Treatment of respiratory tract infections with moxifloxacin: results of postmarketing surveillance in China

Gender analysis of moxifloxacin clinical trials

PURPOSE

To determine the inclusion of women and the sex-stratification of results in moxifloxacin Clinical Trials (CTs), and to establish whether these CTs considered issues that specifically affect women, such as pregnancy and use of hormonal therapies. Previous publications about women's inclusion in CTs have not specifically studied therapeutic drugs. Although this type of drug is taken by men and women at a similar rate, adverse effects occur more frequently in the latter.

METHODS

We reviewed 158 published moxifloxacin trials on humans, retrieved from MedLine and the Cochrane Library (1998-2010), to determine whether they complied with the gender recommendations published by U.S. Food and Drug Administration Guideline.

RESULTS

Of a total of 80,417 subjects included in the moxifloxacin CTs, only 33.7% were women in phase I, in contrast to phase II, where women accounted for 45%, phase III, where they represented 38.3% and phase IV, where 51.3% were women. About 40.9% (n=52) of trials were stratified by sex and 15.3% (n=13) and 9% (n=7) provided data by sex on efficacy and adverse effects, respectively. We found little information about the influence of issues that specifically affect women. Only 3 of the 59 journals that published the moxifloxacin CTs stated that authors should stratify their results by sex.

CONCLUSIONS

Women are under-represented in the published moxifloxacin trials, and this trend is more marked in phase I, as they comprise a higher proportion in the other phases. Data by sex on efficacy and adverse effects are scarce in moxifloxacin trials. These facts, together with the lack of data on women-specific issues, suggest that the therapeutic drug moxifloxacin is only a partially evidence-based medicine.

Moxifloxacin safety: an analysis of 14 years of clinical data

Background

Moxifloxacin, a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, is used for the treatment of respiratory tract, pelvic inflammatory disease, skin, and intra-abdominal infections. Its safety profile is considered favorable in most reviews but has been challenged with respect to rare but potentially fatal toxicities (e.g. hepatic, cardiac, or skin reactions).

Objective

To analyze and compare the safety profile of moxifloxacin versus comparators in the entire clinical database of the manufacturer.

Setting

Data on the valid-for-safety population from phase II–IV actively controlled studies (performed between 1996 and 2010) were analyzed. Studies were either double blind (n = 22 369) or open label (n = 7635) and included patients with indications that have been approved in at least one country [acute bacterial sinusitis, acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, community-acquired pneumonia, uncomplicated pelvic inflammatory disease, complicated and uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections, and complicated intra-abdominal infections] (n = 27 824) and patients with other indications (n = 2180), using the recommended daily dose (400 mg) and route of administration (oral, intravenous/oral, intravenous only). The analysis included patients at risk (age ≥65 years, diabetes mellitus, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, cardiac disorders, or body mass index <18 kg/m²). Patients with known contraindications were excluded from enrollment by study protocol design, but any patient having entered a study, even if inappropriately, was included in the analysis.

Main Outcome Measure

Crude incidences and relative risk estimates (Mantel-Haenszel analysis) of patients with any adverse event (AE), adverse drug reaction (ADR), serious AE (SAE), serious ADR (SADR), treatment discontinuation due to an AE or ADR, and fatal outcomes related to an AE or ADR.

Results

Overall incidence rates of AEs were globally similar in the moxifloxacin and comparator groups. By filtering the data for differences in disfavor of moxifloxacin (i) at ≥2.5% for events with an incidence ≥2.5% or at ≥2-fold for events with an incidence <2.5% in one or both groups and (ii) affecting ≥10 patients in either group, we observed slightly more (i) AEs in double-blind intravenous-only and open-label oral studies, (ii) SAEs in double-blind intravenous-only studies, (iii) ADRs and SADRs in open-label oral studies, (iv) SADRs in open-label intravenous/oral studies, and (v) premature discontinuation due to AEs in open-label intravenous-only studies. The actual numbers of SADRs (in all studies) were small, with clinically relevant differences noted only in intravenous/oral studies and mainly driven by ‘gastrointestinal disorders’ (15 versus 7 patients) and ‘changes observed during investigations’ (23 versus 7 patients [asymptomatic QT prolongation: 11 versus 4 patients in double-blind studies]). Analysis by comparator (including another fluoroquinolone) did not reveal medically relevant differences, even in patients at risk. Incidence rates of hepatic disorders, tendon disorders, clinical surrogates of QT prolongation, serious cutaneous reactions, and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea were similar with moxifloxacin and comparators.

Conclusion

The safety of moxifloxacin is essentially comparable to that of standard therapies for patients receiving the currently registered dosage and for whom contraindications and precautions of use (as in the product label) are taken into account.

Intravenous moxifloxacin in routine hospital treatment of respiratory tract infections in China: results of a multicenter, noninterventional study

Objective:

To investigate the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of moxifloxacin (MXF) (intravenous [IV] or sequential therapy [IV followed by oral]) under daily treatment conditions in a large number of patients with respiratory tract infections.

Design:

Patients with a diagnosis of respiratory tract infection should be treated with MXF IV and/or tablets 400 mg once daily for a duration at the physician’s discretion. For each patient, the physician documented data at an initial visit and at the end of therapy (EOT) visit and/or, in the case of sequential therapy, an interim visit when the patient switched to oral treatment.

Results:

A total of 1953 patients treated with MXF were documented and were valid for an effectiveness and safety evaluation. An improvement was observed in 98.1% (n = 1911/1949) of patients treated with MXF. Recovery was documented in 89.9% (n = 1754/1951) of the patients. At the EOT visit, severity of infection was assessed to be “relieved” or at least “improved” in 96.5% (n = 1873/1940) of the patients. Physicians assessed overall effectiveness as “good” or “very good” in 93.3% (n = 1822/1953) of all patients. The physicians’ overall tolerability rating was “very good” or “good” in 93.5% (n = 1827/1953) of all patients. The incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were 0.72% (n = 14) and 0.67% (n = 13), respectively. One serious AE “falling white blood cell count” occurred (0.05%), which was also defined as a serious ADR and resolved.

Conclusion:

MXF was generally well tolerated and highly effective in the treatment of different respiratory tract infections. The incidence of AEs and ADRs was low. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability information collected in this study confirms the clinical safety profile of MXF and its value as antibiotic treatment for respiratory tract infections.