Safety and efficacy of alternative antibiotic regimens compared with 7 day injectable procaine benzylpenicillin and gentamicin for outpatient treatment of neonates and young infants with clinical signs of severe infection when referral is not possible: a randomised, open-label, equivalence trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Severe infections remain one of the main causes of neonatal deaths worldwide. Possible severe infection is diagnosed in young infants (aged 0-59 days) according to the presence of one or more clinical signs. The recommended treatment is hospital admission with 7-10 days of injectable antibiotic therapy. In low-income and middle-income countries, barriers to hospital care lead to delayed, inadequate, or no treatment for many young infants. We aimed to identify effective alternative antibiotic regimens to expand treatment options for situations where hospital admission is not possible. METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, equivalence trial in four urban hospitals and one rural field site in Bangladesh to determine whether two alternative antibiotic regimens with reduced numbers of injectable antibiotics combined with oral antibiotics had similar efficacy and safety to the standard regimen, which was also used as outpatient treatment. We randomly assigned infants who showed at least one clinical sign of severe, but not critical, infection (except fast breathing alone), whose parents refused hospital admission, to one of the three treatment regimens. We stratified randomisation by study site and age (<7 days or 7-59 days) using computer-generated randomisation sequences. The standard treatment was intramuscular procaine benzylpenicillin and gentamicin once per day for 7 days (group A). The alternative regimens were intramuscular gentamicin once per day and oral amoxicillin twice per day for 7 days (group B) or intramuscular procaine benzylpenicillin and gentamicin once per day for 2 days, then oral amoxicillin twice per day for 5 days (group C). The primary outcome was treatment failure within 7 days after enrolment. Assessors of treatment failure were masked to treatment allocation. Primary analysis was per protocol. We used a prespecified similarity margin of 5% to assess equivalence between regimens. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00844337. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2013, we recruited 2490 young infants into the trial. We assigned 830 infants to group A, 831 infants to group B, and 829 infants to group C. 2367 (95%) infants fulfilled per-protocol criteria. 78 (10%) of 795 per-protocol infants had treatment failure in group A compared with 65 (8%) of 782 infants in group B (risk difference -1.5%, 95% CI -4.3 to 1.3) and 64 (8%) of 790 infants in group C (-1.7%, -4.5 to 1.1). In group A, 14 (2%) infants died before day 15, compared with 12 (2%) infants in group B and 12 (2%) infants in group C. Non-fatal relapse rates were similar in all three groups (12 [2%] infants in group A vs 13 [2%] infants in group B and 10 [1%] infants in group C). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that the two alternative antibiotic regimens for outpatient treatment of clinical signs of severe infection in young infants whose parents refused hospital admission are as efficacious as the standard regimen. This finding could increase treatment options in resource-poor settings when referral care is not available or acceptable.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».