Explore the vast range of titles available.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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 18 th September 2017.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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). 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. UK National Institute for Health Research.

IntroductionGentamicin is effective against N. gonorrhoeae in vitro and systematic reviews have reported cure rates of 62%–98% but the quality of studies was low and there are few data on pharyngeal or rectal infections. A recent large non comparative trial reported a cure rate of 100% when gentamicin was combined with 2g oral azithromycin, but a high incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects limited tolerability and few extra-genital infections were included. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gentamicin versus ceftriaxone, each combined with 1g of azithromycin, for the treatment of gonorrhoea.MethodsA multi-centre, blinded, randomised controlled trial in participants with genital, pharyngeal or rectal gonorrhoea who received either gentamicin 240 mg or ceftriaxone 500 mg (each as a single intramuscular injection). The diagnosis of gonorrhoea was based on a positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or gram stained smear on microscopy. The primary endpoint was microbiological cure based on NAAT two weeks after treatment. The trial had 90% power to detect non-inferiority with a lower CI for an absolute risk difference of 5%. Data collection was completed in March 2017.Results720 patients from 14 sexual health clinics in England were randomised to receive ceftriaxone (n=362) or gentamicin (n=358). Baseline characteristics of the two groups were well balanced. 306 participants randomised to ceftriaxone (85%) and 292 randomised to gentamicin (82%) had primary outcome data available. 98% (299/306) and 91% (267/292) of participants randomised respectively had clearance of gonorrhoea at 2 weeks – adjusted risk difference −6.4% (95% CI −10.4%, −2.4%). Pre-specified sensitivity analyses supported this result. Clearance at the genital site was 98% and 94%, at pharynx 96% and 80% and at rectum 98% and 90%. The frequency of side effects was similar between treatment groups.ConclusionGentamicin is not non-inferior to ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea.

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.