Human versus equine intramuscular antitoxin, with or without human intrathecal antitoxin, for the treatment of adults with tetanus: a 2 × 2 factorial randomised controlled trial

Nguyen Van Hao, Huynh Thi Loan, Lam Minh Yen, Evelyne Kestelyn, Duc Du Hong, Duong Bich Thuy, Nguyen Thanh Nguyen, Ha Thi Hai Duong, Tran Thi Diem Thuy, Phung Tran Huy Nhat, Phan Nguyen Quoc Khanh, Nguyen Thi Phuong Dung, Nguyen Hoan Phu, Nguyen Thanh Phong, Pham Thi Lieu, Pham Thi Tuyen, Bui Thi Bich Hanh, Ho Dang Trung Nghia, Pham Kieu Nguyet Oanh, Phan Vinh Tho, Tran Tan Thanh, Hugo C Turner, H Rogier van Doorn, Le Van Tan, Duncan Wyncoll, Nicholas Pj Day, Ronald B Geskus, Guy E Thwaites, Nguyen Van Vinh Chau, C Louise Thwaites, Nguyen Van Hao, Huynh Thi Loan, Lam Minh Yen, Evelyne Kestelyn, Duc Du Hong, Duong Bich Thuy, Nguyen Thanh Nguyen, Ha Thi Hai Duong, Tran Thi Diem Thuy, Phung Tran Huy Nhat, Phan Nguyen Quoc Khanh, Nguyen Thi Phuong Dung, Nguyen Hoan Phu, Nguyen Thanh Phong, Pham Thi Lieu, Pham Thi Tuyen, Bui Thi Bich Hanh, Ho Dang Trung Nghia, Pham Kieu Nguyet Oanh, Phan Vinh Tho, Tran Tan Thanh, Hugo C Turner, H Rogier van Doorn, Le Van Tan, Duncan Wyncoll, Nicholas Pj Day, Ronald B Geskus, Guy E Thwaites, Nguyen Van Vinh Chau, C Louise Thwaites

Abstract

Background: Intramuscular antitoxin is recommended in tetanus treatment, but there are few data comparing human and equine preparations. Tetanus toxin acts within the CNS, where there is limited penetration of peripherally administered antitoxin; thus, intrathecal antitoxin administration might improve clinical outcomes compared with intramuscular injection.

Methods: In a 2 × 2 factorial trial, all patients aged 16 years or older with a clinical diagnosis of generalised tetanus admitted to the intensive care unit of the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, were eligible for study entry. Participants were randomly assigned first to 3000 IU human or 21 000 U equine intramuscular antitoxin, then to either 500 IU intrathecal human antitoxin or sham procedure. Interventions were delivered by independent clinicians, with attending clinicians and study staff masked to treatment allocations. The primary outcome was requirement for mechanical ventilation. The analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02999815; recruitment is completed.

Findings: 272 adults were randomly assigned to interventions between Jan 8, 2017, and Sept 29, 2019, and followed up until May, 2020. In the intrathecal allocation, 136 individuals were randomly assigned to sham procedure and 136 to antitoxin; in the intramuscular allocation, 109 individuals were randomly assigned to equine antitoxin and 109 to human antitoxin. 54 patients received antitoxin at a previous hospital, excluding them from the intramuscular antitoxin groups. Mechanical ventilation was given to 56 (43%) of 130 patients allocated to intrathecal antitoxin and 65 (50%) of 131 allocated to sham procedure (relative risk [RR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·66-1·13; p=0·29). For the intramuscular allocation, 48 (45%) of 107 patients allocated to human antitoxin received mechanical ventilation compared with 48 (44%) of 108 patients allocated to equine antitoxin (RR 1·01, 95% CI 0·75-1·36, p=0·95). No clinically relevant difference in adverse events was reported. 22 (16%) of 136 individuals allocated to the intrathecal group and 22 (11%) of 136 allocated to the sham procedure experienced adverse events related or possibly related to the intervention. 16 (15%) of 108 individuals allocated to equine intramuscular antitoxin and 17 (16%) of 109 allocated to human antitoxin experienced adverse events related or possibly related to the intervention. There were no intervention-related deaths.

Interpretation: We found no advantage of intramuscular human antitoxin over intramuscular equine antitoxin in tetanus treatment. Intrathecal antitoxin administration was safe, but did not provide overall benefit in addition to intramuscular antitoxin administration.

Funding: The Wellcome Trust.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interests All authors declare no competing interests.

Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure
Figure
Trial profile *Insufficient intensive care unit beds available (n=19), no protocol drugs available (n=11), delayed diagnosis (n=6), unclear diagnosis (n=11), no available staff (n=3), and other (n=10). †Patients lost to follow up are included in the primary outcomes (in-hospital events), but not all secondary outcomes.

References

    1. Kyu HH, Mumford JE, Stanaway JD, et al. Mortality from tetanus between 1990 and 2015: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:179.
    1. Aubert N, Brachet-Botineau M, de Olivera Preto GE, Benz-de Bretagne I, Watier H, Brachet G. History, extensive characterization and challenge of anti-tetanus serum from World War I: exciting remnants and deceived hopes: centenarian IgGs lost their neutralization capacity. Immunol Res. 2020;68:7–12.
    1. Spalding JMK, Crampton Smith A. Value of a large dose of antitoxin in clinical tetanus. Lancet. 1960;276:366.
    1. McCracken GH, Jr, Dowell DL, Marshall FN. Double-blind trial of equine antitoxin and human immune globulin in tetanus neonatorum. Lancet. 1971;1:1146–1149.
    1. Young LS, LaForce FM, Bennett JV. An evaluation of serologic and antimicrobial therapy in the treatment of tetanus in the United States. J Infect Dis. 1969;120:153–159.
    1. Public Health England Tetanus guidance on the management of suspected tetanus cases and on the assessment and management of tetanus prone wounds. 2018.
    1. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tetanus for clinicians. 2020.
    1. Tetanus vaccines: WHO position paper—February 2017. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2017;92:53–76.
    1. Sherrington BYCS. The serum treatment of experimental tetanus in monkeys. Lancet. 1917;964:54–68.
    1. Andrewes F. On the intrathecal route for the administration of tetanus antitoxin. Lancet. 1917;189:682–686.
    1. Sanders RKM, Martyn B, Joseph R, Peacock ML. Intrathecal antitetanus serum (horse) in the treatment of tetanus. Lancet. 1977;1:974–977.
    1. Vakil BJ, Armitage P, Clifford RE, Laurence DR. Therapeutic trial of intracisternal human tetanus immunoglobulin in clinical tetanus. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1979;73:579–583.
    1. Gupta PS, Kapoor R, Goyal S, Batra VK, Jain BK. Intrathecal human tetanus immunoglobulin in early tetanus. Lancet. 1980;2:439–440.
    1. Neequaye J, Nkrumah FK. Failure of intrathecal antitetanus serum to improve survival in neonatal tetanus. Arch Dis Child. 1983;58:276–278.
    1. Agarwal M, Thomas K, Peter JV, Jeyaseelan L, Cherian AM. A randomized double-blind sham-controlled study of intrathecal human anti-tetanus immunoglobulin in the management of tetanus. Natl Med J India. 1998;11:209–212.
    1. Miranda-Filho DB, Ximenes RA, Barone AA, Vaz VL, Vieira AG, Albuquerque VM. Randomised controlled trial of tetanus treatment with antitetanus immunoglobulin by the intrathecal or intramuscular route. BMJ. 2004;328:615.
    1. Mahieu R, Reydel T, Maamar A, et al. Admission of tetanus patients to the ICU: a retrospective multicentre study. Ann Intensive Care. 2017;7:112.
    1. Thwaites CL, Yen LM, Nga NTN, et al. Impact of improved vaccination programme and intensive care facilities on incidence and outcome of tetanus in southern Vietnam, 1993–2002. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2004;98:671–677.
    1. Phu VD, Nadjm B, Duy NHA, et al. Ventilator-associated respiratory infection in a resource-restricted setting: impact and etiology. J Intensive Care. 2017;5:69.
    1. Loan HT, Yen LM, Kestelyn E, et al. Intrathecal immunoglobulin for treatment of adult patients with tetanus: a randomized controlled 2x2 factorial trial. Wellcome Open Res. 2018;3:58.
    1. Yen L. Diagnostic and medical guideline. Tetanus. in Vietnamese.
    1. Loan HT, Yen LM, Kestelyn E, et al. A pilot study to assess safety and feasibility of intrathecal immunoglobulin for the treatment of adults with tetanus. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018;99:323–326.
    1. Hao NV, Yen LM, Davies-Foote R, et al. The management of tetanus in adults in an intensive care unit in Southern Vietnam. Wellcome Open Res. 2021;6:107.
    1. Committee of Oversight ASA Physical Status Classification System. 2019.
    1. Thwaites CL, Yen LM, Glover C, et al. Predicting the clinical outcome of tetanus: the tetanus severity score. Trop Med Int Health. 2006;11:279–287.
    1. Ablett JJL. In: Symposium on tetanus in Great Britain. Ellis M, editor. National Lending Library; Boston Spa: 1967. Analysis and main experiences in 82 patients treated in the Leeds Tetanus Unit; pp. 1–10.
    1. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13:818–829.
    1. Ferreira FL, Bota DP, Bross A, Mélot C, Vincent JL. Serial evaluation of the SOFA score to predict outcome in critically ill patients. JAMA. 2001;286:1754–1758.
    1. Kabura L, Ilibagiza D, Menten J, Van den Ende J. Intrathecal vs. intramuscular administration of human antitetanus immunoglobulin or equine tetanus antitoxin in the treatment of tetanus: a meta-analysis. Trop Med Int Health. 2006;11:1075–1081.
    1. Park WH, Nicoll M. Experiments on the curative value of the intraspinal administration of tetanus antitoxin. J Am Med Assoc. 1914;LXIII:235–238.
    1. Miranda-Filho DB, Ximenes RAA, Siqueira-Filha NT, Santos AC. Incremental costs of treating tetanus with intrathecal antitetanus immunoglobulin. Trop Med Int Health. 2013;18:555–563.
    1. Thuy DB, Campbell JI, Thanh TT, et al. Tetanus in southern Vietnam: current situation. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017;96:93–96.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa