Sparfloxacin versus cefaclor in the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized, double-masked, comparative, multicenter study

Short-course versus long-course therapy of the same antibiotic for community-acquired pneumonia in adolescent and adult outpatients

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a lung infection that can be acquired during day-to-day activities in the community (not while receiving care in a hospital). Community-acquired pneumonia poses a significant public health burden in terms of mortality, morbidity, and costs. Shorter antibiotic courses for CAP may limit treatment costs and adverse effects, but the optimal duration of antibiotic treatment is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of short-course versus longer-course treatment with the same antibiotic at the same daily dosage for CAP in non-hospitalised adolescents and adults (outpatients). We planned to investigate non-inferiority of short-course versus longer-term course treatment for efficacy outcomes, and superiority of short-course treatment for safety outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and three trials registers on 28 September 2017 together with conference proceedings, reference checking, and contact with experts and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short- and long-courses of the same antibiotic for CAP in adolescent and adult outpatients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to use standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified 5260 records. We did not identify any RCTs that compared short- and longer-courses of the same antibiotic for the treatment of adolescents and adult outpatients with CAP.We excluded two RCTs that compared short courses (five compared to seven days) of the same antibiotic at the same daily dose because they evaluated antibiotics (gemifloxacin and telithromycin) not commonly used in practice for the treatment of CAP. In particular, gemifloxacin is no longer approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate CAP due to its questionable risk-benefit balance, and reported adverse effects. Moreover, the safety profile of telithromycin is also cause for concern.We found one ongoing study that we will assess for inclusion in future updates of the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no eligible RCTs that studied a short-course of antibiotic compared to a longer-course (with the same antibiotic at the same daily dosage) for CAP in adolescent and adult outpatients. The effects of antibiotic therapy duration for CAP in adolescent and adult outpatients remains unclear.

Antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia in adult outpatients

BACKGROUND

Lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) is the third leading cause of death worldwide and the first leading cause of death in low-income countries. Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common condition that causes a significant disease burden for the community, particularly in children younger than five years, the elderly and immunocompromised people. Antibiotics are the standard treatment for CAP. However, increasing antibiotic use is associated with the development of bacterial resistance and side effects for the patient. Several studies have been published regarding optimal antibiotic treatment for CAP but many of these data address treatments in hospitalised patients. This is an update of our 2009 Cochrane Review and addresses antibiotic therapies for CAP in outpatient settings.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of different antibiotic treatments for CAP in participants older than 12 years treated in outpatient settings with respect to clinical, radiological and bacteriological outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March week 3, 2014), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2014), CINAHL (2009 to March 2014), Web of Science (2009 to March 2014) and LILACS (2009 to March 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), fully published in peer-reviewed journals, of antibiotics versus placebo as well as antibiotics versus another antibiotic for the treatment of CAP in outpatient settings in participants older than 12 years of age. However, we did not find any studies of antibiotics versus placebo. Therefore, this review includes RCTs of one or more antibiotics, which report the diagnostic criteria and describe the clinical outcomes considered for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (LMB, TJMV) independently assessed study reports in the first publication. In the 2009 update, LMB performed study selection, which was checked by TJMV and MMK. In this 2014 update, two review authors (SP, SM) independently performed and checked study selection. We contacted trial authors to resolve any ambiguities in the study reports. We compiled and analysed the data. We resolved differences between review authors by discussion and consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs in this review update (3352 participants older than 12 years with a diagnosis of CAP); 10 RCTs assessed nine antibiotic pairs (3321 participants) and one RCT assessed four antibiotics (31 participants) in people with CAP. The study quality was generally good, with some differences in the extent of the reporting. A variety of clinical, bacteriological and adverse events were reported. Overall, there was no significant difference in the efficacy of the various antibiotics. Studies evaluating clarithromycin and amoxicillin provided only descriptive data regarding the primary outcome. Though the majority of adverse events were similar between all antibiotics, nemonoxacin demonstrated higher gastrointestinal and nervous system adverse events when compared to levofloxacin, while cethromycin demonstrated significantly more nervous system side effects, especially dysgeusia, when compared to clarithromycin. Similarly, high-dose amoxicillin (1 g three times a day) was associated with higher incidence of gastritis and diarrhoea compared to clarithromycin, azithromycin and levofloxacin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence from recent RCTs is insufficient to make new evidence-based recommendations for the choice of antibiotic to be used for the treatment of CAP in outpatient settings. Pooling of study data was limited by the very low number of studies assessing the same antibiotic pairs. Individual study results do not reveal significant differences in efficacy between various antibiotics and antibiotic groups. However, two studies did find significantly more adverse events with use of cethromycin as compared to clarithromycin and nemonoxacin when compared to levofloxacin. Multi-drug comparisons using similar administration schedules are needed to provide the evidence necessary for practice recommendations. Further studies focusing on diagnosis, management, cost-effectiveness and misuse of antibiotics in CAP and LRTI are warranted in high-, middle- and low-income countries.

Extended release amoxicillin/clavulanate: optimizing a product for respiratory infections based on pharmacodynamic principles

Acute bacterial respiratory tract infections cause a great deal of human morbidity and mortality. Treatment guidelines for these infections include macrolides, doxycycline, beta-lactams and beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations such as amoxicillin/clavulanic acid to provide coverage for the common respiratory pathogens, including penicillin and macrolide nonsusceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae, as well as beta-lactamase-producing Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis. In response to recent guidelines recommending higher dose amoxicillin to extend coverage to a higher percentage of S. pneumoniae, a new formulation of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid was developed. This formulation includes a higher amoxicillin dose, with part of the amoxicillin dose being in an extended release formulation, without increasing the clavulanate dose, for twice-daily oral treatment of these infections. Clinical studies of community-acquired pneumonia and acute rhinosinusitis have shown that the new formulation is well tolerated and highly efficacious, with clinical outcomes equivalent to comparators.

Empiric antibiotic coverage of atypical pathogens for community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized adults

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is caused by various pathogens, traditionally divided into 'typical' and 'atypical'. Initial antibiotic treatment of CAP is usually empirical, customarily covering both typical and atypical pathogens. To date, no sufficient evidence exists to support this broad coverage, while limiting coverage is bound to reduce toxicity, resistance and expense.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to estimate the mortality and proportion with treatment failure using regimens containing atypical antibiotic coverage compared to those that had typical coverage only. Secondary objectives included the assessment of adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 3, 2012 which includes the Acute Respiratory Infection Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (January 1966 to April week 1, 2012) and EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients hospitalized due to CAP, comparing antibiotic regimens with atypical coverage (quinolones, macrolides, tetracyclines, chloramphenicol, streptogramins or ketolides) to a regimen without atypical antibiotic coverage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from included trials. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using a Chi(2) test.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 trials, encompassing 5939 randomized patients. The atypical antibiotic was administered as monotherapy in all but three studies. Only one study assessed a beta-lactam combined with a macrolide compared to the same beta-lactam. There was no difference in mortality between the atypical arm and the non-atypical arm (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.55), RR < 1 favors the atypical arm. The atypical arm showed an insignificant trend toward clinical success and a significant advantage to bacteriological eradication, which disappeared when evaluating methodologically high quality studies alone. Clinical success for the atypical arm was significantly higher for Legionella pneumophilae (L. pneumophilae) and non-significantly lower for pneumococcal pneumonia. There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of (total) adverse events, or those requiring discontinuation of treatment. However, gastrointestinal events were less common in the atypical arm (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92). Although the trials assessed different antibiotics, no significant heterogeneity was detected in the analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No benefit of survival or clinical efficacy was shown with empirical atypical coverage in hospitalized patients with CAP. This conclusion relates mostly to the comparison of quinolone monotherapy to beta-lactams. Further trials, comparing beta-lactam monotherapy to the same combined with a macrolide, should be performed.

Antibiotics for community acquired pneumonia in adult outpatients

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), the sixth most common cause of death worldwide, is a common condition representing a significant disease burden for the community, particularly in the elderly. Antibiotics are helpful in treating CAP and are the standard treatment. CAP contributes significantly to antibiotic use, which is associated with the development of bacterial resistance and side-effects. Several studies have been published concerning treatment for CAP. Available data arises mainly hospitalized patients studies. This is an update of our 2004 Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize current evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy of different antibiotic treatments for CAP in participants older than 12.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2009, issue 1) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to February week 2, 2009), and EMBASE (January 1974 to February 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs in which one or more antibiotics were tested for the treatment of CAP in ambulatory adolescents or adults. Studies testing one or more antibiotics and reporting the diagnostic criteria as well as the clinical outcomes achieved, were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (LMB, TJMV) independently assessed study reports in the first publication. In this update, LMB performed study selection, which was checked by TJMV and MMK. Study authors were contacted to resolve any ambiguities in the study reports. Data were compiled and analyzed. Differences between review authors were resolved by discussion and consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs assessing five antibiotic pairs (1857 participants aged 12 years and older diagnosed with CAP) were included. The study quality was generally good, with some differences in the extent of the reporting. A variety of clinical, radiological and bacteriological diagnostic criteria and outcomes were reported. Overall, there was no significant difference in the efficacy of the various antibiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently available evidence from RCTs is insufficient to make evidence-based recommendations for the choice of antibiotic to be used for the treatment of CAP in ambulatory patients. Pooling of study data was limited by the very low number of studies assessing the same antibiotic pairs. Individual study results do not reveal significant differences in efficacy between various antibiotics and antibiotic groups. Multi-drug comparisons using similar administration schedules are needed to provide the evidence necessary for practice recommendations.

Empiric antibiotic coverage of atypical pathogens for community acquired pneumonia in hospitalized adults

BACKGROUND

Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is caused by various pathogens, traditionally divided to 'typical' and 'atypical'. Initial antibiotic treatment of CAP is usually empirical, customarily covering both typical and atypical pathogens. To date, no sufficient evidence exists to support this broad coverage, while limiting coverage is bound to reduce toxicity, resistance and expense.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and need of adding antibiotic coverage for atypical pathogens in hospitalized patients with CAP, in terms of mortality and successful treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infection Group's specialized register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2007); and EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of adult patients hospitalized due to CAP, comparing antibiotic regimens with atypical antibiotic coverage to a regimen without atypical antibiotic coverage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently appraised the quality of each trial and extracted the data from included trials. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated, assuming an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis for the outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty five trials were included, encompassing 5244 randomized patients. There was no difference in mortality between the atypical arm and the non-atypical arm (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.56). The atypical arm showed an insignificant trend toward clinical success and a significant advantage to bacteriological eradication, which disappeared when evaluating methodologically high-quality studies alone. Clinical success for the atypical arm was significantly higher for Legionella pneumophilae (L. pneumophilae) and non-significantly lower for pneumococcal pneumonia. There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of (total) adverse events, or those requiring discontinuation of treatment. However, gastrointestinal events were more common in the non-atypical arm (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99). All but two included trials compared a single atypical antibiotic to a beta-lactam, while no trials assessing the addition of an atypical antibiotic to a beta-lactam were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No benefit of survival or clinical efficacy was shown to empirical atypical coverage in hospitalized patients with CAP. This conclusion relates mostly to the comparison of quinolone monotherapy to beta-lactams (BL) or cephalosporins. Further trials, comparing BL or cephalosporins therapy to BL or cephalosporins combined with a macrolide in this population, using mortality as its primary outcome, should be performed.

Empiric antibiotic coverage of atypical pathogens for community acquired pneumonia in hospitalized adults

BACKGROUND

Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is caused by various pathogens, traditionally divided to 'typical' and 'atypical'. Initial antibiotic treatment of CAP is usually empirical, customarily covering both typical and atypical pathogens. To date, no sufficient evidence exists to support this broad coverage, while limiting coverage is bound to reduce toxicity, resistance and expense.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the efficacy and need of adding antibiotic coverage for atypical pathogens in hospitalized patients with CAP, in terms of mortality and successful treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infection Group's specialized register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to January Week 2 2005); and EMBASE (January 1980 to January Week 2 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of adult patients hospitalized due to CAP, comparing antibiotic regimens with atypical antibiotic coverage to a regimen without atypical antibiotic coverage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently appraised the quality of each trial and extracted the data from included trials. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated, assuming an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis for the outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty four trials were included, encompassing 5015 randomized patients. There was no difference in mortality between the atypical arm and the non-atypical arm (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.54). The atypical arm showed an insignificant trend toward clinical success and a significant advantage to bacteriological eradication, which disappeared when evaluating methodologically high-quality studies alone. Clinical success for the atypical arm was significantly higher for Legionella pneumophilae (L. pneumophilae) and non-significantly lower for pneumococcal pneumonia. There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of (total) adverse events, or those requiring discontinuation of treatment. However, gastrointestinal events were more common in the non-atypical arm (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No benefit of survival or clinical efficacy was shown to empirical atypical coverage in hospitalized patients with CAP. This conclusion relates mostly to the comparison of quinolone monotherapy to non-atypical monotherapy. Further trials, comparing beta-lactam (BL) or cephalosporin therapy to BL or cephalosporin combined with a macrolide in this population, using mortality as its primary outcome, should be performed.

Effectiveness of beta lactam antibiotics compared with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in non-severe community acquired pneumonia: meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically compare beta lactam antibiotics with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in the management of community acquired pneumonia.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane register of controlled trials, international conference proceedings, drug registration authorities, and pharmaceutical companies. Review methods Double blind randomised controlled monotherapy trials comparing beta lactam antibiotics with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in adults with community acquired pneumonia. Primary outcome was failure to achieve clinical cure or improvement.

RESULTS

18 trials totalling 6749 participants were identified, with most patients having mild to moderate community acquired pneumonia. The summary relative risk for treatment failure in all cause community acquired pneumonia showed no advantage of antibiotics active against atypical pathogens over beta lactam antibiotics (0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.07). Subgroup analysis was undertaken in those with a specific diagnosis involving atypical pathogens. We found a significantly lower failure rate in patients with Legionella species who were treated with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens (0.40, 0.19 to 0.85). Equivalence was seen for Mycoplasma pneumoniae (0.60, 0.31 to 1.17) and Chlamydia pneumoniae (2.32, 0.67 to 8.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is lacking that clinical outcomes are improved by using antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in all cause non-severe community acquired pneumonia. Although such antibiotics were superior in the management of patients later shown to have legionella related pneumonia, this pathogen was rarely responsible for pneumonia within the included trials. beta lactam agents should remain the antibiotics of initial choice in adults with non-severe community acquired pneumonia.

Therapeutic advances of new fluoroquinolones

Fluoroquinolone antimicrobials have been available for over 10 years. Recent modifications to nuclear side-chains have enhanced both the antimicrobial and pharmacokinetic profiles of this class. Rapidly increasing antimicrobial resistance among community and hospital bacterial pathogens has diminished therapeutic options. Infections caused by such pathogens, including drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae and multi-resistant Enterobacteriaceae are now treatable by few classes of antibacterials, one of these being the fluoroquinolones. Ciprofloxacin was one of the first effective agents available in both iv. and oral formulations for the treatment of Gram-negative infection, resistant to other antibiotics. More recent developments, such as sparfloxacin and grepafloxacin, are more effective in vitro against Gram-positive pathogens, although their safety profile may be less promising. Fluoroquinolones not yet in widespread clinical use, including trovafloxacin, clinafloxacin and moxifloxacin, hold considerable promise as community 'respiratory antimicrobials' and the results of clinical trials are awaited with anticipation. In this review, the three generations of fluoroquinolone development are examined and the relative antimicrobial, pharmacokinetic, clinical and safety profiles of available and developmental quinolones are compared.

Once-daily oral gatifloxacin vs three-times-daily co-amoxiclav in the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia

A double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre, multinational, parallel-group study was designed to establish proof of equivalence between oral gatifloxacin and oral co-amoxiclav in the treatment of 462 patients with mild-to-moderate community-acquired pneumonia. Eligible patients were randomised equally to either gatifloxacin 400 mg once-daily plus matching placebo for 5-10 days, or amoxycillin 500 mg + clavulanic acid 125 mg three-times-daily for 5-10 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical response (clinical cure plus improvement) at the end of treatment. Overall, a successful clinical response was achieved in 86.8% of gatifloxacin-treated patients, compared with 81.6% of those receiving co-amoxiclav, while corresponding rates of bacteriological efficacy (eradication plus presumed eradication) were 83.1% and 78.7%, respectively. The safety and tolerability profile of gatifloxacin was comparable to that of co-amoxiclav, with adverse gastrointestinal events, e.g., diarrhoea and nausea, being the most common treatment-related adverse events in both groups. The study showed no evidence of gatifloxacin-induced phototoxicity, musculoskeletal disorders, or hepatic and renal problems. Overall, this study showed that gatifloxacin was equivalent clinically to a standard course of co-amoxiclav in patients with community-acquired pneumonia, and that gatifloxacin was safe and well-tolerated.

Evolution of amoxicillin/clavulanate in the treatment of adults with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis and community-acquired pneumonia in response to antimicrobial-resistance patterns

Current treatment guidelines for community-acquired respiratory tract infections no longer depend solely on the characteristics of the patient and the clinical syndrome, but on those of the offending pathogen, including presence and level of antimicrobial resistance. The most common respiratory tract pathogens known to cause acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) include Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae. The prevalence of antimicrobial resistance, especially b-lactum and macrolide resistance, among S pneumoniae and H influenzae has increased dramatically during the past 2 decades, diminishing the activity of many older antimicrobials against resistant organisms. A pharmacokinetically enhanced formulation of amoxicillin/clavulanate has been developed to fulfill the need for an oral b-lactam antimicrobial that achieves a greater time that the serum drug concentration exceeds the minimum inhibitory concentration (T > MIC) of antimicrobials against pathogens than conventional formulations to improve activity against S pneumoniae with reduced susceptibility to penicillin. The b-lactamase inhibitor clavulanate allows for coverage of b-lactamase-producing pathogens, such as H influenzae and M catarrhalis. This article reviews the rationale for, and evolution of, oral amoxicillin clavulanate for ABRS and CAP

Fluoroquinolone treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the role of newer fluoroquinolones (FQs) for adults with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) whose level of illness allows treatment with an oral antibiotic.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing a macrolide, beta-lactam, or doxycycline antibiotic with a newer oral FQ for the treatment of CAP.

RESULTS

Patients (5118), most of whom were <60 years of age and free of coexisting diseases, were enrolled in 13 studies comparing an oral macrolide or beta-lactam antibiotic with an FQ for the treatment of CAP. No previous study compared doxycycline with an FQ. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, no trial demonstrated significant differences between FQs or alternative therapies. Summary estimates showed a statistically significant advantage in favor of the FQs in both the ITT (OR 1.22; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.47; p = 0.03) and evaluable populations (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.68; p = 0.003). The number needed to treat for an FQ advantage was 33 (95% CI 17 to 362) in the ITT population and 37 (95% CI 22 to 121) in the evaluable population. Treatment failures represented slow symptom resolution; no deaths were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The newer oral FQs showed modest therapeutic benefit compared with the studied alternative antibiotics in adults with CAP. Based on the number needed to treat from the ITT population as a measure of treatment effect, clinicians must decide whether treating 33 patients with an FQ to prevent a single therapeutic failure with another studied antibiotic warrants use of an agent from that class for an illness with a generally favorable outcome regardless of antibiotic selection, and at a time when FQ resistance may be increasing.

Is more than one quinolone needed in clinical practice?

OBJECTIVE

To review clinical information on fluoroquinolone antimicrobials to distinguish between these agents and help define their place in clinical practice.

DATA SOURCES

Primary and review articles on fluoroquinolones available commercially in the US as of August 2000 were identified through MEDLINE (from 1993-August 2000) and secondary sources.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All pertinent, published, clinical trials for levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gatifloxacin were included. Minimal data were included for quinolones with restricted or limited uses, including trovafloxacin, sparfloxacin, enoxacin, and lomefloxacin. Due to the quantity of data on ciprofloxacin, only more recent or pivotal trials or articles summarizing data on specific infections were included. Relevant information was included if it was believed to assist in differentiating between the fluoroquinolones for infections for which these agents would most commonly be considered.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Fluoroquinolones are a potent class of intravenous and oral broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents used for treating a wide range of community-acquired and nosocomial infections. More than 10 quinolones have been approved for use; although some of these have been withdrawn from the market, numerous others are under investigation. It has become increasingly important to be able to differentiate between these agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in safety, antimicrobial spectrum of activity, and resistance development support the selective use of various fluoroquinolones in differing clinical situations.

Oral moxifloxacin vs high-dosage amoxicillin in the treatment of mild-to-moderate, community-acquired, suspected pneumococcal pneumonia in adults

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin vs amoxicillin for treatment of mild-to-moderate, suspected pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adult patients.

DESIGN

Multinational, multicenter, double-blind, randomized study.

SETTING

Eighty-two centers in 20 countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hong Kong, Hungary, Lithuania, Mexico, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uruguay).

PATIENTS

Four hundred eleven adults (inpatients or outpatients) with suspected pneumococcal CAP.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomization 1:1 to moxifloxacin, 400 mg/d, or amoxicillin, 1,000 g tid, for 10 days.

RESULTS

Primary efficacy parameter was clinical response, 3 to 5 days after therapy (end of therapy [EOT]) in the per protocol (PP) population (362 patients). The clinical success rate in the PP population was 91.5% (moxifloxacin) and 89.7% (amoxicillin; two-sided 95% confidence interval, -4.2 to 7.8%). The clinical cure rate in patients with proven pneumococcal pneumonia was similar in both treatment groups (87.8%). The bacteriologic success rate in 136 bacteriologically evaluable patients at the EOT was 89.7% (moxifloxacin) and 82.4% (amoxicillin). The bacteriologic success rate against Streptococcus pneumoniae was 89.6% (moxifloxacin) and 84.8% (amoxicillin). The frequency of adverse events was comparable in both treatment groups. Digestive symptoms were the most common drug-related adverse events in both treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Moxifloxacin was statistically at least as effective as high-dose amoxicillin for treatment of mild-to-moderate, suspected pneumococcal CAP. Moxifloxacin may be an alternative for empiric CAP treatment, especially in areas where multidrug resistance in S pneumoniae is sufficiently prevalent to preclude routine penicillin.

Community-acquired pneumonia in the elderly: a practical guide to treatment

The incidence of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), an infectious disease, sharply increases among the elderly and the main risk factor for CAP in this age group is chronic comorbidity. The use of the term CAP in the elderly population should be reserved for pneumonia acquired outside of the nursing home setting, since nursing home-acquired pneumonia differs from CAP in terms of its aetiology and clinical manifestations. The main aetiology for CAP is Streptococcus pneumoniae, but atypical pathogens also play an important role as causative agents. The clinical presentations of CAP in the elderly can be different from those in younger patients, and therefore it is important to be aware of and familiar with these differences to avoid unnecessary delays in reaching the correct diagnosis. Imaging is essential to diagnose CAP and to assess its severity. Clinical and laboratory indices can be used to identify elderly patients with CAP who are at low risk for mortality and who can be treated as outpatients. The decision not to hospitalise elderly patients with CAP is contingent on a good clinical condition and the existence of home support systems. The aetiology of CAP cannot be determined on the basis of clinical manifestations, imaging or routine laboratory test results, and the initial antibiotic therapy for elderly patients with CAP should be empirical, based on accepted guidelines. In the light of developments in recent years, elderly patients with CAP, except those who are severely ill, can be treated empirically with once-daily antibiotic monotherapy in the initial phase, using a third-generation fluoroquinolone preparation, such as sparfloxacin, levofloxacin or moxifloxacin, or a new macrolide such as clarithromycin, azithromycin or dirithromycin. In addition to antibiotic therapy, it is critically important to identify and treat the physiological disturbances that accompany CAP as well as decompensation of chronic comorbid conditions. As soon as the patient's condition permits, oral antibiotic therapy should replace intravenous therapy and early discharge from the hospital should be considered. Since influenza and pneumococcus immunisation can reduce morbidity and mortality from CAP, it is important to implement regular immunisation programmes in the primary care setting.

Sparfloxacin: a review

BACKGROUND

The continuing increase in the rate of penicillin and cephalosporin resistance among respiratory pathogens and of cross-resistance to macrolide antibiotics has led to the recommendation that fluoroquinolone antibiotics be used to treat high-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (ABECB).

OBJECTIVE

This review focuses on sparfloxacin, an oral fluoroquinolone, discussing its mechanism of action, activity, pharmacokinetic characteristics, safety, and efficacy in CAP and ABECB.

METHODS

Studies were identified by a MEDLINE search of the literature from 1990 to 1999, supplemented by educational materials from conferences and symposia.

RESULTS

Sparfloxacin is active against the major respiratory pathogens and against the atypical pathogens in pneumonia that are being reported with increasing frequency. Its long half-life permits once-daily dosing. In large trials in CAP and ABECB in which all isolates were susceptible to both comparators, sparfloxacin was found to have similar efficacy to erythromycin, cefaclor, amoxicillin, ofloxacin, and clarithromycin. Its safety profile is similar to that of the macrolides and other quinolone antimicrobial agents. Photosensitivity, nausea, and diarrhea are the most common adverse events reported in clinical trials of sparfloxacin. Its use is contraindicated in patients with QTc-interval prolongation.

CONCLUSION

The increasing prevalence of beta-lactam- and macrolide-resistant bacteria in respiratory infections emphasizes the need for newer agents such as the fluoroquinolones. The choice between agents should be based on activity against the relevant respiratory pathogens in high-risk patients.

Cefaclor revisited

OBJECTIVE

This paper describes the rationale for choosing cefaclor for the management of respiratory tract infections.

BACKGROUND

Since 1979, cefaclor has established a record of efficacy in the management of respiratory tract infections. Factors contributing to the efficacy and tolerability of this drug include its molecular stability, activity against the most prevalent gram-positive and gram-negative respiratory tract pathogens, rapid absorption, >90% bioavailability, and good penetration into respiratory mucosa. After 2 decades of widespread use, this agent remains clinically effective in patients with respiratory tract infections, making it competitive with other cephalosporins and with macrolides and fluoroquinolones, including many newer agents used for respiratory tract infections. Cefaclor extended-release tablets, the newest formulation, retain the positive efficacy and tolerability attributes of immediate-release cefaclor, varying mainly in the rate of dissolution. The approved indications for extended-release cefaclor include bacterial bronchitis, pharyngitis, and skin infections.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search showed that the few adverse effects related to therapy with cefaclor are usually minor and transient and that drug-drug interactions involving cefaclor are rare.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple clinical trials have shown that extended-release cefaclor in 375-mg and 500-mg doses BID demonstrates tolerability and efficacy comparable to those of immediate-release cefaclor 250 mg TID. Extended-release cefaclor is indicated for BID dosing, which should encourage greater compliance.

Evidence-based medicine: empiric antibiotic therapy in community-acquired pneumonia

A number of national society guidelines exist for empiric management of community-acquired pneumonia but these are, to a large extent, not evidence-based, but based on clinical experience, in vitro data, pragmatism and common sense. Many randomized controlled trials of antibiotic therapy in community-acquired pneumonia have been conducted, but most of these have been powered to demonstrate equivalent efficacy of new treatments in comparison with conventional antimicrobial therapy. Development of new antibiotics has been driven by the emergence of penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, but so far there is no hard evidence that beta-lactam therapy fails in community-acquired pneumonia, at least with the higher doses of penicillins that are commonly used in hospital practice. Nonetheless, newer antibiotics have been deployed including macrolides and quinolones, and have demonstrated equivalent (and in some cases, marginally improved) efficacy to older antibiotic treatments in randomized control trials. A number of studies have shown that it is possible to stratify patients according to severity of illness, to in-patient or out-patient management protocols. These have been validated and refined.

Potential interactions of the extended-spectrum fluoroquinolones with the CNS

The new generation fluoroquinolones -- sparfloxacin, levofloxacin, grepafloxacin and trovafloxacin -- have been designed to respond to the clinical need for extended antimicrobial cover in the face of increasing global microbial resistance. Their main focus is in the treatment of respiratory infections, particularly those acquired in the community. CNS adverse effects, such as dizziness and headache, are known to occur relatively commonly with some fluoroquinolones and are not, in general, well tolerated by patients. The structural component of the fluoroquinolone molecule believed to be responsible for improved gram-positive activity is also believed to be implicated in the production of CNS adverse effects, including those arising from drug interactions with theophylline and NSAIDs. Inhibition of brain gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor binding appears to be a strong indicator of CNS activity, though N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor binding has also been implicated. In accordance with the results of these predictive studies, clinical trials have found sparfloxacin, levofloxacin and grepafloxacin to be associated with a low incidence of CNS events. Trovafloxacin has been found to be associated with a higher incidence of CNS events (particularly lightheadedness and dizziness) than the other 3 agents. Ongoing and future clinical studies will help to define the usefulness of the predictive models, as well as reveal the full CNS adverse event profile of these and other investigational fluoroquinolones.

A review of worldwide experience with sparfloxacin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia and acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis

The worldwide occurrence of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) shows an undiminished prevalence of this serious illness and hospitalisation is common in those patients with severe illness. The diversity of bacterial pathogens that can act as aetiologic agents presents a challenge to initial empiric antimicrobial management. In recent years, treatment has been further complicated by an increased incidence of antibiotic resistance in pathogens such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis. The newly available fluoroquinolones including sparfloxacin offer an alternative approach to empiric management. Sparfloxacin is active against many typical and atypical pathogens, as well as strains resistant to conventional agents. In comparative studies, the in vitro potency of sparfloxacin and its pharmacokinetic profile have been confirmed. The clinical trial efficacy and safety data suggest it might be a useful empiric therapy for both CAP and acute bacterial exacerbation of chronic bronchitis.

Effects of food on the pharmacokinetics of sparfloxacin

Sparfloxacin, a fluoroquinolone with a broad antimicrobial spectrum and long elimination half-life, is indicated for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia and acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis in adult patients. The present study was undertaken to determine the effects of skim milk and a high-fat breakfast without milk on the single-dose pharmacokinetic characteristics of this antibiotic. The pharmacokinetics of a single 200-mg dose of sparfloxacin were assessed in a 3-way crossover study that included 23 healthy male volunteers who had fasted, had ingested 240 mL of skim milk, or had consumed a standard high-fat breakfast. The subjects' mean age and weight were 26.5 years and 73.2 kg, respectively; 17 were white, 5 Hispanic, and 1 black. Neither skim milk nor the high-fat breakfast had a statistically significant effect on sparfloxacin absorption, as reflected in the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC). Ninety percent confidence limits for logarithmically transformed AUC from time zero to infinity and Cmax were within the 80% to 125% range, demonstrating that the rate and extent of sparfloxacin absorption with skim milk or a high-fat breakfast were not different from those under fasted conditions. As indicated by an increase in the time to Cmax from 3.6 to 5.4 hours, the high-fat breakfast slightly delayed the onset of sparfloxacin absorption. Skim milk and the high-fat breakfast did not significantly affect the elimination kinetics of sparfloxacin. Sparfloxacin was well tolerated in all 3 treatment groups. Despite the apparent delay in the onset of absorption, the bioavailability of sparfloxacin in the healthy male subjects in this study population was not affected by concomitant administration with skim milk or a high-fat meal. Accordingly, the results suggest that sparfloxacin can be administered without regard to the ingestion of milk or meals.

Comparison of the in vitro activity of and pathogen responses to sparfloxacin with those of other agents in the treatment of respiratory tract, urinary tract, and skin and skin-structure infections

The in vitro activity of and pathogen responses to sparfloxacin were compared with those of standard therapies for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia, complicated skin or skin-structure infections, urinary tract infections, acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, and acute maxillary sinusitis in 7 multicenter controlled trials in North America. Sparfloxacin was administered orally as a 400-mg loading dose followed by 200 mg once daily for up to 10 days. The bacteriologic efficacy of sparfloxacin (84% to 95%) was comparable to that of comparator drugs (77% to 100%). Sparfloxacin was generally 2 to 8 times more active (minimum inhibitory concentration for 90% of strains tested [MIC90]: 0.03 to 0.5 microg/mL) than comparators against common pathogens isolated in community-acquired infections, especially Streptococcus pneumoniae, including penicillin-resistant strains; Moraxella catarrhalis; Haemophilus influenzae; Streptococcus pyogenes; and Staphylococcus aureus. Sparfloxacin was also effective against Chlamydia and Mycoplasma species. The emergence of resistance was uncommon during sparfloxacin therapy (0.3% of 1100 cases). Higher area under the plasma concentration-time curve/MIC and maximum plasma concentration/MIC ratios for sparfloxacin were associated with clinical and bacteriologic efficacy, whereas lower ratios were associated with clinical and bacteriologic failure. The clinical efficacy of sparfloxacin (80% to 95%) was comparable to that obtained with the comparator drugs (71% to 92%). In addition, sparfloxacin was well tolerated and had an overall frequency of related adverse events similar to that of the comparators. There was a higher frequency of photosensitivity reactions but a lower level of digestive adverse events with sparfloxacin compared with comparators. Sparfloxacin is a suitable therapeutic alternative for the empiric treatment of respiratory tract infections owing to its favorable pharmacokinetic profile and activity against typical and atypical respiratory tract pathogens, even in geographic areas with a high incidence of penicillin resistance.

Safety profile of sparfloxacin, a new fluoroquinolone antibiotic

The safety profile of sparfloxacin, a newer fluoroquinolone antibiotic, was examined through an integrated analysis of safety data from 6 multicenter phase III trials. These consisted of 5 double-masked, randomized, comparative trials of sparfloxacin (a 400-mg oral loading dose followed by 200 mg/d for 10 days) versus standard therapies (erythromycin, cefaclor, ofloxacin, clarithromycin, and ciprofloxacin) and I open-label trial (noncomparative) in patients with: community-acquired pneumonia (2 trials); acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (1 trial); acute maxillary sinusitis (2 trials, one of which was the noncomparative trial); and complicated skin and skin-structure infections (1 trial). Overall, 401 (25.3%) of 1585 patients treated with sparfloxacin and 374 (28.1%) of 1331 receiving a comparator regimen experienced at least 1 adverse event considered to be related to the study medication. Photosensitivity reactions, usually of mild-to-moderate severity, were seen more frequently with sparfloxacin (7.4%) than with comparator agents (0.5%), whereas gastrointestinal reactions (diarrhea, nausea, dyspepsia, abdominal pain, vomiting, and flatulence), insomnia, and taste perversion were more common in patients taking comparator drugs (22.3% vs 12.1%, 4.3% vs 1.5%, and 2.9% vs 1.2%, respectively). Analysis of electrocardiographic findings showed that the mean change from baseline in QT interval corrected for heart rate (QTc) was significantly greater in sparfloxacin-treated patients (10 msec) than in patients given comparator drugs (3 msec), but no associated ventricular arrhythmias were detected. Adverse events led to discontinuation of study medication in 104 (6.6%) patients receiving sparfloxacin and 118 (8.9%) given com parator drugs. Sparfloxacin may be considered an appropriate choice for the treatment of certain community-acquired infections for patients who are not at risk for photosensitivity reactions or adverse events associated with prolongation of the QTc interval.

Expanded activity and utility of the new fluoroquinolones: a review

In general, the fluoroquinolones developed over the past few years have greater potency, a broader spectrum of antimicrobial activity, greater in vitro efficacy against resistant organisms, and a better safety profile than other antimicrobial agents, including the older quinolones. The present review focuses on 4 new quinolones that are commercially available (levofloxacin, trovafloxacin, grepafloxacin, and sparfloxacin) and 3 that are currently undergoing clinical trials (gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin, and clinafloxacin). Examination of the minimum inhibitory concentrations of these drugs against gram-positive, gram-negative, anaerobic, and atypical organisms demonstrates their increased potency in vitro. The available clinical evidence, although sparse, suggests the potential enhanced efficacy of these drugs in the treatment of various community-acquired and nosocomial infections (eg, respiratory, urinary tract, and skin infections and sexually transmitted diseases). Compared with ciprofloxacin, their pharmacokinetic profiles demonstrate equivalent or greater bioavailability, higher plasma concentrations, and increased tissue penetration, as reflected in greater volume of distribution. Adverse events seen with most quinolones are mild. Serious adverse effects that may occur are phototoxicity (particularly with sparfloxacin) and prolongation of the QTc interval (seen with sparfloxacin and grepafloxacin). Drug interactions are possible between multivalent cation-containing compounds and all quinolones and between theophylline and both ciprofloxacin and grepafloxacin. Drugs that prolong the QTc interval should not be coadministered with sparfloxacin and grepafloxacin. Step-down therapy, a therapeutic and cost-saving advantage possible with gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin, allows the switching of patients from intravenous to oral therapy without having to change the dosage regimen or class of antibiotics. In addition to shortening the hospital stay and reducing the risk of venous complications, step-down therapy has been shown to cut hospital drug costs by 40% and hospitalization costs by 20%.

Sparfloxacin versus clarithromycin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia

Community-acquired pneumonia remains a significant health concern despite the availability of effective antibiotics. This randomized, double-masked, double-dummy, multicenter comparative trial was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety of sparfloxacin with those of clarithromycin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. In 54 centers throughout the United States, 342 patients aged > or = 18 years with community-acquired pneumonia were enrolled in this trial. A total of 167 patients, 98 males and 69 females with a mean age of 51.0 years (range, 18-87), received a 400-mg loading dose of sparfloxacin on the first day, followed by 200 mg once daily for a total of 10 days. A total of 175 patients, 85 males and 90 females with a mean age of 51.3 years (range, 18-91), received clarithromycin 250 mg twice daily for 10 days. In the intent-to-treat population, 133 (79.6%) patients in the sparfloxacin group and 145 (82.9%) in the clarithromycin group were cured or improved (the 95% confidence interval [CI] for the differences in success rate between sparfloxacin and clarithromycin was -11.5% to 5.1%). Success rates for the per-protocol patients were 88.7% (133/150) in the sparfloxacin group and 88.9% (144/162) in the clarithromycin groups (95% CI, -7.2% to 6.8%). There were no significant differences in success rate between treatment groups based on age > or = 65 years. The overall bacteriologic response rates in the bacteriologically assessable population were 97.0% (64/66 isolates) in the sparfloxacin group and 91.4% (74/81 isolates) in the clarithromycin group. Recurrence occurred in 6.0% of per-protocol patients in the sparfloxacin group and 6.3% of patients in the clarithromycin group. The overall frequency of adverse events was 56.3% in the sparfloxacin group and 65.1% in the clarithromycin group. Gastrointestinal disturbances were the most common adverse event in both groups. Abnormal taste related to study drug was reported by 17 patients (9.7%) treated with clarithromycin, versus 3 patients (1.8%) treated with sparfloxacin (P = 0.002). Photosensitivity reactions were reported in 10 patients (6.0%) treated with sparfloxacin, versus 1 patient (0.6%) treated with clarithromycin (P = 0.002). QT-interval prolongation was documented in 4 patients (2.4%) in the sparfloxacin group and no patients in the clarithromycin group. Thus sparfloxacin was as well tolerated and as effective as clarithromycin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.

Community-acquired pneumonia

This seminar reviews the aetiology, clinical presentation, approach to diagnosis, and management of immunocompetent adults with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Pneumonia is a common clinical entity, particularly among the elderly. A thorough understanding of the epidemiology and microbiology of CAP is essential for appropriate diagnosis and management. Although the microbiology of CAP has remained relatively stable over the last decade, there is new information on the incidence of atypical pathogens, particularly in patients not admitted to hospital, and new information on the incidence of pathogens in cases of severe CAP and in CAP in the elderly. Recent studies have provided new data on risk factors for mortality in CAP, which can assist the clinician in decisions about the need for hospital admission. The emergence of antimicrobial resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae, the organism responsible for most cases of CAP, has greatly affected the approach to therapy, especially in those patients who are treated empirically. Guidelines for the therapy of CAP have been published by the American Thoracic Society, the British Thoracic Society, and, most recently, the Infectious Diseases Society of America. These guidelines differ in their emphasis on empirical versus pathogenic-specific management.

Levofloxacin and sparfloxacin: new quinolone antibiotics

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, spectrum of activity, clinical trials, and adverse effects of levofloxacin and sparfloxacin, two new fluoroquinolone antibiotics.

DATA SOURCES

Literature was identified by a MEDLINE search from January 1985 to September 1997. Abstracts and presentations were identified by review of program abstracts from the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy from 1988 to 1996.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled clinical studies were selected for evaluation; however, uncontrolled studies were included when data were limited for indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In vitro data were selected from comparison trials whenever available. Only in vitro trials that provided data on the minimum inhibitory concentrations required to inhibit 90% of isolates were used. Data from North American studies were selected whenever available.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were evaluated with respect to in vitro activity, study design, clinical and microbiologic outcomes, and adverse drug reactions.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Levofloxacin and sparfloxacin are active against pathogens frequently involved in community-acquired upper and lower respiratory tract infections, including Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, and Chlamydia pneumoniae. Both compounds have enhanced activity compared with ciprofloxacin against most gram-positive bacteria, including enterococci, streptococci, and staphylococci, and retain good activity against most Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Sparfloxacin has greater anaerobic activity than levofloxacin, which is more active than ciprofloxacin or ofloxacin. Although many clinical studies are available only in abstract form, the clinical data demonstrate that these new quinolones are effective for most community-acquired upper and lower respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, gonococcal and nongonococcal urethritis, and skin and skin structure infections. FDA-approved indications are limited for both compounds to date.

CONCLUSIONS

Levofloxacin and sparfloxacin have improved gram-positive activity compared with that of older fluoroquinolones, and are administered once daily. Sparfloxacin-associated photosensitivity may limit its therapeutic usefulness. Clinical trials confirm that these agents are as effective as traditional therapies for the management of community-acquired pneumonia, acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, sinusitis, urinary tract infections, acute gonococcal and nongonococcal urethritis, and skin and skin structure infections.