Issue: Newsletter 14 | February 15, 2026
| Citation of Articles | PICO | Main Results | Risk of Bias |
|---|---|---|---|
| Da Costa A, Mansourati J, Eschalier R, Lesaffre F, Bordachar P, Taieb J, et al. Chlorhexidine vs Povidone-Iodine Alcohol Solutions for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: A Prospective Randomised Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026 Jan 20;87(2):200-211. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2025.10.042 |
P: 2,272 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device procedures (implantation/upgrade/replacement of CRT pacemaker or defibrillator); median age 72 years; 75.1% men I: Skin antisepsis with 2% alcohol-based chlorhexidine before CRT device implantation C: 4-phase alcoholic povidone-iodine skin preparation O: Primary: device-related local or systemic infection over 24 months; Secondary: major cardiovascular events; noninfectious local side effects |
Over 24 months, device-related infections occurred in 2.9% with chlorhexidine vs 3.9% with povidone-iodine (adjusted subhazard ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.48–1.20; P = 0.23), showing no statistically significant difference. Major cardiovascular events were similar (31.5% vs 31.3%; subhazard ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.87–1.17). Noninfectious local side effects were also comparable (12.9% vs 13.3%). | Moderate risk: The trial was open-label, which can introduce performance bias (e.g., differences in co-interventions or wound care), but blinded outcome adjudication reduces detection bias for endpoints. Central randomization with center stratification supports allocation concealment. Infection outcomes are relatively objective, lowering bias risk, though the abstract does not report adherence to antisepsis protocol or completeness of follow-up, leaving some uncertainty about attrition and implementation fidelity. |
| Wynberg E, Mishra A, Liverani M, Vanna M, Chanpheakdey P, Chaikul K, et al. Impact of an electronic clinical decision support algorithm (eCDSA) on antibiotic prescribing in primary care in Cambodia: A cluster randomised controlled trial. Int J Infect Dis. 2026 Mar;164:108382. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2026.108382 |
P: 4,752 patients aged ≥1 year with acute febrile illness attending 30 primary health centres (PHCs) in Battambang Province, Cambodia (cluster RCT; 2,324 intervention; 2,428 control) I: PHC adoption of an electronic clinical decision support algorithm (eCDSA) integrating clinical assessment + pulse oximetry + point-of-care C-reactive protein testing C: Routine care (no eCDSA) O: Primary: proportion prescribed antibiotics; Secondary: hospital referral; self-reported recovery at 7 and 14 days |
Antibiotic prescribing was 56.1% in the eCDSA arm vs 60.5% with routine care; the adjusted analysis showed no significant difference (aOR 0.64, 95% CI 0.20–1.99; P = 0.44). Adherence to the tool was limited: when the eCDSA did not recommend antibiotics, clinicians still prescribed them in 45.6% of such cases. Hospital referral was uncommon (2.0% overall), and recovery outcomes were high, with 94.3% reporting full recovery within 7 days. | Moderate risk: Cluster randomisation helps reduce contamination, and the analysis appropriately used a mixed model with PHC as a random effect. However, the intervention was not blinded (risk of performance bias), and key outcomes (antibiotic prescribing; self-reported recovery) may be influenced by clinician/patient behaviour and reporting. The very wide CI for the primary effect suggests imprecision (potentially limited effective sample size due to clustering and/or between-PHC variability). Low adherence to eCDSA recommendations also complicates interpretation (effectiveness vs implementation). |
| Lassen MR, Scarborough M, Gilchrist N, Tripathi SS, Price C, Horcajadas A, et al. Intradiscal linezolid (PP353) treatment for chronic low back pain associated with Modic change type 1: an international, first-in-human, randomised, sham procedure-controlled, double-blind, phase 1b clinical trial. EClinicalMedicine. 2026 Feb 2;103764. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2026.103764 |
P: 41 adults (18–70 years) with chronic low back pain (≥6 months) and lumbar vertebral endplate Modic changes type 1 (MC1) or mixed MC1/MC2 at a single level, meeting pain/disability thresholds and failed standard care; 72.5% female. 40 received ≥1 dose and had ≥1 post-baseline efficacy assessment (20 PP353; 20 placebo). I: PP353 (linezolid formulation) intradiscal administration, 2 doses C: Placebo sham procedure, 2 sham procedures O: Primary: adverse events; change in Low Back Pain Numerical Rating Scale (LBP NRS) at 12 months. Secondary: LBP NRS at other timepoints; disability (RMDQ-23, ODI v2.1); responder rates (≥30%/≥50% improvement); pharmacokinetics |
PP353 and the intradiscal procedure were reported as well tolerated, with no severe, life-threatening, or disabling adverse events, and no overall difference in adverse events versus sham. At 12 months, PP353 showed greater improvement in pain than placebo: mean LBP NRS change −3.36 vs −2.00, with a statistically significant between-group difference reported using a predefined one-sided test (reported p = 0.028; 95% CI reported as −0.19 in the abstract). Overall, results suggest potential efficacy on pain with similar short-term safety to sham in this small phase 1b sample. | Moderate to high risk: Although double-blind with a sham procedure control (strong design to reduce placebo and detection effects), this is a small phase 1b trial (≈20 per arm), limiting precision and increasing chance findings. The primary efficacy result relies on a one-sided significance test, which raises concerns about result robustness and interpretability. The abstract also suggests an analysis set of 40/41 with post-baseline efficacy data, indicating potential (though small) attrition/exclusions. Sponsor involvement in design, data collation, and manuscript drafting introduces potential bias, even if common in early-phase industry trials. |
| Ellis J, Hale G, Nsangi LJ, Wele A, Kigozi E, Gakuru J, et al. Inpatient initiation of tuberculosis preventive therapy with 1 month of isoniazid and rifapentine for adults with advanced HIV disease and cryptococcal meningitis (IMPROVE): a non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet HIV. 2026 Feb 6; doi:10.1016/S2352-3018(25)00246-2 |
P: 205 adults (≥18 years) in Uganda hospitalised with advanced HIV disease receiving treatment for cryptococcal meningitis, screened to exclude active TB; 58% male I: Inpatient initiation of ultra-short TB preventive therapy 1HP (rifapentine 600 mg + isoniazid 300 mg daily + pyridoxine 25 mg) for 28 days, started before discharge C: Outpatient initiation of the same 1HP regimen 6 weeks after cryptococcal meningitis diagnosis O: Primary: TB disease-free survival and 1HP completion at 18 weeks (non-inferiority margin 15%); Secondary: 1HP completion; adverse events |
In the adjusted ITT primary analysis, the composite outcome (TB disease-free survival + 1HP completion at 18 weeks) occurred in 70% (72/103) of inpatient-initiation vs 62% (63/102) of outpatient-initiation participants (adjusted risk difference 7.1%, 90% CI −3.8 to 17.9), meeting the prespecified criterion for non-inferiority. Treatment completion alone was 76% vs 66% (site-adjusted risk difference 9.7%, 95% CI −2.4 to 21.8). Safety events were common in this very ill population: 170 grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 48% (99/205) overall; among those who took ≥1 dose of 1HP, adverse event frequency was broadly similar between groups except grade 4 anaemia, which was higher with outpatient initiation (9% vs 2%, p=0.045). | Moderate risk: The trial was open-label, which can influence adherence and co-interventions and thus completion-related endpoints, though the primary outcome includes relatively objective components (TB disease, survival) alongside completion. Randomisation and ITT analysis support internal validity. Non-inferiority designs are sensitive to adherence and missing data; differential follow-up/completion behaviour between inpatient vs outpatient strategies could bias toward non-inferiority. The abstract does not detail outcome adjudication/blinding for TB diagnosis, completeness of follow-up, or handling of missingness, leaving some uncertainty. |
| Oldenburg CE, Coulibaly B, Sié A, Ouattara M, Bountogo M, Compaoré G, et al. Macrolide and non-macrolide resistance after 36 months of mass azithromycin distribution in Burkina Faso: A cluster randomised trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2026 Jan 31; doi:10.1093/cid/ciag051 |
P: Children aged 1–59 months living in communities in Nouna District, Burkina Faso (cluster RCT; surveillance sample at 36 months: 483 children from 41 communities analysed; planned 48 communities with ~15 children/community sampled) I: Twice-yearly mass azithromycin distribution (20 mg/kg) at community level for 36 months C: Twice-yearly matching placebo distribution O: Antimicrobial resistance in gut at 36 months: fold-change in macrolide and non-macrolide genetic resistance determinants (DNA sequencing of rectal swabs) |
At 36 months, analysis of 483 rectal swab samples found no evidence of increased AMR genetic determinants with azithromycin versus placebo. Macrolide resistance determinants were similar (fold-change 1.21, 95% CI 0.96–1.52, P = 0.62). Non-macrolide resistance determinants were also similar; for example, beta-lactam resistance genes showed fold-change 1.05 (95% CI 0.79–1.40, P = 0.81). Overall, twice-yearly azithromycin distributions did not produce statistically significant differences in measured gut resistome markers in this setting at 36 months. | Moderate risk: Cluster randomised, placebo-controlled design supports causal inference, and sequencing-based AMR outcomes reduce detection bias. However, AMR was assessed in a cross-sectional subsample (≈15 children/community) with fewer communities/samples analysed than planned (41 communities analysed vs 48 participating), raising potential selection/attrition bias if missing communities differed systematically. The abstract does not describe masking in field implementation or lab analysis (though placebo-matching suggests blinding was feasible), nor adjustment for clustering/baseline resistome, which could affect precision and inference. |
| Lu Y, Guan L, Wu J, Yang Q, Zhang M, Zhou D, et al. Efficacy and safety of minocycline in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (EMPHASIS): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2026 Jan 30; doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01862-8 |
P: 1,724 patients with acute ischaemic stroke within 72 h, NIHSS 4–25, consciousness score (NIHSS 1a) ≤1, across 58 hospitals in China; median age 65; baseline median NIHSS 5 I: Oral minocycline plus routine treatment (200 mg loading dose, then 100 mg every 12 h for 4 days) C: Matching placebo plus routine treatment O: Primary: excellent functional outcome at 90 days (mRS 0–1). Safety: symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage at 24 h and 6 days; serious adverse events |
At 90 days, an excellent functional outcome (mRS 0–1) occurred in 52.6% (447/850) of the minocycline group vs 47.4% (403/851) of placebo (adjusted risk ratio 1.11, 95% CI 1.03–1.20; p = 0.0061). Ordinal analysis across the full mRS distribution also favoured minocycline (adjusted common OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03–1.38; p = 0.018). Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was rare and similar between groups at 24 h (0.1% vs 0%) and 6 days (0.3% vs 0%). Serious adverse events were not significantly different (4.6% vs 5.9%, p=0.24). | Low to moderate risk: Robust methods (multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled; computer-generated block randomisation stratified by site) reduce selection and performance/detection bias. Attrition was low and balanced (4 withdrawals; 19 lost to follow-up). However, the primary analysis excluded randomised patients who did not receive ≥1 dose (modified ITT) and used no imputation for missing data, which could introduce some bias if non-treatment or missingness related to prognosis; overall impact likely limited given small numbers and balance between arms. |
Demir KK, Cheng MP, Nelson J. Changing Course. Clin Infect Dis. 2026 Jan 28; doi:10.1093/cid/ciaf720

Copyright © ADVANCE-ID. All rights reserved.
ADVANCE-ID
Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health
National University of Singapore
Tahir Foundation Building
National University of Singapore
12 Science Drive 2, #10-01, Singapore 117549
+65 6516 4988