Intravaginal lactic acid gel versus oral metronidazole for treating women with recurrent bacterial vaginosis: the VITA randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial vaginosis is a common and distressing condition for women. Short-term antibiotic treatment is usually clinically effective, but recurrence is common. We assessed the effectiveness of intravaginal lactic acid gel versus oral metronidazole for treating recurrent bacterial vaginosis. METHODS: We undertook an open-label, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in nineteen UK sexual health clinics and a university health centre. Women aged ≥ 16 years, with current bacterial vaginosis symptoms and a preceding history of bacterial vaginosis, were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using a web-based minimisation algorithm, to 400 mg twice daily oral metronidazole tablets or 5 ml once daily intravaginal lactic acid gel, for 7 days. Masking of participants was not possible. The primary outcome was participant-reported resolution of symptoms within 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes included time to first recurrence of symptoms, number of recurrences and repeat treatments over 6 months and side effects. RESULTS: Five hundred and eighteen participants were randomised before the trial was advised to stop recruiting by the Data Monitoring Committee. Primary outcome data were available for 79% (204/259) allocated to metronidazole and 79% (205/259) allocated to lactic acid gel. Resolution of bacterial vaginosis symptoms within 2 weeks was reported in 70% (143/204) receiving metronidazole versus 47% (97/205) receiving lactic acid gel (adjusted risk difference -23·2%; 95% confidence interval -32.3 to -14·0%). In those participants who had initial resolution and for whom 6 month data were available, 51 of 72 (71%) women in the metronidazole group and 32 of 46 women (70%) in the lactic acid gel group had recurrence of symptoms, with median times to first recurrence of 92 and 126 days, respectively. Reported side effects were more common following metronidazole than lactic acid gel (nausea 32% vs. 8%; taste changes 18% vs. 1%; diarrhoea 20% vs. 6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Metronidazole was more effective than lactic acid gel for short-term resolution of bacterial vaginosis symptoms, but recurrence is common following both treatments. Lactic acid gel was associated with fewer reported side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14161293 , prospectively registered on 18th September 2017.

The DEVA trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of dequalinium chloride versus usual care antibiotics for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is the most common cause of vaginal discharge in women of reproductive age, and it is estimated that up to a third of women will experience it at some point in their lives. BV produces an offensive vaginal odour and it is associated with serious sequelae. The most frequently prescribed treatment for BV in the UK is 7-day oral metronidazole but recurrences are common following it. Dequalinium chloride (Fluomizin©) is an anti-infective, antiseptic agent administered as a vaginal tablet. Small studies have shown this to be an effective alternative to antibiotics as a BV treatment. This trial aims to investigate whether dequalinium is as effective as current antibiotic treatments for the treatment of BV 1 month after treatment start. METHODS: DEVA is a multi-centre, randomised, open-label, parallel group, non-inferiority trial of dequalinium chloride versus usual care antibiotics for the treatment of BV. Recruitment will take place in 15 GUM clinics in the UK with Leeds Sexual Health also managing remote recruitment via the trial website. Women will be randomised 1:1 to receive dequalinium or usual care antibiotics. The primary outcome is to determine if the proportion of women reporting resolution of BV symptoms 4 weeks after treatment (without the need for additional treatment) is not worse in women treated with dequalinium chloride compared to usual care antibiotics. Questionnaire follow-up will take place 4 and 12 weeks after starting treatment, and remotely recruited patients will also provide a week 4 BV vaginal smear. The sample size is 904. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide high-quality evidence on the use of dequalinium chloride as a BV treatment, which could result in patients reducing the number of antibiotics they take. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN91800263. Prospectively registered on 20 January 2020.

Lactic acid gel versus metronidazole for recurrent bacterial vaginosis in women aged 16 years and over: the VITA RCT.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial vaginosis is a common and distressing condition associated with serious comorbidities. Antibiotic treatment is usually clinically effective in the short term, but recurrence is common and side effects can occur. OBJECTIVES: The objective is to assess whether or not intravaginal lactic acid gel is clinically effective and cost-effective for treating recurrent bacterial vaginosis compared with oral metronidazole (Flagyl, Sanofi). DESIGN: This was an open-label, multicentre, parallel-arm, randomised (1 : 1) controlled trial. SETTING: This took place in one general practice and 19 sexual health centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥ 16 years with bacterial vaginosis symptoms and one or more episode(s) within the past 2 years took part. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions were 5 ml of intravaginal lactic acid gel taken once daily for 7 days (intervention) or 400-mg oral metronidazole tablets taken twice daily for 7 days (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the resolution of bacterial vaginosis symptoms 14 days after randomisation. The secondary outcomes were time to first recurrence of symptoms; number of recurrences and treatment courses over 6 months; microbiological resolution on microscopy of vaginal smears at week 2; time to resolution of symptoms; tolerability, adherence and acceptability of the treatment; prevalence of concurrent sexually transmitted infections; quality of life; and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Recruitment stopped prior to reaching the target of 1900 participants on recommendation from the Data Monitoring Committee and Trial Steering Committee after a planned review of the results indicated that the research question had been answered. Overall, 518 participants were randomised and primary outcome data were available for 409 participants (79%; 204 in the metronidazole arm, 205 in the lactic acid gel arm). Participant-reported symptom resolution at week 2 was higher with metronidazole (143/204; 70%) than with lactic acid gel (97/205; 47%) (adjusted risk difference -23.2%, 95% confidence interval -32.3% to -14.0%). Recurrence in 6 months in a subset of participants who had initial resolution and were available for follow-up was similar across arms (metronidazole arm: 51/72, 71%; lactic acid gel arm: 32/46, 70%). A higher incidence of some side effects was reported with metronidazole than with lactic acid gel (nausea 32% vs. 8%; taste changes 18% vs. 1%; diarrhoea 20% vs. 6%, respectively). At week 2, the average cost per participant with resolved symptoms was £86.94 (metronidazole), compared with £147.00 (lactic acid gel). Some participants preferred using lactic acid gel even if they perceived it to be less effective than metronidazole. LIMITATIONS: Loss to follow-up for collection of the primary outcome data was 21% and was similar in both arms. There is a risk of bias owing to missing outcome data at 3 and 6 months post treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A higher initial response was seen with metronidazole than with lactic acid gel, but subsequent treatment failure was common with both. Lactic acid gel was less cost-effective than metronidazole. In general, women disliked taking repeated courses of metronidazole and preferred lactic acid gel, even when they were aware that it was less likely to provide symptom resolution. In the absence of effective curative therapy, further evaluation of non-antibiotic treatments to control the symptoms of recurrent bacterial vaginosis is required to improve quality of life for these patients. Further microbiological analysis of vaginal samples would be useful to identify additional factors affecting response to treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14161293. 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. 26, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bacterial vaginosis is a common cause of unpleasant vaginal discharge that is caused by an imbalance of vaginal bacteria. The usual treatment is an antibiotic called metronidazole (Flagyl, Sanofi). Although this generally works in the short term, symptoms often return, leading to the repeated use of antibiotics; this can cause side effects as well as increase the risk of antibiotic resistance. Lactic acid gel might be an alternative treatment, but previous studies have not confirmed how clinically effective it is. We wanted to find out if lactic acid gel was better than metronidazole for treating recurrent bacterial vaginosis. Women with typical symptoms and a history of bacterial vaginosis who were taking part in our trial were selected randomly to receive either 7 days of treatment with lactic acid gel inserted into the vagina once per day or 7 days of treatment with metronidazole tablets taken by mouth twice per day. Overall, 518 women took part in the trial. We originally intended to recruit 1900 women but the trial was stopped early because a planned review of the data showed which treatment was better. Most of the women took all of their treatment and 70% reported that symptoms had cleared 2 weeks after taking metronidazole, compared with 47% after using lactic acid gel. Less than half of the women stayed in the trial for the full 6 months; however, the data suggested that the majority of those whose symptoms cleared within 2 weeks with either treatment had symptoms return over the next 6 months. More side effects were reported for metronidazole than for lactic acid gel: nausea 32% compared with 8%, taste changes 18% compared with 1%, and diarrhoea 20% compared with 6%, respectively. Despite thinking that it was less effective, women preferred lactic acid gel because it avoided the need to take an antibiotic and had a soothing effect. The cost-effectiveness analysis found that lactic acid gel was less effective than metronidazole in clearing symptoms by 2 weeks and that the average costs for women whose symptoms resolved were higher (£86.94 with metronidazole vs. £147.00 with lactic acid gel).

Gentamicin, azithromycin and ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea: the relationship between antibiotic MIC and clinical outcome.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between MIC and clinical outcome in a randomized controlled trial that compared gentamicin 240 mg plus azithromycin 1 g with ceftriaxone 500 mg plus azithromycin 1 g. MIC analysis was performed on Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates from all participants who were culture positive before they received treatment. METHODS: Viable gonococcal cultures were available from 279 participants, of whom 145 received ceftriaxone/azithromycin and 134 received gentamicin/azithromycin. Four participants (6 isolates) and 14 participants (17 isolates) did not clear infection in the ceftriaxone/azithromycin and gentamicin/azithromycin arms, respectively. MICs were determined by Etest on GC agar base with 1% Vitox. The geometric mean MICs of azithromycin, ceftriaxone and gentamicin were compared using logistic and linear regression according to treatment received and N. gonorrhoeae clearance. RESULTS: As the azithromycin MIC increased, gentamicin/azithromycin treatment was less effective than ceftriaxone/azithromycin at clearing N. gonorrhoeae. There was a higher geometric mean MIC of azithromycin for isolates from participants who had received gentamicin/azithromycin and did not clear infection compared with those who did clear infection [ratio 1.95 (95% CI 1.28-2.97)], but the use of categorical MIC breakpoints did not accurately predict the treatment response. The geometric mean MIC of azithromycin was higher in isolates from the pharynx compared with genital isolates. CONCLUSIONS: We found that categorical resistance to azithromycin or ceftriaxone in vitro, and higher gentamicin MICs in the absence of breakpoints, were poorly predictive of treatment failure.

Metronidazole versus lactic acid for treating bacterial vaginosis (VITA): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of topical lactic acid gel for treating second and subsequent episodes of bacterial vaginosis.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial vaginosis (BV) affects 30-50% of women at some time in their lives and is an embarrassing and distressing condition which can be associated with potentially serious comorbidities. Current antibiotic treatments such as metronidazole are effective but can result in side effects, and recurrence is common. This trial aims to investigate whether lactic acid gel is clinically effective and cost effective in the treatment of recurrent BV compared with metronidazole. METHODS: VITA is an open-label, multicentre, parallel group randomised controlled trial for women with a clinical diagnosis of BV and at least one previous BV episode in the past 2 years. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to intravaginal lactic acid gel 5 ml once daily for 7 days or oral metronidazole tablets 400 mg twice daily for 7 days. All participants will be followed up for 6 months to assess health status and healthcare costs. A subgroup will be interviewed to further explore adherence, tolerability and acceptability of treatment. The estimated sample size is 1900 participants to detect a 6% absolute increase in response rate to 86% in those receiving lactic acid gel. The primary outcome is participant-reported resolution of BV at Week 2. DISCUSSION: Results from this trial will help inform UK treatment guidelines for BV and may provide an alternative effective treatment for recurrent episodes of this condition which avoids repeated exposure to antibiotics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN14161293. Registered on 8 September 2017.

Acceptability of and treatment preferences for recurrent bacterial vaginosis-Topical lactic acid gel or oral metronidazole antibiotic: Qualitative findings from the VITA trial.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is associated with an elevated vaginal pH and the presence of abnormal offensive discharge. It is common, often recurrent, and the most effective treatment regimen is unknown. 'Metronidazole Versus lactic acId for Treating bacterial vAginosis' (VITA) is a UK-based randomised controlled trial assessing clinical and cost-effectiveness of topical lactic acid gel compared to oral metronidazole antibiotic for treating second and subsequent BV episodes. Few BV trials report on women's preferences for treatment in the context of their own experiences. METHOD: This qualitative study investigated the acceptability and tolerability of the two treatments. During the trial, semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken between January-May 2018. A total of 33 women diagnosed with BV were consecutively sampled then interviewed from six sites across England. Thematic analysis was guided by the acceptability of health interventions framework. Potential causes of BV and its impact on women's lives were explored in addition to women's treatment preference and perceived treatment effectiveness. RESULTS: Although women felt antibiotics treat BV effectively, and were associated with longer time periods between episodes, they generally preferred using the lactic acid gel because of ease of use, once daily application and less side-effects. Women would recommend the lactic acid gel to others for mild cases of BV but to take antibiotics when more severe. The risk of antibiotic drug resistance was a common concern. Self-help medicating or self-decision to not treat was also evident due to prior experience of poor outcomes from treatment. Triggers of BV were attributed to personal hygiene habits-soaps used to wash the vagina and sexual practices such as unprotected sex. CONCLUSION: Acceptability and preference for topical lactic acid gel or oral metronidazole tablets in the treatment of recurrent BV was affected by personal choice relating to affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. These differed depending on ease of use, tolerability and past experiences, but not necessarily based on perceived drug effectiveness. Knowledge of a patient preference for topical lactic acid gel therapy despite lower perceived effectiveness may be useful for clinicians when making treatment decisions.

Gentamicin compared with ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea (G-ToG): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection for which ceftriaxone is the current first-line treatment, but antimicrobial resistance is emerging. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative to ceftriaxone (both combined with azithromycin) for treatment of gonorrhoea. METHODS: G-ToG was a multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing treatment with gentamicin to treatment with ceftriaxone for patients with gonorrhoea. The patients, treating physician, and assessing physician were masked to treatment but the treating nurse was not. The trial took place at 14 sexual health clinics in England. Adults aged 16-70 years were eligible for participation if they had a diagnosis of uncomplicated genital, pharyngeal, or rectal gonorrhoea. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single intramuscular dose of either gentamicin 240 mg (gentamicin group) or ceftriaxone 500 mg (ceftriaxone group). All participants also received a single 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by clinic and performed using a secure web-based system. The primary outcome was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all initially infected sites, defined as a negative nucleic acid amplification test 2 weeks post treatment. Primary outcome analyses included only participants who had follow-up data, irrespective of the baseline visit N gonorrhoeae test result. The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a lower confidence limit of 5% for the risk difference. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN51783227. FINDINGS: Of 1762 patients assessed, we enrolled 720 participants between Oct 7, 2014, and Nov 14, 2016, and randomly assigned 358 to gentamicin and 362 to ceftriaxone. Primary outcome data were available for 306 (85%) of 362 participants allocated to ceftriaxone and 292 (82%) of 358 participants allocated to gentamicin. At 2 weeks after treatment, infection had cleared for 299 (98%) of 306 participants in the ceftriaxone group compared with 267 (91%) of 292 participants in the gentamicin group (adjusted risk difference -6·4%, 95% CI -10·4% to -2·4%). Of the 328 participants who had a genital infection, 151 (98%) of 154 in the ceftriaxone group and 163 (94%) of 174 in the gentamicin group had clearance at follow-up (adjusted risk difference -4·4%, -8·7 to 0). For participants with a pharyngeal infection, a greater proportion receiving ceftriaxone had clearance at follow-up (108 [96%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 82 [80%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -15·3%, -24·0 to -6·5). Similarly, a greater proportion of participants with rectal infection in the ceftriaxone group had clearance (134 [98%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 107 [90%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -7·8%, -13·6 to -2·0). Thus, we did not find that a single dose of gentamicin 240 mg was non-inferior to a single dose of ceftriaxone 500 mg for the treatment of gonorrhoea, when both drugs were combined with a 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. The side-effect profiles were similar between groups, although severity of pain at the injection site was higher for gentamicin (mean visual analogue pain score 36 of 100 in the gentamicin group vs 21 of 100 in the ceftriaxone group). INTERPRETATION: Gentamicin is not appropriate as first-line treatment for gonorrhoea but remains potentially useful for patients with isolated genital infection, or for patients who are allergic or intolerant to ceftriaxone, or harbour a ceftriaxone-resistant isolate. Further research is required to identify and test new alternatives to ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Gentamicin as an alternative to ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea: the G-TOG non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection that can cause pain and discomfort, affect fertility in women and lead to epididymo-orchitis in men. Current treatment is with ceftriaxone, but there is increasing evidence of antimicrobial resistance reducing its effectiveness. Gentamicin is a potential alternative treatment requiring further evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative treatment to ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea. DESIGN: A multicentre, parallel-group, blinded, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Fourteen sexual health clinics in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 16-70 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated, untreated genital, pharyngeal or rectal gonorrhoea based on a positive Gram-stained smear on microscopy or a positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT). RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Participants were randomised using a secure web-based system, stratified by clinic. Participants, investigators and research staff assessing participants were blinded to treatment allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Allocation was to either 240 mg of gentamicin (intervention) or 500 mg of ceftriaxone (standard treatment), both administered as a single intramuscular injection. All participants also received 1 g of oral azithromycin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all infected sites, confirmed by a negative Aptima Combo 2® (Hologic Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA) NAAT, at 2 weeks post treatment. RESULTS: We randomised 720 participants, of whom 81% were men. There were 358 participants in the gentamicin group and 362 in the ceftriaxone group; 292 (82%) and 306 (85%) participants, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. Non-inferiority of gentamicin to ceftriaxone could not be demonstrated [adjusted risk difference for microbiological clearance -6.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.4% to -2.4%]. Clearance of genital infection was similar in the two groups, at 94% in the gentamicin group and 98% in the ceftriaxone group, but clearance of pharyngeal infection and rectal infection was lower in the gentamicin group (80% vs. 96% and 90% vs. 98%, respectively). Reported pain at the injection site was higher for gentamicin than for ceftriaxone. The side-effect profiles were comparable between the groups. Only one serious adverse event was reported and this was deemed not to be related to the trial medication. The economic analysis found that treatment with gentamicin is not cost neutral compared with standard care, with average patient treatment costs higher for those allocated to gentamicin (£13.90, 95% CI £2.47 to £37.34) than to ceftriaxone (£6.72, 95% CI £1.36 to £17.84). LIMITATIONS: Loss to follow-up was 17% but was similar in both treatment arms. Twelve per cent of participants had a negative NAAT for gonorrhoea at their baseline visit but this was balanced between treatment groups and unlikely to have biased the trial results. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was unable to demonstrate non-inferiority of gentamicin compared with ceftriaxone in the clearance of gonorrhoea at all infected sites. Clearance at pharyngeal and rectal sites was lower for participants allocated to gentamicin than for those allocated to ceftriaxone, but was similar for genital sites in both groups. Gentamicin was associated with more severe injection site pain. However, both gentamicin and ceftriaxone appeared to be well tolerated. FUTURE WORK: Exploration of the genetic determinants of antibiotic resistance in N. gonorrhoeae will help to identify accurate markers of decreased susceptibility. Greater understanding of the immune response to infection can assist gonococcal vaccine development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51783227. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Gonorrhoea is a common infection, spread by having sex, that causes genital pain and discomfort. In women it can lead to pelvic inflammation and infertility, and in men it can lead to swelling and pain in the testicles. Currently, an antibiotic called ceftriaxone is used to treat gonorrhoea. However, there is evidence that this is becoming less effective over time and it could stop curing patients with gonorrhoea within the next few years. In this study, we wanted to find out if another antibiotic called gentamicin is as good as ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea and whether or not gentamicin could be used to treat gonorrhoea if ceftriaxone stops being effective. We recruited 720 adults with gonorrhoea and randomly allocated them (by chance) to receive treatment with an injection of either gentamicin (240 mg) or ceftriaxone (500 mg). They all also received a single dose of azithromycin (1 g) taken by mouth. Overall, 98% of participants given ceftriaxone had their gonorrhoea cured, compared with 91% of participants given gentamicin, a difference of 7%. Therefore, it is likely that doctors will continue to use ceftriaxone (plus azithromycin) as the preferred treatment. Gentamicin did have a cure rate of 94% for genital gonorrhoea and so it might be useful when ceftriaxone is not available or appropriate to use. Cure rates using gentamicin were lower than cure rates using ceftriaxone for gonorrhoea infecting the rectum (90%) and throat (80%), so it may be less useful for patients with infections at these sites. We also found that gentamicin is likely to cost the NHS more than ceftriaxone. Gentamicin caused few side effects and seems to be as safe as ceftriaxone, which is reassuring.

Improving readiness for recruitment through simulated trial activation: the Adjuvant Steroids in Adults with Pandemic influenza (ASAP) trial.

BACKGROUND: Research in public health emergencies requires trials to be set up in readiness for activation at short notice and in anticipation of limited timelines for patient recruitment. We conducted a simulated activation of a hibernating pandemic influenza clinical trial in order to test trial processes and to determine the value of such simulation in maintaining trial readiness. METHODS: The simulation involved the Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, one participating hospital, one manufacturing unit and the Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) supplier. During the exercise, from 15 September 2015 to 2 December 2015, clinical staff at the participating site completed the trial training package, a volunteer acting as a patient was recruited to the study, 'dummy' IMP was prescribed and follow-up completed. RESULTS: Successful activation of the hibernating trial with patient recruitment within 4 weeks of 'arousal' as planned was demonstrated. A need for greater resilience in anticipation of staff absenteeism was identified, particularly in relation to key trial procedures where the potential for delay is high. A specific issue relating to the IMP Stock Control System was highlighted as a potential source of error that could compromise the randomisation sequence. The simulation exercise was well received by site investigators and increased their confidence in being able to meet the likely demands of the trial when activated. The estimated cost of the exercise was £1995; 90% of this being staff costs. CONCLUSIONS: Simulated activation is useful as a means to test, and prepare for, the rapid activation of 'hibernating' research studies. Whether simulation exercises can also help reduce waste in complex clinical trial research deserves further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number 2013-001051-12, ISRCTN72331452 . Registered on 6 March 2013.

Gentamicin versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea (G-TOG trial): study protocol for a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection which causes genital pain and discomfort; in women it can also lead to pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility, and in men to epididymo-orchitis. Current treatment is with ceftriaxone, but there is increasing evidence of antimicrobial resistance which is reducing its effectiveness against gonorrhoea. A small, but increasing, number of patients have already been found to have highly resistant strains of gonorrhoea which has been associated with clinical failure. This trial aims to determine whether gentamicin is not clinically worse than ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a blinded, two-arm, multicentre, noninferiority randomised trial. Patients are eligible if they are aged 16-70 years with a diagnosis of genital, pharyngeal and/or rectal gonorrhoea. Exclusion criteria are: known concurrent sexually transmitted infection(s) (excluding chlamydia); bacterial vaginosis and/or Trichomonas vaginalis infection; contraindications or an allergy to gentamicin, ceftriaxone, azithromycin or lidocaine; pregnancy or breastfeeding; complicated gonorrhoeal infection; weight under 40 kg; use of ceftriaxone, gentamicin or azithromycin within the preceding 28 days. Randomisation is to receive a single intramuscular injection of either gentamicin or ceftriaxone, all participants receive 1 g oral azithromycin as standard treatment. The estimated sample size is 720 participants (noninferiority limit 5%). The primary outcome is clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all infected sites by a negative Nucleic Acid Amplification Test, 2 weeks post treatment. Secondary outcomes include clinical resolution of symptoms, frequency of adverse events, tolerability of therapy, relationship between clinical effectiveness and antibiotic minimum inhibitory concentration for N. gonorrhoeae, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The options for future treatment of gonorrhoea are limited. Results from this randomised trial will demonstrate whether gentamicin is not clinically worse than ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea. This will inform clinical practice and policy for the treatment of gonorrhoea when current therapy with cephalosporins is no longer effective, or is contraindicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number - ISRCTN51783227 , Registered on 18 September 2014. Current protocol version 2.0 17 June 2015.

Blinded randomised controlled trial of low-dose Adjuvant Steroids in Adults admitted to hospital with Pandemic influenza (ASAP): a trial 'in hibernation', ready for rapid activation.

BACKGROUND: There are no completed randomised trials of the use of corticosteroids in patients with severe influenza infection. Corticosteroid use in influenza is widespread, non-systematic and marked by controversy. A recent meta-analysis of observational studies of adjuvant corticosteroids in influenza found an association with increased mortality but there were important concerns regarding the risks of bias. OBJECTIVES: To (1) evaluate whether or not low-dose corticosteroids given as an adjunct to standard treatment is beneficial in patients who are hospitalised with severe pandemic influenza and (2) develop an 'off-the-shelf' clinical trial that is ready to be activated in a future pandemic. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, blinded, randomised placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Thirty to 40 hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥ 16 years) admitted to hospital with an influenza-like illness during a pandemic. INTERVENTION: Five-day course of dexamethasone (Dexsol®, Rosemont Pharmaceuticals Ltd) 6 mg daily, started within 24 hours of admission. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Admission to Intensive Care Unit, or death, within 30 days of admission to hospital. RESULTS: This trial has not yet been activated. It is currently set up with full ethics and regulatory approvals in place, ready for rapid activation at the onset of the next pandemic. Hurdles to setting up a pandemic trial include planning for pandemic-level pressures on UK NHS resources and co-enrolment of patients to multiple pandemic studies, ensuring adequate geographical distribution of participating sites, maintaining long-term low-level engagement with site investigators, addressing future trial-specific training needs of local investigators and resilience planning in trial management. Identified threats to trial delivery include changes to research capabilities or policies during the hibernation phase, lack of staff resources during a pandemic and the influence of media at the time of a pandemic. A mismatch in the approach to informed consent required by current regulations to that preferred by patients and the public was identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that advance set-up of a trial to be conducted during a pandemic, with full regulatory approvals in place, is possible. Regular review during the hibernation phase will be required. This study serves as a model for the development of other 'off-the-shelf' trials as part of preparedness planning for public health emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72331452. European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials number: 2013-001051-12. 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. 19, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.