Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the comparative efficacy and safety of azithromycin against other antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infections

Recommendations on off-label use of intravenous azithromycin in children

OBJECTIVE

Intravenous azithromycin (AZM) has been widely used in children worldwide, but there still remains much concern regarding its off-label use, which urgently needs to be regulated. Therefore, we developed a rapid advice guideline in China to give recommendations of rational use of intravenous AZM in children.

METHODS

This guideline focuses on antimicrobial therapy with intravenous AZM in children. The Delphi research method was used to select questions. A systematic literature review was also conducted. Data were pooled and ranked according to the GRADE system. Recommendations were developed based on expert clinical experience, patients' values and preferences, and evidence availability. After an external review, the recommendations were revised and approved.

RESULTS

This guideline included eighteen recommendations that covered four domains: (a) Indications: the treatment of pneumonia caused by atypical but common pathogens, such as Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydia trachomatis or Chlamydophila pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila, more typical bacteria as well as the treatment of bronchitis of presumed bacterial aetiologies; (b) Usage and dosage: administration route, infusion concentrations, treatment duration, course of sequential treatment, and dosage stratified by age; (c) Adverse reactions and treatment: the management of gastrointestinal reactions, arrhythmias, pain or phlebitis at the infusion site, and anaphylaxis; and (d) Special population: children with renal or liver dysfunction, congenital heart disease, and obesity. This guideline will hopefully help promote a rational use of intravenous AZM in children worldwide.

CONCLUSION

This guideline has summarised the evidence and has developed recommendations on the use of intravenous AZM in children worldwide. Further attention and well-designed researches should be conducted on the off-label use of intravenous AZM in children.

Repurposing Drugs for the Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), termed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by the World Health Organization, is a newly emerging zoonotic agent that emerged in China in December 2019. No specific treatment for COVID-19 is currently available. Usual palliative treatment includes maintaining hydration and nutrition and controlling fever and cough. The clinical severity and extent of transmission need to be determined, and therapeutic options need to be developed and optimized.

METHODS

The present review discusses the recent repurposing of drugs for COVID-19 treatment.

RESULTS

Several compounds, including remdesivir, lopinavir, ritonavir, interferon-β, ribavirin, chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, tocilizumab, and ivermectin, have emerged as promising alternatives. They block the virus from entering host cells, prevent viral replication, and attenuate exacerbation of the host's immune response.

CONCLUSION

Although some evidence indicates the positive actions of different classes of compounds for the treatment of COVID-19, few clinical assays have been established to definitively demonstrate their therapeutic value in humans. Multicenter clinical studies are urgently needed to validate and standardize therapeutic regimens that involve these agents. Although science has not yet presented us with a specific drug against COVID-19, the repurposing of drugs appears to be promising in our fight against this devastating disease.

Effect of Mass Treatment with Azithromycin on Causes of Death in Children in Malawi: Secondary Analysis from the MORDOR Trial

Recent evidence indicates mass drug administration with azithromycin may reduce child mortality. This study uses verbal autopsy (VA) to investigate the causes of individual deaths during the Macrolides Oraux pour Réduire les Décès avec un Oeil sur la Résistance (MORDOR) trial in Malawi. Cluster randomization was performed as part of MORDOR. Biannual household visits were conducted to distribute azithromycin or placebo to children aged 1–59 months and update the census to identify deaths for VA. MORDOR was not powered to investigate mortality effects at individual sites, but the available evidence is presented here for hypothesis generation regarding the mechanism through which azithromycin may reduce child mortality. Automated VA analysis was performed to infer the likely cause of death using two major analysis programs, InterVA and SmartVA. A total of 334 communities were randomized to azithromycin or placebo, with more than 130,000 person-years of follow-up. During the study, there were 1,184 deaths, of which 1,131 were followed up with VA. Mortality was 9% lower in azithromycin-treated communities than in placebo communities (rate ratio 0.91 [95% CI: 0.79–1.05]; P = 0.20). The intention-to-treat analysis by cause using InterVA suggested fewer HIV/AIDS deaths in azithromycin-treated communities (rate ratio 0.70 [95% CI: 0.50–0.97]; P = 0.03) and fewer pneumonia deaths (rate ratio 0.82 [95% CI: 0.60–1.12]; P = 0.22). The use of the SmartVA algorithm suggested fewer diarrhea deaths (rate ratio 0.71 [95% CI: 0.51–1.00]; P = 0.05) and fewer pneumonia deaths (rate ratio 0.58 [95% CI: 0.33–1.00]; P = 0.05). Although this study is not able to provide strong evidence, the data suggest that the mortality reduction during MORDOR in Malawi may have been due to effects on pneumonia and diarrhea or HIV/AIDS mortality.

Antibiotics Utilization for Community Acquired Pneumonia in a Community Hospital Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

A local health authority in Canada implemented its own Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) which provide guidelines to clinicians to utilize when treating infectious diseases such as community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Objectives: The primary objective is to describe antibiotic usage patterns at the community hospital's emergency department (ED) and to analyze the patterns in relation to ASP goals of reducing risk of infections, adverse drug events and antibiotic resistance, and to identify potential areas of improvement.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review included 156 adult patients with a diagnosis of CAP admitted to a community hospital ED from December 1, 2015 to November 30, 2016.

RESULTS

50.6% patients were prescribed moxifloxacin across all severity of CAP patients. Low and moderate severity CAP patients were most often prescribed antibiotic duration > 7 days. In low, moderate and high severity CAP patients who were treated using ceftriaxone, 100%, 88.9% and 66.6% patients were treated with ceftriaxone 2000 mg daily respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic prescribing patterns suggest fluoroquinolones were frequently being over-prescribed, ceftriaxone dosages were often too high, and duration of antibiotics for low and moderate severity CAP were too long. More efforts are needed to promote appropriate antibiotic usage and optimize patient care.

Comparison of Pathogen Eradication Rate and Safety of Anti-Bacterial Agents for Bronchitis: A Network Meta-Analysis

A large number of population in both developing and developed countries are affected by bronchitis, among all the factors, bacterial infection was considered as a critical cause of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Although several anti-bacterial agents were proved to have the effect of alleviating bronchitis, their relative efficacies and potential side effects remained not clear. We are keen to compare the pathogen eradication rate and safety of anti-bacterial agents for bronchitis. Relevant studies were searched in multiple sources and data were extracted from eligible studies. Then conventional meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to determine the relative efficacy and safety of bronchitis medications. The efficacy of bronchitis medications was determined by using the outcome of pathogen eradication, including total pathogen eradication, pathogen eradication of Haemophilus influenzae, pathogen eradication of Moraxella catarrhalis, and pathogen eradication of Streptococcus pneumoniae. In addition, safety was assessed by using the outcome of adverse effects and diarrhoea. A 27 RCTs with 9,414 participants were included in the study. Among the medications, gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin exhibited better performance than clarithromycin with respect to pathogen eradication of H. influenzae (OR = 21.37, CI: 1.22-541.28; OR = 7.43, CI: 1.79-30.50). Clarithromycin, gemifloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and telithromycin appeared to be more preferable than amoxicillin + clavulanate and azithromycin with respect to diarrhoea (all OR <1). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) results suggested that gemifloxacin and levofloxacin had a relatively high ranking in total pathogen eradication, whereas amoxicillin + clavulanate and azithromycin exhibited relatively lower ranking with respect to adverse effects and diarrhoea. Gemifloxacin and levofloxacin are more preferable than others for lowering respiratory tract inflammation and infections considering their balanced performance between pathogen eradication and adverse effects. J. Cell. Biochem. 118: 3171-3183, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Clinical practice guideline (update): adult sinusitis

OBJECTIVE

This update of a 2007 guideline from the American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery Foundation provides evidence-based recommendations to manage adult rhinosinusitis, defined as symptomatic inflammation of the paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity. Changes from the prior guideline include a consumer added to the update group, evidence from 42 new systematic reviews, enhanced information on patient education and counseling, a new algorithm to clarify action statement relationships, expanded opportunities for watchful waiting (without antibiotic therapy) as initial therapy of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS), and 3 new recommendations for managing chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

PURPOSE

The purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in managing adult rhinosinusitis and to create explicit and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specifically, the goals are to improve diagnostic accuracy for adult rhinosinusitis, promote appropriate use of ancillary tests to confirm diagnosis and guide management, and promote judicious use of systemic and topical therapy, which includes radiography, nasal endoscopy, computed tomography, and testing for allergy and immune function. Emphasis was also placed on identifying multiple chronic conditions that would modify management of rhinosinusitis, including asthma, cystic fibrosis, immunocompromised state, and ciliary dyskinesia.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The update group made strong recommendations that clinicians (1) should distinguish presumed ABRS from acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) caused by viral upper respiratory infections and noninfectious conditions and (2) should confirm a clinical diagnosis of CRS with objective documentation of sinonasal inflammation, which may be accomplished using anterior rhinoscopy, nasal endoscopy, or computed tomography. The update group made recommendations that clinicians (1) should either offer watchful waiting (without antibiotics) or prescribe initial antibiotic therapy for adults with uncomplicated ABRS; (2) should prescribe amoxicillin with or without clavulanate as first-line therapy for 5 to 10 days (if a decision is made to treat ABRS with an antibiotic); (3) should reassess the patient to confirm ABRS, exclude other causes of illness, and detect complications if the patient worsens or fails to improve with the initial management option by 7 days after diagnosis or worsens during the initial management; (4) should distinguish CRS and recurrent ARS from isolated episodes of ABRS and other causes of sinonasal symptoms; (5) should assess the patient with CRS or recurrent ARS for multiple chronic conditions that would modify management, such as asthma, cystic fibrosis, immunocompromised state, and ciliary dyskinesia; (6) should confirm the presence or absence of nasal polyps in a patient with CRS; and (7) should recommend saline nasal irrigation, topical intranasal corticosteroids, or both for symptom relief of CRS. The update group stated as options that clinicians may (1) recommend analgesics, topical intranasal steroids, and/or nasal saline irrigation for symptomatic relief of viral rhinosinusitis; (2) recommend analgesics, topical intranasal steroids, and/or nasal saline irrigation) for symptomatic relief of ABRS; and (3) obtain testing for allergy and immune function in evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent ARS. The update group made recommendations that clinicians (1) should not obtain radiographic imaging for patients who meet diagnostic criteria for ARS, unless a complication or alternative diagnosis is suspected, and (2) should not prescribe topical or systemic antifungal therapy for patients with CRS.

[Mass spectrometry of blood low-molecular fraction as a method for unification of therapeutic drug monitoring]

The article describes a new therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) method based on direct infusion of low-molecular fraction of blood into electrospray ionization source of mass spectrometer. This technique allows performing TDM of almost all drugs used in clinic. In article, the universality and high-throughput of the method, that significantly simplifies its wide application, have been shown. Moreover, the possibility of method application in most cases of drug therapy has been argued as a tool of control of drug doses, rationality of drug therapy, and the quality of the drugs themselves. In conclusion, the prospects for application of the method as primary means of improving the quality and personalization of drug therapy have been discussed.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of a Short Regimen of Azithromycin Sequential Therapy vs Standard Cefuroxime Sequential Therapy in the Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: An International, Randomized, Open-Label Study

An international, randomized, open-label, comparative study was undertaken in order to assess the efficacy and safety of azithromycin and cefuroxime, short sequential vs standard sequential therapy, respectively, in the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). 180 adult patients were included in the study. 89 patients received azithromycin 500 mg intravenously (i.v.) once daily for 1-4 days followed by azithromycin 500 mg orally once daily for 3 days. 91 patients received cefuroxime 1.5 g i.v. three times daily for 1-4 days followed by cefuroxime axetil 500 mg orally twice daily for 7 days. Clinical efficacy was achieved in 67/82 (81.7%) patients treated with azithromycin, and in 73/89 (82.0%) patients treated with cefuroxime. The mean duration of total (i.v. and oral) therapy was significantly shorter for the azithromycin group than for the cefuroxime group (6.2 days vs 10.1 days). Adverse events were recorded in 38.2% of patients treated with azithromycin, and in 29.7% of patients treated with cefuroxime (p = 0.20). Shorter sequential i.v.-to-oral azithromycin therapy of patients with CAP was as effective as standard sequential i.v.-to-oral cefuroxime therapy.

Elderly patients with community-acquired pneumonia: optimal treatment strategies

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common infectious disease that still causes substantial morbidity and mortality. Elderly people are frequently affected, and several issues related to care of this condition in the elderly have to be considered. This article reviews current recommendations of guidelines with a special focus on aspects of the care of elderly patients with CAP. The most common pathogen in CAP is still Streptococcus pneumoniae, followed by other pathogens such as Haemophilus influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae and Legionella species. Antimicrobial resistance is an increasing problem, especially with regard to macrolide-resistant S. pneumoniae and fluoroquinolone-resistant strains. With regard to β-lactam antibacterials, resistance by H. influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis is important, as is the emergence of multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The main management decisions should be guided by the severity of disease, which can be assessed by validated clinical risk scores such as CURB-65, a tool for measuring the severity of pneumonia based on assessment of confusion, serum urea, respiratory rate and blood pressure in patients aged ≥65 years. For the treatment of low-risk pneumonia, an aminopenicillin such as amoxicillin with or without a β-lactamase inhibitor is frequently recommended. Monotherapy with macrolides is also possible, although macrolide resistance is of concern. When predisposing factors for special pathogens are present, a β-lactam antibacterial combined with a β-lactamase inhibitor, or the combination of a β-lactam antibacterial, a β-lactamase inhibitor and a macrolide, may be warranted. If possible, patients who have undergone previous antibacterial therapy should receive drug classes not previously used. For hospitalized patients with non-severe pneumonia, a common recommendation is empirical antibacterial therapy with an aminopenicillin in combination with a β-lactamase inhibitor, or with fluoroquinolone monotherapy. With proven Legionella pneumonia, a combination of β-lactams with a fluoroquinolone or a macrolide is beneficial. In severe pneumonia, ureidopenicillins with β-lactamase inhibitors, broad-spectrum cephalosporins, macrolides and fluoroquinolones are used. A combination of a broad-spectrum β-lactam antibacterial (e.g. cefotaxime or ceftriaxone), piperacillin/tazobactam and a macrolide is mostly recommended. In patients with a predisposition for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a combination of piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime, imipenem or meropenem and levofloxacin or ciprofloxacin is frequently used. Treatment duration of more than 7 days is not generally recommended, except for proven infections with P. aeruginosa, for which 15 days of treatment appears to be appropriate. Further care issues in all hospitalized patients are timely administration of antibacterials, oxygen supply in case of hypoxaemia, and fluid management and dose adjustments according to kidney function. The management of elderly patients with CAP is a challenge. Shifts in antimicrobial resistance and the availability of new antibacterials will change future clinical practice. Studies investigating new methods to detect pathogens, determine the optimal antimicrobial regimen and clarify the duration of treatment may assist in further optimizing the management of elderly patients with CAP.

Review of macrolides (azithromycin, clarithromycin), ketolids (telithromycin) and glycylcyclines (tigecycline)

The advanced macrolides, azithromycin and clarithromycin, and the ketolide, telithromycin, are structural analogs of erythromycin. They have several distinct advantages when compared with erythromycin, including enhanced spectrum of activity, more favorable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, once-daily administration, and improved tolerability. Clarithromycin and azithromycin are used extensively for the treatment of respiratory tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, and Helicobacter pylori-associated peptic ulcer disease. Telithromycin is approved for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Severe hepatotoxicity has been reported with the use of telithromycin.

Macrolides, ketolides, and glycylcyclines: azithromycin, clarithromycin, telithromycin, tigecycline

The advanced macrolides, azithromycin and clarithromycin, and the ketolide, telithromycin, are structural analogs of erythromycin. They have several distinct advantages when compared with erythromycin, including enhanced spectrum of activity, more favorable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, once-daily administration, and improved tolerability. Clarithromycin and azithromycin are used extensively for the treatment of respiratory tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, and Helicobacter pylori-associated peptic ulcer disease. Telithromycin is approved for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Severe hepatotoxicity has been reported with the use of telithromycin.

Efficacy and safety of azithromycin 1 g once daily for 3 days in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: an open-label randomised comparison with amoxicillin-clavulanate 875/125 mg twice daily for 7 days

This randomised, open-label, non-inferiority study was designed to demonstrate that a 3-day course of oral azithromycin 1 g once daily was at least as effective as a standard 7-day course of oral amoxicillin-clavulanate 875/125 mg twice daily in the treatment of outpatients with community-acquired pneumonia (Fine class I and II). In total, 267 patients with clinically and radiologically confirmed community-acquired pneumonia were randomly assigned to receive either the azithromycin (n=136) or the amoxicillin-clavulanate (n=131) regimen. At screening, 60/136 (58.8%) and 61/131 (62.9%) respectively had at least one pathogen identified by sputum culture, PCR, or serology. The primary endpoint was the clinical response in the intent-to-treat population at the end of therapy (day 8 to 12). Clinical success rates were 126/136 (92.6%) for azithromycin and 122/131 (93.1%) for amoxicillin-clavulanate (treatment difference: - 0.48%; 95% confidence interval: - 5.66%; 4.69%). Clinical and radiological success rates at follow-up (day 22-26) were consistent with the end of therapy results, no patient reporting clinical relapse. Bacteriological success rates at the end of therapy were 32/35 (91.4%) for azithromycin and 30/33 (90.9%) for amoxicillin-clavulanate (treatment difference: 0.52%; 95% confidence interval - 10.81%; 11.85%). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated: the overall incidence of adverse events was 34/136 (25.0%) for azithromycin and 22/132 (16.7%) for amoxicillin-clavulanate. In both treatment groups, the most commonly reported events were gastrointestinal symptoms. Azithromycin 1g once daily for 3 days is at least as effective as amoxicillin-clavulanate 875/125 mg twice daily for 7 days in the treatment of adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

In tepid defense of population health: physicians and antibiotic resistance

Antibiotic resistance menaces the population as a dire public health threat and costly social problem. Recent proposals to combat antibiotic resistance focus to a large degree on supply side approaches. Suggestions include tinkering with patent rights so that pharmaceutical companies have greater incentives to discover novel antibiotics as well as to resist overselling their newer drugs already on market. This Article argues that a primarily supply side emphasis unfortunately detracts attention from physicians' important demand side influences. Physicians have a vital and unavoidably necessary role to play in ensuring socially optimal access to antibiotics. Dismayingly, physicians' management of the antibiotic supply has been poor and their defense of population health tepid at best. Acting as a prudent steward of the antibiotic supply often seems to be at odds with a physician's commonly understood fiduciary duties, ethical obligations, and professional norms, all of which traditionally emphasize the individual health paradigm as opposed to population health responsibilities. Meanwhile, physicians face limited incentives for antibiotic conservation from other sources, such as malpractice liability, regulatory standards, and reimbursement systems. While multifaceted efforts are needed to combat antibiotic resistance effectively, physician gatekeeping behavior should become a priority area of focus. This Article considers how health law and policy tools could favorably change the incentives physicians face for antibiotic conservation. A clear lesson from the managed care reform battles of the recent past is that interventions, to have the best chance of success, need to respect physician interest in clinical autonomy and individualized medicine even if, somewhat paradoxically, vigorously promoting population health perspectives. Also, physicians' legal and ethical obligations need to be reconceptualized in the antibiotic context in order to better support gatekeeping in defense of population health. The principal recommendation is for increased use of financial incentives to reward physicians for compliance with recommended guidelines on antibiotic prescribing. Although not a panacea, greater experimentation with financial incentives can provide a much needed jump-start to physician interest in antibiotic conservation and likely best address physicians' legitimate clinical autonomy concerns.

Clinical practice guideline: adult sinusitis

OBJECTIVE

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on managing sinusitis, defined as symptomatic inflammation of the paranasal sinuses. Sinusitis affects 1 in 7 adults in the United States, resulting in about 31 million individuals diagnosed each year. Since sinusitis almost always involves the nasal cavity, the term rhinosinusitis is preferred. The guideline target patient is aged 18 years or older with uncomplicated rhinosinusitis, evaluated in any setting in which an adult with rhinosinusitis would be identified, monitored, or managed. This guideline is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and manage adults with sinusitis.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve diagnostic accuracy for adult rhinosinusitis, reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, reduce inappropriate use of radiographic imaging, and promote appropriate use of ancillary tests that include nasal endoscopy, computed tomography, and testing for allergy and immune function. In creating this guideline the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of allergy, emergency medicine, family medicine, health insurance, immunology, infectious disease, internal medicine, medical informatics, nursing, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, pulmonology, and radiology.

RESULTS

The panel made strong recommendations that 1) clinicians should distinguish presumed acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) from acute rhinosinusitis caused by viral upper respiratory infections and noninfectious conditions, and a clinician should diagnose ABRS when (a) symptoms or signs of acute rhinosinusitis are present 10 days or more beyond the onset of upper respiratory symptoms, or (b) symptoms or signs of acute rhinosinusitis worsen within 10 days after an initial improvement (double worsening), and 2) the management of ABRS should include an assessment of pain, with analgesic treatment based on the severity of pain. The panel made a recommendation against radiographic imaging for patients who meet diagnostic criteria for acute rhinosinusitis, unless a complication or alternative diagnosis is suspected. The panel made recommendations that 1) if a decision is made to treat ABRS with an antibiotic agent, the clinician should prescribe amoxicillin as first-line therapy for most adults, 2) if the patient worsens or fails to improve with the initial management option by 7 days, the clinician should reassess the patient to confirm ABRS, exclude other causes of illness, and detect complications, 3) clinicians should distinguish chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis from isolated episodes of ABRS and other causes of sinonasal symptoms, 4) clinicians should assess the patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis for factors that modify management, such as allergic rhinitis, cystic fibrosis, immunocompromised state, ciliary dyskinesia, and anatomic variation, 5) the clinician should corroborate a diagnosis and/or investigate for underlying causes of CRS and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, 6) the clinician should obtain computed tomography of the paranasal sinuses in diagnosing or evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, and 7) clinicians should educate/counsel patients with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis regarding control measures. The panel offered as options that 1) clinicians may prescribe symptomatic relief in managing viral rhinosinusitis, 2) clinicians may prescribe symptomatic relief in managing ABRS, 3) observation without use of antibiotics is an option for selected adults with uncomplicated ABRS who have mild illness (mild pain and temperature <38.3 degrees C or 101 degrees F) and assurance of follow-up, 4) the clinician may obtain nasal endoscopy in diagnosing or evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, and 5) the clinician may obtain testing for allergy and immune function in evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis.

DISCLAIMER

This clinical practice guideline is not intended as a sole source of guidance for managing adults with rhinosinusitis. Rather, it is designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. It is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all individuals with this condition, and may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem.

Efficacy of short-course antibiotic regimens for community-acquired pneumonia: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

There is little consensus on the most appropriate duration of antibiotic treatment for community-acquired pneumonia. The goal of this study is to systematically review randomized controlled trials comparing short-course and extended-course antibiotic regimens for community-acquired pneumonia.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL, and reviewed reference lists from 1980 through June 2006. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials that compared short-course (7 days or less) versus extended-course (>7 days) antibiotic monotherapy for community-acquired pneumonia in adults. The primary outcome measure was failure to achieve clinical improvement.

RESULTS

We found 15 randomized controlled trials matching our inclusion and exclusion criteria comprising 2796 total subjects. Short-course regimens primarily studied the use of azithromycin (n=10), but trials examining beta-lactams (n=2), fluoroquinolones (n=2), and ketolides (n=1) were found as well. Of the extended-course regimens, 3 studies utilized the same antibiotic, whereas 9 involved an antibiotic of the same class. Overall, there was no difference in the risk of clinical failure between the short-course and extended-course regimens (0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-1.02). In addition, there were no differences in the risk of mortality (0.81, 95% CI, 0.46-1.43) or bacteriologic eradication (1.11, 95% CI, 0.76-1.62). In subgroup analyses, there was a trend toward favorable clinical efficacy for the short-course regimens in all antibiotic classes (range of relative risk, 0.88-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

The available studies suggest that adults with mild to moderate community-acquired pneumonia can be safely and effectively treated with an antibiotic regimen of 7 days or less. Reduction in patient exposure to antibiotics may limit the increasing rates of antimicrobial drug resistance, decrease cost, and improve patient adherence and tolerability.

Azithromycin and lower respiratory tract infections

Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic that has been structurally modified from erythromycin with an expanded spectrum of activity and improved tissue pharmacokinetic characteristics relative to erythromycin. This allows once-daily administration for 3-5 days of treatment compared with traditional multi dosing 7-10-day treatment regimens. It has been successfully employed in lower respiratory tract infections. Recent data indicate that azithromycin may exert anti-inflammatory/immunomodulatory effects that may be of use in the treatment of both acute and chronic airway diseases. This review examines the role of azithromycin in lower respiratory tract infections analysing published data on exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, community-acquired pneumonia and cystic fibrosis both in adults and children. In addition, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the drug are also considered.

In vitro activity of azithromycin and nine comparator agents against 296 strains of oral anaerobes and 31 strains of Eikenella corrodens

At this time in the USA there are no antimicrobials with specific indications for oral infections, and many of those currently used have limited efficacy against oral anaerobic strains. We tested the activity of azithromycin against a broad range of anaerobic oral pathogens and, at pH 8, found it to be effective against 98% of strains, including all fusobacteria and beta-lactamase-producing strains of Prevotella spp. All strains of Eikenella corrodens were also susceptible to azithromycin but resistant to erythromycin, clindamycin, metronidazole and cefalexin. Other comparator agents were penicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, tetracycline, levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin. Minimum inhibitory concentrations obtained on agar adjusted to pH 8 were generally one dilution lower than those obtained on agar at pH 7.

Prospective observational study of patient-reported outcomes for azithromycin versus usual care in the treatment of bacterial acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis

BACKGROUND

The 3-day course of azithromycin (AZM) 500 mg/d was introduced to the US market in June 2002.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) as measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) over a 1-month period in patients receiving a 3-day course of AZM for bacterial acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB).

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, observational study evaluating outpatient adults with AECB who received either 3 days of AZM 500 mg/d or 5- to 14-day courses of other antibiotics (usual care [UC]) as directed by the clinician. Patients completed 2 HRQOL instruments-the SGRQ and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)-at baseline, day 14, and end of study (EOS) at days 24 to 28. In addition, patients kept a diary for the first 14 days after initiating antibiotic therapy.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-eight patients (57 AZM, 71 UC) were clinically evaluable. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in clinical presentation or baseline demographics, with the exception of a higher percentage of patients with diabetes mellitus in the UC group compared with the AZM group (16.9% vs 3.5%; P = 0.02). Both groups reported similar improvements in signs and symptoms, absenteeism, concomitant respiratory medication use, resource utilization, compliance, and treatment satisfaction as reported in the patient diary. The AZM group reported statistically significant improvement (simple contrasts for end of study vs baseline) in SGRQ measures (total score, P < 0.001; symptoms, P = 0.031; activity, P < 0.001; impacts, P < 0.001) and the SF-36 mental and physical summary components, compared with baseline (both, P < 0.001). Similarly, the UC group reported significant improvement in all SGRQ measures and in the SF-36 physical component score (P < 0.01), but not in the SF-36 mental component score, compared with baseline. At EOS, 80.0% of AZM patients and 59.0% of UC patients had a > or =4-point improvement on the SGRQ total score; however, this difference was not statistically significant in the multivariate analysis. In addition, 89.5% of AZM patients and 89.9% of UC patients were satisfied or very satisfied with their treatment (P = NS). Resource utilization was similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational study, patients with AECB treated with a 3-day course of AZM experienced significant improvements in HRQOL as measured by a change of > or =4 points on the SGRQ and SF-36 physical and mental component scores versus baseline.

Short-Course Antimicrobial Therapy for Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Management of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains surprisingly controversial. Optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy reflects one of the open questions due to the lack of sufficient randomized clinical trial data. Recently, there have been efforts to rationalize antimicrobial therapy of this disease. Trials addressing the issue of short-course antimicrobial therapy for CAP have revealed no adverse outcomes with a treatment duration of 5 days when compared with conventional courses of 7-10 days. There is accumulating evidence that a shorter duration of antimicrobial therapy may have benefits in patients with CAP, as it might enhance compliance, decrease the development of antimicrobial resistance, decrease the incidence and shorten the duration of adverse drug effects, reduce treatment costs and improve patient satisfaction with therapy. Nevertheless, remaining questions regarding the influence of patient selection, disease severity or choice of antimicrobial for short-course therapy indicate the need for further randomized controlled clinical trials in this area of research. This article summarizes current evidence for short-course therapy in patients with CAP and draws conclusions for clinical practice.

Macrolides and ketolides: azithromycin, clarithromycin, telithromycin

The advanced macrolides, azithromycin and clarithromycin, and the ketolide telithromycin are structural analogues of erythromycin. They have several distinct advantages when compared with erythromycin including enhanced spectrum of activity, more favorable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, once daily administration, and improved tolerability. This article reviews the pharmacokinetics, antimicrobial activity, clinical use, and adverse effects of these antimicrobial agents.

Azithromycin versus comparative therapy for the treatment of community acquired pneumonia

A 3-day course of azithromycin was compared with the 10 days of other antibiotics, which general practitioners routinely use as therapy for community acquired pneumonia (CAP). The study was a prospective open labelled, randomised, multicentre, comparative study from five family clinics. Patients with clinical and radiological evidence of pneumonia were included. The pneumonia resolved in 98.4% (61/62) of patients treated with azithromycin and in 87% (40/46) of patients treated with other antibiotics (P < 0.017). Restitution of normal function at home (2.3 +/- 1.2 and 4.3 +/- 2.6 days) and return to work (3.4 +/- 2.0 and 5.5 +/- 3.1 days) was more rapid among the group treated with azithromycin ( P < 0.001). Three days of azithromycin was more convenient and cost effective than the comparators used to treat pneumonia.