Comparison of spiramycin and doxycycline in the treatment of lower respiratory infections in general practice

Efficacy of Doxycycline for Mild-to-Moderate Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Doxycycline has been recommended as a treatment option for non-severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adults. We sought to review the evidence for the efficacy of doxycycline in adult patients with mild-to-moderate CAP.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of doxycycline versus comparator to assess the clinical efficacy. The primary outcome was the clinical cure rate. Random effects model meta-analyses were used to generate pooled odds ratio (OR) and evaluate heterogeneity (I2). Risk of bias (RoB) and quality of evidence (QoE) were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and GRADE methods, respectively.

RESULTS

We included 6 RCTs with 834 clinically evaluable patients. The trials were performed between 1984 and 2004. Comparators were 3 macrolides (roxithromycin, spiramycin, and erythromycin) and 3 fluoroquinolones (ofloxacin, fleroxacin, and levofloxacin). Four trials had an overall high RoB. The clinical cure rate was similar between the doxycycline and comparator groups (87.2% [381/437] vs 82.6% [328/397]; OR 1.29 [95% confidence interval {CI}: .73-2.28]; I2 = 30%; low QoE). Subgroup analysis of two studies with a low RoB showed significantly higher clinical cure rates in the doxycyline group (87.1% [196/225] vs 77.8% [165/212]; OR 1.92 [95% CI: 1.15-3.21]; P = .01; I2 = 0%). Adverse event rates were comparable between the doxycycline and comparator groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of doxycycline was comparable to macrolides or fluoroquinolones in mild-to-moderate CAP and thus represents a viable treatment option. Considering the lack of recent trials, it warrants large-scale clinical trials.

Use of Oral Tetracyclines in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: A Literature Review on the Often-Overlooked Antibiotic Class

Oral tetracyclines have been used in clinical practice for over 60 years. Overall, one of the most common indications for use of oral tetracyclines is for treatment of adult outpatients with lower respiratory tract infections, including community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Despite the longstanding use of oral tetracyclines, practice patterns indicate that they are often considered after other guideline-concordant oral CAP treatment options (namely macrolides, fluoroquinolones, and β-lactams). However, there are growing resistance or safety concerns with the available oral agents listed for outpatients with CAP in the updated American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) CAP guidelines, especially among patients with comorbidities or notable risk factors for resistant pathogens. Given the need for alternative oral agents to macrolides, fluoroquinolones, and beta-lactams for adult outpatients with CAP, this review summarizes the literature on the use of oral tetracyclines (i.e., doxycycline, minocycline, and omadacycline) for this indication. As part of this review, we described their mechanism of action, common mechanisms of resistance, susceptibility profiles against common CAP pathogens, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, clinical data, and safety. The intent of the review is to highlight the important considerations when deciding between doxycycline, minocycline, and omadacycline for an adult outpatient with CAP in situations in which use of an oral tetracycline is warranted.

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.

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.

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.

Safety of doxycycline and minocycline: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this review was to summarize the available literature covering the safety profiles of oral doxycycline and minocycline.

METHODS

Scientific literature published between 1966 and August 2003 was searched using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Biosis databases (search terms: minocycline or doxycycline, each paired with adverse reaction, adverse event, and side effect, and doxycycline or minocycline with the limits English language, human, and clinical trials). Safety information was collected from case reports and clinical trials. Adverse event (AE) rates in the United States were calculated by comparing data from the MedWatch AE reporting program used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the number of new prescriptions dispensed for each drug from January 1998 to August 2003.

RESULTS

Between 1966 and 2003, a total of 130 and 333 AEs were published in case reports of doxycycline and minocycline, respectively. In 24 doxycycline clinical trials (n = 3833) and 11 minocycline trials (n = 788), the ranges in incidence of AEs were 0% to 61% and 11.7% to 83.3%, respectively. Gastrointestinal AEs were most common with doxycycline; central nervous system and gastrointestinal AEs were most common with minocycline. From January 1998 to August 2003, the FDA MedWatch data contained 628 events for doxycycline and 1099 events for minocycline reported in the United States. Approximately 47,630,000 doxycycline and 15,234,000 minocycline new prescriptions were dispensed in the United States during that period, yielding event rates of 13 per million for doxycycline and 72 per million for minocycline, based on FDA data.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 1998 and 2003, doxycycline was prescribed 3 times as often as minocycline. The incidence of AEs with either drug is very low, but doxycycline had fewer reported AEs. Although more head-to-head clinical trials are needed for a direct comparison of AE frequency, these preliminary data from separate reports suggest the possibility that AEs may be less likely with doxycycline than minocycline.

Antibiotics for community acquired pneumonia in adult outpatients

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common condition representing a significant disease burden for the community, particularly for the elderly. Because antibiotics are helpful in treating CAP, they are the standard treatment and CAP thus contributes significantly to antibiotic use, which is associated with the development of bacterial resistance and side-effects. Although several studies have been published concerning CAP and its treatment, the available data arises mainly from studies conducted in hospitalized patients and outpatients. There is no concise summary of the available evidence that can help clinicians in choosing the most appropriate antibiotic.

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to summarize the evidence currently available from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy of alternative antibiotic treatments for CAP in ambulatory patients above 12 years of age.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's trial register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to September week 3, 2003), and EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2003). Studies were also identified by checking the bibliographies of studies and review articles retrieved as well as by perusing medical journals. To identify any additional published or unpublished studies, we contacted the following antibiotics manufacturers: Abbott, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-LaRoche, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacia, Sanofi, and Yamanouchi. No language restrictions were applied in any of the search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which one or more antibiotics were tested for the treatment of CAP in ambulatory adolescent or adult patients. Studies testing one or more antibiotic and reporting the diagnostic criteria used in selecting patients as well as the clinical outcomes achieved were included. No language restrictions were applied.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted and study reports assessed by two independent reviewers (LMB and TJMV). Authors of studies were contacted as needed to resolve any ambiguities in the study reports. The data were analyzed using the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 4.2.2 Software. Differences between reviewers were resolved by discussion and consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials involving a total of 622 patients aged 12 years and older diagnosed with community acquired pneumonia were included. The quality of the studies and of the reporting was variable. 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 under study.

REVIEWERS' 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 community acquired pneumonia in ambulatory patients. Pooling of study data was limited by the very low number of studies. 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.

Flurithromycin ethylsuccinate in the treatment of lower respiratory tract bacterial infections

Efficacy and tolerability of flurithromycin ethylsuccinate were evaluated in lower respiratory tract infections. One hundred and ten patients (38 women, 72 men; age range 18-87 years) were treated with on 375 mg tablet 12-hourly for a mean duration of 8.7 days. One hundred and five patients were evaluable for efficacy. Overall clinical cure rate was 62.9%; improvement was recorded in 19% of patients for a total satisfactory clinical response rate of 81.9%. Sputum production decreased in most patients, being absent after treatment in 47% (only one patient was negative at baseline); sputum was purulent or mucopurulent in 80% of subjects before and in 20% after treatment. Bacteriological evaluation was possible in 72 patients: pathogen eradication was achieved in 80.2% of cases. Eight patients out of 110 reported adverse reactions, mainly gastrointestinal; in one case treatment had to be discontinued. These results demonstrate that flurithromycin ethylsuccinate is safe and effective in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections.