Sitafloxacin- Versus Moxifloxacin-Based Sequential Treatment for Mycoplasma Genitalium Infections: Protocol for a Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mycoplasma genitalium is an emerging sexually transmitted pathogen associated with increasing antibiotic resistance. The current treatment guidelines recommend moxifloxacin-sequential therapy for macrolide-resistant Mgenitalium or strains with unknown resistance profiles. However, it is unclear whether sitafloxacin, a 4th-generation fluoroquinolone antibiotic, is effective against resistant strains. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of sitafloxacin- and moxifloxacin-based treatment regimens for managing Mgenitalium infections. METHODS: We will conduct this randomized controlled trial at multiple centers in Japan. Eligible participants include adults aged 18 years or older with a confirmed Mgenitalium infection, as determined through the nucleic acid amplification test. Patients will be randomly assigned using a stratified approach based on the treatment facility and infection site. The interventions comprise oral sitafloxacin (200 mg) daily for 7 days (with optional pretreatment of oral doxycycline, 200 mg, daily for up to 7 days), with a control group receiving oral doxycycline (200 mg) daily for 7 days followed by moxifloxacin (400 mg) daily for another 7 days. The primary outcome is the treatment success rate with a superiority margin of 10%, as confirmed through the nucleic acid amplification test. Secondary outcomes encompass changes in the bacterial load at the urogenital or rectal sites and the emergence of posttreatment-resistant mutant strains. RESULTS: Enrollment commenced in June 2023 and will conclude in December 2024, with findings anticipated by 2025. The expected success rates fall within the range of 80% for sitafloxacin and 42% for moxifloxacin against Mgenitalium carrying the G248T (S83I) mutation, based on previous studies. Accordingly, with a 5% significance level (2-sided) and 80% statistical power, we aim to recruit 50 participants per group, factoring in a 10% expected dropout rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide valuable insights into the efficacy and safety of sitafloxacin- versus moxifloxacin-based sequential therapy in treating Mgenitalium infections. These findings have the potential to influence clinical guidelines, favoring more effective therapeutic choices. The multicenter approach enhances the robustness of this study. However, a limitation is the potential insufficiency of statistical power to detect posttreatment-resistant mutant strains in each group, rendering posttreatment-resistance mutations a notable concern. In the future, we may need to increase the sample size to enhance power. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs031230111); https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCTs031230111. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52565.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".