Efficacy of high doses of penicillin versus amoxicillin in the treatment of uncomplicated community acquired pneumonia in adults. A non-inferiority controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is treated with penicillin in some northern European countries. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether high-dose penicillin V is as effective as high-dose amoxicillin for the treatment of non-severe CAP. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel, double-blind, controlled, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: 31 primary care centers in Spain. PARTICIPANTS: Patients from 18 to 75 years of age with no significant associated comorbidity and with symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection and radiological confirmation of CAP were randomized to receive either penicillin V 1.6 million units, or amoxicillin 1000mg three times per day for 10 days. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The main outcome was clinical cure at 14 days, and the primary hypothesis was that penicillin V would be non-inferior to amoxicillin with regard to this outcome, with a margin of 15% for the difference in proportions. EudraCT register 2012-003511-63. RESULTS: A total of 43 subjects (amoxicillin: 28; penicillin: 15) were randomized. Clinical cure was observed in 10 (90.9%) patients assigned to penicillin and in 25 (100%) patients assigned to amoxicillin with a difference of -9.1% (95% CI, -41.3% to 6.4%; p=.951) for non-inferiority. In the intention-to-treat analysis, amoxicillin was found to be 28.6% superior to penicillin (95% CI, 7.3-58.1%; p=.009 for superiority). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was a trend favoring high-dose amoxicillin versus high-dose penicillin in adults with uncomplicated CAP. The main limitation of this trial was the low statistical power due to the low number of patients included.

Efficacy of high doses of oral penicillin versus amoxicillin in the treatment of adults with non-severe pneumonia attended in the community: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Streptococcus pneumoniae is the bacterial agent which most frequently causes pneumonia. In some Scandinavian countries, this infection is treated with penicillin V since the resistances of pneumococci to this antibiotic are low. Four reasons justify the undertaking of this study; firstly, the cut-off points which determine whether a pneumococcus is susceptible or resistant to penicillin have changed in 2008 and according to some studies published recently the pneumococcal resistances to penicillin in Spain have fallen drastically, with only 0.9% of the strains being resistant to oral penicillin (minimum inhibitory concentration>2 µg/ml); secondly, there is no correlation between pneumococcal infection by a strain resistant to penicillin and therapeutic failure in pneumonia; thirdly, the use of narrow-spectrum antibiotics is urgently needed because of the dearth of new antimicrobials and the link observed between consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics and emergence and spread of antibacterial resistance; and fourthly, no clinical study comparing amoxicillin and penicillin V in pneumonia in adults has been published. Our aim is to determine whether high-dose penicillin V is as effective as high-dose amoxicillin for the treatment of uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia. METHODS: We will perform a parallel group, randomised, double-blind, trial in primary healthcare centres in Spain. Patients aged 18 to 65 without significant associated comorbidity attending the physician with signs and symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection and radiological confirmation of the diagnosis of pneumonia will be randomly assigned to either penicillin V 1.6 million units thrice-daily during 10 days or amoxicillin 1,000 mg thrice-daily during 10 days. The main outcome will be clinical cure at 14 days, defined as absence of fever, resolution or improvement of cough, improvement of general wellbeing and resolution or reduction of crackles indicating that no other antimicrobial treatment will be necessary. Any clinical result other than the anterior will be considered as treatment failure. A total of 210 patients will be recruited to detect a non-inferiority margin of 15% between the two treatments with a minimum power of 80% considering an alpha error of 2.5% for a unilateral hypothesis and maximum possible losses of 15%. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic trial addresses the long-standing hypothesis that the administration of high doses of a narrow-spectrum antibiotic (penicillin V) in patients with non-severe pneumonia attended in the community is not less effective than high doses of amoxicillin (treatment currently recommended) in patients under the age of 65 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number 2012-003511-63.

Effect of effervescent paracetamol on blood pressure: a crossover randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of effervescent paracetamol on office and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) compared with noneffervescent paracetamol in hypertensive patients. DESIGN: This was a multicenter open crossover randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Primary care centers in Catalonia and the Basque Country. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria were office BP 150/95 mmHg or less and daytime ambulatory BP 140/90 mmHg or less, stable pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic antihypertensive treatment, and concomitant chronic osteoarticular pain. INTERVENTIONS: Baseline randomized assignment to 3-week periods of effervescent paracetamol (1 g three times a day) first and noneffervescent paracetamol later, or inversely, during a 7-week study period. At the start and end of each treatment period, 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in 24-h SBP between baseline and end of both treatment periods. The main analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: In intention-to-treat analysis, 46 patients were analyzed, 21 were treated with paracetamol effervescent and noneffervescent later, and 25 followed the opposite sequence. The difference in 24-h SBP between the two treatments was 3.99 mmHg (95% confidence interval 1.35-6.63; P = 0.004), higher in the effervescent paracetamol treatment period. Similarly, the per-protocol analysis showed a difference in 24-h SBP between the two groups of 5.04 mmHg (95% confidence interval 1.80-8.28; P = 0.004), higher in the effervescent paracetamol treatment period. Self-reported pain levels did not differ between groups and did not vary by treatment period. No serious adverse events were reported in either study arm. CONCLUSION: Effervescent paracetamol tablets are responsible for a significant daytime and overall increase in ambulatory 24-h SBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT: 02514538 EudraCT: 2010-023485-53.