↓ Skip to main content

Amoxicillin–clavulanate versus azithromycin for respiratory exacerbations in children with bronchiectasis (BEST-2): a multicentre, double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
113 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Amoxicillin–clavulanate versus azithromycin for respiratory exacerbations in children with bronchiectasis (BEST-2): a multicentre, double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial
Published in
The Lancet, September 2018
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31723-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vikas Goyal, Keith Grimwood, Catherine A Byrnes, Peter S Morris, I Brent Masters, Robert S Ware, Gabrielle B McCallum, Michael J Binks, Julie M Marchant, Peter van Asperen, Kerry-Ann F O'Grady, Anita Champion, Helen M Buntain, Helen Petsky, Paul J Torzillo, Anne B Chang

Abstract

Although amoxicillin-clavulanate is the recommended first-line empirical oral antibiotic treatment for non-severe exacerbations in children with bronchiectasis, azithromycin is also often prescribed for its convenient once-daily dosing. No randomised controlled trials involving acute exacerbations in children with bronchiectasis have been published to our knowledge. We hypothesised that azithromycin is non-inferior to amoxicillin-clavulanate for resolving exacerbations in children with bronchiectasis. We did this parallel-group, double-dummy, double-blind, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial in three Australian and one New Zealand hospital between April, 2012, and August, 2016. We enrolled children aged 1-19 years with radiographically proven bronchiectasis unrelated to cystic fibrosis. At the start of an exacerbation, children were randomly assigned to oral suspensions of either amoxicillin-clavulanate (22·5 mg/kg, twice daily) and placebo or azithromycin (5 mg/kg per day) and placebo for 21 days. We used permuted block randomisation (stratified by age, site, and cause) with concealed allocation. The primary outcome was resolution of exacerbation (defined as a return to baseline) by 21 days in the per-protocol population, with a non-inferiority margin of -20%. We assessed several secondary outcomes including duration of exacerbation, time to next exacerbation, laboratory, respiratory, and quality-of-life measurements, and microbiology. This trial was registered with the Australian/New Zealand Registry (ACTRN12612000010897). We screened 604 children and enrolled 236. 179 children had an exacerbation and were assigned to treatment: 97 to amoxicillin-clavulanate, 82 to azithromycin). By day 21, 61 (84%) of 73 exacerbations had resolved in the azithromycin group versus 73 (84%) of 87 in the amoxicillin-clavulanate group. The risk difference showed non-inferiority (-0·3%, 95% CI -11·8 to 11·1). Exacerbations were significantly shorter in the amoxicillin-clavulanate group than in the azithromycin group (median 10 days [IQR 6-15] vs 14 days [8-16]; p=0·014). Adverse events were attributed to the trial medication in 17 (21%) of 82 children in the azithromycin group versus 23 (24%) of 97 in the amoxicillin-clavulanate group (relative risk 0·9, 95% CI 0·5 to 1·5). By 21 days of treatment, azithromycin is non-inferior to amoxicillin-clavulanate for resolving exacerbations in children with non-severe bronchiectasis. In some patients, such as those with penicillin hypersensitivity or those likely to have poor adherence, azithromycin provides another option for treating exacerbations, but must be balanced with risk of treatment failure (within a 20% margin), longer exacerbation duration, and the risk of inducing macrolide resistance. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 113 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 157 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 64 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 69 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 August 2019.
All research outputs
#447,138
of 25,634,695 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#4,283
of 42,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,525
of 352,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#106
of 453 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,634,695 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 453 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.