Search

Introduction : RTS,S/AS01 is currently the most advanced malaria vaccine but provides incomplete, short-term protection. It was developed for use within the expanded program on immunizations (EPI) for African children. Another use could be adding mass RTS,S/AS01 vaccination to the integrated malaria elimination strategy in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS), where multidrug-resistant P.falciparum strains have emerged and spread. Prior to evaluating RTS,S/AS01 in large-scale trials we assessed whether the vaccine, administered with and without antimalarial drugs, is safe and immunogenic in Asian populations. Methods : An open-label, randomized, controlled phase 2 trial was conducted in healthy, adult Thai volunteers. Seven vaccine regimens with and without antimalarial drugs (dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus a single low dose primaquine) were assessed. Antibody titres against the Pf CSP full-length (NANP) 6, Pf CSP anti-C-term, Pf CSP full-length (N + C-Terminal) were measured by standard enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Liquid chromatography was used to measure piperaquine, primaquine and carboxy-primaquine concentrations. Results : 193 volunteers were enrolled and 186 study participants completed the 6 months follow-up period. One month after the last vaccination all study participants had seroconverted to the Pf CSP (NANP)6, and the Pf CSP Full Length (N + C-Terminal). More than 90% had seroconverted to the Pf anti-C-Term CSP. There was no indication that drug concentrations were influenced by vaccine regimens or the antibody levels by the drug regimens. Adverse events were similarly distributed between the seven treatment groups. No serious adverse events attributable to the study interventions were detected. Conclusion : This study found that RTS,S/AS01 with and without dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus a single low dose primaquine was safe and immunogenic in a healthy, adult Asian population.

Background: In southeast Asia, antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care is common, and a probable contributor to the high burden of antimicrobial resistance. The objective of this trial was to explore whether C-reactive protein (CRP) testing at point of care could rationalise antibiotic prescription in primary care, comparing two proposed thresholds to classify CRP concentrations as low or high to guide antibiotic treatment., Methods: We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial in participants aged at least 1 year with a documented fever or a chief complaint of fever (regardless of previous antibiotic intake and comorbidities other than malignancies) recruited from six public primary care units in Thailand and three primary care clinics and one outpatient department in Myanmar. Individuals were randomly assigned using a computer-based randomisation system at a ratio of 1:1:1 to either the control group or one of two CRP testing groups, which used thresholds of 20 mg/L (group A) or 40 mg/L CRP (group B) to guide antibiotic prescription. Health-care providers were masked to allocation between the two intervention groups but not to the control group. The primary outcome was the prescription of any antibiotic from day 0 to day 5 and the proportion of patients who were prescribed an antibiotic when CRP concentrations were above and below the 20 mg/L or 40 mg/L thresholds. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02758821, and is now completed., Findings: Between June 8, 2016, and Aug 25, 2017, we recruited 2410 patients, of whom 803 patients were randomly assigned to CRP group A, 800 to CRP group B, and 807 to the control group. 598 patients in CRP group A, 593 in CRP group B, and 767 in the control group had follow-up data for both day 5 and day 14 and had been prescribed antibiotics (or not) in accordance with test results (per-protocol population). During the trial, 318 (39%) of 807 patients in the control group were prescribed an antibiotic by day 5, compared with 290 (36%) of 803 patients in CRP group A and 275 (34%) of 800 in CRP group B. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0·80 (95% CI 0·65-0·98) and risk difference of -5·0 percentage points (95% CI -9·7 to -0·3) between group B and the control group were significant, although lower than anticipated, whereas the reduction in prescribing in group A compared with the control group was not significant (aOR 0·86 [0·70-1·06]; risk difference -3·3 percentage points [-8·0 to 1·4]). Patients with high CRP concentrations in both intervention groups were more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic than in the control group (CRP ≥20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p<0·0001; CRP ≥40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p<0·0001), and those with low CRP concentrations were more likely to have an antibiotic withheld (CRP <20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p<0·0001; CRP <40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p<0·0001). 24 serious adverse events were recorded, consisting of 23 hospital admissions and one death, which occurred in CRP group A. Only one serious adverse event was thought to be possibly related to the study (a hospital admission in CRP group A)., Interpretation: In febrile patients attending primary care, testing for CRP at point of care with a threshold of 40 mg/L resulted in a modest but significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing, with patients with high CRP being more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic, and no evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes. This study extends the evidence base from lower-income settings supporting the use of CRP tests to rationalise antibiotic use in primary care patients with an acute febrile illness. A key limitation of this study is the individual rather than cluster randomised study design which might have resulted in contamination between the study groups, reducing the effect size of the intervention., Funding: Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund grant (105605/Z/14/Z) and Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) funding from the Australian Government., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: There is a shortfall of suitably powered studies to provide evidence for safe prescribing of AEDs to people with Intellectual Disability (ID). We report clinically useful information on differences in response to Perampanel (PER) adjunctive treatment for refractory epilepsy between ID sub-groups and general population from the UK Ep-ID Research Register., Method: Pooled retrospective case notes data of consented people with epilepsy (PWE) prescribed PER from 6 UK centres was classified as per WHO guidance into groups of moderate -profound ID, mild ID and General population. Demographics, concomitant AEDs, starting and maximum dosage, exposure length, adverse effects, dropout rates, seizure type and frequency were collected. Group differences were reported as odds ratios estimated from univariable logistic regression models., Results: Of the 144 PWE (General population 71, Mild ID 48, Moderate to profound ID 48) examined the association between withdrawal and ID type was marginally statistically significant (p=0.07). Moderate to profound ID PWE were less likely to come off PER compared to mild ID (OR=0.19, CI=0.04-0.92, p=0.04). Differences in mental health side effects by groups was marginally statistically significant (p=0.06). Over 50% seizure improvement was seen in 11% of General population, 24% mild ID and 26% Moderate to profound ID., Conclusions: PER seems safe in PWE with ID. It is better tolerated by PWE with Moderate to profound ID than PWE with higher functioning. Caution is advised when history of mental health problems is present. The standardised approach of the Ep-ID register UK used confirms that responses to AEDs by different ID groups vary between themselves and General population., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Exenatide once-weekly is an extended release formulation of exenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, which can improve glycemic control, body weight, blood pressure, and lipid levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The EXenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL) will compare the impact of adding exenatide once-weekly to usual care with usual care alone on major cardiovascular outcomes. EXSCEL is an academically led, phase III/IV, double-blind, pragmatic placebo-controlled, global trial conducted in 35 countries aiming to enrol 14,000 patients with T2DM and a broad range of cardiovascular risk over approximately 5 years. Participants will be randomized (1:1) to receive exenatide once-weekly 2 mg or matching placebo by subcutaneous injections. The trial will continue until 1,360 confirmed primary composite cardiovascular end points, defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, have occurred. The primary efficacy hypothesis is that exenatide once-weekly is superior to usual care with respect to the primary composite cardiovascular end point. EXSCEL is powered to detect a 15% relative risk reduction in the exenatide once-weekly group, with 85% power and a 2-sided 5% alpha. The primary safety hypothesis is that exenatide once-weekly is noninferior to usual care with respect to the primary cardiovascular composite end point. Noninferiority will be concluded if the upper limit of the CI is <1.30. EXSCEL will assess whether exenatide once-weekly can reduce cardiovascular events in patients with T2DM with a broad range of cardiovascular risk. It will also provide long-term safety information on exenatide once-weekly in people with T2DM. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01144338., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)