SummaryBackgroundIntradermal MVA85A, a candidate vaccine against tuberculosis, induces high amounts of Ag85A-specific CD4 T cells in adults who have already received the BCG vaccine, but aerosol delivery of this vaccine might offer immunological and logistical advantages. We did a phase 1 double-blind trial to compare the safety and immunogenicity of aerosol-administered and intradermally administered MVA85AMethodsIn this phase 1, double-blind, proof-of-concept trial, 24 eligible BCG-vaccinated healthy UK adults were randomly allocated (1:1) by sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes into two groups: aerosol MVA85A and intradermal saline placebo or intradermal MVA85A and aerosol saline placebo. Participants, the bronchoscopist, and immunologists were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was safety, assessed by the frequency and severity of vaccine-related local and systemic adverse events. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity assessed with laboratory markers of cell-mediated immunity in blood and bronchoalveolar lavage samples. Safety and immunogenicity were assessed for 24 weeks after vaccination. Immunogenicity to both insert Ag85A and vector modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was assessed by ex-vivo interferon-γ ELISpot and serum ELISAs. Since all participants were randomised and vaccinated according to protocol, our analyses were per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01497769.FindingsBoth administration routes were well tolerated and immunogenic. Respiratory adverse events were rare and mild. Intradermal MVA85A was associated with expected mild local injection-site reactions. Systemic adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. Three participants in each group had no vaccine-related systemic adverse events; fatigue (11/24 [46%]) and headache (10/24 [42%]) were the most frequently reported symptoms. Ag85A-specific systemic responses were similar across groups. Ag85A-specific CD4 T cells were detected in bronchoalveolar lavage cells from both groups and responses were higher in the aerosol group than in the intradermal group. MVA-specific cellular responses were detected in both groups, whereas serum antibodies to MVA were only detectable after intradermal administration of the vaccine.InterpretationFurther clinical trials assessing the aerosol route of vaccine delivery are merited for tuberculosis and other respiratory pathogens.FundingThe Wellcome Trust and Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre.

SummaryBackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18–45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference −1·4%, 95% CI −7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68–1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3–4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Objectives To determine the effects of adding an oxytocin infusion to bolus oxytocin on blood loss at elective caesarean section.Design Double blind, placebo controlled, randomised trial, conducted from February 2008 to June 2010.Setting Five maternity hospitals in the Republic of Ireland.Participants 2069 women booked for elective caesarean section at term with a singleton pregnancy. We excluded women with placenta praevia, thrombocytopenia, coagulopathies, previous major obstetric haemorrhage (>1000 mL), or known fibroids; women receiving anticoagulant treatment; those who did not understand English; and those who were younger than 18 years.Intervention Intervention group: intravenous slow 5 IU oxytocin bolus over 1 minute and additional 40 IU oxytocin infusion in 500 mL of 0.9% saline solution over 4 hours (bolus and infusion). Placebo group: 5 IU oxytocin bolus over 1 minute and 500 mL of 0.9% saline solution over 4 hours (placebo infusion) (bolus only).Main outcomes Major obstetric haemorrhage (blood loss >1000 mL) and need for an additional uterotonic agent.Results We found no difference in the occurrence of major obstetric haemorrhage between the groups (bolus and infusion 15.7% (158/1007) v bolus only 16.0% (159/994), adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence intervals 0.77 to 1.25, P=0.86). The need for an additional uterotonic agent in the bolus and infusion group was lower than that in the bolus only group (12.2% (126/1033) v 18.4% (189/1025), 0.61, 0.48 to 0.78, P<0.001). Women were less likely to have a major obstetric haemorrhage in the bolus and infusion group than in the bolus only group if the obstetrician was junior rather than senior (0.57, 0.35 to 0.92, P=0.02). ConclusionThe addition of an oxytocin infusion after caesarean delivery reduces the need for additional uterotonic agents but does not affect the overall occurrence of major obstetric haemorrhage.Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17813715.