Ciprofloxacin for contacts of cases of meningococcal meningitis as an epidemic response: study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial

A Review of the Ring Trial Design for Evaluating Ring Interventions for Infectious Diseases

In trials of infectious disease interventions, rare outcomes and unpredictable spatiotemporal variation can introduce bias, reduce statistical power, and prevent conclusive inferences. Spillover effects can complicate inference if individual randomization is used to gain efficiency. Ring trials are a type of cluster-randomized trial that may increase efficiency and minimize bias, particularly in emergency and elimination settings with strong clustering of infection. They can be used to evaluate ring interventions, which are delivered to individuals in proximity to or contact with index cases. We conducted a systematic review of ring trials, compare them with other trial designs for evaluating ring interventions, and describe strengths and weaknesses of each design. Of 849 articles and 322 protocols screened, we identified 26 ring trials, 15 cluster-randomized trials, 5 trials that randomized households or individuals within rings, and 1 individually randomized trial. The most common interventions were postexposure prophylaxis (n = 23) and focal mass drug administration and screening and treatment (n = 7). Ring trials require robust surveillance systems and contact tracing for directly transmitted diseases. For rare diseases with strong spatiotemporal clustering, they may have higher efficiency and internal validity than cluster-randomized designs, in part because they ensure that no clusters are excluded from analysis due to zero cluster incidence. Though more research is needed to compare them with other types of trials, ring trials hold promise as a design that can increase trial speed and efficiency while reducing bias.

Characteristics of Neisseria Species Colonized in the Human’s Nasopharynx

Context: Neisseria meningitidis is the causative agent of a life-threatening infection with high mortality and morbidity worldwide. The most common types of this bacterium are serogroups A, B, C, W135, X, and Y. Although in some countries, such as Iran, the meningococcal meningitis has been well monitored and controlled by the use of divalent and quadrivalent vaccines, other fatal infections caused by these bacteria are still an important threat. For the above reason, this review focused on the differences of Neisseria characteristics, particularly in capsular composition, pathogenic and commensal stages to a better understanding of how to manage Neisseria infections. Evidence Acquisition: In this review, PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for English-language publications on pathogenic or commensal strains of Neisseria, meningococcal disease, Neisseria biology, genetic diversity, molecular typing, serogroups, diagnostic, and epidemiology around the world up to July 2019. All articles and academic reports in the defined area of this research were considered too. The data were extracted and descriptively discussed. Results: We included 85 studies in the survey. The data analysis revealed that the distribution of meningococcal serogroups was different regionally. For example, the serogroups C and W-135 accounted for Africa and Latin America regions, serogroup B in the European countries, and rarely in the Western Pacific, and serogroups A and C were dominant in Asian countries. Although data set for laboratory-based diagnosis of N. meningitidis are available for all countries, only 30% of the countries rely on reference laboratories for serogroup determination, and more than half of the countries lack the ability of surveillance system. Nevertheless, molecular detection procedure is also available for all countries. The use of the meningococcal vaccine is a variable country by country, but most countries have applied the meningococcal vaccine, either divalent or quadrivalent, for the protection of high-risk groups. Conclusions: Owing to the geographical distribution of N. meningitidis serogroups in circulating, each country has to monitor for changes in serogroups diversity and its control management. Furthermore, laboratories should scale up the epidemiology and disease burden. It should be mentioned that quadrivalent meningococcal vaccines reduce the meningococcal disease burden sharply.

Single-dose oral ciprofloxacin prophylaxis as a response to a meningococcal meningitis epidemic in the African meningitis belt: A 3-arm, open-label, cluster-randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic prophylaxis for contacts of meningitis cases is not recommended during outbreaks in the African meningitis belt. We assessed the effectiveness of single-dose oral ciprofloxacin administered to household contacts and in village-wide distributions on the overall attack rate (AR) in an outbreak of meningococcal meningitis.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this 3-arm, open-label, cluster-randomized trial during a meningococcal meningitis outbreak in Madarounfa District, Niger, villages notifying a suspected case were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to standard care (the control arm), single-dose oral ciprofloxacin for household contacts within 24 hours of case notification, or village-wide distribution of ciprofloxacin within 72 hours of first case notification. The primary outcome was the overall AR of suspected meningitis after inclusion. A random sample of 20 participating villages was enrolled to document any changes in fecal carriage prevalence of ciprofloxacin-resistant and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae before and after the intervention. Between April 22 and May 18, 2017, 49 villages were included: 17 to the control arm, 17 to household prophylaxis, and 15 to village-wide prophylaxis. A total of 248 cases were notified in the study after the index cases. The AR was 451 per 100,000 persons in the control arm, 386 per 100,000 persons in the household prophylaxis arm (t test versus control p = 0.68), and 190 per 100,000 persons in the village-wide prophylaxis arm (t test versus control p = 0.032). The adjusted AR ratio between the household prophylaxis arm and the control arm was 0.94 (95% CI 0.52-1.73, p = 0.85), and the adjusted AR ratio between the village-wide prophylaxis arm and the control arm was 0.40 (95% CI 0.19‒0.87, p = 0.022). No adverse events were notified. Baseline carriage prevalence of ciprofloxacin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae was 95% and of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae was >90%, and did not change post-intervention. One limitation of the study was the small number of cerebrospinal fluid samples sent for confirmatory testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Village-wide distribution of single-dose oral ciprofloxacin within 72 hours of case notification reduced overall meningitis AR. Distributions of ciprofloxacin could be an effective tool in future meningitis outbreak responses, but further studies investigating length of protection, effectiveness in urban settings, and potential impact on antimicrobial resistance patterns should be carried out.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02724046.