Kerosene PneumonitisNCT01253980
Antibiotic Efficacy in Pneumonitis Following Paraffin (Kerosene) Ingestion in Children
A study testing Amoxicillin in people with Kerosene Pneumonitis, run by University of Cape Town at 1 site in South Africa.
Trial summary
Paraffin (kerosene) ingestion in the developing world accounts for a large number of visits to healthcare facilities, especially amongst children. There is no evidence in animals and no good evidence in humans that the use of early antibiotics improves the clinical outcome of paraffin-induced pneumonitis. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 3 months to 13 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Kerosene Pneumonitis
- What is being tested?
- Amoxicillin
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 74 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSouth Africa
- Study dates
- Jul 2010to Sep 2011
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 3 months to 13 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Ingestion in the preceding 24 hours
- Presence of respiratory symptoms and/or signs at presentation
- Informed consent obtained from parent or legal guardian
- Resident within the Red Cross Hospital drainage area and able to come for two follow-up appointments
Who cannot join
- Asymptomatic and no clinical signs
- Too ill to be excluded from receiving an antibiotic as judged by:
- Requiring more than 2L/min nasal-prong oxygen
- Requiring continuous or intermittent positive airway pressure ventilation
- Fever > 40˚C
- Needing an antibiotic for another reason e.g. otitis media, tonsillitis
- Current antibiotic use, prior to kerosene ingestion
- Allergic to amoxicillin
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
South Africa1 site
Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital
Cape Town, Western Cape, 7700
About this study
Official title: The Efficacy of Prophylactic Antibiotics in the Management of Pneumonitis Following Paraffin (Kerosene) Ingestion in Children
Paraffin (kerosene) ingestion in the developing world accounts for a large number of visits to healthcare facilities, especially amongst children. There is no evidence in animals and no good evidence in humans that the use of early antibiotics improves the clinical outcome of paraffin-induced pneumonitis. This randomised placebo-controlled trial will investigate whether the use of early antibiotics affects the clinical course of children with pneumonitis following paraffin ingestion.
Read the detailed description
The average of 100 children per annum attending Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital 9RCWMCH) with the diagnosis of kerosene ingestion would give a sample of 200 children over a two-year period, with 100 patients in each group. From a postulated secondary infection rate of 15 to 50% for children not receiving an antibiotic, a midway point of 25% estimated the treatment failure rate in the placebo group. With no information available on the treatment failure rate in the active group, failure rates of 10% and 5% were arbitrarily applied. With 25% and 5% treatment failure rates for placebo and active groups respectively, at a level of significance of α = 0.05 a sample size of 100 per group gives a power of 0.98 and with failure rates of 25% and 10% a power of 0.80.
Statistical analysis was done using IBM SPSS Version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Categorical variables are expressed as n (%) and continuous variables as median (interquartile range (IQR)). A P value of ≤ 0.05 was considered significant for all situations. For categorical variables, Fischer's exact test was used for small samples or less frequent occurrences. Chi-Square testing was applied for larger samples or more frequent occurrences. Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for ordinal and continuous variables. Significant correlation between factors and covariates (Spearman's rank coefficient) favoured univariate analysis over binary logistic regression modelling to determine potential risk factors for treatment failure. Continuous variables were categorised for clinical relevance or logistic regression testing. In some instances, specific clinical parameters or reported symptoms were not recorded or the presence or absence of a risk factor was unknown. The missing values, unknown factors and the flow of patient follow-up account for totals not always adding up to the full number of study participants. In the results for Day 3 and Day 5 post-ingestion, the denominator used to calculate proportions for reported symptoms included those patients who attended and who were telephone interviewed, whereas the denominator for clinical signs was only the patients who attended.
The primary outcome measure was treatment failure, as reported. Secondary outcome measures were length of hospital stay, reported symptoms (cough, shortness of breath, wheeze and fever) and clinical signs (respiratory rate, flaring, recessions, grunting, wheeze, crepitations, temperature and altered mental status) at follow-up at Day 3 and 5 post-ingestion for placebo and active groups. Further investigation explored the role of confounding conditions (upper respiratory tract infection, active Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection) and risk factors for treatment failure or delayed resolution (vomiting post-ingestion, household smoking contact, HIV exposure status, prior respiratory history, young age etc). Secondary outcome measures, confounding conditions and risk factors are not reported in this Clinical Trials format, but are reported in the PI's Master's thesis. (Balme KH. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in the management of pneumonitis following paraffin (kerosene) ingestion in children [Master's thesis]. [Cape Town]: University of Cape Town; 2013. 113 p.)
- Conditions
- Kerosene Pneumonitis
- Being tested
- Amoxicillin, Placebo
- Keywords
- pneumonitis, paraffin, kerosene
- Medical subject headings
- Pneumonia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
AmoxicillinDrug
Amoxicillin syrup 20-30mg/kg 8 hourly for 5 days
PlaceboDrug
Placebo suspension made of water, dextrose and glycerine with a similar taste and appearance to the active comparator.
Dose 20-30mg/kg 8 hourly for 5 days
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Amoxicillin | Active comparator | Amoxicillin Receives: Drug: Amoxicillin |
| Placebo suspension | Placebo comparator | Placebo Receives: Drug: Placebo |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Treatment Failure
A treatment failure was a patient who at any time deteriorated necessitating a change to the treatment regimen. This was determined by assessing reported symptoms (cough, shortness of breath, wheeze and fever) and comparing clinical signs (respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, wheeze, flaring, grunting, recessions, crepitations, temperature, mental status) to signs at presentation.
Measured: At routine follow-up 3 and 5 days post-ingestion or earlier if necessary
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Dec 2010 (estimated)
- Study startJul 2010
- Primary completionSep 2011
- Study completionSep 2011
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Kerosene PneumonitisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 74 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Cape Town
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Kate Balme, University of Cape Town
- Investigators
- Heather Zar, MBBCh PhD, Study director, University of Cape TownMichael D Mann, MMed Paed PhD, Study director, University of Cape Town
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01253980
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 095/2010
- Other IDs
- PACTR201201000259370
- Status last verified
- Oct 2015
- First submitted
- 3 Dec 2010
- Last updated
- 9 Nov 2015
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Balme KH, Zar H, Swift DK, Mann MD. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in the management of children with kerosene-associated pneumonitis: a double-blind randomised controlled trial. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2015;53(8):789-96. doi: 10.3109/15563650.2015.1059943. Epub 2015 Jun 26.
PubMed 26114347
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 9 Nov 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Efficacy of Prophylactic Antibiotics in the Management of Pneumonitis Following Paraffin (Kerosene) Ingestion in Children
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01253980
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 095/2010
- Conditions
- Kerosene Pneumonitis
- Keywords
- pneumonitis, paraffin, kerosene
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 74 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Cape TownUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jul 2010
- Primary completion
- Sep 2011 (actual)
- Study completion
- Sep 2011 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Dec 2010 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 26 Jun 2013
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Paraffin (kerosene) ingestion in the developing world accounts for a large number of visits to healthcare facilities, especially amongst children. There is no evidence in animals and no good evidence in humans that the use of early antibiotics improves the clinical outcome of paraffin-induced pneumonitis. This randomised placebo-controlled trial will investigate whether the use of early antibiotics affects the clinical course of children with pneumonitis following paraffin ingestion.
Detailed description
The average of 100 children per annum attending Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital 9RCWMCH) with the diagnosis of kerosene ingestion would give a sample of 200 children over a two-year period, with 100 patients in each group. From a postulated secondary infection rate of 15 to 50% for children not receiving an antibiotic, a midway point of 25% estimated the treatment failure rate in the placebo group. With no information available on the treatment failure rate in the active group, failure rates of 10% and 5% were arbitrarily applied. With 25% and 5% treatment failure rates for placebo and active groups respectively, at a level of significance of α = 0.05 a sample size of 100 per group gives a power of 0.98 and with failure rates of 25% and 10% a power of 0.80.
Statistical analysis was done using IBM SPSS Version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Categorical variables are expressed as n (%) and continuous variables as median (interquartile range (IQR)). A P value of ≤ 0.05 was considered significant for all situations. For categorical variables, Fischer's exact test was used for small samples or less frequent occurrences. Chi-Square testing was applied for larger samples or more frequent occurrences. Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for ordinal and continuous variables. Significant correlation between factors and covariates (Spearman's rank coefficient) favoured univariate analysis over binary logistic regression modelling to determine potential risk factors for treatment failure. Continuous variables were categorised for clinical relevance or logistic regression testing. In some instances, specific clinical parameters or reported symptoms were not recorded or the presence or absence of a risk factor was unknown. The missing values, unknown factors and the flow of patient follow-up account for totals not always adding up to the full number of study participants. In the results for Day 3 and Day 5 post-ingestion, the denominator used to calculate proportions for reported symptoms included those patients who attended and who were telephone interviewed, whereas the denominator for clinical signs was only the patients who attended.
The primary outcome measure was treatment failure, as reported. Secondary outcome measures were length of hospital stay, reported symptoms (cough, shortness of breath, wheeze and fever) and clinical signs (respiratory rate, flaring, recessions, grunting, wheeze, crepitations, temperature and altered mental status) at follow-up at Day 3 and 5 post-ingestion for placebo and active groups. Further investigation explored the role of confounding conditions (upper respiratory tract infection, active Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection) and risk factors for treatment failure or delayed resolution (vomiting post-ingestion, household smoking contact, HIV exposure status, prior respiratory history, young age etc). Secondary outcome measures, confounding conditions and risk factors are not reported in this Clinical Trials format, but are reported in the PI's Master's thesis. (Balme KH. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in the management of pneumonitis following paraffin (kerosene) ingestion in children [Master's thesis]. [Cape Town]: University of Cape Town; 2013. 113 p.)
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind (participant, care provider, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Amoxicillin | Active comparator | Drug: AmoxicillinAmoxicillin |
| Placebo suspension | Placebo comparator | Drug: PlaceboPlacebo |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 3 months to 13 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Ingestion in the preceding 24 hours
- Presence of respiratory symptoms and/or signs at presentation
- Informed consent obtained from parent or legal guardian
- Resident within the Red Cross Hospital drainage area and able to come for two follow-up appointments
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Asymptomatic and no clinical signs
- Too ill to be excluded from receiving an antibiotic as judged by:
- Needing an antibiotic for another reason e.g. otitis media, tonsillitis
- Current antibiotic use, prior to kerosene ingestion
- Allergic to amoxicillin
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| AmoxicillinAmoxicillin syrup 20-30mg/kg 8 hourly for 5 days | Drug | Amoxicillin |
| PlaceboPlacebo suspension made of water, dextrose and glycerine with a similar taste and appearance to the active comparator. Dose 20-30mg/kg 8 hourly for 5 days | Drug | Placebo suspension |
Primary outcome
Treatment Failure
Time frame: At routine follow-up 3 and 5 days post-ingestion or earlier if necessary
A treatment failure was a patient who at any time deteriorated necessitating a change to the treatment regimen. This was determined by assessing reported symptoms (cough, shortness of breath, wheeze and fever) and comparing clinical signs (respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, wheeze, flaring, grunting, recessions, crepitations, temperature, mental status) to signs at presentation.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 9 Nov 2015.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Results publication: PubMed 26114347Balme KH, Zar H, Swift DK, Mann MD. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in the management of children with kerosene-associated pneumonitis: a double-blind randomised controlled trial. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2015;53(8):789-96. doi: 10.3109/15563650.2015.1059943. Epub 2015 Jun 26.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Heather Zar, MBBCh PhD study director
University of Cape Town
Michael D Mann, MMed Paed PhD study director
University of Cape Town
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Amoxicillin in people with Kerosene Pneumonitis, run by University of Cape Town at 1 site in South Africa.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 9 Nov 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in South Africa. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 26 Jun 2013). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Treatment Failure (time frame: At routine follow-up 3 and 5 days post-ingestion or earlier if necessary). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01253980, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 9 Nov 2015.