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

Identifying the Best Initial Oral Antibiotics for Adults with Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this network meta-analysis was to compare rates of clinical response and mortality for empiric oral antibiotic regimens in adults with mild-moderate community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and the reference lists of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines. We included randomized trials of adults with radiologically confirmed mild to moderate CAP initially treated orally and reporting clinical cure or mortality. Abstracts and studies were reviewed in parallel for inclusion in the analysis and for data abstraction. We performed separate analyses by antibiotic medications and antibiotic classes and present the results through network diagrams and forest plots sorted by p-scores. We assessed the quality of each study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias framework, as well as global and local inconsistency.

RESULTS

We identified 24 studies with 9361 patients: six at low risk of bias, six at unclear risk, and 12 at high risk. Nemonoxacin, levofloxacin, and telithromycin were most likely to achieve clinical response (p-score 0.79, 0.71, and 0.69 respectively), while penicillin and amoxicillin were least likely to achieve clinical response. Levofloxacin, nemonoxacin, azithromycin, and amoxicillin-clavulanate were most likely to be associated with lower mortality (p-score 0.85, 0.75, 0.74, and 0.68 respectively). By antibiotic class, quinolones and macrolides were most effective for clinical response (0.71 and 0.70 respectively), with amoxicillin-clavulanate plus macrolides and beta-lactams being less effective (p-score 0.11 and 0.22). Quinolones were most likely to be associated with lower mortality (0.63). All confidence intervals were broad and partially overlapping.

CONCLUSION

We observed trends toward a better clinical response and lower mortality for quinolones as empiric antibiotics for CAP, but found no conclusive evidence of any antibiotic being clearly more effective than another. More trials are needed to inform guideline recommendations on the most effective antibiotic regimens for outpatients with mild to moderate CAP.

Guía de práctica clínica para el manejo de la neumonía adquirida en la comunidad

La neumonía sigue siendo una de las principales causas de consulta y de hospitalización a la que, además de su un alto impacto en términos de morbilidad y mortalidad, se suma la actual problemática de resistencia a los antimicrobianos, por lo que establecer directrices que permitan su adecuado diagnóstico y tratamiento es de gran importancia para obtener mejores desenlaces clínicos y promover un uso racional de antibióticos en estos pacientes. La presente guía de práctica clínica (GPC) contiene recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la neumonía adquirida en la comunidad en adultos, las cuales fueron realizadas mediante el proceso de adaptación de GPC basadas en la evidencia para el contexto colombiano.

Narrow-spectrum antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia in Dutch adults (CAP-PACT): a cross-sectional, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority, antimicrobial stewardship intervention trial

BACKGROUND

Adults hospitalised to a non-intensive care unit (ICU) ward with moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia are frequently treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, despite Dutch guidelines recommending narrow-spectrum antibiotics. Therefore, we investigated whether an antibiotic stewardship intervention would reduce the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics in patients with moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia without compromising their safety.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial (CAP-PACT) done in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands, we enrolled immunocompetent adults (≥18 years) who were admitted to a non-ICU ward and had a working diagnosis of moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. All participating hospitals started in a control period and every 3 months a block of two hospitals transitioned from the control to the intervention period, with all hospitals eventually ending in the intervention period. The unit of randomisation was the hospital (cluster), and electronic randomisation (by an independent data manager) decided the sequence (the time of intervention) by which hospitals would cross over from the control period to the intervention period. Blinding was not possible. The antimicrobial stewardship intervention was a bundle targeting health-care providers and comprised education, engaging opinion leaders, and prospective audit and feedback of antibiotic use. The co-primary outcomes were broad-spectrum days of therapy per patient, tested by superiority, and 90-day all-cause mortality, tested by non-inferiority with a non-inferiority margin of 3%, and were analysed in the intention-to-treat population, comprising all patients who were enrolled in the control and intervention periods. This trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02604628.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 1, 2015, and Nov 1, 2017, 5683 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 4084 (2235 in the control period and 1849 in the intervention period) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The adjusted mean broad-spectrum days of therapy per patient were reduced from 6·5 days in the control period to 4·8 days in the intervention period, yielding an absolute reduction of -1·7 days (95% CI -2·4 to -1·1) and a relative reduction of 26·6% (95% CI 18·0-35·3). Crude 90-day mortality was 10·9% (242 of 2228 died) in the control period and 10·8% (199 of 1841) in the intervention period, yielding an adjusted absolute risk difference of 0·4% (90% CI -2·7 to 2·4), indicating non-inferiority.

INTERPRETATION

In patients hospitalised with moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia, a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention might safely reduce broad-spectrum antibiotic use.

FUNDING

None.

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.

Antibiotic Prescribing Choices and Their Comparative C. Difficile Infection Risks: A Longitudinal Case-Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic use is the strongest modifiable risk factor for the development of Clostridioides difficile infection, but prescribers lack quantitative information on comparative risks of specific antibiotic courses. Our objective was to estimate risks of C. difficile infection associated with receipt of specific antibiotic courses.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal case-cohort analysis representing over 90% of Ontario nursing home residents, between 2012 and 2017. Our primary exposure was days of antibiotic receipt in the prior 90 days. Adjustment covariates included: age, sex, prior emergency department or acute care stay, Charlson comorbidity index, prior C. difficile infection, acid suppressant use, device use, and functional status. We examined incident C. difficile infection, including cases identified within the nursing home, and those identified during subsequent hospital admissions. Adjusted and unadjusted regression models were used to measure risk associated with 5- to 14-day courses of 18 different antibiotics.

RESULTS

We identified 1708 cases of C. difficile infection (1.27 per 100 000 resident-days). Longer antibiotic duration was associated with increased risk: 10- and 14-day courses incurred 12% (adjusted relative risk [ARR] = 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09, 1.14) and 27% (ARR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.21,1.30) more risk compared to 7-day courses. Among 7-day courses with similar indications: moxifloxacin resulted in 121% more risk than amoxicillin (ARR = 2.21, 95% CI: 1.67, 3.08), ciprofloxacin engendered 89% more risk than nitrofurantoin (ARR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.45, 2.68), and clindamycin resulted in 112% (ARR = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.32, 3.78) more risk than cloxacillin.

CONCLUSIONS

C. difficile infection risk increases with antibiotic duration, and there are wide disparities in risks associated with antibiotic courses used for similar indications.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Adults with Community-acquired Pneumonia. An Official Clinical Practice Guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America

Background: This document provides evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the management of adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

Methods: A multidisciplinary panel conducted pragmatic systematic reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations.

Results: The panel addressed 16 specific areas for recommendations spanning questions of diagnostic testing, determination of site of care, selection of initial empiric antibiotic therapy, and subsequent management decisions. Although some recommendations remain unchanged from the 2007 guideline, the availability of results from new therapeutic trials and epidemiological investigations led to revised recommendations for empiric treatment strategies and additional management decisions.

Conclusions: The panel formulated and provided the rationale for recommendations on selected diagnostic and treatment strategies for adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

Efficacy of high doses of penicillin versus amoxicillin in the treatment of uncomplicated community acquired pneumonia in adults. A non-inferiority controlled clinical trial

Introduction

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is treated with penicillin in some northern European countries.

Objectives

To evaluate whether high-dose penicillin V is as effective as high-dose amoxicillin for the treatment of non-severe CAP.

Design

Multicentre, parallel, double-blind, controlled, randomized clinical trial.

Setting

31 primary care centers in Spain.

Participants

Patients from 18 to 75 years of age with no significant associated comorbidity and with symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection and radiological confirmation of CAP were randomized to receive either penicillin V 1.6 million units, or amoxicillin 1000 mg three times per day for 10 days.

Main measurements

The main outcome was clinical cure at 14 days, and the primary hypothesis was that penicillin V would be non-inferior to amoxicillin with regard to this outcome, with a margin of 15% for the difference in proportions. EudraCT register 2012-003511-63.

Results

A total of 43 subjects (amoxicillin: 28; penicillin: 15) were randomized. Clinical cure was observed in 10 (90.9%) patients assigned to penicillin and in 25 (100%) patients assigned to amoxicillin with a difference of −9.1% (95% CI, −41.3% to 6.4%; p = .951) for non-inferiority. In the intention-to-treat analysis, amoxicillin was found to be 28.6% superior to penicillin (95% CI, 7.3–58.1%; p = .009 for superiority). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups.

Conclusions

There was a trend favoring high-dose amoxicillin versus high-dose penicillin in adults with uncomplicated CAP. The main limitation of this trial was the low statistical power due to the low number of patients included.

Clinical failure with and without empiric atypical bacteria coverage in hospitalized adults with community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Both typical and atypical bacteria can cause community-acquired pneumonia (CAP); however, the need for empiric atypical coverage remains controversial. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of antibiotic regimens with atypical coverage (a fluoroquinolone or combination of a macrolide/doxycycline with a β-lactam) to a regimen without atypical antibiotic coverage (β-lactam monotherapy) on rates of clinical failure (primary endpoint), mortality, bacteriologic failure, and adverse events, (secondary endpoints).

Methods

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for relevant RCTs of hospitalized CAP adults. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed-effect model, but used a random-effects model if significant heterogeneity (I²) was observed.

Results

Five RCTs with a total of 2011 patients were retained. A statistically significant lower clinical failure rate was observed with empiric atypical coverage (RR, 0.851 [95% CI, 0.732–0.99; P = 0.037]; I² = 0%). The secondary outcomes did not differ between the two study groups: mortality (RR = 0.549 [95% CI, 0.259–1.165, P = 0.118], I² = 61.434%) bacteriologic failure (RR = 0.816 [95% CI, 0.523–1.272, P = 0.369], I² = 0%), diarrhea (RR = 0.746 [95% CI, 0.311–1.790, P = 0.512], I² = 65.048%), and adverse events requiring antibiotic discontinuation (RR = 0.83 [95% CI, 0.542–1.270, P = 0.39], I² = 0%).

Conclusions

Empiric atypical coverage was associated with a significant reduction in clinical failure in hospitalized adults with CAP. Reduction in mortality, bacterial failure, diarrhea, and discontinuation due to adverse effects were not significantly different between groups, but all estimates favored atypical coverage. Our findings provide support for the current guidelines recommendations to include empiric atypical coverage.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-017-2495-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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 moxifloxacin in community acquired pneumonia: a prospective, multicenter, observational study (CAPRIVI)

Background

Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a major cause of morbidity, hospitalization, and mortality worldwide. Management of CAP for many patients requires rapid initiation of empirical antibiotic treatment, based on the spectrum of activity of available antimicrobial agents and evidence on local antibiotic resistance. Few data exist on the severity profile and treatment of hospitalized CAP patients in Eastern and Central Europe and the Middle East, in particular on use of moxifloxacin (Avelox®), which is approved in these regions.

Methods

CAPRIVI (Community Acquired Pneumonia: tReatment wIth AVelox® in hospItalized patients) was a prospective observational study in 12 countries: Croatia, France, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, and Macedonia. Patients aged >18 years were treated with moxifloxacin 400 mg daily following hospitalization with a CAP diagnosis. In addition to efficacy and safety outcomes, data were collected on patient history and disease severity measured by CRB-65 score.

Results

2733 patients were enrolled. A low severity index (i.e., CRB-65 score <2) was reported in 87.5% of CAP patients assessed (n = 1847), an unexpectedly high proportion for hospitalized patients. Moxifloxacin administered for a mean of 10.0 days (range: 2.0 to 39.0 days) was highly effective: 96.7% of patients in the efficacy population (n = 2152) improved and 93.2% were cured of infection during the study. Severity of infection changed from “moderate” or “severe” in 91.8% of patients at baseline to “no infection” or “mild” in 95.5% at last visit. In the safety population (n = 2595), 127 (4.9%) patients had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and 40 (1.54%) patients had serious TEAEs; none of these 40 patients died. The safety results were consistent with the known profile of moxifloxacin.

Conclusions

The efficacy and safety profiles of moxifloxacin at the recommended dose of 400 mg daily are characterized in this large observational study of hospitalized CAP patients from Eastern and Central Europe and the Middle East. The high response rate in this study, which included patients with a range of disease severities, suggests that treatment with broader-spectrum drugs such as moxifloxacin is appropriate for patients with CAP who are managed in hospital.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00987792

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.

Treatment of community-acquired pneumonia with moxifloxacin: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world. To investigate whether moxifloxacin monotherapy is associated with better clinical outcomes than other antibiotics recommended for CAP among adults with mild-to-moderate or severe CAP, we performed a meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs). The efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin were compared with other antimicrobial agents used to treat CAP. Fourteen RCTs, consisting of 6923 total patients, were included in the meta-analysis. No difference was found regarding the incidence of adverse events and mortality between moxifloxacin and the compared regimens. We found that moxifloxacin is as effective and well-tolerated as other recommended antibiotics for the treatment of CAP and possesses a better pathogen eradication rate than beta-lactam-based therapy.

Efficacy of high doses of oral penicillin versus amoxicillin in the treatment of adults with non-severe pneumonia attended in the community: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Streptococcus pneumoniae is the bacterial agent which most frequently causes pneumonia. In some Scandinavian countries, this infection is treated with penicillin V since the resistances of pneumococci to this antibiotic are low. Four reasons justify the undertaking of this study; firstly, the cut-off points which determine whether a pneumococcus is susceptible or resistant to penicillin have changed in 2008 and according to some studies published recently the pneumococcal resistances to penicillin in Spain have fallen drastically, with only 0.9% of the strains being resistant to oral penicillin (minimum inhibitory concentration>2 μg/ml); secondly, there is no correlation between pneumococcal infection by a strain resistant to penicillin and therapeutic failure in pneumonia; thirdly, the use of narrow-spectrum antibiotics is urgently needed because of the dearth of new antimicrobials and the link observed between consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics and emergence and spread of antibacterial resistance; and fourthly, no clinical study comparing amoxicillin and penicillin V in pneumonia in adults has been published. Our aim is to determine whether high-dose penicillin V is as effective as high-dose amoxicillin for the treatment of uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia.

Methods

We will perform a parallel group, randomised, double-blind, trial in primary healthcare centres in Spain. Patients aged 18 to 65 without significant associated comorbidity attending the physician with signs and symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection and radiological confirmation of the diagnosis of pneumonia will be randomly assigned to either penicillin V 1.6 million units thrice-daily during 10 days or amoxicillin 1,000 mg thrice-daily during 10 days. The main outcome will be clinical cure at 14 days, defined as absence of fever, resolution or improvement of cough, improvement of general wellbeing and resolution or reduction of crackles indicating that no other antimicrobial treatment will be necessary. Any clinical result other than the anterior will be considered as treatment failure. A total of 210 patients will be recruited to detect a non-inferiority margin of 15% between the two treatments with a minimum power of 80% considering an alpha error of 2.5% for a unilateral hypothesis and maximum possible losses of 15%.

Discussion

This pragmatic trial addresses the long-standing hypothesis that the administration of high doses of a narrow-spectrum antibiotic (penicillin V) in patients with non-severe pneumonia attended in the community is not less effective than high doses of amoxicillin (treatment currently recommended) in patients under the age of 65 years.

Trial registration

EudraCT number 2012-003511-63.

Efficacy and tolerability of moxifloxacin in 2338 patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis

OBJECTIVE

A post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of moxifloxacin 400mg once daily in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB) treated by pulmonologists and pulmonary specialists in community-based practice settings.

PATIENT AND METHODS

2338 patients with AECB (54% male; 46% female) were included in the analysis. PMS studies are prospective, open, uncontrolled and observational in design. All therapeutic decisions were made by the attending physician, based on their clinical practice and experience. This approach was adopted in order to provide valuable information on the safety and efficacy of moxifloxacin therapy in routine clinical practice.

RESULTS

The main symptoms of AECB (cough, expectoration, dyspnoea, chest pain and fever) were either resolved or improved in 80-97% of patients. Most patients (65%) improved within 3 days of starting moxifloxacin therapy and 91.6% by day 5. Mean time to improvement was 3.2±1.6 days. Overall, 96.1% of patients were judged by their physician to be either cured or improved following moxifloxacin therapy. Approximately 57% of patients had previously been treated with an antibiotic for their last episode of AECB. The antibiotics used were mostly macrolides (18.2% of patients), beta-lactams (16.9%), tetracycline/ doxycycline (9.9%) and quinolones (9.5%). The tolerability of moxifloxacin therapy was rated as 'very good' or 'good' in 95.4% of patients. Adverse events were reported in only 1.5% of patients.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, moxifloxacin 400mg once daily was effective and well tolerated in this group of patients with AECB, combined with a rapid onset of action and a similarly high clinical success rate to that observed in controlled comparative clinical trials.

Moxifloxacin is more effective than tosufloxacin in reducing chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with hematological malignancies

Recent studies have shown the prophylactic efficacy of fluoroquinolones against infections in patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. However, little is known about the differences between fluoroquinolones, and there are some concerns about the emergence of resistant bacteria. In this retrospective study, we compared the prophylactic efficacy of moxifloxacin (MFLX) and tosufloxacin (TFLX) for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. The cumulative incidences of febrile neutropenia were 74.7% (59 of 79) in the MFLX group and 81.1% (219 of 270) in the TFLX group (log-rank test p = 0.044). Subgroup analysis revealed a more prominent prophylactic advantage of MFLX in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or long duration of neutropenia (p = 0.013 and 0.008, respectively). There were no significant differences in the incidences of adverse events and fluoroquinolone resistant bacteria in both groups. This study indicates that prophylaxis with MFLX is more beneficial to reduce febrile neutropenia episodes than TFLX, especially in patients with high-risk disease.

Once-daily moxifloxacin therapy for community-acquired pneumonia in general practice : evidence from a post-marketing surveillance study of 1467 patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral moxifloxacin in outpatients with respiratory tract infections treated in general practices in Germany with the focus on community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS, DESIGN AND PATIENTS: This was an open-label, prospective, uncontrolled, post-marketing surveillance study undertaken between October 2001 and June 2002. Symptoms associated with pneumonia were documented at baseline and at follow-up visits. A general assessment was given and the number of days until improvement/cure were recorded by the attending physician at the end of therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 9036 patients were treated with moxifloxacin, of which 1467 had CAP. The recommended dosage of moxifloxacin (400mg once daily) was used in 97.8% of all CAP patients. Between the initial and final follow-up visits, symptoms of CAP were either improved or cured in 90-99% of patients. More than half of the patients showed improvement after 3 days (54.2%); 89.2% of patients were improved after 5 days. The mean time for patients to recover was 8.0 +/- 2.7 days, with 88.7% of patients recovered by day 10 of treatment. Physicians rated moxifloxacin therapy as 'very good' or 'good' in 96.6% of patients and virtually all favoured prescribing moxifloxacin again. Ten patients (0.7%) reported adverse events during moxifloxacin therapy, mostly gastrointestinal disturbances.

CONCLUSIONS

Moxifloxacin is a very effective and safe treatment for patients with CAP and is highly accepted by physicians and patients because of rapid symptom improvement and good tolerability.

Efficacy and tolerability of moxifloxacin in patients with sinusitis treated in general practice : results of a post-marketing surveillance study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of moxifloxacin, an 8-methoxy fluoroquinolone, in patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs) treated in general practice in Germany. Different RTIs were analysed separately, and this paper focuses on patients with acute sinusitis. METHODS, DESIGN AND PATIENTS: This was an open-label, prospective, uncontrolled, post-marketing surveillance study undertaken between October 2001 and June 2002. Symptoms of sinusitis (fever, cough, nasal obstruction, nasal secretion and headache) were assessed at baseline and at follow-up visits, and classified as 'absent', 'mild' or 'severe' by the attending physician.

RESULTS

Altogether 9036 patients were treated with moxifloxacin, of whom 2405 adult men and women had sinusitis. Sinusitis symptoms were improved or cured in at least 92% of patients. Moxifloxacin produced significant improvements after only 3 days (71.6% of patients); 96.2% of patients were improved after 5 days. Most patients (89.5%) had recovered by day 8 and 97.3% by day 10. Physicians rated moxifloxacin therapy as 'good' or 'very good' in 96.6% of patients and almost all favoured prescribing moxifloxacin in the future. Very few adverse events were reported with moxifloxacin (<0.4%), and were mostly gastrointestinal disturbances.

CONCLUSIONS

Moxifloxacin is a very effective and safe treatment for patients with acute sinusitis in general practice and is highly regarded by both physicians and patients because of rapid symptom improvement and good tolerability.

Efficacy and tolerability of sequential intravenous/oral moxifloxacin therapy in pneumonia: results of the first post-marketing surveillance study with intravenous moxifloxacin in hospital practice

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of sequential intravenous (IV)/oral therapy with moxifloxacin in pneumonia under general hospital treatment conditions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with pneumonia were documented in this non-interventional multicentre study. The patients were treated with IV moxifloxacin or moxifloxacin sequential therapy (IV and oral) in hospitals throughout Germany. Exclusion criteria were limited to the contraindications mentioned in the summary of product characteristics. The participating hospital-based physicians documented the patients' demography, anamnesis, antibiotic pretreatment, concomitant diseases and medications. Moxifloxacin therapy and symptom status were recorded daily up to the ninth day and on the last day of treatment. The physicians assessed the efficacy and tolerability of IV moxifloxacin therapy and reported all adverse events observed within the treatment period.

RESULTS

The 1749 documented patients had a mean age of 66.2 (SD 15.5) years; 56.4% were males and 43.5% females. The majority (99.3%) were treated with moxifloxacin 400mg once daily. On average, moxifloxacin was given for 7.6 days (SD 3.2). In cases of sequential therapy (78.9% of patients), IV moxifloxacin was switched to oral moxifloxacin after a mean of 4.1 days (SD 1.8). Moxifloxacin produced a significant clinical improvement in 58.2% of patients by day 3 of therapy, in 84.2% by day 5 and in 89.4% by day 7. Recovery occurred in 27.0% of patients by day 5, in 54.0% by day 7 and in 87.0% by day 14. It took a mean of 3.4 days (SD 1.9) until improvement and 7.2 days (SD 3.0) until cure. Overall efficacy of IV moxifloxacin therapy was rated by the physicians as 'very good' or 'good' in 82.9% of patients. Tolerability was rated in 94.3% of patients as 'very good' or 'good'. Adverse events were recorded for 92 (5.3%) patients, but events were considered by the attending physician to be related to moxifloxacin therapy for only 45 patients (2.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

IV moxifloxacin shows high efficacy in the treatment of pneumonia under routine clinical treatment conditions. IV moxifloxacin relieves pneumonia-associated symptoms rapidly and allows an early switch to oral administration. Because of its high efficacy and very good safety and tolerability profile, moxifloxacin delivers excellent benefits as first-line therapy for pneumonia.

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.

Evidence for moxifloxacin in community-acquired pneumonia: the impact of pharmaco-economic considerations on guidelines

OBJECTIVE

In an era of limited resources, policy makers and health care payers are concerned about the costs of treatment in addition to its effectiveness. However, guidelines do not tend to consider the cost-effectiveness of treatment options. This paper aims to conduct an international literature review with a view to assessing the impact of pharmaco-economic considerations of CAP treatment with moxifloxacin on recent guidelines.

METHODS

The pharmaco-economic state of the art of treating CAP with moxifloxacin is assessed and compared with guidelines issued by the European Respiratory Society and by the Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society. Also, evidence on moxifloxacin consumption and antimicrobial resistance, and the impact of resistance on the cost-effectiveness of moxifloxacin is reviewed. Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EconLit up to January 2009.

RESULTS

The existing pharmaco-economic evidence indicates that moxifloxacin is a cost-effective treatment for CAP. However, data limitations and uncertainty surrounding the evolution of resistance emphasize the need for caution. As recommended by guidelines, the choice of antimicrobial should consider the local frequency of causative pathogens, the local pattern of antimicrobial resistance, and risk factors for resistant bacteria. The pharmaco-economic evidence corroborates the importance of these factors as they have an impact on the cost-effectiveness of treating CAP patients with moxifloxacin.

CONCLUSIONS

CAP guidelines need to take into account pharmaco-economic considerations by balancing the effectiveness of antimicrobial regimens against their costs. The pharmaco-economic value of moxifloxacin is influenced by the causative pathogens involved and resistance patterns. Therefore, it may be advisable to identify patient subgroups in which treatment with moxifloxacin is cost-effective and should be recommended by guidelines.

[Quinolones]

Quinolones act by inhibiting enzymes (topoisomerases) that are essential for DNA synthesis, and probably by fragmentation of chromosomal DNA. The bactericidal activity of these drugs depends on their concentration. Their spectrum has been broadened, particularly since the introduction of a fluorine atom at position 6 (fluorquinolones). Quinolones are used in a large variety of in-hospital and community infections, as the treatment of choice or as alternative therapy. Depending on the specific compound, they are used in urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, chronic osteomyelitis, respiratory tract infections, and severe systemic infections, among others. The emergence and spread of resistance to quinolones has limited their use in some conditions and may affect their application in the future. Strategies currently exist to minimize the spread of resistance. Quinolones are well tolerated and safe. The most common adverse effects involve the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system.

Respiratory fluoroquinolones for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We investigated whether the use of respiratory fluoroquinolones was associated with better clinical outcomes compared with the use of macrolides and beta- lactams among adults with pneumonia.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Current Contents, Scopus, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane with no language restrictions. Two reviewers independently extracted data from published trials that compared fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, gemifloxacin) with macrolides or beta-lactams or both. A meta-analysis was performed with the clinical outcomes of mortality, treatment success and adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 23 trials in our meta-analysis. There was no difference in mortality among patients who received fluoroquinolones or the comparator antibiotics (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65-1.12). Pneumonia resolved in more patients who received fluoroquinolones compared with the comparator antibiotics for the included outcomes in the intention-to-treat population (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.00-1.36), clinically evaluable population (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.50) and the microbiologically assessed population (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.28-2.20). Fluoroquinolones were more effective than a combination of beta-lactam and macrolide (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02-1.90). They were also more effective for patients with severe pneumonia (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.02-3.29), those who required admission to hospital (OR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.04-1.61) and those who required intravenous therapy (OR = 1.44, 15% CI 1.13-1.85). Fluoroquinolones were more effective than beta-lactam and macrolide in open-label trials (OR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.08-1.69) but not in blinded randomized controlled trials (OR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.85-1.50).

INTERPRETATION

Fluoroquinolones were associated with higher success of treatment for severe forms of pneumonia; however, a benefit in mortality was not evident. A randomized controlled trial that includes patients with severe pneumonia with or without bacteremia is needed.

Moxifloxacin: a respiratory fluoroquinolone

BACKGROUND

Respiratory quinolones are a class of antimicrobials with a high activity against most respiratory pathogens. Moxifloxacin is a fourth-generation fluoroquinolone that has been shown to be effective against Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and atypical strains, as well as multi-drug resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the clinical efficacy of moxifloxacin in the treatment of respiratory infections.

METHOD

To perform a systematic review of publications on the clinical efficacy of moxifloxacin in respiratory infections.

RESULTS

The clinical efficacy of moxifloxacin has been shown in controlled studies of community-acquired pneumonia, exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Moxifloxacin has demonstrated a faster resolution of symptoms in community-acquired pneumonia and exacerbations of chronic bronchitis patients compared with first-line therapy together with excellent eradication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of moxifloxacin as first-line therapy for moderate to severe respiratory infections in the community and the hospital has been recognized in international guidelines.

Doxycycline or moxifloxacin for the management of community-acquired pneumonia in the UK?

Macrolide monotherapy is currently recommended as first-line treatment of mild-to-moderate community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in penicillin-intolerant/allergic individuals in the UK. However, resistance rates among the commonest cause, Streptococcus pneumoniae, now exceed 10% in the UK and a review of alternative agents is therefore timely. This review considers the relative merits of two agents, doxycycline and moxifloxacin, which are candidates to replace macrolides for second-line therapy of non-severe CAP.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous moxifloxacin versus cefoperazone with azithromycin in the treatment of community acquired pneumonia

To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of intravenous moxifloxacin with those of a commonly used empirical antibiotic regimen, cefoperazone and azithromycin in the treatment of community acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adult patients requiring initial parenteral therapy, 40 patients with CAP were divided into two groups, a moxifloxacin group (n = 20) and a control group (n = 20), which were treated for 7 to 14 days. The patients in the moxifloxacin group were intravenously given 400 mg of moxifloxacin (Avelox) once a day. Patients in the control group were administered 2.0 g of cefoperazone twice a day and azithromycin 0.5 g once a day. Clinical, bacteriological, and laboratory examinations were performed before the treatment, and at the end of the treatment. Our results showed that there was no significant difference in the clinical efficacy rate between two treatment groups at end of therapy (90% for moxifloxacin, 95% for cefoperazone plus azithromycin) (P > 0.05). The bacteriologic eradication rate at the end of treatment was 90% in the moxifloxacin group and 80% in the cefoperazone-plus-azithromycin group, whereas there was no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). In addition, both drugs were well-tolerated in this trial, with the number of drug-related adverse events being comparable. It is concluded that moxifloxacin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for CAP and was equivalent to the commonly used empirical treatment of cefoperazone plus azithromycin. Moxifloxacin is likely to offer clinicians an alternative for reliable empirical CAP treatment in the face of increasing antibiotic resistance.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of antimicrobial treatment of community-acquired pneumonia taking into account resistance in Belgium

OBJECTIVE

This article assesses the cost-effectiveness of outpatient antimicrobial treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) taking into account resistance in Belgium.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Our decision analytic model focused on mild to moderate CAP, but did not consider severe CAP. Treatment pathways reflected empirical treatment initiated in the absence of data on CAP aetiology. First-line treatment consisted of moxifloxacin, co-amoxiclav, cefuroxime or clarithromycin. If first-line treatment was unsuccessful, patients were either hospitalised or second-line treatment with a different antimicrobial was initiated. Clinical failure rates were obtained from the published literature or expert opinion. Costs were calculated using published sources from the third-party payer perspective.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness measures included first-line clinical failure avoided, second-line treatment avoided, hospitalisation avoided and death avoided. Healthcare costs were included, but costs of productivity loss were not considered.

RESULTS

Costs of treating a CAP episode amounted to 144E with moxifloxacin/co-amoxiclav; 222E with co-amoxiclav/clarithromycin; 211E with cefuroxime/moxifloxacin; and 193E with clarithromycin/moxifloxacin. The rate of first-line failure was 5%, 16%, 19% and 18% for these four treatment strategies, respectively. The rate of second-line treatment amounted to 4%, 13%, 16% and 15%, respectively. The hospitalisation rate was 1%, 4%, 4% and 4%, respectively. The death rate was 0.01%, 0.04%, 0.03% and 0.03%, respectively. Sensitivity analyses supported the dominance of moxifloxacin/co-amoxiclav in nearly all scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line treatment of CAP patients with moxifloxacin followed by co-amoxiclav or hospitalisation if required was more effective and less costly as compared with first-line treatment with co-amoxiclav, cefuroxime or clarithromycin.

Influence of bacterial resistances on the efficiency of antibiotic treatments for community-acquired pneumonia

The objective of this paper is to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the oral antibiotics used in Spain for the ambulatory treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Our analysis takes into account the influence of bacterial resistances on the cost-effectiveness ratio of antibiotic alternatives from the viewpoint of the public insurer. A deterministic decision analysis model is used to simulate the impact of treatment alternatives on both patients' health and resource consumption. Amoxicillin 1 g may be the most efficient therapy for treating typical pneumonia, as long as the physician is able to discriminate clinically the aetiology of the process with a high degree of reliability. However, for those pathological pictures in which the aetiology cannot be discriminated clinically, and for those in which the consequences of incorrect diagnosis are serious according to clinical criteria, moxifloxacin is the most effective and efficient option.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of empirical prescribing of antimicrobials in community-acquired pneumonia in three countries in the presence of resistance

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of empirical outpatient treatment options for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in France, the USA and Germany, representing high, moderate and low antimicrobial resistance prevalence, respectively.

METHODS

A decision analytic model was developed for mild-to-moderate CAP outpatient treatment. Treatment algorithms incorporated follow-up after treatment failure due to resistance or other reasons. First-line treatment included moxifloxacin, beta-lactams, macrolides or doxycycline; second-line treatment used a different antimicrobial class. Country-specific resistance and co-resistance prevalences to first- and second-line therapy for the major CAP pathogens were derived from surveillance studies. Clinical failure rates due to antimicrobial-susceptible and -resistant pathogens were obtained from the literature or estimated. Total costs were estimated using standard sources and a third-party payer perspective. Outcome measures included first-line clinical failures avoided, second-line treatments avoided and hospitalizations avoided. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.

RESULTS

First-line moxifloxacin treatment followed by co-amoxiclav dominated all other treatments in France, the USA and in Germany for all outcome measures. Sensitivity analyses maintained moxifloxacin dominance in France and the USA but affected ICERs in some cases in Germany.

CONCLUSIONS

Antimicrobial resistance/spectrum have a significant impact on outcomes and costs in empirical outpatient CAP treatment. Despite low acquisition costs for generic antibiotics, first-line treatment effective against the major CAP pathogens, including strains resistant to other antimicrobials, resulted in better clinical outcomes in all countries and lower treatment costs for all.

[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.

Challenges in the management of community-acquired pneumonia: the role of quinolones and moxifloxacin

Current strategies and guidelines for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia are directed toward making care cost effective, by treating patients on an outpatient basis whenever possible. The use of the new fluoroquinolones could help to achieve these goals. These agents are highly bioavailable and can facilitate the oral treatment of certain patients who otherwise might be admitted to the hospital, as outpatients. The good absorption and bioavailability of these agents can allow moderately ill patients to rapidly achieve effective serum levels of the drug after oral administration and can also facilitate early discontinuation of intravenous therapy and early discharge for responding inpatients. For inpatients or outpatients with clinical risk factors for acquiring drug-resistant pneumococci, quinolones represent a reliable monotherapy option and an effective alternative to a beta-lactam/macrolide combination. Although the in vitro differences among the various quinolones remain of unclear clinical relevance, preliminary data suggest that agents with enhanced in vitro activity against pneumococci, such as moxifloxacin, may have greater clinical efficacy and may lead to more-rapid resolution of fever and, potentially, less selection of future pneumococcal resistance to quinolones than that associated with agents with less intrinsic activity.

Effectiveness of discontinuing antibiotic treatment after three days versus eight days in mild to moderate-severe community acquired pneumonia: randomised, double blind study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of discontinuing treatment with amoxicillin after three days or eight days in adults admitted to hospital with mild to moderate-severe community acquired pneumonia who substantially improved after an initial three days' treatment.

DESIGN

Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

Nine secondary and tertiary care hospitals in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with mild to moderate-severe community acquired pneumonia (pneumonia severity index score < or = 110).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients who had substantially improved after three days' treatment with intravenous amoxicillin were randomly assigned to oral amoxicillin (n = 63) or placebo (n = 56) three times daily for five days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the clinical success rate at day 10. Secondary outcome measures were the clinical success rate at day 28, symptom resolution, radiological success rates at days 10 and 28, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable, with the exception of symptom severity, which was worse in the three day treatment group. In the three day and eight day treatment groups the clinical success rate at day 10 was 93% for both (difference 0.1%, 95% confidence interval--9% to 10%) and at day 28 was 90% compared with 88% (difference 2.0%,--9% to 15%). Both groups had similar resolution of symptoms. Radiological success rates were 86% compared with 83% at day 10 (difference 3%,--10% to 16%) and 86% compared with 79% at day 28 (difference 6%,--7% to 20%). Six patients (11%) in the placebo group and 13 patients (21%) in the active treatment group reported adverse events (P = 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Discontinuing amoxicillin treatment after three days is not inferior to discontinuing it after eight days in adults admitted to hospital with mild to moderate-severe community acquired pneumonia who substantially improved after an initial three days' treatment.

Moxifloxacin in respiratory tract infections

Moxifloxacin is a fourth-generation fluoroquinolone that has been shown to be effective against respiratory pathogens, including Gram-positive (Streptococcus pneumoniae), Gram-negative (Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis), and atypical strains (Chlamydia pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae), as well as multi-drug resistant S. pneumoniae, including strains resistant to penicillin, macrolides, tetracyclines, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and some fluoroquinolones. Moxifloxacin is highly concentrated in lung tissue, and has demonstrated rapid eradication rates. The bioavailability and half-life of moxifloxacin provides potent bactericidal effects at a dose of 400mg/day. The ratio of the area under the concentration-time curve to MIC of moxifloxacin is the highest among the fluoroquinolones against S. pneumoniae. The clinical efficacy of moxifloxacin has been shown in controlled studies of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (CB) and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Moxifloxacin has demonstrated a faster resolution of symptoms in CAP and exacerbations of CB patients compared with first-line therapy. It has also demonstrated better eradication in exacerbations of CB compared with standard therapy, in particular the macrolides. Treatment guidelines should take into account the results of clinical trials with moxifloxacin in order to establish the role of this antimicrobial in the therapeutic arsenal against respiratory tract infections.

Analysis of factors that contribute to treatment failure in patients with community-acquired pneumonia

To determine the causes of treatment failure and to evaluate the prognostic factors in patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia, a prospective, observational study of 228 adult patients hospitalized for a community-acquired pneumonia in the University Hospital of Geneva and the La Chaux-de-Fonds Community Hospital, Switzerland, was conducted. The percentage of patients who failed to improve (as defined by guidelines of the Infectious Disease Society of America) and the causes of treatment failure were assessed, and patients who failed to improve under antimicrobial therapy were compared with those who did improve. In the 54 (24%) patients who failed to improve, a mean increase in length of hospitalization of 4 days was observed. Most causes of treatment failure could be attributed to host factors (61%) rather than to the pathogen (16%) or to an inappropriate antibiotic regimen (3%). After adjusting for potentially confounding variables, concomitant neoplasia (OR 3.25; 95%CI 1.11-9.56), neurological disease (OR 2.34; 95%CI 1.07-5.13), and aspiration pneumonia (OR 2.97; 95%CI 29-6.86]) were associated with failure to improve, whereas monocytosis improved prognosis (OR 0.40; 95%CI 0.20-0.80). Almost one out of four patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia failed to respond to empirical antibiotic treatment. Aspiration pneumonia, concomitant neoplasia, and neurological disease were factors positively associated with failure to improve, whereas monocytosis was linked to a better prognosis.

Monotherapy versus Combination Therapy in Patients Hospitalized with Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Current international guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia (CAP) recommend therapy with a beta-lactam plus a macrolide or a 'respiratory' fluoroquinolone alone in patients hospitalized in a medical ward, and combination therapy with a beta-lactam plus a macrolide or a fluoroquinolone in patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit. However, which of the available options should be preferred remains a matter of debate, and there are surprisingly few prospective randomized trials strictly comparing mono- versus dual therapy strategies in CAP patients. Thus, the recommendation of combining a macrolide with a beta-lactam rather than using a beta-lactam alone in hospitalized patients is derived mainly from observational data, and the suggested combination of a beta-lactam with a fluoroquinolone in severe CAP has been rarely examined in a clinical trial.As there have been sound theoretical arguments for and against combination therapy regimens, the rationale for the different options is discussed and available clinical trial data are reviewed in this article. A final conclusion about the superiority of one antibacterial regimen over another in hospitalized patients with CAP cannot be drawn on the basis of the limited data available. So far, combination therapy probably should be preferred in all patients presenting with severe pneumonia, whereas in general, combination therapy is not necessary in patients in a medical ward, and combination therapy with a beta-lactam plus a macrolide or monotherapy with a respiratory fluoroquinolone should be considered equivalent in this latter patient group. On the other hand, the available data demonstrate that empirical coverage of atypical bacteria in all patients with mild-to-moderate CAP seems unnecessary, and beta-lactam monotherapy might perform equally well when compared with respiratory fluoroquinolones in patients with non-severe CAP. Thus, the alternative use of a beta-lactam alone at adequate dosage in clinically stable patients seems justified, if CAP due to Legionella pneumophila is unlikely.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Moxifloxacin in Patients with Respiratory Tract Infections Treated??in General Practice

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral moxifloxacin in patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs) treated by attending physicians in routine clinical practice in China.

METHODS

This was an open-label, prospective, uncontrolled, post-marketing surveillance study that was undertaken between November 2002 and July 2003. Altogether, 855 patients with RTIs were treated with moxifloxacin. Data were collected by 257 physicians throughout China. Symptoms of RTI (fever, cough, purulent sputum, dyspnoea, thoracic pain, nasal obstruction, nasal secretion and headache), together with auscultatory findings, were assessed at baseline and at follow-up visits, and classified as 'absent', 'mild' or 'severe' by the attending physician.

RESULTS

Moxifloxacin produced significant improvements in 70.7% of patients after only 3 days of treatment. In 91.7% of patients, symptoms were improved after 5 days of treatment; 76.1% of patients recovered after 7 days and 84.7% recovered after 10 days of treatment. The mean +/- SD time until recovery was 5.1 +/- 2.6 days. Assessment of treatment efficacy by the physicians was 'good' or 'very good' for 89.2% of patients. In 87.3% of cases, physicians rated patients' acceptance of therapy with moxifloxacin as 'good' or 'very good'. The tolerability of moxifloxacin therapy was rated as 'good' or 'very good' for 88.8% of patients. Very few adverse events (4.1% of patients) were reported with moxifloxacin; most of them involved mild CNS disorders and gastrointestinal disturbances.

CONCLUSIONS

Moxifloxacin was shown to be an effective and well tolerated treatment for this group of patients with RTIs and was highly rated by both physicians and patients because of rapid symptom improvement and good tolerability.