Rifampicin and clarithromycin (extended release) versus rifampicin and streptomycin for limited Buruli ulcer lesions: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial.
Administration, Oral
Adolescent
Adult
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Benin
Buruli Ulcer
/ drug therapy
Child
Clarithromycin
/ administration & dosage
Delayed-Action Preparations
/ administration & dosage
Drug Therapy, Combination
Female
Ghana
Humans
Male
Rifampin
/ administration & dosage
Streptomycin
/ administration & dosage
Wound Healing
/ drug effects
Young Adult
Journal
Lancet (London, England)
ISSN: 1474-547X
Titre abrégé: Lancet
Pays: England
ID NLM: 2985213R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 04 2020
18 04 2020
Historique:
received:
20
09
2019
revised:
23
11
2019
accepted:
07
01
2020
pubmed:
17
3
2020
medline:
8
5
2020
entrez:
16
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Buruli ulcer is a neglected tropical disease caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans infection that damages the skin and subcutis. It is most prevalent in western and central Africa and Australia. Standard antimicrobial treatment with oral rifampicin 10 mg/kg plus intramuscular streptomycin 15 mg/kg once daily for 8 weeks (RS8) is highly effective, but streptomycin injections are painful and potentially harmful. We aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fully oral rifampicin 10 mg/kg plus clarithromycin 15 mg/kg extended release once daily for 8 weeks (RC8) with that of RS8 for treatment of early Buruli ulcer lesions. We did an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised (1:1 with blocks of six), multicentre, phase 3 clinical trial comparing fully oral RC8 with RS8 in patients with early, limited Buruli ulcer lesions. There were four trial sites in hospitals in Ghana (Agogo, Tepa, Nkawie, Dunkwa) and one in Benin (Pobè). Participants were included if they were aged 5 years or older and had typical Buruli ulcer with no more than one lesion (caterories I and II) no larger than 10 cm in diameter. The trial was open label, and neither the investigators who took measurements of the lesions nor the attending doctors were masked to treatment assignment. The primary clinical endpoint was lesion healing (ie, full epithelialisation or stable scar) without recurrence at 52 weeks after start of antimicrobial therapy. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A sample size of 332 participants was calculated to detect inferiority of RC8 by a margin of 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01659437. Between Jan 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2017, participants were recruited to the trial. We stopped recruitment after 310 participants. Median age of participants was 14 years (IQR 10-29) and 153 (52%) were female. 297 patients had PCR-confirmed Buruli ulcer; 151 (51%) were assigned to RS8 treatment, and 146 (49%) received oral RC8 treatment. In the RS8 group, lesions healed in 144 (95%, 95% CI 91 to 98) of 151 patients, whereas lesions healed in 140 (96%, 91 to 99) of 146 patients in the RC8 group. The difference in proportion, -0·5% (-5·2 to 4·2), was not significantly greater than zero (p=0·59), showing that RC8 treatment is non-inferior to RS8 treatment for lesion healing at 52 weeks. Treatment-related adverse events were recorded in 20 (13%) patients receiving RS8 and in nine (7%) patients receiving RC8. Most adverse events were grade 1-2, but one (1%) patient receiving RS8 developed serious ototoxicity and ended treatment after 6 weeks. No patients needed surgical resection. Four patients (two in each study group) had skin grafts. Fully oral RC8 regimen was non-inferior to RS8 for treatment of early, limited Buruli ulcer and was associated with fewer adverse events. Therefore, we propose that fully oral RC8 should be the preferred therapy for early, limited lesions of Buruli ulcer. WHO with additional support from MAP International, American Leprosy Missions, Fondation Raoul Follereau France, Buruli ulcer Groningen Foundation, Sanofi-Pasteur, and BuruliVac.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Buruli ulcer is a neglected tropical disease caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans infection that damages the skin and subcutis. It is most prevalent in western and central Africa and Australia. Standard antimicrobial treatment with oral rifampicin 10 mg/kg plus intramuscular streptomycin 15 mg/kg once daily for 8 weeks (RS8) is highly effective, but streptomycin injections are painful and potentially harmful. We aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fully oral rifampicin 10 mg/kg plus clarithromycin 15 mg/kg extended release once daily for 8 weeks (RC8) with that of RS8 for treatment of early Buruli ulcer lesions.
METHODS
We did an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised (1:1 with blocks of six), multicentre, phase 3 clinical trial comparing fully oral RC8 with RS8 in patients with early, limited Buruli ulcer lesions. There were four trial sites in hospitals in Ghana (Agogo, Tepa, Nkawie, Dunkwa) and one in Benin (Pobè). Participants were included if they were aged 5 years or older and had typical Buruli ulcer with no more than one lesion (caterories I and II) no larger than 10 cm in diameter. The trial was open label, and neither the investigators who took measurements of the lesions nor the attending doctors were masked to treatment assignment. The primary clinical endpoint was lesion healing (ie, full epithelialisation or stable scar) without recurrence at 52 weeks after start of antimicrobial therapy. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A sample size of 332 participants was calculated to detect inferiority of RC8 by a margin of 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01659437.
FINDINGS
Between Jan 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2017, participants were recruited to the trial. We stopped recruitment after 310 participants. Median age of participants was 14 years (IQR 10-29) and 153 (52%) were female. 297 patients had PCR-confirmed Buruli ulcer; 151 (51%) were assigned to RS8 treatment, and 146 (49%) received oral RC8 treatment. In the RS8 group, lesions healed in 144 (95%, 95% CI 91 to 98) of 151 patients, whereas lesions healed in 140 (96%, 91 to 99) of 146 patients in the RC8 group. The difference in proportion, -0·5% (-5·2 to 4·2), was not significantly greater than zero (p=0·59), showing that RC8 treatment is non-inferior to RS8 treatment for lesion healing at 52 weeks. Treatment-related adverse events were recorded in 20 (13%) patients receiving RS8 and in nine (7%) patients receiving RC8. Most adverse events were grade 1-2, but one (1%) patient receiving RS8 developed serious ototoxicity and ended treatment after 6 weeks. No patients needed surgical resection. Four patients (two in each study group) had skin grafts.
INTERPRETATION
Fully oral RC8 regimen was non-inferior to RS8 for treatment of early, limited Buruli ulcer and was associated with fewer adverse events. Therefore, we propose that fully oral RC8 should be the preferred therapy for early, limited lesions of Buruli ulcer.
FUNDING
WHO with additional support from MAP International, American Leprosy Missions, Fondation Raoul Follereau France, Buruli ulcer Groningen Foundation, Sanofi-Pasteur, and BuruliVac.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32171422
pii: S0140-6736(20)30047-7
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30047-7
pmc: PMC7181188
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Delayed-Action Preparations
0
Clarithromycin
H1250JIK0A
Rifampin
VJT6J7R4TR
Streptomycin
Y45QSO73OB
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01659437']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1259-1267Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/J01477X/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Investigateurs
Samuel Osei Mireku
(S)
Justice Abotsi
(J)
Joseph Ken Adu Poku
(JK)
Richard Asamoah-Frimpong
(R)
Bright Osei-Wusu
(B)
Edward Sarpong
(E)
Beatrice Konadu
(B)
Ernest Opoku
(E)
Mark Forson
(M)
Mathias Ndogyele
(M)
Elizabeth Ofori
(E)
Felicity Aboagye
(F)
Thomas Berko
(T)
George Amofa
(G)
Anastasia Nsiah
(A)
Joyce Mensah-Bonsu
(J)
Joseph Ofori Nyarko
(J)
Yaw Ampem Amoako
(YA)
Elliot Koranteng Tannor
(E)
Justice Boakye-Appiah
(J)
Aloysius Dzibordzi Loglo
(A)
Mabel Sarpong-Duah
(M)
Bernadette Agbavor
(B)
Marie Françoise Ardent
(MF)
Arnaud Yamadjako
(A)
Naomi Adanmado Gersande
(N)
Ambroise Adeye
(A)
Martial Kindjinou
(M)
None Akpolan
Maxime Kiki
(M)
Espoir Sodjinou
(E)
Clémence Guegnard
(C)
Sandor-Adrian Klis
(SA)
Kristien Velding
(K)
Till Omansen
(T)
David Ofori-Adjei
(D)
Sarah Eyangoh
(S)
Alan Knell
(A)
William Faber
(W)
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 World Health Organization; licensee Elsevier. This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.
Références
Trop Med Int Health. 2016 Sep;21(9):1191-6
pubmed: 27456068
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(2):1161-6
pubmed: 24323473
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007 Oct;51(10):3737-9
pubmed: 17664316
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014 Mar 13;8(3):e2739
pubmed: 24625583
Emerg Infect Dis. 2018 Nov;24(11):1988-1997
pubmed: 30334704
PLoS Med. 2010 Mar 24;7(3):e1000251
pubmed: 20352064
Trop Med Int Health. 2005 Dec;10(12):1251-7
pubmed: 16359405
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2002 Aug;67(2):207-13
pubmed: 12389949
Intern Med J. 2017 Sep;47(9):1011-1019
pubmed: 28585259
Nat Commun. 2018 Dec 18;9(1):5370
pubmed: 30560872
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Dec 29;10(12):e0005261
pubmed: 28033343
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005 Aug;49(8):3182-6
pubmed: 16048922
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Mar 14;13(3):e0007273
pubmed: 30870426
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 15;70(9):1993-1997
pubmed: 31231766
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011 Jan 04;5(1):e933
pubmed: 21245920
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Apr;52(4):1246-9
pubmed: 24478404
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 21;9(2):e89407
pubmed: 24586755
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Jul;7(7):e821-e822
pubmed: 31200878
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015 Jan;92(1):115-7
pubmed: 25331802
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016 Apr 22;60(5):2692-5
pubmed: 26883709
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Jun 5;12(6):e0006560
pubmed: 29870529
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Apr 15;48(8):1055-64
pubmed: 19275499
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Jun;18(6):650-656
pubmed: 29605498
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019 Jun 24;63(7):
pubmed: 31036687
Lancet. 2010 Feb 20;375(9715):664-72
pubmed: 20137805
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Jul;7(7):e912-e922
pubmed: 31200890
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003 Apr;47(4):1228-32
pubmed: 12654651
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Aug 13;12(8):e0006728
pubmed: 30102705
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Feb 15;54(4):519-26
pubmed: 22156855
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010 Sep;54(9):3678-85
pubmed: 20566765
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Apr 14;10(4):e0004603
pubmed: 27078028
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014 Oct 02;8(10):e3200
pubmed: 25275562
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jul;2(7):e422-30
pubmed: 25103396
BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Mar 12;19(1):247
pubmed: 30871489
Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Jan 1;52(1):94-6
pubmed: 21148526
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010 Sep;54(9):3878-83
pubmed: 20585115
Emerg Infect Dis. 2018 Jan;24(1):
pubmed: 28980523