scholarly journals Safety and Tolerability of Bacteriophage Therapy in Severe Staphylococcus aureus Infection

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Petrovic Fabijan ◽  
Ruby CY Lin ◽  
Josephine Ho ◽  
Susan Maddocks ◽  
Jonathan R Iredell ◽  
...  

AbstractImportanceThe effect of IV administration of a bacteriophage cocktail produced under GMP conditions on patients with severe S. aureus infection, including complicated bacteraemia, endocarditis and septic shock, is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess safety and tolerability of adjunctive bacteriophage therapy in patients with severe S. aureus infections.Design, Setting, ParticipantsObservational, open-label clinical trial of thirteen critically-ill patients admitted to a tertiary-referral hospital with S. aureus bacteraemia (including infective endocarditis, n=6) were assessed by the treating clinician and two consulting infectious diseases physicians to independently verify that routine medical and surgical therapy was optimal and that a poor outcome remained likely. Compassionate access to therapy was approved by both US and Australian regulators and by the Westmead Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.InterventionA GMP-quality preparation of three combined Myoviridae bacteriophages with specific activity against S. aureus (AB-SA01), was administered intravenously in conjunction with optimal antibiotic therapy.Main Outcome and MeasurementsPhysiological, haematological and biochemical markers of infection, bacterial and bacteriophage kinetics in blood, development of resistance to bacteriophages, and mortality at 28 (D28) and 90 (D90) days were measured. Main outcomes were safety and tolerability.ResultsBacteriophage therapy was initiated 4-10 days after antibiotic commencement, at 109 plaque-forming units (PFU) twice daily. Infecting staphylococci were typical of common local subtypes. Initial input ratio of phages to bacteria in the bloodstream (MOIinput) was >100. Five of the thirteen patients died by D28 and a sixth patient suffered sudden cardiac death on D90. Bacteriophage therapy coincided with a marked reduction in staphylococcal bacterial DNA in the blood and in sepsis-associated inflammatory responses in almost all cases. No bacteriophage-attributable adverse events were identified. Development of bacteriophage resistance was not observed. Population analysis revealed no significant effect of bacteriophage therapy on the gut microflora.Conclusions and RelevanceAdjunctive bacteriophage therapy appears to be safe and well-tolerated in critically ill patients with severe S. aureus infection. Two weeks of twice daily intravenous administration may be a suitable protocol. Controlled trials are needed.Trial RegistrationWestmead Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee approval July 11, 2017; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03395769, AB-SA01-EAP01 (January 10, 2018); Clinical Trials Notification (Australian Therapeutic Goods Association): CT-2018-CTN-02372-1 (July 23, 2018).Key PointsQuestionIs intravenous (IV) administration of investigational bacteriophage (phage) therapy safe and well-tolerated in patients with severe Staphylococcus aureus infection?FindingsThirteen patients with severe S. aureus infections received AB-SA01, a bacteriophage product prepared according to Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), as adjunctive therapy to antibiotics. AB-SA01 was well-tolerated with no adverse events identified. Bacterial burden and inflammatory responses were reduced and no phage-resistant staphylococci were isolated during or after therapy.MeaningOur results will inform future randomised controlled trials assessing the antibacterial and anti-inflammatory potential of bacteriophages in the treatment of severe S. aureus infection.

2021 ◽  
Vol 91 (11) ◽  
pp. 2545-2545
Author(s):  
Guy Henry Morton Stanley ◽  
Ryckie George Wade ◽  
Sara Potts ◽  
Nichola Wilson ◽  
Michael Findlay

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e030909 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristie H Harrison ◽  
KS Kylie Lee ◽  
Timothy Dobbins ◽  
Scott Wilson ◽  
Noel Hayman ◽  
...  

IntroductionIndigenous peoples who have experienced colonisation or oppression can have a higher prevalence of alcohol-related harms. In Australia, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) offer culturally accessible care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) peoples. However there are many competing health, socioeconomic and cultural client needs.Methods and analysisA randomised cluster wait-control trial will test the effectiveness of a model of tailored and collaborative support for ACCHSs in increasing use of alcohol screening (with Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C)) and of treatment provision (brief intervention, counselling or relapse prevention medicines).SettingTwenty-two ACCHSs across Australia.RandomisationServices will be stratified by remoteness, then randomised into two groups. Half receive support soon after the trial starts (intervention or ‘early support’); half receive support 2 years later (wait-control or ‘late support’).The supportCore support elements will be tailored to local needs and include: support to nominate two staff as champions for increasing alcohol care; a national training workshop and bimonthly teleconferences for service champions to share knowledge; onsite training, and bimonthly feedback on routinely collected data on screening and treatment provision.Outcomes and analysisPrimary outcome is use of screening using AUDIT-C as routinely recorded on practice software. Secondary outcomes are recording of brief intervention, counselling, relapse prevention medicines; and blood pressure, gamma glutamyltransferase and HbA1c. Multi-level logistic regression will be used to test the effectiveness of support.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from eight ethics committees: the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales (1217/16); Central Australian Human Research Ethics Committee (CA-17-2842); Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research (2017-2737); Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service (17/QCQ/9); Far North Queensland (17/QCH/45-1143); Aboriginal Health Research Ethics Committee, South Australia (04-16-694); St Vincent’s Hospital (Melbourne) Human Research Ethics Committee (LRR 036/17); and Western Australian Aboriginal Health Ethics Committee (779).Trial registration numberACTRN12618001892202; Pre-results.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e043902
Author(s):  
Michelle S Fitts ◽  
John Humphreys ◽  
Terry Dunbar ◽  
Lisa Bourke ◽  
Edward Mulholland ◽  
...  

IntroductionAccess to high-quality primary healthcare is limited for remote residents in Australia. Increasingly, remote health services are reliant on short-term or ‘fly-in, fly-out/drive-in, drive-out’ health workforce to deliver primary healthcare. A key strategy to achieving health service access equity, particularly evident in remote Australia, has been the development of Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs). This study aims to generate new knowledge about (1) the impact of short-term staffing in remote and rural ACCHSs on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; (2) the potential mitigating effect of community control; and (3) effective, context-specific evidence-based retention strategies.Methods and analysisThis paper describes a 3-year, mixed methods study involving 12 ACCHSs across three states. The methods are situated within an evidence-based programme logic framework for rural and remote primary healthcare services. Quantitative data will be used to describe staffing stability and turnover, with multiple regression analyses to determine associations between independent variables (population size, geographical remoteness, resident staff turnover and socioeconomic status) and dependent variables related to patient care, service cost, quality and effectiveness. Qualitative assessment will include interviews and focus groups with clinical staff, clinic users, regionally-based retrieval staff and representatives of jurisdictional peak bodies for the ACCHS sector, to understand the impact of short-term staff on quality and continuity of patient care, as well as satisfaction and acceptability of services.Ethics and disseminationThe study has ethics approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research (project number DR03171), Central Australian Human Research Ethics Committee (CA-19-3493), Western Australian Aboriginal Health Ethics Committee (WAAHEC-938) and Far North Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/2019/QCH/56393). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, the project steering committee and community/stakeholder engagement activities to be determined by each ACCHS.


SAGE Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 215824402092058
Author(s):  
Sean G. Dicks ◽  
Ian J. Pieper ◽  
Holly L. Northam ◽  
Frank M. P. van Haren ◽  
Douglas P. Boer

In Australia, before conducting research with human participants, researchers must have their research plan reviewed by a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) to ensure that proposed methods meet ethical requirements and protect the welfare of participants. In addition, it has been proposed that HRECs can contribute to a novice researcher’s ethical mindfulness. To explore this suggestion, the current self-reflective case study examines the dialogue between a PhD candidate and the HREC that reviewed his proposed study of family bereavement in the context of the potential for organ donation. Findings suggest that when a respectful, problem-solving attitude is adopted by both parties, a learning environment evolves where diverse views, differences of opinion, and novel solutions are tolerated. In this context, the research plan is improved and the novice researcher’s ability to apply research ethics is developed. Simultaneously, members of the HREC gain practice in the identification of ethical dilemmas and the application of ethical principles that help resolve those dilemmas.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e028747
Author(s):  
Hayley Thomson ◽  
Kerrie Evans ◽  
Jonathon Dearness ◽  
John Kelley ◽  
Kylie Conway ◽  
...  

IntroductionPrognostic screening of people with low back pain (LBP) improves utilisation of primary healthcare resources. Whether this also applies to secondary healthcare remains unclear. Therefore, this study aims to develop prognostic models to determine at baseline which patients with persistent LBP are likely to have a good and poor outcome to a 5-week programme of combined education and exercise (‘UPLIFT’) delivered in a secondary healthcare setting.Methods and analysisA prospective cohort study of 246 people with persistent LBP will be conducted in a secondary healthcare outpatient setting. Patients will be recruited from a physiotherapy-led neurosurgical screening clinic. Demographic data, medical history and psychosocial characteristics will be recorded at baseline. Fear avoidance beliefs, pain self-efficacy, LBP treatment beliefs, pain catastrophising, perceived injustice, depression, anxiety and stress, disability level, pain intensity and interference, health status and social connectedness will be considered as potential prognostic variables, which will be assessed using self-reported questionnaires. Participants will attend the UPLIFT programme, consisting of weekly 90 min group sessions that combine interactive education sessions and a graded exercise programme. The outcome measure to identify good and poor outcome is the Global Rating of Change scale, assessed at completion of the UPLIFT programme and at 6 months follow-up. Multiple imputation analyses will be performed for missing values. Prognostic models will be developed using multivariable logistic regression analyses, with bootstrapping techniques for internal validation. We will calculate the explained variance of the models and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Furthermore, we will determine whether participation in the UPLIFT programme is associated with changes in psychosocial characteristics.Ethics and disseminationGold Coast Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/18/QGC/41) and the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (GU Ref No: 2018/408) approved the study. Dissemination of findings will occur via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberACTRN12618001525279.


Author(s):  
Katherine Christian ◽  
Carolyn Johnstone ◽  
Jo-ann Larkins ◽  
Wendy Wright

A “gatekeeper” controls access to an organization; “gatekeeper approval” is often needed before external research can take place within an organization. We explore the need for gatekeeper approval for research with university staff employing, as a case study, a project which collected data in Australia. This case study addresses known issues, seemingly rarely addressed in the literature. The Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC)'s requirement for approval from individual universities to approach their staff brought significant consequences, exacerbated by the lack of university procedures for such approvals. Simultaneously, since invitations could legitimately be distributed via other avenues, such approval was superfluous. We recommend the HREC's blanket requirement for institutional approval instead be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the risk of the research, and perhaps waived for low-risk research where participants are able to provide informed consent, and that universities establish processes to deal with requests from external researchers.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e032549 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bianca Fleur Middleton ◽  
Mark A Jones ◽  
Claire S Waddington ◽  
Margaret Danchin ◽  
Carly McCallum ◽  
...  

IntroductionRotavirus vaccines were introduced into the Australian National Immunisation Program in 2007. Despite this, Northern Territory Indigenous children continue to be hospitalised with rotavirus at a rate more than 20 times higher than non-Indigenous children in other Australian jurisdictions, with evidence of waning protection in the second year of life. We hypothesised that scheduling an additional (third) dose of oral human rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline) for children aged 6 to <12 months would improve protection against clinically significant all-cause gastroenteritis.Methods and analysisThis Bayesian adaptive clinical trial will investigate whether routinely scheduling an additional dose of Rotarix for Australian Indigenous children aged 6 to <12 months old confers significantly better protection against clinically important all-cause gastroenteritis than the current two-dose schedule at 2 and 4 months old. There are two coprimary endpoints: (1) seroconversion from baseline serum anti-rotavirus immunoglobulin A (IgA) titre <20 U/mL prior to an additional dose of Rotarix/placebo to serum anti-rotavirus IgA titre >20 U/mL following the administration of the additional dose of Rotarix/placebo and (2) time from randomisation to medical attendance (up to age 36 months old) for which the primary reason is acute gastroenteritis/diarrhoea. Secondary endpoints include the change in anti-rotavirus IgA log titre, time to hospitalisation for all-cause diarrhoea and for rotavirus-confirmed gastroenteritis/diarrhoea, and rotavirus notification. Analysis will be based on Bayesian inference with adaptive sample size.Ethics, registration and disseminationEthics approval has been granted by Central Australian Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC-16-426) and Human Research Ethics Committee of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research (HREC-2016-2658). Study investigators will ensure the trial is conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and with the ICH Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice. Individual participant consent will be obtained. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication. The trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02941107) and important modifications to this protocol will be updated.Trial registration numberNCT02941107; Pre-results.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 12-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacey Hokke ◽  
Naomi J. Hackworth ◽  
Shannon K. Bennetts ◽  
Jan M. Nicholson ◽  
Patrick Keyzer ◽  
...  

Researchers increasingly use social media (SM) to recruit, retain, and trace participants, yet empirical literature investigating the ethics of engaging participants via SM is lacking. We conducted a survey of 401 Australian researchers and human research ethics committee (HREC) members to examine their experience, attitudes, and ethical concerns toward engaging participants via SM. Data revealed that researchers and HREC members share similar concerns and attitudes about using SM in general and in research. We identified a strong demand for additional support, training, and guidance on SM research ethics. This need reflects researchers’ and HREC members’ limited confidence and knowledge of ethical issues in this context and a lack of awareness of available SM-specific ethical guidelines.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document