-of-antibiotics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A three-arm, open-label, RCT randomising (1:1:1) Malawian adults (≥18 years) seeking primary care for cough into: (a) azithromycin 500 mg one time per day for 3 days or (b) amoxicillin 1 g three times per day for 5 days or (c) standard-of-care (no immediate antibiotic). We will perform mycobacteriology tests (microscopy, Xpert MTB/RIF (Mycobacterium tuberculosis/rifampicin) and Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture) at baseline. We will use audiocomputer-assisted self-interview to assess clinical improvement at day 8. First primary outcome will be proportion of patients reporting day 8 improvement out of those with negative mycobacteriology (specificity). Second primary outcome will be day 29 incidence of a composite endpoint of either death or hospitalisation or missed tuberculosis diagnosis. To determine AMR impact we compare proportion of resistant nasopharyngeal Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates on day 29. 400 mycobacteriology-negative participants/arm will be required to detect a ≥10% absolute difference in diagnostic specificity with 80% power. We will estimate measures of effect by comparing outcomes in antibiotic arms (combined and individually) to standard-of-care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been reviewed and approved by Malawi College of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) Research Ethics Committee and Regional Committee for Health and Research Ethics - Norway, and Malawi Pharmacy, Medicines and Poisons Board. We will present abstracts at relevant conferences, and prepare a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The clinical trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03545373.

Chloroquine as weekly chemoprophylaxis or intermittent treatment to prevent malaria in pregnancy in Malawi: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance threatens efficacy of intermittent preventive treatment of malaria during pregnancy, and alternative regimens need to be identified. With the return of chloroquine efficacy in southern Africa, we postulated that chloroquine either as an intermittent therapy or as weekly chemoprophylaxis would be more efficacious than intermittent sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for prevention of malaria in pregnancy and associated maternal and newborn adverse outcomes. METHODS: We did an open-label, single-centre, randomised controlled trial at Ndirande Health Centre, Blantyre, in southern Malawi. We enrolled pregnant women (first or second pregnancy) at 20-28 weeks' gestation who were HIV negative. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio using a computer-generated list to either intermittent sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (two doses of 1500 mg sulfadoxine and 75 mg pyrimethamine, 4 weeks apart), intermittent chloroquine (two doses of 600 mg on day 1, 600 mg on day 2, and 300 mg on day 3), or chloroquine prophylaxis (600 mg on day 1 then 300 mg every week). The primary endpoint was placental malaria in the modified intent-to-treat population, which consisted of participants who contributed placental histopathology data at birth. Secondary outcomes included clinical malaria, maternal anaemia, low birthweight, and safety. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01443130. FINDINGS: Between February, 2012, and May, 2014, we enrolled and randomly allocated 900 women, of whom 765 contributed histopathological data and were included in the primary analysis. 108 (14%) women had placental malaria, which was lower than the anticipated prevalence of placental malaria infection. Protection from placental malaria was not improved by chloroquine as either prophylaxis (30 [12%] of 259 had positive histopathology; relative risk [RR] 0·75, 95% CI 0·48-1·17) or intermittent therapy (39 [15%] of 253; RR 1·00, 0·67-1·50) compared with intermittent sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (39 [15%] of 253). In protocol-specified analyses adjusted for maternal age, gestational age at enrolment, bednet use the night before enrolment, anaemia at enrolment, and malaria infection at enrolment, women taking chloroquine as prophylaxis had 34% lower placental infections than did those allocated intermittent sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (RR 0·66, 95% CI 0·46-0·95). Clinical malaria was reported in nine women assigned intermittent sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, four allocated intermittent chloroquine (p=0·26), and two allocated chloroquine prophylaxis (p=0·063). Maternal anaemia was noted in five women assigned intermittent sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, 15 allocated intermittent chloroquine (p=0·038), and six assigned chloroquine prophylaxis (p>0·99). Low birthweight was recorded for 31 babies born to women allocated intermittent sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, 29 assigned intermittent chloroquine (p=0·78), and 41 allocated chloroquine prophylaxis (p=0·28). Four women assigned intermittent sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine had adverse events possibly related to study product compared with 94 women allocated intermittent chloroquine (p<0·0001) and 26 allocated chloroquine prophylaxis (p<0·0001). Three women had severe or life-threatening adverse events related to study product, of whom all were assigned intermittent chloroquine (p=0·25). INTERPRETATION: Chloroquine administered as intermittent therapy did not provide better protection from malaria and related adverse effects compared with intermittent sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in a setting of high resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. Chloroquine chemoprophylaxis might provide benefit in protecting against malaria during pregnancy, but studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these results. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.