Inhaled amikacin versus placebo to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia: the AMIKINHAL double-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial protocol.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Pre-emptive inhaled antibiotics may be effective to reduce the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia among critically ill patients. Meta-analysis of small sample size trials showed a favourable signal. Inhaled antibiotics are associated with a reduced emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the benefit of a 3-day course of inhaled antibiotics among patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 3 days on the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia.Methods and analysis
Academic, investigator-initiated, parallel two group arms, double-blind, multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial. Patients invasively ventilated more than 3 days will be randomised to receive 20 mg/kg inhaled amikacin daily for 3 days or inhaled placebo (0.9% Sodium Chloride). Occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia will be recorded based on a standardised diagnostic framework from randomisation to day 28 and adjudicated by a centralised blinded committee.Ethics and dissemination
The protocol and amendments have been approved by the regional ethics review board and French competent authorities (Comité de protection des personnes Ouest I, No.2016-R29). All patients will be included after informed consent according to French law. Results will be disseminated in international scientific journals.Trial registration numbers
EudraCT 2016-001054-17 and NCT03149640.
SUBMITTER: Tavernier E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8442072 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Inhaled amikacin versus placebo to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia: the AMIKINHAL double-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial protocol.
Tavernier Elsa E Barbier Francois F Meziani Ferhat F Quenot Jean-Pierre JP Herbrecht Jean-Etienne JE Landais Mickael M Roux Damien D Seguin Philippe P Schnell David D Veinstein Anne A Veber Benoît B Lasocki Sigismond S Lu Qin Q Beduneau Gaetan G Ferrandiere Martine M Dahyot-Fizelier Claire C Plantefeve Gaetan G Nay Mai-Anh MA Merdji Hamid H Andreu Pascal P Vecellio Laurent L Muller Grégoire G Cabrera Maria M Le Pennec Deborah D Respaud Renaud R Lanotte Philippe P Gregoire Nicolas N Leclerc Marie M Helms Julie J Boulain Thierry T Lacherade Jean-Claude JC Ehrmann Stephan S
BMJ open 20210914 9
<h4>Introduction</h4>Pre-emptive inhaled antibiotics may be effective to reduce the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia among critically ill patients. Meta-analysis of small sample size trials showed a favourable signal. Inhaled antibiotics are associated with a reduced emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the benefit of a 3-day course of inhaled antibiotics among patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 3 days on the ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundUp to 60% of patients with Crohn's disease need intestinal resection within the first 10 years of diagnosis, and postoperative recurrence is common. We investigated whether mercaptopurine can prevent or delay postoperative clinical recurrence of Crohn's disease.MethodsWe did a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial at 29 UK secondary and tertiary hospitals of patients (aged >16 years in Scotland or >18 years in England and Wales) who had a confirmed diagnosis of Crohn's disease and had undergone intestinal resection. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated web-based randomisation system to oral daily mercaptopurine at a dose of 1 mg/kg bodyweight rounded to the nearest 25 mg or placebo; patients with low thiopurine methyltransferase activity received half the normal dose. Patients and their carers and physicians were masked to the treatment allocation. Patients were followed up for 3 years. The primary endpoint was clinical recurrence of Crohn's disease (Crohn's Disease Activity Index >150 plus 100-point increase in score) and the need for anti-inflammatory rescue treatment or primary surgical intervention. Primary and safety analyses were by intention to treat. Subgroup analyses by smoking status, previous thiopurines, previous infliximab or methotrexate, previous surgery, duration of disease, or age at diagnosis were also done. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register (ISRCTN89489788) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number 2006-005800-15).FindingsBetween June 6, 2008, and April 23, 2012, 240 patients with Crohn's disease were randomly assigned: 128 to mercaptopurine and 112 to placebo. All patients received at least one dose of study drug, and no randomly assigned patients were excluded from the analysis. 16 (13%) of patients in the mercaptopurine group versus 26 (23%) patients in the placebo group had a clinical recurrence of Crohn's disease and needed anti-inflammatory rescue treatment or primary surgical intervention (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 95% CI 0·27-1·06; p=0·07; unadjusted HR 0·53, 95% CI 0·28-0·99; p=0·046). In a subgroup analysis, three (10%) of 29 smokers in the mercaptopurine group and 12 (46%) of 26 in the placebo group had a clinical recurrence that needed treatment (HR 0·13, 95% CI 0·04-0·46), compared with 13 (13%) of 99 non-smokers in the mercaptopurine group and 14 (16%) of 86 in the placebo group (0·90, 0·42-1·94; pinteraction=0·018). The effect of mercaptopurine did not significantly differ from placebo for any of the other planned subgroup analyses (previous thiopurines, previous infliximab or methotrexate, previous surgery, duration of disease, or age at diagnosis). The incidence and types of adverse events were similar in the mercaptopurine and placebo groups. One patient on placebo died of ischaemic heart disease. Adverse events caused discontinuation of treatment in 39 (30%) of 128 patients in the mercaptopurine group versus 41 (37%) of 112 in the placebo group.InterpretationMercaptopurine is effective in preventing postoperative clinical recurrence of Crohn's disease, but only in patients who are smokers. Thus, in smokers, thiopurine treatment seems to be justified in the postoperative period, although smoking cessation should be strongly encouraged given that smoking increases the risk of recurrence.FundingMedical Research Council.
| S-EPMC6358144 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChildren with complicated severe acute malnutrition (SAM) have a greatly increased risk of mortality from infections while in hospital and after discharge. In HIV-infected children, mortality and admission to hospital are prevented by daily co-trimoxazole prophylaxis, despite locally reported bacterial resistance to co-trimoxazole. We aimed to assess the efficacy of daily co-trimoxazole prophylaxis on survival in children without HIV being treated for complicated SAM.MethodsWe did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study in four hospitals in Kenya (two rural hospitals in Kilifi and Malindi, and two urban hospitals in Mombasa and Nairobi) with children aged 60 days to 59 months without HIV admitted to hospital and diagnosed with SAM. We randomly assigned eligible participants (1:1) to 6 months of either daily oral co-trimoxazole prophylaxis (given as water-dispersible tablets; 120 mg per day for age <6 months, 240 mg per day for age 6 months to 5 years) or matching placebo. Assignment was done with computer-generated randomisation in permuted blocks of 20, stratified by centre and age younger or older than 6 months. Treatment allocation was concealed in opaque, sealed envelopes and patients, their families, and all trial staff were masked to treatment assignment. Children were given recommended medical care and feeding, and followed up for 12 months. The primary endpoint was mortality, assessed each month for the first 6 months, then every 2 months for the second 6 months. Secondary endpoints were nutritional recovery, readmission to hospital, and illness episodes treated as an outpatient. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00934492.FindingsBetween Nov 20, 2009, and March 14, 2013, we recruited and assigned 1778 eligible children to treatment (887 to co-trimoxazole prophylaxis and 891 to placebo). Median age was 11 months (IQR 7-16 months), 306 (17%) were younger than 6 months, 300 (17%) had oedematous malnutrition (kwashiorkor), and 1221 (69%) were stunted (length-for-age Z score <-2). During 1527 child-years of observation, 122 (14%) of 887 children in the co-trimoxazole group died, compared with 135 (15%) of 891 in the placebo group (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·71-1·16, p=0·429; 16·0 vs 17·7 events per 100 child-years observed (CYO); difference -1·7 events per 100 CYO, 95% CI -5·8 to 2·4]). In the first 6 months of the study (while participants received study medication), 63 suspected grade 3 or 4 associated adverse events were recorded among 57 (3%) children; 31 (2%) in the co-trimoxazole group and 32 (2%) in the placebo group (incidence rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·58-1·65). The most common adverse events of these grades were urticarial rash (grade 3, equally common in both groups), neutropenia (grade 4, more common in the co-trimoxazole group), and anaemia (both grades equally common in both groups). One child in the placebo group had fatal toxic epidermal necrolysis with concurrent Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteraemia.InterpretationDaily co-trimoxazole prophylaxis did not reduce mortality in children with complicated SAM without HIV. Other strategies need to be tested in clinical trials to reduce deaths in this population.FundingWellcome Trust, UK.
| S-EPMC6132285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntiretroviral therapy reduces the risk of tuberculosis, but tuberculosis is more common in people with HIV than in people without HIV. We aimed to assess the effect of isoniazid preventive therapy on the risk of tuberculosis in people infected with HIV-1 concurrently receiving antiretroviral therapy.MethodsFor this pragmatic randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Khayelitsha, South Africa, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive either isoniazid preventive therapy or a placebo for 12 months (could be completed during 15 months). Randomisation was done with random number generator software. Participants, physicians, and pharmacy staff were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was time to development of incident tuberculosis (definite, probable, or possible). We excluded tuberculosis at screening by sputum culture. We did a modified intention-to-treat analysis and excluded all patients randomly assigned to groups who withdrew before receiving study drug or whose baseline sputum culture results suggested prevalent tuberculosis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00463086.Findings1329 participants were randomly assigned to receive isoniazid preventive therapy (n=662) or placebo (n=667) between Jan 31, 2008, and Sept 31, 2011, and contributed 3227 person-years of follow-up to the analysis. We recorded 95 incident cases of tuberculosis; 37 were in the isoniazid preventive therapy group (2·3 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 1·6-3·1), and 58 in the placebo group (3·6 per 100 person-years, 2·8-4·7; hazard ratio [HR] 0·63, 95% CI 0·41-0·94). Study drug was discontinued because of grade 3 or 4 raised alanine transaminase concentrations in 19 of 662 individuals in the isoniazid preventive therapy group and ten of the 667 individuals in the placebo group (risk ratio 1·9, 95% CI 0·90-4·09). We noted no evidence that the effect of isoniazid preventive therapy was restricted to patients who were positive on tuberculin skin test or interferon gamma release assay (adjusted HR for patients with negative tests 0·43 [0·21-0·86] and 0·43 [0·20-0·96]; for positive tests 0·86 [0·37-2·00] and 0·55 [0·26-1·24], respectively).InterpretationWithout a more predictive test or a multivariate algorithm that predicts benefit, isoniazid preventive therapy should be recommended to all patients receiving antiretroviral therapy in moderate or high incidence areas irrespective of tuberculin skin test or interferon gamma release assay status.FundingDepartment of Health of South Africa, the Wellcome Trust, Médecins Sans Frontières, European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, Foundation for Innovation and New Diagnostics, the European Union, and Hasso Plattner (Institute of Infectious Diseases and Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town).
| S-EPMC4233253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNitazoxanide exerts antiviral activity in vitro and in vivo and anti-inflammatory effects, but its impact on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia is uncertain.MethodsA multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 19 hospitals in Brazil. Hospitalized adult patients requiring supplemental oxygen, with COVID-19 symptoms and a chest computed tomography scan suggestive of viral pneumonia or positive RT-PCR test for COVID-19 were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nitazoxanide (500 mg) or placebo, 3 times daily, for 5 days, and were followed for 14 days. The primary outcome was intensive care unit admission due to the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included clinical improvement, hospital discharge, oxygen requirements, death, and adverse events within 14 days.ResultsOf the 498 patients, 405 (202 in the nitazoxanide group and 203 in the placebo group) were included in the analyses. Admission to the intensive care unit did not differ between the groups (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.68 [0.38-1.20], p = 0.179); death rates also did not differ. Nitazoxanide improved the clinical outcome (2.75 [2.21-3.43], p < 0.0001), time to hospital discharge (1.37 [1.11-1.71], p = 0.005), and reduced oxygen requirements (0.77 [0.64-0.94], p = 0.011). C-reactive protein, D-dimer, and ferritin levels were lower in the nitazoxanide group than the placebo group on day 7. No serious adverse events were observed.ConclusionsNitazoxanide, compared with placebo, did not prevent admission to the intensive care unit for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.Clinical trial registrationBrazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (REBEC) RBR88bs9x; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04561219.
| S-EPMC9043450 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn patients with COVID-19, granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) might be a mediator of the hyperactive inflammatory response associated with respiratory failure and death. We aimed to evaluate whether mavrilimumab, a monoclonal antibody to the GM-CSF receptor, would improve outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.MethodsThis investigator-initiated, multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial was done at seven hospitals in the USA. Inclusion required hospitalisation, COVID-19 pneumonia, hypoxaemia, and a C-reactive protein concentration of more than 5 mg/dL. Patients were excluded if they required mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally, with stratification by hospital site, to receive mavrilimumab 6 mg/kg as a single intravenous infusion, or placebo. Participants and all clinical and research personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and off supplemental oxygen therapy at day 14. The primary outcome and safety were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04399980, NCT04463004, and NCT04492514.FindingsBetween May 28 and Sept 15, 2020, 40 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to mavrilimumab (n=21) or placebo (n=19). A trial of 60 patients was planned, but given slow enrolment, the study was stopped early to inform the natural history and potential treatment effect. At day 14, 12 (57%) patients in the mavrilimumab group were alive and off supplemental oxygen therapy compared with nine (47%) patients in the placebo group (odds ratio 1·48 [95% CI 0·43-5·16]; p=0·76). There were no treatment-related deaths, and adverse events were similar between groups.InterpretationThere was no significant difference in the proportion of patients alive and off oxygen therapy at day 14, although benefit or harm of mavrilimumab therapy in this patient population remains possible given the wide confidence intervals, and larger trials should be completed.FundingKiniksa Pharmaceuticals.
| S-EPMC7969143 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.
| S-EPMC5820409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).MethodsPatients with probable laboratory-supported, probable or definite ALS were enrolled by 25 Italian centres and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous rhEPO 40,000 IU or placebo fortnightly as add-on treatment to riluzole 100 mg daily for 12 months. The primary composite outcome was survival, tracheotomy or >23 h non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Secondary outcomes were ALSFRS-R, slow vital capacity (sVC) and quality of life (ALSAQ-40) decline. Tolerability was evaluated analysing adverse events (AEs) causing withdrawal. The randomisation sequence was computer-generated by blocks, stratified by centre, disease severity (ALSFRS-R cut-off score of 33) and onset (spinal or bulbar). The main outcome analysis was performed in all randomised patients and by intention-to-treat for the entire population and patients stratified by severity and onset. The study is registered, EudraCT 2009-016066-91.ResultsWe randomly assigned 208 patients, of whom 5 (1 rhEPO and 4 placebo) withdrew consent and 3 (placebo) became ineligible (retinal thrombosis, respiratory insufficiency, SOD1 mutation) before receiving treatment; 103 receiving rhEPO and 97 placebo were eligible for analysis. At 12 months, the annualised rate of death (rhEPO 0.11, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.20; placebo: 0.08, CI 0.04 to 0.17), tracheotomy or >23 h NIV (rhEPO 0.16, CI 0.10 to 0.27; placebo 0.18, CI 0.11 to 0.30) did not differ between groups, also after stratification by onset and ALSFRS-R at baseline. Withdrawal due to AE was 16.5% in rhEPO and 8.3% in placebo. No differences were found for secondary outcomes.ConclusionsRhEPO 40,000 IU fortnightly did not change the course of ALS.
| S-EPMC4515982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMemantine has been used off-label to treat frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTD). A previous 26-week open-label study suggested a transient, modest benefit on neuropsychiatric symptoms as measured by the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI). We aimed to determine whether memantine is an effective treatment for FTD.MethodsWe did a randomised, parallel group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 20 mg memantine taken orally daily for 26 weeks in patients with FTD. Participants met Neary criteria for behavioural variant FTD (bvFTD) or semantic dementia and had characteristic brain atrophy. Use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors was prohibited. Individuals were randomly assigned to receive either memantine or matched placebo tablets (1:1) in blocks of two and four patients. All patients and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were the change in total NPI score and clinical global impression of change (CGIC) score after 26 weeks and were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00545974.FindingsOf 100 patients screened, 81 were randomly assigned to receive memantine (39 patients) or placebo (42 patients). Five (6%) patients discontinued, and 76 completed the 26-week treatment. Enrolment numbers were lower than planned because of many patients' preference to take memantine or cholinesterase inhibitors off-label rather than participate in a clinical trial. Memantine treatment had no effect on either the NPI (mean difference 2·2, 95% CI -3·9 to 8·3, p=0·47) or CGIC (mean difference 0·0, -0·4 to 0·4, p=0·90) after 26 weeks of treatment. Memantine was generally well tolerated; however, patients in the memantine group had more frequent cognitive adverse events (six patients) than those in the placebo group (one).InterpretationMemantine treatment showed no benefit in patients with FTD. These data do not support memantine use in FTD.FundingForest Research Institute.
| S-EPMC3756890 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNo specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656.FindingsBetween Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early.InterpretationIn this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.FundingChinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.
| S-EPMC7190303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aimsPost-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a complication associated with important morbidity, occasional mortality and high costs. Preventive strategies are suboptimal as PEP continues to affect 4% to 9% of patients. Spraying epinephrine on the papilla may decrease oedema and prevent PEP. This study aimed to compare rectal indomethacin plus epinephrine (EI) versus rectal indomethacin plus sterile water (WI) for the prevention of PEP.Patients and methodsThis multicentre randomised controlled trial included patients aged >18 years with an indication for ERCP and naive major papilla. All patients received 100 mg of rectal indomethacin and 10 mL of sterile water or a 1:10 000 epinephrine dilution. Patients were asked about PEP symptoms via telephone 24 hours and 7 days after the procedure. The trial was stopped half way through after a new publication reported an increased incidence of PEP among patients receiving epinephrine.ResultsOf the 3602 patients deemed eligible, 3054 were excluded after screening. The remaining 548 patients were randomised to EI group (n=275) or WI group (n=273). The EI and WI groups had similar baseline characteristics. Patients in the EI group had a similar incidence of PEP to those in the WI group (3.6% (10/275) vs 5.12% (14/273), p=0.41). Pancreatic duct guidewire insertion was identified as a risk factor for PEP (OR 4.38, 95% CI (1.44 to 13.29), p=0.009).ConclusionSpraying epinephrine on the papilla was no more effective than rectal indomethacin alone for the prevention of PEP.Trial registration numberThis study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02959112).
| S-EPMC7871689 | biostudies-literature