Explore the vast range of titles available.

Gepotidacin, a first-in-class, bactericidal, triazaacenaphthylene antibacterial that inhibits bacterial DNA replication, was shown to be efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of gepotidacin for the treatment of uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhoea. EAGLE-1 (NCT04010539) was a phase 3, open-label, sponsor-blinded, multicentre, non-inferiority study evaluating oral gepotidacin (two 3000 mg doses administered 10–12 h apart) compared with 500 mg intramuscular ceftriaxone plus 1 g oral azithromycin for the treatment of gonorrhoea. Eligible participants were aged 12 years and older, had a bodyweight over 45 kg, and had suspected uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhoea (including mucopurulent discharge), a positive laboratory test for Neisseria gonorrhoeae, or both. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to each treatment group, stratified by sex (original urogenital anatomy at birth) and sexual orientation (men who have sex with men [MSM], men who have sex with women [MSW], and female) in combination, and age group (age <18 years, ≥18 to 65 years, or >65 years). The primary efficacy endpoint was microbiological success, defined as culture-confirmed bacterial eradication of N gonorrhoeae from the urogenital body site at test-of-cure (days 4–8). The non-inferiority margin was prespecified at –10%. The primary outcome was assessed in the microbiological intention-to-treat (micro-ITT) population, all participants randomly allocated to a study treatment who received at least one dose of their study treatment and had confirmed ceftriaxone-susceptible N gonorrhoeae isolated from the baseline culture of their urogenital specimen. The safety population comprised all participants who received one or more doses of any study treatment. Between Oct 21, 2019, and Oct 10, 2023, 628 participants were randomly allocated (314 allocated to each treatment group). Overall, 39 (6%) of 628 participants discontinued the study prematurely (20 in the gepotidacin group and 19 in the ceftriaxone plus azithromycin group), with the primary reason being lost to follow-up. The micro-ITT population included 406 participants (202 in the gepotidacin group and 204 in the ceftriaxone plus azithromycin group). Most participants in the micro-ITT population were male (372 [92%] vs 34 [8%] female), and there was a higher percentage of participants who were MSM (290 [71%]) compared with participants who were MSW (82 [20%]). Participants were predominantly White (299 [74%]) or Black or African American (61 [15%]), with 70 (17%) identifying as Hispanic or Latino. Results of the primary analysis of microbiological response at test-of-cure demonstrated microbiological success rates of 92·6% (187 of 202 [95% CI 88·0 to 95·8]) in the gepotidacin group and 91·2% (186 of 204 [86·4 to 94·7]) in the ceftriaxone plus azithromycin group (adjusted treatment difference –0·1% [95% CI –5·6 to 5·5]). Gepotidacin was non-inferior to ceftriaxone plus azithromycin. No bacterial persistence of urogenital N gonorrhoeae was observed at test-of-cure for either group. The gepotidacin group had higher rates of adverse events and drug-related adverse events, mainly due to gastrointestinal adverse events, and almost all were mild or moderate. No treatment-related severe or serious adverse events occurred in either group. Gepotidacin demonstrated non-inferiority to ceftriaxone plus azithromycin for urogenital N gonorrhoeae, with no new safety concerns, offering a novel oral treatment option for uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhoea. GSK and federal funds from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

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.

Previous studies have shown that intravenous ceftriaxone or meropenem for 14 days, followed by oral trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole for 1 year, cures 98% of people with Whipple's disease. However, intravenous therapy requires hospitalisation and carries risks for treatment-associated complications. The aim of this study was to investigate whether oral-only treatment for Whipple's disease is non-inferior to intravenous therapy. This phase 2/3, prospective, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial enrolled individuals aged 18 years or older with confirmed Whipple's disease from across Germany who had received treatment for less than 1 month at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) with block randomisation to receive either intravenous ceftriaxone (2 g once per day) for 14 days, followed by oral trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (960 mg twice per day) for 12 months, or oral doxycycline (100 mg twice per day) plus hydroxychloroquine (200 mg twice per day) for 12 months. Ten participants who had already received intravenous ceftriaxone were non-randomly assigned to the intravenous treatment group. Participants in the oral-only treatment group were PCR-positive for Tropheryma whipplei in cerebrospinal fluid received trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (960 mg five times per day) until clearance. The primary outcome was complete clinical remission without recurrence during the observation period of 24 months, assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was –18%. Safety was a secondary endpoint, assessed in the ITT population. The study was registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2008–003951–54, and is completed. Between May 26, 2010, and Oct 30, 2018, we screened 310 individuals and enrolled 64 participants in the study. After exclusion of four individuals whose diagnosis was not confirmed, 31 participants were assigned to the intravenous treatment group and 29 to the oral-only treatment group. By ITT, 25 (81%) of 31 participants in the intravenous treatment group and 28 (97%) of 29 participants in the oral-only treatment group had complete clinical remission without recurrence. The risk difference was 15·9 percentage points (95% CI –1·2 to 33·1), with the lower bound of the 95% CI above our non-inferiority margin of –18%. A post-hoc per-protocol analysis confirmed the non-inferiority of oral-only treatment. No participant relapsed, but two participants in the intravenous treatment group died from nosocomial infections. Serious adverse events occurred in 13 (42%) of 31 participants in the intravenous treatment group and eight (28%) of 29 participants in the oral-only treatment group, but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0·244). Oral-only treatment of Whipple's disease was safe and non-inferior to sequential intravenous–oral treatment. Oral treatment facilitates patient management and might reduce hospital-acquired treatment complications and costs. German Research Foundation and the Robert Koch Institute. For the German translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Ceftobiprole is an advanced-generation cephalosporin with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, resistant pneumococci, and Enterobacterales. In a Phase 3 study in community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) performed prior to the current US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance, clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit (TOC) was the primary endpoint. We present a re-analysis using early clinical success as the primary endpoint per the 2020 FDA CABP Guidance. In this multicenter, double-blind study, patients with CABP requiring hospitalization were randomized to intravenous ceftobiprole (500 mg q8h) or ceftriaxone (2000 mg q24h) ± linezolid (600 mg q12h) for 3-14 days. The primary endpoint was clinical success at Day 3 (improvement in ≥2 symptoms of chest pain, cough, productive sputum, difficulty breathing). A 12.5% non-inferiority margin was used. Of the original 638 patients, 618 (97%) had ≥ 2 symptoms and were included in the Day 3 Intent-to-Treat (ITT) population for the re-analysis. The Day 3 modified ITT population consisted of 187 patients (29%) meeting additional FDA Guidance including Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) classification ≥III. Ceftobiprole was non-inferior to ceftriaxone for clinical success for Day 3 ITT (71.0% vs 71.1%) and Day 3 modified ITT (71.1% vs 66.7%) populations. The 28-day all-cause mortality was 1.6% (ceftobiprole) vs 2.6% (ceftriaxone) in the Day 3 ITT population and 2.1% vs 7.8% in the Day 3 modified ITT population. Ceftobiprole was non-inferior to ceftriaxone ± linezolid for clinical success at Day 3 according to the current 2020 FDA CABP Guidance.

INTRODUCTION:This trial was to shorten the duration of both vasoconstrictors and prophylactic antibiotics to only 2 days in the therapy of acute gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage.METHODS:After successful endoscopic hemostasis of gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage, eligible patients were randomized to receive terlipressin infusion 1 mg per 6 hours and ceftriaxone 1 g daily for 5 days (group A) or a similar regimen for 2 days (group B). Primary end points were very early rebleeding at 5 days, and secondary end points included 48-hour hemostasis, 42-day rebleeding, and hospitalization days.RESULTS:Group A comprised 48 patients, and group B comprised 52 patients. Both groups were comparable in the severity of liver disease. Forty-eight-hour initial hemostasis was 95.8% in group A and 100% in group B (P = 0.13). Very early rebleeding between 3 and 5 days occurred in 1 patient (2.1%) in group A and 2 patients (3.8%) in group B (P = 0.60). The difference was 1.8% and the 95% confidence interval was −1.31% to 2.08%, which demonstrated noninferiority. Forty-two-day rebleeding occurred in 5 patients (10.4%) in group A and 4 patients (7.7%) in group B (P = 0.63). The median hospitalization days were 8.5 ± 3.8 days in group A vs 5.6 ± 2.6 days in group B (P < 0.001).DISCUSSION:After successful endoscopic hemostasis of acute variceal bleeding, combination of 2-day terlipressin infusion and ceftriaxone therapy was not inferior to the 5-day regimen in terms of very early rebleeding, with the advantage of shortening hospitalization stay.

Patients with cerebral hemorrhage often require a tracheal intubation to protect the airway and maintain oxygenation. Due to the use of analgesic and sedative drugs during endotracheal intubation and the opening of the glottis may easily cause aspiration pneumonia. Ceftriaxone is a semi-synthetic third-generation cephalosporin with strong antimicrobial activity against most gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. It can effectively prevent and treat aspiration pneumonia. This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical study. Patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) undergoing endotracheal intubation in Dong E Hospital of Shandong Province from April 2023 to April 2025 will be enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention group or control group. The intervention group will be treated using 100mL 0.9% sodium chloride with 2g ceftriaxone intravenously over the course of one hour beginning within two hours after endotracheal intubation. The control group will be given 100mL 0.9% sodium chloride injection intravenously of the course of one hour beginning within two hours after endotracheal intubation. The primary outcome is the incidence of aspiration pneumonia within 48 hours after endotracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes include: intensity of antimicrobial use, length of hospital stay, duration without mechanical ventilation, and 28-day mortality. The primary objective of this study is to explore whether a single dose of ceftriaxone administered during endotracheal intubation in patients with ICH reduced the incidence of pneumonia within 48 hours and provide evidence for the prevention of aspiration pneumonia in patients with ICH with endotracheal intubation. The trial is registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2200066837. Registered on December 19, 2022.

Background. Enteric fever, caused by Salmonella Typhi and Salmonella Paratyphi A, is the leading cause of bacterial febrile disease in South Asia. Methods. Individual data from 2092 patients with enteric fever randomized into 4 trials in Kathmandu, Nepal, were pooled. All trials compared gatifloxacin with 1 of the following comparator drugs: cefixime, chloramphenicol, ofloxacin, or ceftriaxone. Treatment outcomes were evaluated according to antimicrobial if S. Typhi/Paratyphi were isolated from blood. We additionally investigated the impact of changing bacterial antimicrobial susceptibility on outcome. Results. Overall, 855 (41%) patients had either S. Typhi (n = 581, 28%) or S. Paratyphi A (n = 274, 13%) cultured from blood. There were 139 (6.6%) treatment failures with 1 death. Except for the last trial with ceftriaxone, the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin was associated with equivalent or better fever clearance times and lower treatment failure rates in comparison to all other antimicrobials. However, we additionally found that the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) against fluoroquinolones have risen significantly since 2005 and were associated with increasing fever clearance times. Notably, all organisms were susceptible to ceftriaxone throughout the study period (2005–2014), and the MICs against azithromycin declined, confirming the utility of these alternative drugs for enteric fever treatment. Conclusion. The World Health Organization and local government health ministries in South Asia still recommend fluoroquinolones for enteric fever. This policy should change based on the evidence provided here. Rapid diagnostics are urgently required given the large numbers of suspected enteric fever patients with a negative culture.

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy in children is common despite no evidence of its efficacy or safety from clinical trials. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous antibiotic therapy at home with that of standard treatment in hospital for children with moderate to severe cellulitis. The Cellulitis at Home or Inpatient in Children from the Emergency Department (CHOICE) trial was a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial in children aged 6 months to 18 years who presented to the emergency department at The Royal Children's Hospital (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) with uncomplicated moderate to severe cellulitis. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous ceftriaxone (50 mg/kg once daily) at home or intravenous flucloxacillin (50 mg/kg every 6 h) in hospital with web-based randomisation, stratified by age and periorbital cellulitis. The primary outcome was treatment failure, which was defined as no clinical improvement or occurrence of an adverse event, resulting in a change in empiric antibiotics within 48 h of the first dose. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and acquisition of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Outcomes were assessed in all randomised participants with outcome data (intention-to-treat population) and in all individuals who received treatment as allocated and did not have any major protocol violations (per-protocol population). For home treatment to be non-inferior to hospital treatment, the difference between groups in the proportion of children with treatment failure in the intention-to-treat population had to be less than 15%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02334124. Between Jan 9, 2015, and June 15, 2017, we screened 1135 children for eligibility, of whom 190 were randomly assigned to receive ceftriaxone at home (n=95) or flucloxacillin in hospital (n=95). The intention-to-treat analysis comprised 188 children (93 in the home group and 95 in the hospital group) because two children in the home group were found to be ineligible after randomisation and were excluded. Treatment failure occurred in two (2%) children in the home group and in seven (7%) children in the hospital group (risk difference −5·2%, 95% CI −11·3 to 0·8, p=0·088). In the per-protocol analysis, treatment failure occurred in one (1%) of 89 children in the home group and in seven (8%) of 91 children in the hospital group (−6·5%, −12·4 to −0·7). Fewer children treated at home than in hospital had an adverse event (two [2%] vs ten [11%]; p=0·048). There was no difference between groups in rates of nasal acquisition of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or gastrointestinal acquisition of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing bacteria or Clostridium difficile after 3 months. Home treatment with intravenous ceftriaxone is not inferior to treatment in hospital with intravenous flucloxacillin for children with cellulitis. The standard of care for the intravenous treatment of uncomplicated cellulitis in children should be home or outpatient care when feasible. The Royal Children's Hospital Foundation and Murdoch Children's Research Institute.

Background. Ceftaroline, the active form of ceftaroline fosamil, is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with bactericidal activity against pathogens causing community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), including Streptococcus pneumoniae. Ceftaroline was evaluated for the treatment of CAP in 2 randomized, double-blind, multicenter trials: Ceftaroline Community Acquired Pneumonia Trial versus Ceftriaxone in Hospitalized Patients (FOCUS) 1 and FOCUS 2. Methods. Patients hospitalized (but not admitted to an intensive care unit) with Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team risk class III or IV CAP requiring intravenous therapy were randomized to ceftaroline 600 mg every 12 h or ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 h for 5–7 days. Patients in FOCUS 1 received 2 doses of oral clarithromycin 500 mg every 12 h on day 1. Results. In the individual trials, clinical cure rates in the clinically evaluable (CE) population for ceftaroline versus ceftriaxone were as follows: FOCUS 1, 86.6% vs 78.2% (difference, 8.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4%–15.4%); FOCUS 2, 82.1% vs 77.2% (difference, 4.9%; 95% CI, −2.5% to 12.5%). In the integrated analysis, 614 patients received ceftaroline and 614 received ceftriaxone. Of the CE patients treated with ceftaroline, 84.3% achieved clinical cure, compared with 77.7% of ceftriaxone-treated patients (difference, 6.7%; 95% CI, 1.6%–11.8%). Clinical cure rates in the modified intent-to-treat efficacy population were 82.6% versus 76.6% for ceftaroline and ceftriaxone (difference, 6.0%; 95% CI, 1.4%–10.7%). Ceftaroline and ceftriaxone were well tolerated; rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, deaths, and premature discontinuations caused by an adverse event were similar in both treatment arms. Conclusions. Ceftaroline was noninferior to ceftriaxone in the individual trials. In this integrated analysis, clinical cure rates for the ceftaroline group were numerically higher than those for the ceftriaxone group. Ceftaroline was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of ceftriaxone.

IntroductionPrompt recognition and treatment of patients with sepsis improve survival. Patients transported to hospital with sepsis often do not receive treatment until they are assessed in emergency departments. Initiation of treatments by paramedics at the point of first contact may improve outcomes for these patients.Methods and analysisThe study design involves two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using a 2×2 factorial design comparing use of (1) early intramuscular ceftriaxone versus placebo and (2) an early liberal intravenous fluid strategy (up to 2 L normal saline) versus usual care resuscitation guided by paramedic medical directives. Patients who are ≥18 years of age will be eligible for inclusion if they have sepsis, defined as (1) paramedic suspicion of infection, (2) fever (temperature ≥38.0°C measured by paramedic or history of fever during the previous 24 hours), and (3) hypotension: SBP <100 mm Hg. The primary outcome is mortality prior to hospital discharge or within 90 days of admission. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality at 90 days after enrolment; organ dysfunction during first 24 hours (mechanical ventilation, vasopressor therapy, dialysis) and hospitalisation (mechanical ventilation; dialysis); rates and duration of hospital admission; rates of ICU admission during index hospitalisation; discharge destination; proportion of patients with positive blood cultures obtained in hospital (first 24 hours); microbiological profile including distribution of microorganism species and resistant organisms; proportion of patients receiving additional antibiotics within 6 hours and within 24 hours of hospital admission; frequency distribution of first antibiotics (if any) delivered within 24 hours of hospital arrival; mean time to antibiotics delivered within 24 hours of hospital arrival (if any); proportion of patients receiving fluid bolus (>250 mL) within 24 hours of hospital arrival; total amount of crystalloid infused during transport and first 24 hours of hospitalisation; and proportion of enrolled patients not suspected to have sepsis or infection by emergency department physicians. Safety outcomes include the proportion of patients with pulmonary oedema during transport to hospital and on initial chest X-ray and the proportion of patients with anaphylaxis or suspected allergic reactions to study medication.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved through Clinical Trials Ontario’s streamlined ethics review process (board of record, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre). It will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice guidelines and regulatory requirements. The final results will be disseminated to participating paramedic services through educational materials, presentations and interactive training. We anticipate our trial will achieve wide dissemination through publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal and presentation at international conferences targeting the fields of prehospital and emergency medicine, resuscitation and critical care.Trial registration numberNCT03068741.