Comparative safety and efficacy of clarithromycin and ampicillin in the treatment of out-patients with acute bacterial exacerbation of chronic bronchitis

Network meta-analysis of success rate and safety in antibiotic treatments of bronchitis

The purpose of this study was to compare the relative efficacy and safety of different antibiotic drugs and recommend superior regimens in the treatment of bronchitis. With respect to the antibiotic comparisons against quinolones in terms of intention-to-treat patients, we concluded that quinolones had advantages over placebo, β-lactams, sulfonamides, and double β-lactams. Concerning treatment methods for clinically evaluable patients, quinolones demonstrated better performance than β-lactams and sulfonamides. The secondary effects of macrolides, quinolones, and double β-lactams were significantly more adverse than β-lactams with odds ratios (ORs) of 1.5 (95% credible interval [CrI] =1.1–2.0), 1.7 (95% CrI =1.2–2.3), and 2.7 (95% CrI =1.8–4.1), respectively. Significant differences in the prevalence of diarrhea as a secondary effect were only identified among the comparisons of double β-lactams against β-lactams and macrolides (OR =5.0, 95% CrI =2.1–12.0; OR =3.0, 95% CrI =1.7–5.4, respectively). Quinolones can be recommended as the superior treatment for bronchitis, in accordance with our cluster analysis with surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The primary outcomes of network meta-analysis indicated that quinolones showed the best performance among the 8 treatments studied, although β-lactams showed the lowest risk of adverse side effects. Quinolones are recommended as the primary treatment option for bronchitis patients, having taking into account the success rates and safety profiles of the eight drugs studied here.

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.

Efficacy of concomitant administration of clarithromycin and acetylcysteine in bronchiolitis obliterans in seventeen sulfur mustard-exposed patients: An open-label study

BACKGROUND

Victims of sulfur mustard (SM) gas exposure experience different types of chronic pulmonary disease, manifested as cough, sputum production, and dyspnea. Conventional therapies (eg, immunosuppressive drugs, corticosteroids) have not been effective in these patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study was carried out to determine the efficacy of concomitant administration of the macrolide clarithromycin and the mucolytic agent acetylcysteine in the treatment of bronchiolitis obliterans in SM-exposed patients.

METHODS

This open-label clinical study was conducted at the Research Center of Chemical Injuries, Baqiyatallah Medical Sciences University, Tehran, Iran. Clarithromycin and acetylcysteine were administered concomitantly for 6 months to male SM-exposed patients with chronic bronchitis and bronchiolitis obliterans who were nonresponsive to conventional treatments. Efficacy analysis included symptom assessment and pulmonary function tests (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1], forced vital capacity [FVC], and FEV1/FVC ratio) using spirometry, performed at baseline and after 2 and 6 months of treatment.

RESULTS

Seventeen male patients (mean [SD] age, 38.3 [5.3] years [range, 31-50 years]; mean [SD] body weight, 77.9 [15.7] kg) were included in the study. Cough and sputum production were each found in 10 of 17 patients (58.8%) at baseline and were improved in all 10 patients after the administration of clarithromycin and acetylcysteine. FEV1 and FVC also were improved, by mean (SD) 10.6% (9.7%) (P < 0.001 vs baseline) and 12.9% (13.6%) (P = 0.001 vs baseline). No significant change in FEV1/FVC ratio was found.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of concomitant administration of clarithromycin and acetylcysteine for the treatment of bronchiolitis obliterans in SM-exposed patients, symptoms and pulmonary function were improved. These results may have been related to the therapeutic effects of a macrolide antibiotic on chronic bronchitis and bronchiolitis obliterans in these patients. Based on the results of this study, we recommend this treatment for chemical warfare victims with recurrent exacerbation of bronchitis who do not respond to conventional treatment.

Comparison of first-line with second-line antibiotics for acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Although acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECBs) are common, there has been no metaanalysis that focused on the optimum regimen.

METHODS

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of first-line antimicrobial agents (ie, amoxicillin, ampicillin, pivampicillin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and doxycycline) and second-line antimicrobial agents (ie, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, macrolides, second-generation or third-generation cephalosporins, and quinolones) for the treatment of patients with AECB, in an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance among the microbes responsible for AECB, we performed a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved through searches of the PubMed and the Cochrane databases.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were included in the metaanalysis. First-line antibiotics were associated with lower treatment success compared to second-line antibiotics in the clinically evaluable patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.75). There were no differences among the compared regimens regarding mortality (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.66) or treatment success (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.43) in microbiologically evaluable patients, or adverse effects in general (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.45) or diarrhea in particular (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.74 to 3.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to first-line antibiotics, second-line antibiotics are more effective, but not less safe, when administered to patients with AECB. The available data did not allow for stratified analyses according to the presence of risk factors for poor outcome, such as increased age, impaired lung function, airway obstruction, and frequency of exacerbations; this fact should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings of this metaanalysis.

Gatifloxacin phase IV surveillance trial (TeqCES study) utilizing 5000 primary care physician practices: report of pathogens isolated and susceptibility patterns in community-acquired respiratory tract infections

Recently FDA-approved fluoroquinolones like gatifloxacin possess enhanced activity against Gram-positive pathogens such as Streptococcus pneumoniae. However, experience with adverse events among previously used fluoroquinolones has led to expanded post-marketing investigations of clinical efficacy and safety. An open-label gatifloxacin trial was initiated in early 2000, using 2795 (>15000 enrolled cases) primary care providers for treatment of community-acquired respiratory tract infections (CARTI) such as community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute bacterial exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (ABECB), acute sinusitis. Microbiology specimens and sputum slides were referred to a reference laboratory, pathogens identified and reference antimicrobial susceptibility tests performed. Results were classified by infection site, geographic census region and patient profile/demographics. The most frequent pathogens were: for CAP (n = 384)-S. pneumoniae (37%) > Hemophilus influenzae (31%) > Moraxella catarrhalis (13%); for ABECB (528)-H. influenzae (37%) > M. catarrhalis (26%) > S. pneumoniae (17%); and for sinusitis (2691)-M. catarrhalis (29%) > H. influenzae (24%) > S. pneumoniae (17%). H. parainfluenzae (ABECB) and S. aureus (sinusitis) were also commonly isolated. CAP S. pneumoniae isolates had significantly less high-level resistance (5% at > or =2 micro g/ml) than those isolates from ABECB or sinusitis (13-15%). United States census zone differences in S. pneumoniae resistance were identified (greatest in West or East South Central, South Atlantic). S. pneumoniae macrolide resistance was high (23-33%) and H. influenzae clarithromycin susceptibility was only 56-62%. beta-lactamase rates in H. influenzae and M. catarrhalis were 21-29% and 88-92%, respectively. Only one S. pneumoniae was not susceptible to gatifloxacin, and this new fluoroquinolone was fourfold more potent than levofloxacin (MIC(50,) 0.25 vs. 1 micro g/ml). This Phase IV surveillance trial (TeqCES) confirmed the clinical importance of S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae and M. catarrhalis in CARTI, and high fluoroquinolone potency/spectrum (>97% susceptible). beta-lactams and macrolides continue to be compromised by increasing resistances in pathogens isolated in these monitored primary care settings.

Clinical relevance of macrolide-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae for community-acquired pneumonia

Macrolides are often the first choice for empirical treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. However, macrolide resistance among Streptococcus pneumoniae has escalated at alarming rates in North America and worldwide. Macrolide resistance among pneumococci is primarily due to genetic mutations affecting the ribosomal target site (ermAM) or active drug efflux (mefE). Prior antibiotic exposure is the major risk factor for amplification and perpetuation of resistance. Clonal spread facilitates dissemination of drug-resistant strains. Data assessing the impact of macrolide resistance on clinical outcomes are spare. Many experts believe that the clinical impact is limited. Ribosomal mutations confer high-grade resistance, whereas efflux mutations can likely be overridden in vivo. Favorable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, high concentrations at sites of infections, and additional properties of macrolides may enhance their efficacy. In this article, we discuss the prevalence of macrolide resistance among S. pneumoniae, risk factors and mechanisms responsible for resistance, therapeutic strategies, and implications for the future.

Comparison of bacteriologic eradication of Streptococcus pneumoniae by clarithromycin and reports of increased antimicrobial resistance

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether reported increases in Streptococcus pneumoniae resistance, as determined by in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing, correlate with the clinical efficacy of clarithromycin in treating patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB) or community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

BACKGROUND

Surveillance data on antimicrobial resistance suggest that the overall rate of S. pneumoniae resistance in vitro in the United States has increased to approximately 45% during the past decade. S. pneumoniae is showing increased resistance to penicillin, other beta-lactams, and macrolides. Despite this increased resistance, the clinical efficacy of clarithromycin does not appear to be diminished to the degree suggested by reported resistance rates. The author examined several studies of clarithromycin in patients with AECB or CAP that demonstrate S. pneumoniae eradication rates in vivo of approximately 92%. The discordance between reported increases in resistance of S. pneumoniae isolates in vitro and the eradication rate with clarithromycin in vivo is discussed in light of 5 observations.

RESULTS

First, surveillance data on S. pneumoniae resistance rates to clarithromycin may be overestimated. Second, efflux mutant strains may not be clinically resistant. Third, host immune defenses play a role in treatment outcomes. Fourth, in vitro resistance may not correlate with in vivo clinical success. Finally, clarithromycin and its active metabolite, 14-OH-clarithromycin, attain high concentrations in patients.

CONCLUSION

Reported increases in the prevalence of S. pneumoniae resistance do not appear to have had proportional effects on the clinical efficacy of clarithromycin in the treatment of patients with AECB or CAP caused by S. pneumoniae.

Short-course moxifloxacin therapy for treatment of acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. The Bronchitis Study Group

Chronic bronchitis is common among adults and infectious exacerbations contribute considerably to morbidity and mortality. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of moxifloxacin to clarithromycin for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (ABECB) using a prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel group trial. Between November 21, 1996 and April 7, 1998, 936 patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB) were enrolled at 56 centers across the United States of which 491 (52%) had ABECB (i.e. pretherapy pathogen). Patients were randomized to either oral moxifloxacin 400 mg administer once daily, for either 5 or 10 days, or clarithromycin 500 mg bid for 10 days. For the purpose of study blinding, the patients taking moxifloxacin received placebo to maintain uniform dosing. The main outcome measures were bacteriological response at the end of therapy (post-therapy days 0-6) and follow-up (7-17 days post-therapy) visits, as well as overall clinical response, clinical response at the end of therapy and clinical response at follow-up. Two patient populations were analyzed: efficacy-valid (i.e., those with a pretherapy pathogen) and intent-to-treat (i.e., all subjects that took drug). In 420 efficacy valid patients with a pretherapy organism, overall clinical resolution was 89% for 5 days moxifloxacin vs. 91% for 10 day moxifloxacin vs. 91% for 10 day clarithromycin. Bacteriological eradication rates at the end of therapy were 94% and 95% for 5-day moxifloxacin and 10-day moxifloxacin, respectively, and 91% for the clarithromycin group. Eradication rates at follow-up were 89% and 91% for 5-day moxifloxacin and 10-day moxifloxacin respectively, and 85% for the clarithromycin group. Among 926 intent-to-treat patients (312 5-day moxifloxacin, 302 10-day moxifloxacin and 312 clarithromycin), drug-related events were reported for 26%, 30% and 35%, respectively. Moxifloxacin 400 mg once daily, as a 5 or 10 day regimen, was found to be clinically and bacteriologically equivalent to 10 day clarithromycin for the treatment of ABECB. Given its favorable safety and tolerability profile, moxifloxacin administered once daily for 5 days may be as effective and a more convenient treatment than a standard course of clarithromycin for patients with ABECB.

Review and comparison of advanced-generation macrolides clarithromycin and dirithromycin

We reviewed English-language clinical studies, abstracts, and review articles identified from MEDLINE searches from January 1966-August 1998, and bibliographies of identified articles to compare advanced-generation macrolides dirithromycin and clarithromycin and their use for respiratory tract infections. Both agents have superior adverse effect profiles compared with erythromycin, the original macrolide. Both have broad antibacterial coverage, but clarithromycin usually has a lower MIC90 to susceptible organisms than dirithromycin; for most isolates this difference is not clinically significant. Clarithromycin has better in vitro coverage of Haemophilus influenzae, but this activity varies with formation of its bioactive metabolite, 14-hydroxyclarithromycin. Neither agent is ideal for H. influenzae eradication. The agents differ markedly in terms of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, metabolism, and cost, and thus with respect to drug interaction profiles and dosages. Dirithromycin's drug interaction profile is markedly better than clarithromycin's. Clarithromycin is dosed twice/day; dirithromycin's pharmacokinetics allow once/day dosing. Dirithromycin is less expensive with regard to both cost/day and cost/treatment regimen. Clarithromycin has been studied and approved for administration to children. In adults with respiratory tract infections who are receiving drugs that would interact with clarithromycin, and in those with renal dysfunction with or without coexisting hepatic dysfunction, dirithromycin appears to be superior in terms of safety and equivalent to clarithromycin in terms of efficacy.

Efficacy of ciprofloxacin and clarithromycin in acute bacterial exacerbations of complicated chronic bronchitis: interim analysis. Bronchitis Study Group

In a multicenter, community-based study involving more than 300 primary care physicians in the United States, the efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin and clarithromycin were compared in the treatment of patients with complicated or severe acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (i.e., those who had failed previous antibiotic treatment within the prior 2 to 4 weeks; those with susceptibility data suggestive of a resistant pathogen; those having three or more acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis [AECB] within the past year; and those having three or more comorbid conditions). Patients were randomized to either ciprofloxacin (CIP) 750 mg BID or clarithromycin (CLR) 500 mg BID, both administered for 10 days; all patients were treated on an outpatient basis. Clinical response at the end of therapy was the primary efficacy variable. An interim analysis was performed on the results from 743 patients (369 CIP, 374 CLR) with clinical and bacteriologic evidence of a bronchopulmonary infection who had completed an ongoing study as of the end of May 1997. Three hundred nine pathogens were isolated before therapy, including Haemophilus spp (75 isolates), Moraxella catarrhalis (67 isolates), Staphylococcus aureus (55 isolates), and Streptococcus pneumoniae (23 isolates). Seven hundred eighteen patients (97%) were included in the efficacy-valid population. Clinical success at the end of therapy was observed in 90% (272 of 302) and 88% (274 of 313) of efficacy-valid patients treated with CIP and CLR, respectively (95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.4 to 7.6). Corresponding rates for the intent-to-treat population were also 90% (283 of 314) and 88% (281 of 321), respectively (95% CI = -2.3 to 7.5). The bacteriologic response for efficacy-valid patients at the end of therapy was 98% (119 of 122) for CIP-treated and 93% (103 of 111) for CLR-treated patients (95% CI = -0.8 to 10.2). The eradication rates for the three most commonly isolated gram-negative pathogens were 100% for CIP-treated and 95% for CLR-treated patients and 96% each for the two most commonly isolated gram-positive organisms. Superinfections due to respiratory tract pathogens were more common in the CLR group (10 organisms) than in the CIP group (4 organisms). Seventy-four (20%) CIP-treated and 62 (17%) CLR-treated patients reported 118 and 103 respective study-emergent adverse events. Headache, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting in CIP-treated patients and diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and taste perversion in CLR-treated patients were the most commonly reported adverse events. Treatment of patients with complicated or severe AECB with CIP 750 mg BID was associated with rates of clinical success and bacteriologic eradication similar to those with CLR.

Clarithromycin. A review of its efficacy in the treatment of respiratory tract infections in immunocompetent patients

Clarithromycin is a broad spectrum macrolide antibacterial agent active in vitro and effective in vivo against the major pathogens responsible for respiratory tract infections in immunocompetent patients. It is highly active in vitro against pathogens causing atypical pneumonia (Chlamydia pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Legionella spp.) and has similar activity to other macrolides against Staphylococcus aureus. Streptococcus pyogenes, Moraxella catarrhalis and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Haemophilus influenzae is susceptible or intermediately susceptible to clarithromycin alone, but activity is enhanced when the parent drug and metabolite are combined in vitro. Absorption of clarithromycin is unaffected by food. More than half of an oral dose is systemically available as the parent drug and the active 14-hydroxy metabolite. Pharmacokinetics are nonlinear, with plasma concentrations increasing in more than proportion to the dosage. First-pass metabolism results in the rapid appearance of the active metabolite 14-hydroxy-clarithromycin in plasma. Clarithromycin and its active metabolite are found in greater concentrations in the tissues and fluids of the respiratory tract than in plasma. Dosage adjustments are required for patients with severe renal failure, but not for elderly patients or those with hepatic impairment. Drug interactions related to the cytochrome P450 system may occur with clarithromycin use. In addition to the standard immediate-release formulation for administration twice daily, a modified-release formulation of clarithromycin is now available for use once daily. In dosages of 500 to 1000 mg/day for 5 to 14 days, clarithromycin was as effective in the treatment of community-acquired upper and lower respiratory tract infections in hospital and community settings as beta-lactam agents (with or without a beta-lactamase inhibitor), cephalosporins and most other macrolides. Clarithromycin was similar in efficacy to azithromycin in comparative studies and is as effective as and better tolerated than erythromycin. Adverse events are primarily gastrointestinal in nature, but result in fewer withdrawals from therapy than are seen with erythromycin. Clarithromycin provides similar clinical and bacteriological efficacy to that seen with beta-lactam agents, cephalosporins and other macrolides. It offers a cost-saving alternative to intravenous erythromycin use in US hospitals and is available in both once-daily and twice-daily formulations. The spectrum of activity of clarithromycin against common and emerging respiratory tract pathogens may make it suitable for use in the community as empirical therapy of respiratory tract infections in both children and adults.

Clarithromycin 250 mg b.i.d. for 5 or 10 days in the treatment of adult patients with purulent bronchitis

This Phase III, double-blind, randomized, multicenter study compared the safety and efficacy of clarithromycin, 250 mg b.i.d. administered for either 5 or 10 days, in the treatment of 221 adult patients with purulent bronchitis. Clinical evaluations were performed pre-treatment, during treatment, post-treatment, and at a follow-up visit. Both regimens were well tolerated and effective. No significant differences were observed between patients treated for 5 days and those treated for 10 days in post-treatment, clinical success (98%, 83/85; 99%, 73/74, respectively), or bacterial eradication (100%, 37/37; 94%, 33/35) rates, or in the number of patients reporting drug-related adverse events (16%, 18/112; 24%, 26/109, respectively). Clarithromycin administered for 5 days was at least as safe and as effective as a 10-day regimen in the treatment of purulent bronchitis.

Clarithromycin. A review of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential

Clarithromycin is an acid-stable orally administered macrolide antimicrobial drug, structurally related to erythromycin. It has a broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity, similar to that of erythromycin and inhibits a range of Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms, atypical pathogens and some anaerobes. Significantly, clarithromycin demonstrates greater in vitro activity than erythromycin against certain pathogens including Bacteroides melaninogenicus, Chlamydia pneumoniae, Chlamydia trachomatis, Mycobacterium chelonae subspecies--chelonae and--abscessus, Mycobacterium leprae, Mycobacterium marinum, Mycobacterium avium complex, Legionella spp. and, when combined with its 14-hydroxy metabolite, against Haemophilus influenzae. However, bacterial strains resistant to erythromycin are also generally resistant to clarithromycin. The antimicrobial activity of clarithromycin appears to be enhanced by the formation in vivo of the microbiologically active 14-hydroxy metabolite. In combination, additive or synergistic activity against a variety of pathogens including Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, Legionella species (principally Legionella pneumophila) and various staphylococci and streptococci has been demonstrated. Clarithromycin has a superior pharmacokinetic profile to that of erythromycin, allowing the benefits of twice daily administration with the potential for increased compliance among outpatients where a more frequent regimen for erythromycin might otherwise be indicated. The clinical efficacy of clarithromycin has been confirmed in the treatment of infections of the lower and upper respiratory tracts (including those associated with atypical pathogens), skin/soft tissues, and in paediatrics. Clarithromycin was as effective as erythromycin and other appropriate drugs including beta-lactams (penicillins and cephalosporins) in some of the above infections. A most promising indication for clarithromycin appears to be in the treatment of immunocompromised patients infected with M. avium complex, M. chelonae sp. and Toxoplasma sp. Small initial trials in this setting reveal clarithromycin alone or in combination with other antimicrobials to be effective in the eradication or amelioration of these infections. Noncomparative studies have provided preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of clarithromycin in the treatment of infections of the urogenital tract, oromaxillofacial and ophthalmic areas. However, the promising in vitro and preliminary in vivo activity of clarithromycin against Mycobacterium leprae and Helicobacter pylori warrant further clinical trials to assess its efficacy in patients with these infections. Despite the improved pharmacokinetic profile and in vitro antimicrobial activity of clarithromycin over erythromycin, comparative studies of patients with community-acquired infections reveal the 2 drugs to be of equivalent efficacy. However, clarithromycin demonstrates greater tolerability, principally by inducing fewer gastrointestinal disturbances.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)