Gentamicin versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea (G-TOG trial): study protocol for a randomised trial

Gentamicin, azithromycin and ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea: the relationship between antibiotic MIC and clinical outcome

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the relationship between MIC and clinical outcome in a randomized controlled trial that compared gentamicin 240 mg plus azithromycin 1 g with ceftriaxone 500 mg plus azithromycin 1 g. MIC analysis was performed on Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates from all participants who were culture positive before they received treatment.

METHODS

Viable gonococcal cultures were available from 279 participants, of whom 145 received ceftriaxone/azithromycin and 134 received gentamicin/azithromycin. Four participants (6 isolates) and 14 participants (17 isolates) did not clear infection in the ceftriaxone/azithromycin and gentamicin/azithromycin arms, respectively. MICs were determined by Etest on GC agar base with 1% Vitox. The geometric mean MICs of azithromycin, ceftriaxone and gentamicin were compared using logistic and linear regression according to treatment received and N. gonorrhoeae clearance.

RESULTS

As the azithromycin MIC increased, gentamicin/azithromycin treatment was less effective than ceftriaxone/azithromycin at clearing N. gonorrhoeae. There was a higher geometric mean MIC of azithromycin for isolates from participants who had received gentamicin/azithromycin and did not clear infection compared with those who did clear infection [ratio 1.95 (95% CI 1.28-2.97)], but the use of categorical MIC breakpoints did not accurately predict the treatment response. The geometric mean MIC of azithromycin was higher in isolates from the pharynx compared with genital isolates.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that categorical resistance to azithromycin or ceftriaxone in vitro, and higher gentamicin MICs in the absence of breakpoints, were poorly predictive of treatment failure.

Using rapid point-of-care tests to inform antibiotic choice to mitigate drug resistance in gonorrhoea

Background

The first cases of extensively drug resistant gonorrhoea were recorded in the United Kingdom in 2018. There is a public health need for strategies on how to deploy existing and novel antibiotics to minimise the risk of resistance development. As rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) to predict susceptibility are coming to clinical use, coupling the introduction of an antibiotic with diagnostics that can slow resistance emergence may offer a novel paradigm for maximising antibiotic benefits. Gepotidacin is a novel antibiotic with known resistance and resistance-predisposing mutations. In particular, a mutation that confers resistance to ciprofloxacin acts as the ‘stepping-stone’ mutation to gepotidacin resistance.

Aim

To investigate how POCTs detecting Neisseria gonorrhoeae resistance mutations for ciprofloxacin and gepotidacin can be used to minimise the risk of resistance development to gepotidacin.

Methods

We use individual-based stochastic simulations to formally investigate the aim.

Results

The level of testing needed to reduce the risk of resistance development depends on the mutation rate under treatment and the prevalence of stepping-stone mutations. A POCT is most effective if the mutation rate under antibiotic treatment is no more than two orders of magnitude above the mutation rate without treatment and the prevalence of stepping-stone mutations is 1–13%.

Conclusion

Mutation frequencies and rates should be considered when estimating the POCT usage required to reduce the risk of resistance development in a given population. Molecular POCTs for resistance mutations and stepping-stone mutations to resistance are likely to become important tools in antibiotic stewardship.

New treatment options for Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the era of emerging antimicrobial resistance

Neisseria gonorrhoeae, the causative agent of gonorrhoea, has rapidly evolved from an exquisitely susceptible pathogen into a 'superbug' with the capacity to exhibit an extensively drug resistant (XDR) phenotype. The threat of untreatable gonorrhoea now looms on the horizon while the arsenal of effective antimicrobial agents diminishes with time. Ceftriaxone remains the mainstay of first-line therapy as a single agent or as the backbone of a dual therapy regimen. The implementation of new assays to facilitate 'precision' treatment, based on the prediction of N. gonorrhoeae susceptibility to old anti-gonococcal drugs, may enable sparing use of ceftriaxone in those countries that can afford this technology. A few existing drugs, such as ertapenem, can be repositioned to help manage multi-drug resistant and XDR gonorrhoea. Recent clinical trials involving solithromycin and delafloxacin have generated disappointing results in that both agents failed to show non-inferiority to conventional ceftriaxone-based regimens. At present, zoliflodacin and gepotidacin appear to be the most promising antimicrobial agents in clinical development. Both drugs performed well in eradicating urogenital gonorrhoea in recent Phase 2 trials; however, treatment failures were reported at the oropharyngeal site, which is an important site of infection in men who have sex with men and sex workers. Given this observation, it is unlikely that either of these new agents could be promoted for monotherapy of gonorrhoea. The pre-clinical pipeline remains relatively empty of agents likely to progress to clinical development for gonorrhoea treatment and increased investment into gonorrhoea-specific drug discovery is recommended.

Gentamicin as an alternative to ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea: the G-TOG non-inferiority RCT

BACKGROUND

Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection that can cause pain and discomfort, affect fertility in women and lead to epididymo-orchitis in men. Current treatment is with ceftriaxone, but there is increasing evidence of antimicrobial resistance reducing its effectiveness. Gentamicin is a potential alternative treatment requiring further evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative treatment to ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea.

DESIGN

A multicentre, parallel-group, blinded, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Fourteen sexual health clinics in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 16-70 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated, untreated genital, pharyngeal or rectal gonorrhoea based on a positive Gram-stained smear on microscopy or a positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT).

RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING

Participants were randomised using a secure web-based system, stratified by clinic. Participants, investigators and research staff assessing participants were blinded to treatment allocation.

INTERVENTIONS

Allocation was to either 240 mg of gentamicin (intervention) or 500 mg of ceftriaxone (standard treatment), both administered as a single intramuscular injection. All participants also received 1 g of oral azithromycin.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome measure was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all infected sites, confirmed by a negative Aptima Combo 2® (Hologic Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA) NAAT, at 2 weeks post treatment.

RESULTS

We randomised 720 participants, of whom 81% were men. There were 358 participants in the gentamicin group and 362 in the ceftriaxone group; 292 (82%) and 306 (85%) participants, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. Non-inferiority of gentamicin to ceftriaxone could not be demonstrated [adjusted risk difference for microbiological clearance -6.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.4% to -2.4%]. Clearance of genital infection was similar in the two groups, at 94% in the gentamicin group and 98% in the ceftriaxone group, but clearance of pharyngeal infection and rectal infection was lower in the gentamicin group (80% vs. 96% and 90% vs. 98%, respectively). Reported pain at the injection site was higher for gentamicin than for ceftriaxone. The side-effect profiles were comparable between the groups. Only one serious adverse event was reported and this was deemed not to be related to the trial medication. The economic analysis found that treatment with gentamicin is not cost neutral compared with standard care, with average patient treatment costs higher for those allocated to gentamicin (£13.90, 95% CI £2.47 to £37.34) than to ceftriaxone (£6.72, 95% CI £1.36 to £17.84).

LIMITATIONS

Loss to follow-up was 17% but was similar in both treatment arms. Twelve per cent of participants had a negative NAAT for gonorrhoea at their baseline visit but this was balanced between treatment groups and unlikely to have biased the trial results.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial was unable to demonstrate non-inferiority of gentamicin compared with ceftriaxone in the clearance of gonorrhoea at all infected sites. Clearance at pharyngeal and rectal sites was lower for participants allocated to gentamicin than for those allocated to ceftriaxone, but was similar for genital sites in both groups. Gentamicin was associated with more severe injection site pain. However, both gentamicin and ceftriaxone appeared to be well tolerated.

FUTURE WORK

Exploration of the genetic determinants of antibiotic resistance in N. gonorrhoeae will help to identify accurate markers of decreased susceptibility. Greater understanding of the immune response to infection can assist gonococcal vaccine development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51783227.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Antibiotic therapy for pelvic inflammatory disease

BACKGROUND

Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) affects 4% to 12% of women of reproductive age. The main intervention for acute PID is broad-spectrum antibiotics administered intravenously, intramuscularly or orally. We assessed the optimal treatment regimen for PID.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic regimens to treat PID.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2020, we searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Review Group's Specialized Register, which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1944 to 2020, located through hand and electronic searching; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; four other databases; and abstracts in selected publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing antibiotics with placebo or other antibiotics for the treatment of PID in women of reproductive age, either as inpatient or outpatient treatment. We limited our review to a comparison of drugs in current use that are recommended by the 2015 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for treatment of PID.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and conducted GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 RCTs (6894 women) in this review, adding two new RCTs at this update. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to high, the main limitations being serious risk of bias (due to poor reporting of study methods and lack of blinding), serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision. None of the studies reported quinolones and cephalosporins, or the outcomes laparoscopic evidence of resolution of PID based on physician opinion or fertility outcomes. Length of stay results were insufficiently reported for analysis. Regimens containing azithromycin versus regimens containing doxycycline We are uncertain whether there was a clinically relevant difference between azithromycin and doxycycline in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.55; 2 RCTs, 243 women; I² = 72%; very low-quality evidence). The analyses may result in little or no difference between azithromycin and doxycycline in rates of severe PID (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 309 women; low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.34; 3 RCTs, 552 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). In a sensitivity analysis limited to a single study at low risk of bias, azithromycin probably improves the rates of cure in mild-moderate PID (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.67; 133 women; moderate-quality evidence), compared to doxycycline.  Regimens containing quinolone versus regimens containing cephalosporin The analysis shows there may be little or no clinically relevant difference between quinolones and cephalosporins in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 772 women; I² = 15%; low-quality evidence), or severe PID (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.23; 2 RCTs, 313 women; I² = 7%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there was a difference between quinolones and cephalosporins in adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 2.24, 95% CI 0.52 to 9.72; 6 RCTs, 1085 women; I² =  0%; very low-quality evidence). Regimens with nitroimidazole versus regimens without nitroimidazole There was probably little or no difference between regimens with or without nitroimidazoles (metronidazole) in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09; 6 RCTs, 2660 women; I² = 50%; moderate-quality evidence), or severe PID (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01; 11 RCTs, 1383 women; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that there was little to no difference in in adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.61; 17 studies, 4021 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). . In a sensitivity analysis limited to studies at low risk of bias, there was little or no difference for rates of cure in mild-moderate PID (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 3 RCTs, 1434 women; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence). Regimens containing clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus quinolone We are uncertain whether quinolone have little to no effect in  rates of cure for mild-moderate PID compared to clindamycin plus aminoglycoside (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.13; 1 RCT, 25 women; very low-quality evidence). The analysis may result in little or no difference between quinolone vs. clindamycin plus aminoglycoside in severe PID (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19; 2 studies, 151 women; I² =  0%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether quinolone reduces adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.72; 3 RCTs, 163 women; I² =  0%; very low-quality evidence). Regimens containing clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus regimens containing cephalosporin We are uncertain whether clindamycin plus aminoglycoside improves the rates of cure for mild-moderate PID compared to cephalosporin (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 150 women; I² =  0%; low-quality evidence). There was probably little or no difference in rates of cure in severe PID with clindamycin plus aminoglycoside compared to cephalosporin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; 10 RCTs, 959 women; I²= 21%; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether clindamycin plus aminoglycoside reduces adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment compared to cephalosporin (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.42; 10 RCTs, 1172 women; I² =  0%; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether one treatment was safer or more effective than any other for the cure of mild-moderate or severe PID Based on a single study at a low risk of bias, a macrolide (azithromycin) probably improves the rates of cure of mild-moderate PID, compared to tetracycline (doxycycline).

Epidemiology, molecular characterisation and antimicrobial susceptibility of Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates in Madrid, Spain, in 2016

With the aim to elucidate gonococcal antimicrobial resistance (AMR)–risk factors, we undertook a retrospective analysis of the molecular epidemiology and AMR of 104 Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates from clinical samples (urethra, rectum, pharynx and cervix) of 94 individuals attending a sexually transmitted infection clinic in Madrid (Spain) from July to October 2016, and explored potential links with socio-demographic, behavioural and clinical factors of patients. Antimicrobial susceptibility was determined by E-tests, and isolates were characterised by N. gonorrhoeae multi-antigen sequence typing. Penicillin resistance was recorded for 15.4% of isolates, and most were susceptible to tetracycline, cefixime and azithromycin; a high incidence of ciprofloxacin resistance (~40%) was found. Isolates were grouped into 51 different sequence types (STs) and 10 genogroups (G), with G2400, ST5441, ST2318, ST12547 and G2992 being the most prevalent. A significant association (P = 0.015) was evident between HIV-positive MSM individuals and having a ciprofloxacin-resistant strain. Likewise, a strong association (P = 0.047) was found between patient age of MSM and carriage of isolates expressing decreased susceptibility to azithromycin. A decrease in the incidence of AMR gonococcal strains and a change in the strain populations previously reported from other parts of Spain were observed. Of note, the prevalent multi-drug resistant genogroup G1407 was represented by only three strains in our study, while the pan-susceptible clones such as ST5441, and ST2318, associated with extragenital body sites were the most prevalent.

Gentamicin compared with ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea (G-ToG): a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection for which ceftriaxone is the current first-line treatment, but antimicrobial resistance is emerging. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative to ceftriaxone (both combined with azithromycin) for treatment of gonorrhoea.

METHODS

G-ToG was a multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing treatment with gentamicin to treatment with ceftriaxone for patients with gonorrhoea. The patients, treating physician, and assessing physician were masked to treatment but the treating nurse was not. The trial took place at 14 sexual health clinics in England. Adults aged 16-70 years were eligible for participation if they had a diagnosis of uncomplicated genital, pharyngeal, or rectal gonorrhoea. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single intramuscular dose of either gentamicin 240 mg (gentamicin group) or ceftriaxone 500 mg (ceftriaxone group). All participants also received a single 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by clinic and performed using a secure web-based system. The primary outcome was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all initially infected sites, defined as a negative nucleic acid amplification test 2 weeks post treatment. Primary outcome analyses included only participants who had follow-up data, irrespective of the baseline visit N gonorrhoeae test result. The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a lower confidence limit of 5% for the risk difference. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN51783227.

FINDINGS

Of 1762 patients assessed, we enrolled 720 participants between Oct 7, 2014, and Nov 14, 2016, and randomly assigned 358 to gentamicin and 362 to ceftriaxone. Primary outcome data were available for 306 (85%) of 362 participants allocated to ceftriaxone and 292 (82%) of 358 participants allocated to gentamicin. At 2 weeks after treatment, infection had cleared for 299 (98%) of 306 participants in the ceftriaxone group compared with 267 (91%) of 292 participants in the gentamicin group (adjusted risk difference -6·4%, 95% CI -10·4% to -2·4%). Of the 328 participants who had a genital infection, 151 (98%) of 154 in the ceftriaxone group and 163 (94%) of 174 in the gentamicin group had clearance at follow-up (adjusted risk difference -4·4%, -8·7 to 0). For participants with a pharyngeal infection, a greater proportion receiving ceftriaxone had clearance at follow-up (108 [96%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 82 [80%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -15·3%, -24·0 to -6·5). Similarly, a greater proportion of participants with rectal infection in the ceftriaxone group had clearance (134 [98%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 107 [90%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -7·8%, -13·6 to -2·0). Thus, we did not find that a single dose of gentamicin 240 mg was non-inferior to a single dose of ceftriaxone 500 mg for the treatment of gonorrhoea, when both drugs were combined with a 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. The side-effect profiles were similar between groups, although severity of pain at the injection site was higher for gentamicin (mean visual analogue pain score 36 of 100 in the gentamicin group vs 21 of 100 in the ceftriaxone group).

INTERPRETATION

Gentamicin is not appropriate as first-line treatment for gonorrhoea but remains potentially useful for patients with isolated genital infection, or for patients who are allergic or intolerant to ceftriaxone, or harbour a ceftriaxone-resistant isolate. Further research is required to identify and test new alternatives to ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health Research.