Efficacy and safety of temafloxacin versus those of amoxicillin in hospitalized adults with community-acquired pneumonia

Efficacy of Empiric Antibiotic Coverage in Community-Acquired Pneumonia Associated with Each Atypical Bacteria: A Meta-Analysis

The benefit of empiric coverage for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) for atypical bacteria is controversial. This meta-analysis purpose was to compare the clinical failure rate between adults who empirically received atypical coverage versus those who did not. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing the clinical failure rate of CAP associated with individual atypical bacteria between adults who received empiric atypical coverage versus those who did not. Risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Eight double-blind RCTs (65 patients with Legionella spp., 176 patients with M. pneumoniae, and 78 patients with C. pneumoniae) were included in the meta-analysis. The rate of clinical failure was significantly lower with empiric atypical coverage in CAP associated with Legionella spp. (RD, -42.6%; 95% CI, -69.8% to -15.4%; p-value = 0.002; I² = 0%) and Mycoplasma pneumoniae (RD, -9.5%; 95% CI, -18.9% to -0.1%; p-value = 0.048; I² = 0%), but not with Chlamydia pneumoniae (RD, 7.1%; 95% CI, -9.0% to 23.1%; p-value = 0.390; I² = 0%). This meta-analysis of RCTs found that empiric atypical coverage decreased the clinical failure rate of CAP associated with Legionella spp. and M. pneumoniae, but not with C. pneumoniae.

Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: a systematic review

Background

The etiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has evolved since the beginning of the antibiotic era. Recent guidelines encourage immediate empiric antibiotic treatment once a diagnosis of CAP is made. Concerns about treatment recommendations, on the one hand, and antibiotic stewardship, on the other, motivated this review of the medical literature on the etiology of CAP.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of English-language literature on the etiology of CAP using methods defined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed using a combination of the keywords ‘pneumonia’, ‘CAP’, ‘etiology’, ‘microbiology’, ‘bacteriology’, and ‘pathogen’. We examined articles on antibiotics that were develop to treat pneumonia. We reviewed all ‘related articles’ as well as studies referenced by those that came up in the search. After we excluded articles that did not give sufficient microbiological data or failed to meet other predetermined criteria, 146 studies remained. Data were stratified into diagnostic categories according to the microbiologic studies that were done; results are presented as the percentage in each category of all cases in which an etiology was established.

Results

Streptococcus pneumoniae remains the most common cause of CAP although declining in incidence; this decline has been greater in the US than elsewhere. Haemophilus influenzae is the second most common cause of CAP, followed by Staphylococcus aureus and Gram negative bacilli. The incidence of all bacteria as causes of CAP has declined because, with routine use of PCR for viruses, the denominator, cases with an established etiology, has increased. Viruses were reported on average in about 10% of cases, but recent PCR-based studies identified a respiratory virus in about 30% of cases of CAP, with substantial rates of viral/bacterial coinfection.

Conclusion

The results of this study justify current guidelines for initial empiric treatment of CAP. With pneumococcus and Haemophilus continuing to predominate, efforts at antibiotic stewardship might be enhanced by greater attention to the routine use of sputum Gram stain and culture. Because viral/bacterial coinfection is relatively common, the identification of a virus by PCR does not, by itself, allow for discontinuation of the antibiotic therapy.

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.

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.

Community-acquired pneumonia: causes of treatment failure in patients enrolled in clinical trials

In order to determine the causes of treatment failure in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) clinical trials, a MEDLINE search for all CAP studies published between 1990 and 1997 was performed. Prospective, randomized studies comparing the efficacy of two or more antibiotics in CAP were selected. Treatment failure was defined as persistent fever, deterioration of patient's condition, or a change in the prescribed antibiotic regimen. In 16% of the cases included in the clinical trials, the treatment of CAP is unsuccessful. A significant number of identified failure cases were owing to antibiotic side-effects. Resistant pathogens are an unusual cause of failure whatever the antibiotic used.

Clinical evaluation of the management of community-acquired pneumonia by general practitioners in France

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the management of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) by general practitioners (GPs) in terms of clinical efficiency and adherence to official recommendations.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Community-based study from 11 French counties.

PATIENTS

Adult patients clinically suspected of having CAP who were seen by GPs were included after confirmation of the presence of an infiltrate on chest radiographs.

INTERVENTION

The management of the patients was left to the discretion of the GP.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

One hundred thirty patients were included in the study, and 13 patients (10%) were immediately hospitalized because of the severity of the pneumonia. The remaining 117 patients were treated as outpatients: 108 of 117 patients (92%) were cured, and 9 patients were subsequently hospitalized because of the failure of ambulatory treatment. Diagnostic error (n = 6) rather than antibiotic failure (n = 3) was the most frequent cause of the failure of ambulatory treatment. Only 40% of the patients received an initial antibiotic treatment that was in agreement with French recommendations. However, the rate of antibiotic failure leading to hospitalization was low (3 of 117 patients; 2.6%) and similar for patients treated or not according to recommendations (p > 0.5). Overall, five patients (4%) died; all deaths occurred during hospitalization and were related to the severity of the underlying disease but not to the choice of antibiotic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of CAP by GPs was clinically effective despite a poor adherence to official recommendations. Our results suggest that adequate assessment of severity rather than adherence to recommendations for antibiotic treatment had an impact on clinical outcome of CAP managed by GPs.

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.

Should third-generation cephalosporins be the empirical treatment of choice for severe community-acquired pneumonia in adults?

The choice of empirical treatment for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is highly controversial. Our survey of 42 Australian emergency department doctors showed that monotherapy with a third-generation cephalosporin was the preferred regimen for severe CAP (14/42; 33%). We argue that cheaper regimens with a narrower spectrum are likely to be just as effective as third-generation cephalosporins and will have fewer adverse effects on the microbial ecology of hospitals. We suggest penicillin or ampicillin (to cover pneumococci--even if penicillin "resistant"--and Haemophilus influenzae), plus a macrolide (e.g., azithromycin or erythromycin; to cover Legionella and other "atypical" pathogens), plus a single large dose of an aminoglycoside (e.g., gentamicin; to cover gram-negative bacilli such as Klebsiella pneumoniae) as empirical therapy for severe CAP.

Efficacy of trovafloxacin against penicillin-susceptible and multiresistant strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae in a mouse pneumonia model

The increasing emergence of penicillin-resistant and multidrug-resistant strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae will create a serious therapeutic problem in coming years. Trovafloxacin is a novel naphthyridone quinolone with promising activity against S. pneumoniae, including penicillin-resistant strains (MIC for 90% of the isolates tested, 0.25 microg/ml). We compared its in vivo efficacy with that of other fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, temafloxacin, and sparfloxacin) and a reference beta-lactam (amoxicillin) in a model of acute experimental pneumonia. Immunocompetent Swiss mice were infected by peroral tracheal delivery of a virulent, penicillin-susceptible strain (MIC, 0.03 microg/ml); leukopenic Swiss mice were infected with three poorly virulent, penicillin-resistant strains (MICs, 4 to 8 microg/ml) and a ciprofloxacin-resistant strain (MIC, 32 microg/ml). Treatments were started 6 h (immunocompetent mice) or 3 h (leukopenic mice) after infection. Doses ranging from 12.5 to 300 mg/kg were given at 12- or 8-h intervals for 3 days. Trovafloxacin (25 mg/kg) was the most effective agent in vivo against penicillin-susceptible and -resistant strains. Corresponding survival rates were 2- to 4-fold higher than with 50-mg/kg sparfloxacin or temafloxacin and 8- to 16-fold higher than with 100-mg/kg ciprofloxacin. The ratios of the area under the concentration-time curve to the MIC in serum and lung tissue were more favorable with trovafloxacin than with the other quinolones. Efficacy in vivo correlated with pharmacokinetic parameters. Trovafloxacin shows potential for the treatment of infections due to penicillin-susceptible and -resistant S. pneumoniae but appears to be ineffective against a ciprofloxacin-resistant strain.

Bactericidal effect of sparfloxacin alone and in combination with amoxicillin against Streptococcus pneumoniae as determined by kill-kinetic studies

Ten clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae (six intermediately penicillin-sensitive, one penicillin-resistant and three penicillin-sensitive strains) were studied by kill-kinetic experiments using sparfloxacin alone and in combination with amoxicillin. Equipotent doses of the antibiotics (1x, 2x and 4x the MIC) were used in the kill-kinetic studies. Sparfloxacin had a moderate bactericidal potential at 4x MIC after 5h and the combination with amoxicillin did not significantly increase its bactericidal activity. The clinical significance of these findings warrants further studies in vivo.

Fluoroquinolones in bronchopulmonary infections

In recent years, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, two of the most common pathogens causing bronchopulmonary infections, have developed resistance towards beta-lactam antibiotics in many areas of the globe. In some countries, resistance rates are so high that treatment with penicillin can not be recommended as the therapy of choice. Unfortunately, many S. pneumoniae strains resistant to penicillins are also resistant to co-trimoxazole and erythromycin, and even to the novel macrolides. Present fluoroquinolones may have to be used in such resistant cases. The fluoroquinolones possess a superior activity against H. influenzae and other pathogens causing bronchitis and pneumonia. Fluoroquinolones have a favourable pharmacokinetic profile including penetration into sputum, bronchial fluid, alveolar lining fluid and alveolar macrophages, and therapeutic concentrations and ratios are superior to those of the beta-lactams. Fluoroquinolones have been shown to produce better results than the comparative agents in bronchitis and, in cystic fibrosis, they achieve a definite clinical amelioration in paediatric patients without substantial additional toxicity. Their use in legionnaires' disease has not been confirmed and their place in the treatment of community-acquired pneimonias - particularly those caused by Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydia trachomatis and the TWAR agent - deserves further investigation.

Quinolones in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections in adult patients

The potential role of quinolones is discussed on the basis of data obtained during the past 2 years from epidemiological studies, in vitro investigations, animal experiments and clinical trials. Although the newest compounds exhibit good activity against Streptococcus pneumoniae and intracellular pathogens in animal models, the role of quinolones as first line therapy in community-acquired pneumonia is still debatable and may be modified according to clinical presentation and the rate of resistance of pneumococci to beta-lactams and macrolides. Cost-utility and cost-benefit studies are required to delineate precisely the role of quinolones in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. In addition, promising results indicating a possible future for the clinical use of quinolones in the therapy of mycobacterial infections have been obtained.