Comparative study of levofloxacin and amoxycillin/clavulanic acid in adults with mild-to-moderate community-acquired pneumonia

Comparative Treatment Failure Rates of Respiratory Fluoroquinolones or β-Lactam + Macrolide Versus β-Lactam Alone in the Treatment for Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adult Outpatients: An Analysis of a Nationally Representative Claims Database

No comparative effectiveness study has been conducted for the following 3 antibiotics: respiratory fluoroquinolones, β-lactam, and β-lactam + advanced macrolide. To gain insights into the real-world clinical effectiveness of these antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia in adult outpatients, our study investigated the treatment failure rates in 2 million representative participants from the National Health Informatics Project (NHIP) of Taiwan. A new-user cohort design was used to follow NHIP participants from January 2000 until December 2009. Treatment failure was defined by either one of the following events: a second antibiotic prescription, hospitalization due to CAP, an emergency department visit with a diagnosis of CAP, or 30-day nonaccident-related mortality. From 2006 to 2009, we identified 9256 newly diagnosed CAP outpatients, 1602 of whom were prescribed levofloxacin, 2100 were prescribed moxifloxacin, 5049 were prescribed β-lactam alone, and 505 were prescribed advanced macrolide + β-lactam. Compared with the β-lactam-based regimen, the propensity score-matched odds ratio for composite treatment failure was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.67-0.97) for moxifloxacin, 1.10 (95% CI, 0.90-1.35) for levofloxacin, and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.67-1.35) for macrolide +β-lactam. Moxifloxacin was associated with lower treatment failure rates compared with β-lactam alone, or levofloxacin in Taiwanese CAP outpatients. However, due to inherent limitations in our claims database, more randomized controlled trials are required before coming to a conclusion on which antibiotic is more effective for Taiwanese CAP outpatients. More population-based comparative effectiveness studies are also encouraged and should be considered as an integral piece of evidence in local CAP treatment guidelines.

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.

Efficacy and safety of levofloxacin in the context of other contemporary fluoroquinolones: a review

BACKGROUND

In recent years, fluoroquinolone research has focused on achieving several goals, including (1) enhanced potency against gram-positive cocci, notably Streptococcus pneumoniae, and anaerobes, while (2) maintaining potency against gram-negative pathogens, (3) optimizing pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), and (4) minimizing potential adverse drug reactions through recognition and avoidance of structural configurations that have characterized earlier, reactive compounds.

OBJECTIVE

This review examines the efficacy and safety of fluoroquinolones and the specific clinical evidence regarding levofloxacin.

METHODS

Using published literature collected over time by the author, a review was conducted, focusing on the efficacy and safety profile of levofloxacin and other fluoroquinolones.

RESULTS

The newer fluoroquinolones have fulfilled many of the research goals described above. Levofloxacin has improved anti-gram-positive potency, PK/PD properties, a proven clinical trial record (particularly for communityacquired pneumonia [CAP]), and an excellent safety profile-in the context of the treatment of >250 million patients worldwide in the past decade. It is licensed for management of drug-resistant S pneumoniae infections in the United States and has gained widespread formulary acceptance and guideline inclusion. Studies assessing levofloxacin for CAP therapy show significant advantages over standard therapy, such as trends toward reduced IV therapy and length of hospitalization, reduced mortality, and significant associated cost reduction. In addition, levofloxacin has proved highly effective in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB), with excellent clinical and bacteriologic results, typical of the class, and significant advantages-in terms of clinical response, overall pathogen eradication, extension of the symptom-free period, and trends toward a reduction in the number of consultation visits and hospitalizations-over standard agents, such as the oral cephalosporins.

CONCLUSIONS

Levofloxacin offers a combination of documented efficacy and tolerability, and provides an important option for the treatment of bacterial infections, including CAP and AECB, compared with standard agents used in the management of lower respiratory tract infections.

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.

A Review of Levofloxacin for the Treatment of Bacterial Infections

Completing its initial phases of drug development in the mid 1990s as the one of the first fluoroquinolones that could be used with confidence to treat respiratory tract infections, levofloxacin went on to become one of the most widely prescribed antibiotics in the world. Available in both oral (po) and intravenous (IV) formulations and with characteristics of over 90% bioavailability, distribution into both extracellular and intracellular pulmonary compartments, highly predictable pharmacokinetics with over 90% of the drug being excreted unchanged in urine, and reliable activity against a broad spectrum of clinically important pathogens, levofloxacin has been used successfully to treat patients with a variety of serious infectious diseases as well as common infections most often treated outside of the hospital setting. Results of clinical trials involving patients with respiratory tract, urinary tract, and skin infections have consistently shown rates of clinical success and bacteriological eradication that were comparable to other widely used broad-spectrum agents. Regimens of levofloxacin, initially involving total daily doses of 250 mg to 500 mg, but more recently regimens involving 750 mg doses, have been shown to be safe and effective. Nearly a decade and a half of clinical experience has defined a safety and tolerability profile that permits data-driven assessment of the risks and benefits of using levofloxacin. As resistance to currently available fluoroquinolones has emerged, the clinical value of levofloxacin deserves continued evaluation. However, consistently high rates of susceptibility of clinically important bacteria, especially among those bacteria that commonly cause respiratory tract infections, such as Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, suggest that this agent will continue to be a widely used well past the 20-year anniversary of its introduction into the antibacterial armamentarium.

[Antibiotherapy for acute CAP in adults]

Community acquired pneumonia is one of the most frequent infections. With time, bacterial epidemiology and bacterial resistance evolve and new antibiotics become available. So an up-date on adequate antibiotic use is necessary. We reviewed the epidemiology of pneumonia and the evolution of bacterial resistance. We also collected data on new antibiotics which can be used for this infection such as levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, telithromycin, and pristinamycin. All these drugs are effective on bacteria involved in pneumonia. At this time, only few Streptococcus pneumoniae strains have developed resistance to these drugs. However, resistance to fluoroquinolones is not easily detected with common laboratory techniques. There is no effectiveness difference between the 2 new fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) in clinical studies. However, in bacteriological and pharmacological studies, moxifloxacin seems to be more effective than levofloxacin (500 mg/day). For the treatment of pneumonia due to Legionella pneumophila, fluoroquinolones are now widely recommended. For Streptococcus pneumonia, amoxicillin remain the drug of choice, even for bacteria with a decreased susceptibility to penicillin. The importance of treating atypical pathogens remains to be documented.

Pneumonies aiguës communautaires : analyse critique des essais cliniques

Optimal antibiotic treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains controversial. The clinical impact of S. pneumoniae resistance to macrolides is well documented. By contrast high dosage amoxicillin (1 g tid) remains active against such strains and no failure has been reported. The aim of this paper was to review clinical trials in community-acquired pneumonia, published from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2005. One hundred seventy-three articles were collected, using Medline, 35 of which were analyzed, and 16 finally used. Telithromycin and pristinamycin may be used in mild to moderate CAP. Anti-pneumococcal fluoroquinolones such as levofloxacin and moxifloxacin may be used in at risk patients, but levofloxacin has only been investigated in patients with severe CAP and patients with Legionnaire's disease. Amoxicillin 1 g tid remains the drug of choice for pneumococcal CAP.

Comparison of Levofloxacin and Cefotaxime Combined With Ofloxacin for ICU Patients With Community-Acquired Pneumonia Who Do Not Require Vasopressors

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of levofloxacin (L) as monotherapy in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in comparison with therapy using a combination of cefotaxime (C) plus ofloxacin (O).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized 1:1, comparative, open, parallel-group study.

SETTING

Multinational study with 149 sites.

PATIENTS

A total of 398 randomized patients who had been admitted to the ICU with severe CAP without shock, including 308 patients in a modified intent-to-treat population and 271 patients in the per-protocol (PP) population (L group, 139 patients; C + O group, 132 patients).

INTERVENTIONS

Therapy with levofloxacin (500 mg IV, q12h) vs therapy with a C + O combination (C, 1g IV, q8h; O, 200 mg IV, q12h) for 10 to 14 days.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The main end point was the clinical efficacy at the end of treatment (ie, the test-of-cure [TOC] visit). The statistical hypothesis was the noninferiority of L therapy to C + O therapy with a 2.5% alpha risk (unilateral) and a 15% maximum set difference. At the TOC visit, a clinical success was observed in 79.1% of patients (L group) and 79.5% of patients (C + O group) in the PP population (difference, -0.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10.79 to 9.97% without adjustment for simplified acute physiology score [SAPS] II at inclusion; difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -10.13 to 9.58% with adjustment for SAPS II). A satisfactory bacteriologic response was present in 73.7% of L group patients and 77.5% of C + O group patients, including responses of 75.7% and 70.3%, respectively, in the L group and C + O group in the Streptococcus pneumoniae-documented population. In the safety analysis, 20 patients in the L group (10.3%) and 16 patients in the C + O group (8.0%) experienced at least one adverse event that was considered to be treatment-related.

CONCLUSION

L therapy was at least as effective as the combination therapy of C + O in the treatment of a subset of patients with CAP requiring ICU admission. This conclusion cannot be extrapolated to patients requiring mechanical ventilation or vasopressors (ie, those patients in shock).

Mutant selection window in levofloxacin and moxifloxacin treatments of experimental pneumococcal pneumonia in a rabbit model of human therapy

For some pneumococci the fluoroquinolone MICs are low but the mutant prevention concentrations (MPCs) are high; this difference defines in vitro the mutant selection window (MSW). We investigated in vivo the bacterial reduction and the occurrence of resistant mutants with moxifloxacin (MFX; 400 mg once daily) or levofloxacin (LVX; 500 mg twice daily) in treatments similar to those in humans with experimental pneumonia due to pneumococci (expPP) exhibiting various MICs and MPCs. The MIC/MPC for MFX and LVX and genotypes were as follows: strain 16089, 0.125/0.125 and 0.5/0.5 (wild type); strain MS1A, 0.25/0.25 and 1/2 (efflux); strain MS2A, 0.25/4 and 1.75/28 (parC79); strain MR3B4, 0.25/4 and 2/32 (parC79); strain M16, 0.5/2 and 8/32 (parC83); strain Gyr-1207, 1.5/3 and 8/16 (gyrA); and strain MQ3A, 4/4 and 16/64 (parC and gyrA). Both drugs were efficient with wild type-expPP, but only MFX was efficient with efflux-expPP. No bacterial reduction was observed for parC-expPPs due to mutants observed in 18 to 100% of animals, depending on the strain and the drug tested. These mutants showed unbound area under the concentration-time curve and MICs of from 50 to 164 for MFX. The in vivo pharmacodynamic boundaries of the MSW were different for MFX and LVX. We conclude that, after LVX or MFX treatment, mutants occur in vivo if there is a preexisting parC mutation, since the drug concentrations fall below the MPCs of these strains. Since the MPC determination cannot be routinely determined, these phenotypes or genotypes should be detected by simple tests to guide the therapeutic options.

Clinical role of protein binding of quinolones

Protein binding of antibacterials in plasma and tissues has long been considered a component of their pharmacokinetic parameters, playing a potential role in distribution, excretion and therapeutic effectiveness. Since the beginning of the 'antibacterial era', this factor has been extensively analysed for all antibacterial classes, showing that wide variations of the degree of protein binding occur even in the same antibacterial class, as with beta-lactams. As the understanding of protein binding grew, the complexity of the binding system was increasingly perceived and its dynamic character described. Studies of protein binding of the fluoroquinolones have shown that the great majority of these drugs exhibit low protein binding, ranging from approximately 20 to 40% in plasma, and that they are bound predominantly to albumin. The potential role in pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of binding of fluoroquinolones to plasma, tissue and intracellular proteins has been analysed, but it has not been established that protein binding has any significant direct or indirect impact on therapeutic effectiveness. Regarding the factors influencing the tissue distribution of antibacterials, physicochemical characteristics and the small molecular size of fluoroquinolones permit a rapid penetration into extravascular sites and intracellularly, with a rapid equilibrium being established between intravascular and extravascular compartments. The high concentrations of these drugs achieved in tissues, body fluids and intracellularly, in addition to their wide antibacterial spectrum, mean that fluoroquinolones have therapeutic effectiveness in a large variety of infections. The tolerability of quinolones has generally been reported as good, based upon long experience in using pefloxacin, ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin in clinical practice. Among more recently developed molecules, good tolerability has been reported for levofloxacin, moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin, but certain other new compounds have been removed from the market because of renal, hepatic and cardiac toxicity. To what extent the protein binding of fluoroquinolones can play a role in their tolerability is unclear. In terms of drug-drug interactions, the role of protein binding is questionable: several drug combinations can be responsible for toxicity, such as with beta-lactams, metronidazole, theophylline, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents or a series of drugs used for cardiac diseases, but protein binding does not seem to be involved in these interactions. In conclusion, protein binding of fluoroquinolones appears to be a complex phenomenon, but has no clear role in therapeutic effectiveness or toxicity.

In vitro activity of levofloxacin against contemporary clinical isolates of Legionella pneumophila, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydia pneumoniae from North America and Europe

OBJECTIVE

To assess the activities of levofloxacin and the comparator agents erythromycin, clarithromycin, azithromycin and doxycycline against atypical respiratory pathogens.

METHODS

One hundred and forty-six Legionella pneumophila, 41 Mycoplasma pneumoniae and nine Chlamydia pneumoniae isolates were procured from various culture collections in North America and Europe and tested for susceptibility to the above agents by broth microdilution. The isolates came primarily from clinical sources and were collected from patients between 1995 and 1999.

RESULTS

Against L. pneumophila, levofloxacin was the most active agent, with an MIC(90) of 0.03 mg/L, twofold more active than clarithromycin (0.06 mg/L), 16-fold more active than erythromycin and azithromycin (0.5 mg/L) and 64-fold more active than doxycycline. Against M. pneumoniae, azithromycin (MIC(90) < or = 0.0005 mg/L) was the most active agent. However, two isolates of M. pneumoniae, one from the USA and one from Finland, were macrolide resistant (MIC > or = 4 mg/L), but levofloxacin susceptible (MIC 0.25 mg/L). The geographic origin of L. pneumophila and M. pneumoniae did not affect the MIC range for any antimicrobial agent tested. Against C. pneumoniae, clarithromycin was the most active agent, with an MIC range of < or =0.008-0.03 mg/L.

CONCLUSIONS

Levofloxacin had comparable activity to the other agents tested against the atypical respiratory pathogens, confirming its potential as an alternative for empirical therapy of community-acquired pneumonia.

Levofloxacin

Levofloxacin is the L-form of the fluoroquinolone antibacterial agent, ofloxacin. In in vitro studies, levofloxacin demonstrated a broad range of activity against Gram-positive and -negative organisms and anaerobes. The drug is more active against Gram-positive organisms than ciprofloxacin, but less active than newer fluoroquinolones such as gatifloxacin. Its activity against Streptococcus pneumoniae is unaffected by the presence of penicillin resistance. In several randomised controlled trails, 5 to 14 days' treatment with intravenous and/or oral levofloxacin proved an effective therapy for upper and lower respiratory tract infections. In patients with mild to severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), intravenous and/or oral levofloxacin 500mg once or twice daily was as effective as intravenous and/or oral gatifloxacin, clarithromycin, azithromycin or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. Overall, clinical response rates with levofloxacin ranged from 86 to 95% versus 88 to 96% with comparator agents; bacteriological response rates were 88 to 95% and 86 to 98%, respectively. Sequential (intravenous +/- oral switch) therapy with levofloxacin 750mg once daily was as effective as intravenous imipenem/cilastatin (+/- oral switch to ciprofloxacin) in patients with severe nosocomial pneumonia. Generally, oral levofloxacin 250 or 500mg once daily was at least as effective as oral cefaclor, cefuroxime axetil, clarithromycin or moxifloxacin in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis as assessed by either clinical or bacteriological response rates. This approach also provided similar efficacy to amoxicillin/ clavulanic acid or clarithromycin in patients with acute sinusitis. Sequential therapy with levofloxacin 500mg twice daily for 7 to 14 days' was as effective as intravenous imipenem/cilastatin in patients with suspected bacteraemia. Oral levofloxacin 500mg once daily for 7 to 10 days was also an effective treatment in patients with uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections, and in those with complicated urinary tract infections. A higher dosage of sequential levofloxacin 750mg once daily proved as effective as intravenous ticarcillin/clavulanic acid (+/- oral switch to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid) in the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Pharmacoeconomic studies suggest that levofloxacin may be cost-saving in comparison to conventional therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Levofloxacin continues to demonstrate good clinical efficacy in the treatment of a range of infections, including those in which S. pneumoniae is a potential pathogen. Importantly, it has efficacy in CAP similar to that of gatifloxacin and at least as good as that of the third generation cephalosporins. Extensive clinical data confirm the good tolerability profile of this agent without the phototoxicity, hepatic and cardiac events evident with some of the other newer fluoroquinolone agents. Levofloxacin therefore offers a unique combination of documented efficacy and tolerability, and provides an important option for the treatment of bacterial infections.

Community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections: etiology and treatment

The current therapy for community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections is often empiric, usually involving administration of a beta-lactam or macrolide. However, the increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance in frequently isolated respiratory tract pathogens has complicated the antimicrobial selection process. This review will discuss the incidence of various respiratory pathogens, as well as update the clinician on the various antimicrobial alternatives available, with particular emphasis on the role of the newer fluoroquinolones in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and community-acquired pneumonia.