Test Of Cure Research Articles

Moxifloxacin for the Treatment of Patients with Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections (the AIDA Study)

This prospective, randomized, open, international, multicenter study of adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) compared the efficacy and safety of sequential intravenous (i.v.) to oral (p.o.) moxifloxacin 400 mg once daily, with that of i.v. ceftriaxone 2 g once daily, plus metronidazole 500 mg three times daily, followed by p.o. amoxicillin/clavulanate 625 mg three times daily. The primary efficacy variable was clinical cure at test of cure (TOC) (day 28-42 after study entry) in the per protocol (PP) population. Of 595 patients in the study, 511 patients were valid for PP analysis (246 moxifloxacin, 265 ceftriaxone/metronidazole). Sequential moxifloxacin was noninferior to the comparator regimen - clinical cure rates at TOC were 80.9% ver-sus 82.3% (moxifloxacin versus ceftriaxone/metronidazole; 95% CI -8.9, 4.2%). The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the two treatment groups. Therefore, sequential moxifloxacin monotherapy is as effective and safe as combination therapy with i.v. ceftriaxone plus i.v. metronidazole followed by oral amoxicillin/clavulanate for the treatment of cIAI.

A retrospective study of recurrent chlamydia infection in men and women: is there a role for targeted screening for those at risk?

Chalmydia trachomatis remains the commonest sexually transmitted infection (STI) in the UK. This study identifies those at risk of recurrent infection (RI) attending a central genitourinary clinic, time to subsequent reinfection and duration of at-risk behaviour for the consideration of targeted chlamydia screening. From 1995 to 2005, a total of 14,011 patients' were diagnosed with chlamydia and 1743 (12.4%) had RI, classified as a repeat infection greater than three months after initial diagnosis. Individual risk factors for both sexes include young age <25, two or more partners and failure to attend for test of cure (TOC) and previous STI. Men of non-White ethnicity, symptoms and those self-referred were also at risk. Combined risk factors for both sexes were non-White ethnicity, symptoms, young age, previous STI and two or more partners. Attendance for TOC considerably reduced RI rates in men (odds ratio [OR] = 0.549; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.359-0.840). Mean time to first and last reinfection in men was 1.91 and 2.49 years, in women 1.76 and 1.92 years. One in eight individuals with chlamydia infection are at risk of RI, the majority of which will occur within two years of initial presentation. These individuals have identifiable risk factors facilitating targeted re-screening, enhanced follow-up and support for behavioural change.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin otic solution 0.2% versus polymyxin B-neomycin-hydrocortisone in the treatment of acute diffuse otitis externa

ABSTRACTObjective: To compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin otic solution 0.2% to polymyxin B-neomycin-hydrocortisone (PNH) otic solution in the treatment of acute diffuse otitis externa in children, adolescents, and adults.Methods: This was a randomized, parallel-group, evaluator-blind, active-controlled, multicenter, noninferiority study. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical cure of otitis symptoms at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Clinical cure at the end-of-treatment (EOT) visit and percentages of patients with clinical improvement and resolution and/or improvement of otalgia at EOT and TOC visits were secondary efficacy endpoints.Results: A total of 630 patients were randomized to ciprofloxacin twice daily (n = 318) or PNH 3 times daily (n = 312) for 7 days. Ciprofloxacin was shown to be noninferior to PNH. The percentage of patients with clinical cure at the TOC visit was 86.6% with ciprofloxacin and 81.1% with PNH; the treatment difference was 5.6% in favor of ciprofloxacin (95% CI: −0.9 to 12.1). At the EOT visit, clinical cure was achieved in 70.0% and 60.5% of patients, respectively, with a treatment difference in favor of ciprofloxacin (9.5%, 95 CI: 1.2 to 17.9). In all secondary efficacy variables, ciprofloxacin and PNH showed similar results, including pain duration and resolution. The clinical cure rate for patients with baseline cultures showing P. aeruginosa was 87.5% in the ciprofloxacin group and 78.6% in the PNH group, a treatment difference of 8.9% in favor of ciprofloxacin (95% CI: 0.6 to 17.3); for patients with baseline cultures showing S. aureus, the clinical cure rate was 72.7% for the ciprofloxacin group and 75.9% for the PNH group (treatment difference of 3.1% in favor of PNH, 95% CI: −21.1% to 27.4%). Most adverse events were mild and unrelated to study medication in both treatment groups. A limitation of this study is the assessment of signs and symptoms at baseline and after treatment, which does not provide data to evaluate the interim response.Conclusions: Ciprofloxacin otic solution 0.2% was found to be noninferior to PNH. This efficacy, good tolerability, and ease of administration make ciprofloxacin otic solution 0.2% without a topical steroid an attractive option for the treatment of acute otitis externa.

Safety and efficacy of intravenous tigecycline in treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: results from a double-blind randomized phase 3 comparison study with levofloxacin

Tigecycline exhibits potent in vitro activity against many community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) pathogens, including antibiotic-resistant ones. Its spectrum of activity and ability to penetrate lung tissue suggest it may be effective for hospitalized CAP patients. Hospitalized CAP patients ( n = 418) were randomized to receive intravenous (IV) tigecycline or levofloxacin. Patients could be switched to oral levofloxacin after receiving 6 or more doses of IV study medication. Therapy duration was 7 to 14 days. Coprimary efficacy end points were clinical responses in the clinically evaluable (CE: tigecycline, n = 138; levofloxacin, n = 156) and clinical modified intent-to-treat (c-mITT: tigecycline, n = 191; levofloxacin, n = 203) populations at test-of-cure (TOC). Safety was assessed in the mITT population (tigecycline, n = 208; levofloxacin, n = 210). Cure rates in tigecycline and levofloxacin groups were comparable in CE (90.6% versus 87.2%, respectively) and c-mITT (78% versus 77.8%, respectively) populations at TOC. Nausea and vomiting occurred in significantly more tigecycline-treated patients; elevated alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels were reported in significantly more levofloxacin-treated patients. There were no significant differences in hospital length of stay, median duration of IV or oral antibiotic treatments, hospital readmissions, or number of patients switched to oral levofloxacin. Tigecycline was safe, effective, and noninferior to levofloxacin in hospitalized patients with CAP.

Successful treatment with moxifloxacin of experimental aortic valve endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

Moxifloxacin (MXF) is an 8-methoxyquinolone with high activity against Gram-positive bacteria. In an experimental model of aortic valve endocarditis (EAVE), the efficacy of MXF was evaluated against a strain of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Rabbits with catheter-induced aortic valve vegetations were randomly assigned to a control group or to groups receiving MXF 20 mg/kg intravenous (i.v.) twice a day (bid) or vancomycin (VAN) 30 mg/kg i.v. bid for a total of eight doses (4 days). Rabbits were sacrificed 15 h after the last dose of antibiotics. In another group, treatment with MXF was extended to 5 days and rabbits were sacrificed 5 days after the last dose (10th dose) of MXF in order to detect possible relapses of endocarditis after the end of treatment (test-of-cure (TOC) study). Both MXF and VAN significantly reduced the bacterial load in vegetations ( P < 0.001 vs. controls). All animals in the MXF-TOC group had sterile vegetations. MXF given at a dose of 20 mg/kg i.v. bid for 4 days was equally effective as VAN in the treatment of EAVE due to MRSA. When treatment with MXF was extended to 5 days, the cure rate reached 100% and no relapses of endocarditis were observed.

A Phase 3, open-label, non-comparative study of tigecycline in the treatment of patients with selected serious infections due to resistant Gram-negative organisms including Enterobacter species, Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tigecycline in patients with selected serious infections caused by resistant Gram-negative bacteria, or failures who had received prior antimicrobial therapy or were unable to tolerate other appropriate antimicrobials. Secondary objectives included an evaluation of the microbiological efficacy of tigecycline and in vitro activity of tigecycline for resistant Gram-negative bacteria. This open-label, Phase 3, non-comparative, multicentre study assessed the efficacy and safety of intravenous tigecycline (100 mg initially, then 50 mg 12 hourly for 7-28 days) in hospitalized patients with serious infections including complicated intra-abdominal infection; complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI); community-acquired pneumonia (CAP); hospital-acquired pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia; or bacteraemia, including catheter-related bacteraemia. All patients had infections due to resistant Gram-negative organisms, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing strains, or had failed on prior therapy or could not receive (allergy or intolerance) one or more agents from three classes of commonly used antibiotics. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical response in the microbiologically evaluable (ME) population at test of cure (TOC). Safety data included vital signs, laboratory tests and adverse events (AEs). In the ME population at TOC, the clinical cure rate was 72.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 54.8-85.8], and the microbiological eradication rate was 66.7% (95% CI: 13.7-78.8). The most commonly isolated resistant Gram-negative pathogens were Acinetobacter baumannii (47%), Escherichia coli (25%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (16.7%) and Enterobacter spp. (11.0%); the most commonly diagnosed serious infection was cSSSI (67%). The most common treatment-emergent AEs were nausea (29.5%), diarrhoea (16%) and vomiting (16%), which were mild or moderate in severity. In this non-comparative study, tigecycline appeared safe and efficacious in patients with difficult-to-treat serious infections caused by resistant Gram-negative organisms.

Tigecycline Versus Levofloxacin for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: European Experience

Tigecycline (TGC), a first-in-class glycylcycline that has been approved for treating complicated skin and skin structure infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections, has an expanded spectrum of activity against Gram-positive, Gram-negative, anaerobic, and atypical bacteria, including resistant strains. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of TGC with levofloxacin (LEV) in adult hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in a randomised, doubleblind, phase 3 multinational trial. This analysis evaluated TGC efficacy and safety in the European region. Hospitalised patients from 53 centres in 18 countries received 7-14 days of i.v. TGC (100-mg loading dose followed by 50 mg every 12 hours) or i.v. LEV (500 mg once or twice daily). Co-primary efficacy endpoints were clinical response in clinically evaluable (CE) and clinical modified intent-to-treat (c-mITT) populations at test-of-cure (TOC).Results indicated that 358 patients received at least 1 dose of study medication (mITT: TGC 177, LEV 181), 245 were CE (TGC 125, LEV 120). Demographics were similar in both groups and the majority of patients had a Fine Pneumonia Severity Index of II to IV (84.4% TGC, 78.2% LEV, mITT). At TOC (CE), TGC cured 112/125 patients (89.6%; 95% CI 82.9, 94.3) and LEV cured 103/120 patients (85.8%; 95% CI 78.3, 91.5), absolute difference of TGC-LEV 3.8% (95% CI -5.3, 12.8; test for noninferiority p<0.001). For those CE patients with a Fine score of <III or III/IV, TGC cured 90.0% and 88.9%, and LEV cured 88.5% and 83.6%, respectively. In c-mITT, TGC cured 146/173 patients (84.4%; 95% CI 78.1, 89.5) and LEV cured 142/173 patients (82.1%; 95% CI 75.5, 87.5), absolute difference of TGC-LEV 2.3% (95% CI 6.1, 10.8; test for noninferiority p<0.001). In c-mITT patients with a Fine score of <III or III/IV, TGC cured 86.3% and 81.9%, and LEV cured 80.7% and 83.1%, respectively. Both regimens were generally well tolerated with only a few patients being withdrawn from the study because of any adverse event (3; 1.6% TGC versus 2, 1.1% LEV). The authors concluded that TGC was safe and efficacious in patients hospitalised with CAP, achieving similar efficacy to that of the comparator.

Efficacy and safety of tigecycline compared with vancomycin or linezolid for treatment of serious infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a Phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are causing serious nosocomial infections. Tigecycline was evaluated in hospitalized patients with MRSA or VRE infection. A randomized (3:1), double-blind, multicentre, Phase 3 study compared the safety and efficacy of tigecycline with vancomycin or linezolid in hospitalized patients with MRSA or VRE infection, respectively. Patients were treated for 7-28 days and the test-of-cure (TOC) assessment was made 12-37 days after the last dose. The primary efficacy endpoint was the clinical response (cure, failure and indeterminate) in the co-primary, microbiologically evaluable (ME) and microbiologically modified intent-to-treat (m-mITT) populations at the TOC assessment. For MRSA infection, clinical cure rates in the ME population (n = 117) were 81.4% (70 of 86 patients) with tigecycline and 83.9% (26 of 31 patients) with vancomycin. In the m-mITT population (n = 133), clinical cure occurred in 75 of 100 tigecycline-treated patients (75.0%) and in 27 of 33 vancomycin-treated patients (81.8%). In patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by MRSA, cure rates were similar with tigecycline or vancomycin (86.4% versus 86.9% in ME population; and 78.6% versus 87.0% in m-mITT population). In patients with MRSA infection, nausea or vomiting occurred more frequently with tigecycline than with vancomycin (41.0% versus 17.9%); most cases were mild, with only three patients discontinuing treatment. In patients with VRE (total enrollment, 15), 3 of 3 and 3 of 8 patients in the ME and m-mITT populations, respectively, were cured by tigecycline, compared with 2 of 3 patients in the ME and m-mITT populations treated with linezolid. Tigecycline is safe and effective in hospitalized patients with serious infection caused by MRSA. There were too few cases of VRE to draw any conclusions.

Integrated results of 2 phase 3 studies comparing tigecycline and levofloxacin in community-acquired pneumonia

Tigecycline (TGC), a glycylcycline, has expanded activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative, anaerobic, and atypical bacteria. Two phase 3 studies were conducted. Hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) were randomized to intravenous (IV) TGC (100 mg followed by 50 mg bid) or IV levofloxacin (LEV) (500 mg bid). In 1 study, patients could be switched to oral LEV after at least 3 days intravenously. The coprimary efficacy end points were as follows: clinical response in clinically evaluable (CE) and clinical modified intent-to-treat (c-mITT) populations at test-of-cure (TOC). The secondary end points were as follows: microbiologic efficacy and susceptibility to TGC for CAP bacteria. Safety evaluations were included. Eight hundred ninety-one were patients screened: 846 mITT (TGC 424, LEV 422), 574 CE (TGC 282, LEV 292). Most patients had Fine Pneumonia Severity Index II to IV (80.7% TGC, 74.4% LEV, mITT). At TOC (CE), TGC cured 253/282 patients (89.7%) and LEV cured 252/292 patients (86.3%); the absolute difference of TGC-LEV was 3.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], −2.2 to 9.1, noninferior [ P < 0.001]). In c-mITT, TGC cured 319/394 patients (81.0%) and LEV cured 321/403 patients (79.7%); the absolute difference of TGC-LEV was 1.3% (95% CI −4.5 to 7.1, noninferior [ P < 0.001]). The drug-related adverse events (AEs) of nausea (20.8% TGC versus 6.6% LEV) and vomiting (13.2% TGC versus 3.3% LEV) were significantly higher in TGC; elevated alanine aminotransferase (2.8% TGC versus 7.3% LEV) and aspartate aminotransferase (2.6% TGC versus 6.9% LEV) were significantly higher in LEV. Discontinuations for AEs were low (TGC, 26 patients [6.1%]; LEV, 34 patients [8.1%]). TGC appeared safe and achieved cure rates similar to LEV in hospitalized patients with CAP.

Efficacy and tolerability of IV doripenem versus meropenem in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infection: A phase III, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study

Background: Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) require surgical intervention and empiric antibacterial therapy. Doripenem, a broad-spectrum carbapenem, provides coverage of key gram-negative and -positive aerobes and anaerobes encountered in cIAI. Objective: This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety profile of doripenem and meropenem in hospitalized adult patients with cIAI. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, doubleblind, noninferiority study, hospitalized adults with cIAI were randomly assigned to receive doripenem 500 mg IV q8h or meropenem 1 g IV q8h. After a minimum of 9 doses and adequate clinical improvement (relative to before the start of IV study drug, decreased body temperature and white blood cell count, improved or absent signs and symptoms of cIAI, and return of normal bowel function), patients could be switched to oral amoxicillin/clavulanate. Antibacterial therapy (IV plus subsequent oral) was given for a total of 5 to 14 days. The coprimary efficacy end points were the clinical cure rate (complete resolution or significant improvement of signs or symptoms of the index infection) in patients microbiologically evaluable (≥1 baseline pathogen isolated from an intra-abdominal culture that was susceptible to both IV study drug therapies) at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit (21-60 days after the completion of study drug therapy) and the clinical cure rate in the microbiological modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population (a bacterial pathogen identified at baseline, regardless of its susceptibility to the study drug). Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference (doripenem minus meropenem) in the proportion of patients classified as clinical cures was ≥-15%. Results: A total of 476 patients were enrolled. The microbiologically evaluable population (319 patients) was 62.7% male and 67.7% white, with a mean age and weight of 46.7 years and 77.2 kg, respectively. In this population, doripenem and meropenem were associated with clinical cure rates at the TOC visit of 85.9% and 85.3%, respectively. The corresponding treatment difference was 0.6% (95% CI, -7.7% to 9.0%); this difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, in the mMITT population (385 patients), the clinical cure rates were 77.9% and 78.9%, respectively, and the corresponding 1.0% treatment difference was not statistically significant (95% CI, -9.7% to 7.7%). Clinical cure rates were not significantly different between the 2 treatment arms in key subgroups (eg, age, sex, race, baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, primary infection site). Microbiological eradication rates for common pathogens isolated at study entry were not significantly different between the 2 treatment groups. Doripenem was well tolerated in the population studied. In the intent-to-treat population (471 patients), 83.0% and 78.0% of patients experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE) and 13.2% and 14.0% experienced ≥1 serious AE in the doripenem and meropenem treatment arms, respectively. In the doripenem and meropenem treatment arms, AEs resulted in study drug discontinuation in 5.1% and 2.1% of patients and death in 2.1% and 3.0% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The present study found that doripenem (500 mg q8h) was effective in the treatment of cIAI, was therapeutically noninferior to meropenem (1 g q8h), with a safety profile not significantly different from that of meropenem in this selected population of patients with cIAI.

The efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole in the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections: evidence from 2 clinical trials

Complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) are common and are associated with significant health and economic costs. These infections are predominantly characterized by infection with Staphylococcus aureus, and SENTRY Surveillance data indicate that the occurrence of this pathogen in cSSSIs has increased and that almost half of the isolated pathogens are methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Surveillance data also indicate that Gram-negative isolates are not uncommon in cSSSIs. In the past, empiric antimicrobial coverage of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative infections has generally necessitated the use of at least 2 antimicrobial agents. Ceftobiprole, a novel advanced-generation pyrrolidinone cephalosporin, is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration as therapy for cSSSIs. This article presents a summary of the results of 2 recently published multicenter noninferiority trials involving approximately 1600 patients with a variety of cSSSIs. In the 1st trial, which included patients with Gram-positive cSSSI, the clinical cure rate at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit (the primary end point) among patients receiving ceftobiprole was 93.3%. The 2nd trial included a broad range of cSSSIs of varying pathogenicity. In this trial, the clinical cure rate among patients receiving ceftobiprole for S. aureus and MRSA infection was 94.6% and 91.8%, respectively. Ceftobiprole's capacity as a broad-spectrum agent was demonstrated in the 2nd trial, in which the clinical cure rate at TOC was 90.5% against a variety of infections and pathogens (including Gram negatives). In addition, the cure rate among patients with moderate to severe diabetic foot infection who received ceftobiprole was 86.2%, and these patients experienced a shorter length of stay in the hospital than those who received a comparator. This article also addresses the results of these trials in the context of the current medical need for safe broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents with MRSA coverage.

Phase 2 Study of Ceftaroline versus Standard Therapy in Treatment of Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections

Ceftaroline, the bioactive metabolite of ceftaroline fosamil (previously PPI-0903, TAK-599), is a broad-spectrum cephalosporin with potent in vitro activity against multidrug-resistant gram-positive aerobic pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. A randomized, observer-blinded study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ceftaroline versus standard therapy in treating complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI) was performed. Adults with cSSSI, including at least one systemic marker of inflammation, were randomized (2:1) to receive intravenous (i.v.) ceftaroline (600 mg every 12 h) or i.v. vancomycin (1 g every 12 h) with or without adjunctive i.v. aztreonam (1 g every 8 h) for 7 to 14 days. The primary outcome measure was the clinical cure rate at a test-of-cure (TOC) visit 8 to 14 days after treatment. Secondary outcomes included the microbiological success rate (eradication or presumed eradication) at TOC and the clinical relapse rate 21 to 28 days following treatment. Of 100 subjects enrolled, 88 were clinically evaluable; the clinical cure rate was 96.7% (59/61) for ceftaroline versus 88.9% (24/27) for standard therapy. Among the microbiologically evaluable subjects (i.e., clinically evaluable and having had at least one susceptible pathogen isolated at baseline), the microbiological success rate was 95.2% (40/42) for ceftaroline versus 85.7% (18/21) for standard therapy. Relapse occurred in one subject in each group (ceftaroline, 1.8%; standard therapy, 4.3%). Ceftaroline exhibited a very favorable safety and tolerability profile, consistent with that of marketed cephalosporins. Most adverse events from ceftaroline were mild and not related to treatment. Ceftaroline holds promise as a new therapy for treatment of cSSSI and other serious polymicrobial infections.

Treating diabetic foot infections with sequential intravenous to oral moxifloxacin compared with piperacillin–tazobactam/amoxicillin–clavulanate

Complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs), including diabetic foot infections (DFIs), are often polymicrobial, requiring combination or broad-spectrum therapy. Moxifloxacin, a broad-spectrum fluoroquinolone, is approved for cSSSI and can be administered by either intravenous (iv) or oral routes. To assess the efficacy of moxifloxacin for treating DFIs, we analysed a subset of patients with these infections who were enrolled in a prospective, double-blind study that compared the efficacy of moxifloxacin with piperacillin-tazobactam and amoxicillin-clavulanate. Patients>or=18 years of age with a DFI requiring initial iv therapy were randomized to either moxifloxacin (400 mg/day) or piperacillin-tazobactam (3.0/0.375 g every 6 h) for at least 3 days followed by moxifloxacin (400 mg/day orally) or amoxicillin-clavulanate (800 mg every 12 h orally), if appropriate, for 7-14 days. DFI was usually defined as any foot infection plus a history of diabetes. Our primary efficacy outcome was the clinical response of the infection at test-of-cure (TOC), 10-42 days post-therapy. Among 617 patients enrolled in the original study, 78 with DFIs were evaluable for treatment efficacy. Clinical cure rates at TOC were similar for moxifloxacin and piperacillin-tazobactam/amoxicillin-clavulanate (68% versus 61%) for patients with investigator-defined infection (P=0.54). Overall pathogen eradication rates in the microbiologically-valid population were 69% versus 66% for moxifloxacin and comparator, respectively (P=1.00). Intravenous+/-oral moxifloxacin was as effective as iv piperacillin-tazobactam+/-amoxicillin-clavulanate in treating moderate-to-severe DFIs. Moxifloxacin may have potential as a monotherapy regimen for DFIs.

An Observational Cohort Study of Chlamydia trachomatis Treatment in Pregnancy

Currently, azithromycin is not considered a first-line treatment for Chlamydia trachomatis in pregnant women. We evaluated the use, efficacy, and safety of azithromycin compared with erythromycin and amoxicillin in the treatment of genital chlamydial infection during pregnancy. This was a retrospective cohort study of pregnant women with genital chlamydial infection. Data on antibiotics prescribed, test-of-cure (TOC) results, and maternal and infant complications were collected from medical records. Of the 277 women in the study sample, 69% were initially prescribed azithromycin, 9% amoxicillin, and 19% erythromycin. Eight-one percent of subjects had a TOC 7 or more days after diagnosis and before delivery. Treatment efficacy, as defined by a negative TOC, was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.9-99.2) for azithromycin, 95% (95% CI, 76.2-99.9) for amoxicillin, and 64% (95% CI, 44.1-81.4) for erythromycin. The efficacy of azithromycin was significantly higher than erythromycin (P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in efficacy by age, race/ethnicity, concurrent sexually transmitted disease diagnosis, partner treatment, or substance use. Furthermore, there was no difference in complications for women or infants exposed to azithromycin compared with those treated with other regimens. Clinical outcome data from this study population of women and infants support both efficacy and safety of azithromycin for treatment of C. trachomatis in pregnancy.

A multicenter trial of the efficacy and safety of tigecycline versus imipenem/cilastatin in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections [Study ID Numbers: 3074A1-301-WW; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00081744

BackgroundComplicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) remain challenging to treat because of their polymicrobial etiology including multi-drug resistant bacteria. The efficacy and safety of tigecycline, an expanded broad-spectrum glycylcycline antibiotic, was compared with imipenem/cilastatin (IMI/CIS) in patients with cIAI.MethodsA prospective, double-blind, multinational trial was conducted in which patients with cIAI randomly received intravenous (IV) tigecycline (100 mg initial dose, then 50 mg every 12 hours [q12h]) or IV IMI/CIS (500/500 mg q6h or adjusted for renal dysfunction) for 5 to14 days. Clinical response at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit (14–35 days after therapy) for microbiologically evaluable (ME) and microbiological modified intent-to-treat (m-mITT) populations were the co-primary efficacy endpoint populations.ResultsA total of 825 patients received ≥ 1 dose of study drug. The primary diagnoses for the ME group were complicated appendicitis (59%), and intestinal (8.8%) and gastric/duodenal perforations (4.6%). For the ME group, clinical cure rates at TOC were 80.6% (199/247) for tigecycline versus 82.4% (210/255) for IMI/CIS (95% CI -8.4, 5.1 for non-inferiority tigecycline versus IMI/CIS). Corresponding clinical cure rates within the m-mITT population were 73.5% (227/309) for tigecycline versus 78.2% (244/312) for IMI/CIS (95% CI -11.0, 2.5). Nausea (31.0% tigecycline, 24.8% IMI/CIS [P = 0.052]), vomiting (25.7% tigecycline, 19.4% IMI/CIS [P = 0.037]), and diarrhea (21.3% tigecycline, 18.9% IMI/CIS [P = 0.435]) were the most frequently reported adverse events.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that tigecycline is as efficacious as imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of patients with cIAI.

Single-Dose Azithromycin Microspheres vs Clarithromycin Extended Release for the Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The inability or failure of many subjects to adhere to standard antibiotic regimens, which may last up to 10 days, results in suboptimal antibiotic treatment. Treatment with a single-dose antibiotic regimen may improve compliance with prescribed therapy. A novel microsphere formulation of azithromycin provides a single-dose regimen while maintaining tolerability. To compare the efficacy and safety of a single 2.0-g dose of azithromycin microspheres to that of an extended-release formulation of clarithromycin (1.0 g/d for 7 days) for the treatment of adults with mild-to-moderate CAP. A phase III, multinational, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study, comparing single-dose azithromycin microspheres to extended-release clarithromycin, both administered orally. Subjects with mild-to-moderate CAP (Fine class I and II) were included. The primary end point was clinical response at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit (days 14 to 21) in the clinical per protocol (CPP) population. The bacteriologic response at the TOC visit was assessed in subjects with a baseline pathogen. A total of 501 subjects were randomized, and 499 were treated. Clinical cure rates at the TOC visit in the CPP population were 92.6% (187 of 202 subjects) for azithromycin microspheres and 94.7% (198 of 209 subjects) for extended-release clarithromycin. Overall pathogen eradication rates were 91.8% (123 of 134 subjects) for azithromycin microspheres and 90.5% (153 of 169 subjects) for extended-release clarithromycin. Both agents were well tolerated. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 26.3% with azithromycin microspheres and 24.6% with extended-release clarithromycin. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity. A single 2.0-g dose of azithromycin microspheres was as effective and well tolerated as a 7-day course of extended-release clarithromycin in the treatment of adults with mild-to-moderate CAP.

Safety and Efficacy of Gatifloxacin Therapy for Children with Recurrent Acute Otitis Media (AOM) and/or AOM Treatment Failure

Because of concerns about arthrotoxicity, fluoroquinolones are restricted for use in children. This study describes the safety and efficacy of gatifloxacin when used for treatment of children with recurrent acute otitis media (ROM) or acute otitis media (AOM) treatment failure (AOMTF). We performed an analysis of 867 children included in 4 clinical trials who had ROM and/or AOMTF and were treated with gatifloxacin (10 mg/kg once daily for 10 days). Gatifloxacin had adverse event rates that were similar overall to those of a comparator antibiotic (amoxicillin-clavulanate), except for increased diarrhea in children <2 years old receiving amoxicillin-clavulanate. There was no evidence of arthrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, alteration of glucose homeostasis, or central nervous system toxicity acutely or during 1 year follow-up in any child. Regarding efficacy, in 2 noncomparative trials, the gatifloxacin cure rate of AOM was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83%-95%) at the test of cure (TOC) visit, 3-10 days after completion of therapy. In 2 comparative trials of gatifloxacin versus amoxicillin-clavulanate, the efficacy of gatifloxacin was 88% (95% CI, 82%-94%). Gatifloxacin led to better clinical outcomes than amoxicillin-clavulanate for AOMTF (91% vs. 81%; P=.029), for AOMTF and age <2 years old (89% vs. 69%; P=.009), and for severe AOM in children <2 years old (90% vs. 75%; P=.012). Among children with AOMTF previously treated with amoxicillin-clavulanate or ceftriaxone injections, gatifloxacin cure rates were high (88% and 75%, respectively). Gatifloxacin appears to be safe for children, with no evidence of producing arthrotoxicity in 867 children exposed to the antibiotic when used as treatment for ROM and AOMTF.

Once-Daily Azithromycin for 3 Days Compared with Clarithromycin for 10 Days for Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Bronchitis

To compare the efficacy and safety of oral azithromycin 500 mg once daily for 3 days with those of oral clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily for 10 days. Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study. Seventy-six study centers in eight countries (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, India, South Africa, and USA). Three hundred and twenty-two adult outpatients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB) as documented by increased cough or sputum production, worsening dyspnea, and purulent sputum production. Randomization 1 : 1 to azithromycin 500 mg once daily for 3 days or clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily for 10 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical response at day 21-24, or test of cure (TOC) visit in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) analysis (n = 318 patients). The TOC clinical cure rates in the MITT population were equivalent in the two treatment groups at 85% with azithromycin and 82% with clarithromycin (95% CI -5.9%, 12.0%). Clinical success rates on day 10-12 were also equivalent at 93% with azithromycin and 94% with clarithromycin (95% CI -7.9%, 4.4%). Clinical cure rates at TOC by pathogen were equivalent for the two treatment groups for Haemophilus influenzae (azithromycin, 85.7%; clarithromycin, 87.5%), Moraxella catarrhalis (91.7% and 80.0%, respectively) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (90.6% and 77.8%, respectively). Bacteriologic success rates were also equivalent between the azithromycin and clarithromycin treatment groups at TOC for S. pneumoniae (90.6% and 85.2%, respectively), H. influenzae (71.4% and 81.3%, respectively) and M. catarrhalis (100% and 86.7%, respectively). The overall incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar in the azithromycin and clarithromycin groups (20.9% and 26.8%, respectively), with the most common being abdominal pain (6.3% and 6.1%, respectively), diarrhea (4.4% and 5.5%, respectively), and nausea (4.4% and 3.7%, respectively). Three-day treatment with azithromycin 500 mg once daily is equivalent to a 10-day treatment with clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily in adult patients with AECB.

The outcome of oropharyngeal gonorrhoea treatment with different regimens

Little is known of the efficacy of different antibiotics for the treatment of oropharyngeal gonorrhoea in routine clinical practice. The aim of the study was to investigate the treatment outcome of oropharyngeal gonorrhoea with different antibiotics. Case-notes of culturally proven oropharyngeal gonorrhoea diagnosed between January 1998 and January 2003 were reviewed for the antibiotic of choice and the result of test-of-cure (TOC) seven and 14 days after treatment. Of 117 episodes of pharyngeal gonorrhoea, 77 episodes (66%) were followed up with one TOC and 25 (21%) had two TOC. Treatment failure was recorded in 10% (8/77) of episodes: the failure rate was 28% (4/14) in patients treated with amoxicillin 3 g/probenecid 1 g stat and 11% (4/35) in those treated with ciprofloxacin 500 mg stat. The failure rate in treating pharyngeal gonorrhoea supports the need for a pharyngeal TOC culture as part of routine follow-up for patients infected at this site. As only 66% of patients had a TOC culture, efforts should be made to increase the number of patients having a TOC.

Tigecycline is efficacious in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections

BackgroundEmpiric treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) represents a clinical challenge because of the diverse bacteriology and the emergence of bacterial resistance. The efficacy and safety of tigecycline (TGC), a first-in-class, expanded broad-spectrum glycylcycline antibiotic, were compared with imipenem/cilastatin (IMI/CIS) in patients with cIAI. MethodsIn this prospective, double-blind, phase 3, multinational trial, patients were randomly assigned to intravenous (IV) TGC (100mg initial dose, then 50mg every 12h) or IV IMI/CIS (500/500mg every 6h) for 5–14 days. Clinical response was assessed at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit (14–35 days after therapy) for microbiologically evaluable (ME) and microbiologically modified intent-to-treat (m-mITT) populations (co-primary efficacy endpoint populations in which cure/failure response rates were determined). ResultsOf 817 mITT patients (i.e., received≥1 dose of study drug), 641 (78%) comprised the m-mITT cohort (322 TGC, 319 IMI/CIS) and 523 (64%) were ME (266 TGC, 256 IMI/CIS). Patients were predominantly white (88%) and male (59%) with a mean age of 49 years. The primary diagnoses for the mITT group were complicated appendicitis (41%), cholecystitis (22%), and intra-abdominal abscess (11%). For the ME population, clinical cure rates at TOC were 91.3% (242/265) for TGC versus 89.9% (232/258) for IMI/CIS (95% CI −4.0, 6.8; P<0.001). Corresponding clinical cure rates within the m-mITT population were 86.6% (279/322) for TGC versus 84.6% (270/319) for IMI/CIS (95% CI −3.7, 7.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority TGC versus IMI/CIS). The most commonly reported adverse events for TGC and IMI/CIS were nausea (17.6% TGC versus 13.3% IMI/CIS; P=0.100) and vomiting (12.6% TGC versus 9.2% IMI/CIS; P=0.144). ConclusionsTGC is efficacious in the treatment of patients with cIAIs and TGC met per the protocol-specified statistical criteria for noninferiority to the comparator, IMI/CIS.