IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0196734.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

High-dose versus standard-dose amoxicillin/clavulanate for clinically-diagnosed acute bacterial sinusitis: A randomized clinical trial

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Matho
  • Mary Mulqueen
  • Miyuki Tanino
  • Aaron Quidort
  • Jesse Cheung
  • Jennifer Pollard
  • Julieta Rodriguez
  • Supraja Swamy
  • Brittany Tayler
  • Gina Garrison
  • Ashar Ata
  • Paul Sorum

Abstract

Background: The recommended treatment for acute bacterial sinusitis in adults, amoxicillin with clavulanate, provides only modest benefit. Objective: To see if a higher dose of amoxicillin will lead to more rapid improvement. Design, setting, and participants: Double-blind randomized trial in which, from November 2014 through February 2017, we enrolled 315 adult outpatients diagnosed with acute sinusitis in accordance with Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines. Interventions: Standard-dose (SD) immediate-release (IR) amoxicillin/clavulanate 875 /125 mg (n = 159) vs. high-dose (HD) (n = 156). The original HD formulation, 2000 mg of extended-release (ER) amoxicillin with 125 mg of IR clavulanate twice a day, became unavailable half way through the study. The IRB then approved a revised protocol after patient 180 to provide 1750 mg of IR amoxicillin twice a day in the HD formulation and to compare Time Period 1 (ER) with Time Period 2 (IR). Main measure: The primary outcome was the percentage in each group reporting a major improvement—defined as a global assessment of sinusitis symptoms as “a lot better” or “no symptoms”—after 3 days of treatment. Key results: Major improvement after 3 days was reported during Period 1 by 38.8% of ER HD versus 37.9% of SD patients (P = 0.91) and during Period 2 by 52.4% of IR HD versus 34.4% of SD patients, an effect size of 18% (95% CI 0.75 to 35%, P = 0.04). No significant differences in efficacy were seen at Day 10. The major side effect, severe diarrhea at Day 3, was reported during Period 1 by 7.4% of HD and 5.7% of SD patients (P = 0.66) and during Period 2 by 15.8% of HD and 4.8% of SD patients (P = 0.048). Conclusions: Adults with clinically diagnosed acute bacterial sinusitis were more likely to improve rapidly when treated with IR HD than with SD but not when treated with ER HD. They were also more likely to suffer severe diarrhea. Further study is needed to confirm these findings. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02340000.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Matho & Mary Mulqueen & Miyuki Tanino & Aaron Quidort & Jesse Cheung & Jennifer Pollard & Julieta Rodriguez & Supraja Swamy & Brittany Tayler & Gina Garrison & Ashar Ata & Paul Sorum, 2018. "High-dose versus standard-dose amoxicillin/clavulanate for clinically-diagnosed acute bacterial sinusitis: A randomized clinical trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0196734
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196734
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196734
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196734&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0196734?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0196734. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.