Safety and efficacy of whole-body chlorhexidine gluconate cleansing with or without emollient in hospitalised neonates (NeoCHG): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, factorial pilot trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Russell N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10904231 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Safety and efficacy of whole-body chlorhexidine gluconate cleansing with or without emollient in hospitalised neonates (NeoCHG): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, factorial pilot trial.
Russell Neal N Clements Michelle N MN Azmery Kazi Shammin KS Bekker Adrie A Bielicki Julia J Dramowski Angela A Ellis Sally S Fataar Aaqilah A Hoque Mahbubul M LeBeau Kristen K O'Brien Seamus S Schiavone Francesca F Skoutari Peter P Islam Mohammad Shahidul MS Saha Samir K SK Walker Ann Sarah AS Whitelaw Andrew A Sharland Michael M
EClinicalMedicine 20240225
<h4>Background</h4>Healthcare-associated infections account for substantial neonatal in-hospital mortality. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) whole body skin application could reduce sepsis by lowering bacterial colonisation density, although safety and optimal application regimen is unclear. Emollients, including sunflower oil, may independently improve skin condition, thereby reducing sepsis. We aimed to inform which concentration and frequency of CHG, with or without emollient, would best balance ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundChlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) body washes and emollient application may modulate bacterial pathogen colonization and prevent neonatal hospital-acquired infections.MethodsThis pilot, non-randomized, open-label trial, enrolled preterm neonates (1000-1500g; day 1-3 of life) at a tertiary hospital in Cape Town, South Africa. Participants were sequentially allocated to 4 trial arms (n=20 each): 1% aqueous CHG (CHG), 1% CHG plus emollient (CHG+EM), emollient only (EM) and standard of care (SOC: no antiseptic/emollient). Trial treatment/s were applied daily for 10 days (d) post-enrolment, documenting neonatal skin condition score. Anterior nose, neck, umbilical and perianal swabs for bacterial culture were collected at d1, d3, d10 and d16 post-enrolment, (±1 day), reporting pathogen acquisition rates and semi-quantitative bacterial colony counts. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03896893; trial status: closed).FindingsEighty preterm neonates (mean gestational age 30 weeks [SD 2]) were enrolled between 4 March and 26 August 2019. The bacterial pathogen acquisition rate (comparing d1 and d16 swabs) varied from 33·9% [95%CI 22·9-47·0] at the umbilicus, 39·3% [95%CI 27·6-52·4] at the neck, to 71·4% [95%CI 58·5-81·7] at both the nose and perianal region. At d10, CHG babies had reduced bacterial density detected from neck, umbilicus, and perianal swabs compared to other groups (see Table 3). Following intervention cessation, colonization density was similar across all trial arms, but S. aureus colonization was more prevalent among EM and CHG+EM babies. Neonatal skin condition score improved in babies receiving emollient application (EM: -0·87 [95%CI 0·69-1·06] and CHG+EM: -0·73 [0·45-0·99]), compared to the SOC and CHG arms (Table 2); no CHG-related skin reactions occurred.InterpretationBacterial colonization density was significantly reduced in babies receiving 1% CHG washes but colonization levels rebounded rapidly post-intervention. Emollient application improved skin condition but was associated with higher rates of S. aureus colonization.FundingSouth African Medical Research Council; National Institutes of Health (TW010682).
| S-EPMC8225683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of chlorhexidine application to the umbilical cord in neonates. We searched MEDLINE and other electronic databases, and included all RCTs that evaluated the effect of single or multiple chlorhexidine cord applications on the neonatal mortality rate (NMR) and/or the incidence of systemic sepsis and omphalitis. A total of six RCTs-four community-based cluster RCTs and two hospital-based trials-were included in the review. Of the four cluster RCTs, three were conducted in South Asia in settings with high rates of home births (>92%) while the fourth, available only as an abstract, was conducted in Africa. Pooled analysis by the 'intention-to-treat' principle showed a significant reduction in NMR after chlorhexidine application (four studies; relative risk (RR) 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.95; fixed effects (FE) model). On subgroup analysis, only multiple applications showed a significant effect (four studies; RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99) whereas a single application did not (one study; RR 0.86; 0.73 to 1.02). Similarly, only the community-based trials showed a significant reduction in NMR (three studies; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95), while the hospital-based study did not find any effect (RR 0.11; 0.01 to 2.03). Since all the studies were conducted in high-NMR settings (?30 per 1000 live births), we could not determine the effect in settings with low NMRs. Only one study-a hospital-based trial from India-reported the incidence of neonatal sepsis; it did not find a significant reduction in any sepsis (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.28). Pooled analysis of community-based studies revealed significant reduction in the risk of omphalitis in infants who received the intervention (four studies; RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81). The hospital-based trial had no instances of omphalitis in either of the two groups. Chlorhexidine application delayed the time to cord separation (four studies; mean difference 2.11 days; 95% CI 2.07 to 2.15; FE model). Chlorhexidine application to the cord reduces the risk of neonatal mortality and omphalitis in infants born at home in high-NMR settings. Routine chlorhexidine application, preferably daily for 7 to 10 days after birth, should therefore be recommended in these infants. Given the paucity of evidence, there is presently no justification for recommending this intervention in infants born in health facilities and/or low-NMR settings.
| S-EPMC4848738 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4796470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Azithromycin was rapidly adopted as a repurposed drug to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) early in the pandemic. We aimed to evaluate its efficacy in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. In a series of randomised, open-label, phase 2 proof-of-concept, multicentre clinical trials (Direct Antivirals Working against the novel coronavirus (DAWn)), several treatments were compared with standard of care. In 15 Belgian hospitals, patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 were allocated 2:1 to receive standard of care plus azithromycin or standard of care alone. The primary outcome was time to live discharge or sustained clinical improvement, defined as a two-point improvement on the World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale sustained for at least 3 days. Patients were included between April 22 and December 17, 2020. When 15-day follow-up data were available for 160 patients (56% of preset cohort), an interim analysis was performed at request of the independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board. Subsequently, DAWn-AZITHRO was stopped for futility. In total, 121 patients were allocated to the treatment arm and 64 patients to the standard-of-care arm. We found no effect of azithromycin on the primary outcome with a hazard ratio of 1.044 (95% CI 0.772-1.413; p=0.7798). None of the predefined subgroups showed significant interaction as covariates in the Fine-Gray regression analysis. No benefit of azithromycin was found on any of the short- and longer-term secondary outcomes. Time to clinical improvement is not influenced by azithromycin in patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8801156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCatheter-related sepsis is one of the most dangerous complications of neonatal intensive care and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Use of catheter-care 'bundles' has reduced the incidence of catheter-related sepsis, although individual components have not been well studied. Better evidence is needed to guide selection of the most appropriate antiseptic solution for skin disinfection in preterm neonates. This study will inform the feasibility and design of the first randomised controlled trial to examine the safety and efficacy of alcohol-based versus aqueous-based chlorhexidine antiseptic formulations for skin disinfection prior to percutaneous central venous catheterisation in preterm neonates. The antiseptics to be compared are 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) aqueous and 2% CHG in 70% isopropyl alcohol.Methods and analysisThe Antiseptic Randomised Controlled Trial for Insertion of Catheters (ARCTIC) is a two-centre randomised-controlled feasibility trial. At least 100 preterm infants born at <34 weeks' gestation and due to undergo percutaneous insertion of a central venous catheter will be randomly allocated to receive prior skin disinfection with one of the two antiseptic solutions. Outcomes include: i) recruitment and retention rates; ii) completeness of data collection; iii) numbers of enrolled infants meeting case definitions for definite catheter-related sepsis, catheter-associated sepsis and catheter colonisation and iv) safety outcomes of skin morbidity scores recorded daily from catheter insertion until 48 hours post removal. The key feasibility metrics will be reported as proportions with 95% CIs. Estimated prevalence of catheter colonisation will allow calculation of sample size for the large-scale trial. The data will inform whether it will be feasible to progress to a large-scale trial.Ethics and disseminationARCTIC has been approved by the National Health Service Health Research Authority National Research Ethics Service Committee East of England (Cambridge South) (IRAS ID 163868), was adopted onto the National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Network portfolio (CPMS ID 19899) and is registered with an International Standard Randomised Control Trials Number (ISRCTN: 82571474; Pre-results) and European Clinical Trials Database number 2015-000874-36. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications and sharing of the findings with parents via the support of Bliss baby charity.Trial registration numberISRCTN82571474; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC6411256 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 disease is accompanied by a dysregulated immune response and hypercoagulability. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) inpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for prevention of disease progression in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.MethodsThe ACT inpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial was done at 62 clinical centres in 11 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 72 h of hospitalisation or worsening clinically if already hospitalised were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 1·2 mg followed by 0·6 mg 2 h later and then 0·6 mg twice daily for 28 days versus usual care; and in a second (1:1) randomisation, to the combination of rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome, assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population, for the colchicine randomisation was the composite of the need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death; and for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin randomisation was the composite of major thrombosis (myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischaemia, or pulmonary embolism), the need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death. The trial is registered at www.Clinicaltrialsgov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing.FindingsBetween Oct 2, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, at 62 sites in 11 countries, 2749 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or to the control. 2611 patients were included in the analysis of colchicine (n=1304) versus control (n=1307); 2119 patients were included in the analysis of rivaroxaban and aspirin (n=1063) versus control (n=1056). Follow-up was more than 98% complete. Overall, 368 (28·2%) of 1304 patients allocated to colchicine and 356 (27·2%) of 1307 allocated to control had a primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·90-1·21, p=0·58); and 281 (26·4%) of 1063 patients allocated to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin and 300 (28·4%) of 1056 allocated to control had a primary outcome (HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·78-1·09, p=0·32). Results were consistent in subgroups defined by vaccination status, disease severity at baseline, and timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms. There was no increase in the number of patients who had at least one serious adverse event for colchicine versus control groups (87 [6·7%] of 1304 vs 90 [6·9%] of 1307) or with rivaroxaban and aspirin versus control groups (85 [8·0%] vs 91 [8·6%]). Among patients assigned to colchicine, 8 (0·61%) had adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug, mostly gastrointestinal in nature. 17 (1·6%) patients assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin had bleeding compared with seven (0·66%) of those allocated to control (p=0·042); the number of serious bleeding events was two (0·19%) versus six (0·57%), respectively (p=0·18). No patients assigned to rivaroxaban and aspirin had serious adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug.InterpretationAmong patients hospitalised with COVID-19, neither colchicine nor the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin prevent disease progression or death.FundingCanadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, Thistledown Foundation.TranslationsFor the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
| S-EPMC9635892 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe complement pathway is a potential target for the treatment of severe COVID-19. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of ravulizumab, a terminal complement C5 inhibitor, in patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 requiring invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation.MethodsThis phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (ALXN1210-COV-305) enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) from 31 hospitals in France, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 that required hospitalisation and either invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, with severe pneumonia, acute lung injury, or acute respiratory distress syndrome confirmed by CT scan or x-ray. We randomly assigned participants (2:1) to receive intravenous ravulizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone using a web-based interactive response system. Randomisation was in permuted blocks of six with stratification by intubation status. Bodyweight-based intravenous doses of ravulizumab were administered on days 1, 5, 10, and 15. The primary efficacy endpoint was survival based on all-cause mortality at day 29 in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety endpoints were analysed in all randomly assigned patients in the ravulizumab plus BSC group who received at least one dose of ravulizumab, and in all randomly assigned patients in the BSC group. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04369469, and was terminated at interim analysis due to futility.FindingsBetween May 10, 2020, and Jan 13, 2021, 202 patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to ravulizumab plus BSC or BSC. 201 patients were included in the ITT population (135 in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 66 in the BSC group). The ravulizumab plus BSC group comprised 96 (71%) men and 39 (29%) women with a mean age of 63·2 years (SD 13·23); the BSC group comprised 43 (65%) men and 23 (35%) women with a mean age of 63·5 years (12·40). Most patients (113 [84%] of 135 in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 53 [80%] of 66 in the BSC group) were on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline. Overall survival estimates based on multiple imputation were 58% for patients receiving ravulizumab plus BSC and 60% for patients receiving BSC (Mantel-Haenszel analysis: risk difference -0·0205; 95% CI -0·1703 to 0·1293; one-sided p=0·61). In the safety population, 113 (89%) of 127 patients in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 56 (84%) of 67 in the BSC group had a treatment-emergent adverse event. Of these events, infections and infestations (73 [57%] vs 24 [36%] patients) and vascular disorders (39 [31%] vs 12 [18%]) were observed more frequently in the ravulizumab plus BSC group than in the BSC group. Five patients had serious adverse events considered to be related to ravulizumab. These events were bacteraemia, thrombocytopenia, oesophageal haemorrhage, cryptococcal pneumonia, and pyrexia (in one patient each).InterpretationAddition of ravulizumab to BSC did not improve survival or other secondary outcomes. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of ravulizumab in its approved indications. Despite the lack of efficacy, the study adds value for future research into complement therapeutics in critical illnesses by showing that C5 inhibition can be accomplished in severely ill patients.FundingAlexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease.
| S-EPMC10027334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To study angiogenesis and inflammatory mediators in peritoneal fibrosis, we used microarray analysis and compared gene expression profiles of the peritoneum in control and chlorhexidine gluconate (CG)-induced peritoneal fibrosis mice.
2020-11-24 | GSE162029 | GEO
Project description:Patients with severe infection have an increased risk of cardiovascular events. A possible underlying mechanism is inflammation-induced platelet aggregation. We investigated whether hyperaggregation occurs during infection, and whether aspirin inhibits this. In this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, patients hospitalised due to acute infection were randomised to receive 10 days of aspirin treatment (80 mg 1dd or 40 mg 2dd) or no intervention (1:1:1 allocation). Measurements were performed during infection (T1; days 1-3), after intervention (T2; day 14) and without infection (T3; day > 90). The primary endpoint was platelet aggregation measured by the Platelet Function Analyzer® closure time (CT), and the secondary outcomes were serum and plasma thromboxane B2 (sTxB2 and pTxB2). Fifty-four patients (28 females) were included between January 2018 and December 2020. CT was 18% (95%CI 6;32) higher at T3 compared with T1 in the control group (n = 16), whereas sTxB2 and pTxB2 did not differ. Aspirin prolonged CT with 100% (95%CI 77; 127) from T1 to T2 in the intervention group (n = 38), while it increased with only 12% (95%CI 1;25) in controls. sTxB2 decreased with 95% (95%CI - 97; - 92) from T1 to T2, while it increased in the control group. pTxB2 was not affected compared with controls. Platelet aggregation is increased during severe infection, and this can be inhibited by aspirin. Optimisation of the treatment regimen may further diminish the persisting pTxB2 levels that point towards remaining platelet activity. This trial was registered on 13 April 2017 at EudraCT (2016-004303-32).
| S-EPMC10250844 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 has overwhelmed health services globally. Oral antiviral therapies are licensed worldwide, but indications and efficacy rates vary. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of oral favipiravir in adult patients who were newly admitted to hospital with proven or suspected COVID-19 across five sites in the UK (n=2), Brazil (n=2) and Mexico (n=1). Using a permuted block design, eligible and consenting participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral favipiravir (1800 mg twice daily for 1 day; 800 mg twice daily for 9 days) plus standard care, or standard care alone. All caregivers and patients were aware of allocation and those analysing data were aware of the treatment groups. The prespecified primary outcome was the time from randomisation to recovery, censored at 28 days, which was assessed using an intention-to-treat approach. Post-hoc analyses were used to assess the efficacy of favipiravir in patients aged younger than 60 years, and in patients aged 60 years and older. The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04373733.FindingsBetween May 5, 2020 and May 26, 2021, we assessed 503 patients for eligibility, of whom 499 were randomly assigned to favipiravir and standard care (n=251) or standard care alone (n=248). There was no significant difference between those who received favipiravir and standard care, relative to those who received standard care alone in time to recovery in the overall study population (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06 [95% CI 0·89-1·27]; n=499; p=0·52). Post-hoc analyses showed a faster rate of recovery in patients younger than 60 years who received favipiravir and standard care versus those who had standard care alone (HR 1·35 [1·06-1·72]; n=247; p=0·01). 36 serious adverse events were observed in 27 (11%) of 251 patients administered favipiravir and standard care, and 33 events were observed in 27 (11%) of 248 patients receiving standard care alone, with infectious, respiratory, and cardiovascular events being the most numerous. There was no significant between-group difference in serious adverse events per patient (p=0·87).InterpretationFavipiravir does not improve clinical outcomes in all patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, however, patients younger than 60 years might have a beneficial clinical response. The indiscriminate use of favipiravir globally should be cautioned, and further high-quality studies of antiviral agents, and their potential treatment combinations, are warranted in COVID-19.FundingLifeArc and CW+.
| S-EPMC9891737 | biostudies-literature