Once-daily oral gatifloxacin vs three-times-daily co-amoxiclav in the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Efficacy of Empiric Antibiotic Coverage in Community-Acquired Pneumonia Associated with Each Atypical Bacteria: A Meta-Analysis

The benefit of empiric coverage for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) for atypical bacteria is controversial. This meta-analysis purpose was to compare the clinical failure rate between adults who empirically received atypical coverage versus those who did not. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing the clinical failure rate of CAP associated with individual atypical bacteria between adults who received empiric atypical coverage versus those who did not. Risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Eight double-blind RCTs (65 patients with Legionella spp., 176 patients with M. pneumoniae, and 78 patients with C. pneumoniae) were included in the meta-analysis. The rate of clinical failure was significantly lower with empiric atypical coverage in CAP associated with Legionella spp. (RD, -42.6%; 95% CI, -69.8% to -15.4%; p-value = 0.002; I² = 0%) and Mycoplasma pneumoniae (RD, -9.5%; 95% CI, -18.9% to -0.1%; p-value = 0.048; I² = 0%), but not with Chlamydia pneumoniae (RD, 7.1%; 95% CI, -9.0% to 23.1%; p-value = 0.390; I² = 0%). This meta-analysis of RCTs found that empiric atypical coverage decreased the clinical failure rate of CAP associated with Legionella spp. and M. pneumoniae, but not with C. pneumoniae.

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.

Notes on testing noninferiority in ordinal data under the parallel groups design

When testing the noninferiority of an experimental treatment to a standard (or control) treatment in a randomized clinical trial (RCT), we may come across the outcomes of patient response on an ordinal scale. We focus our discussion on testing noninferiority in ordinal data for an RCT under the parallel groups design. We develop simple test procedures based on the generalized odds ratio (GOR). We note that these test procedures not only can account for the information on the order of ordinal responses without assuming any specific parametric structural model, but also can be independent of any arbitrarily subjective scoring system. We further develop sample size determination based on the test procedure using the GOR. We apply Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate the performance of these test procedures and the accuracy of sample size calculation formula proposed here in a variety of situations. Finally, we employ the data taken from a trial comparing once-daily gatifloxican with three-times-daily co-amoxiclav in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia to illustrate the use of these test procedures and sample size calculation formula.

Empiric antibiotic coverage of atypical pathogens for community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized adults

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is caused by various pathogens, traditionally divided into 'typical' and 'atypical'. Initial antibiotic treatment of CAP is usually empirical, customarily covering both typical and atypical pathogens. To date, no sufficient evidence exists to support this broad coverage, while limiting coverage is bound to reduce toxicity, resistance and expense.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to estimate the mortality and proportion with treatment failure using regimens containing atypical antibiotic coverage compared to those that had typical coverage only. Secondary objectives included the assessment of adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 3, 2012 which includes the Acute Respiratory Infection Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (January 1966 to April week 1, 2012) and EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients hospitalized due to CAP, comparing antibiotic regimens with atypical coverage (quinolones, macrolides, tetracyclines, chloramphenicol, streptogramins or ketolides) to a regimen without atypical antibiotic coverage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from included trials. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using a Chi(2) test.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 trials, encompassing 5939 randomized patients. The atypical antibiotic was administered as monotherapy in all but three studies. Only one study assessed a beta-lactam combined with a macrolide compared to the same beta-lactam. There was no difference in mortality between the atypical arm and the non-atypical arm (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.55), RR < 1 favors the atypical arm. The atypical arm showed an insignificant trend toward clinical success and a significant advantage to bacteriological eradication, which disappeared when evaluating methodologically high quality studies alone. Clinical success for the atypical arm was significantly higher for Legionella pneumophilae (L. pneumophilae) and non-significantly lower for pneumococcal pneumonia. There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of (total) adverse events, or those requiring discontinuation of treatment. However, gastrointestinal events were less common in the atypical arm (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92). Although the trials assessed different antibiotics, no significant heterogeneity was detected in the analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No benefit of survival or clinical efficacy was shown with empirical atypical coverage in hospitalized patients with CAP. This conclusion relates mostly to the comparison of quinolone monotherapy to beta-lactams. Further trials, comparing beta-lactam monotherapy to the same combined with a macrolide, should be performed.

Noninferiority trial design and analysis with an ordered three-level categorical endpoint

This paper extends standard methodology for noninferiority trial design from a binary endpoint to an ordered three-level endpoint, such as "success," "intermediate," and "failure." A metric that summarizes outcome on this endpoint is proposed, and the corresponding sample size requirements are presented. This ordered endpoint can be collapsed into two different binary endpoints, respectively lumping "intermediate" outcomes with "success" or with "failure." We describe how the ordered three-level endpoint compares with these two binary endpoints with respect to the noninferiority margin and sample size requirements.

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.

Is it possible to blind a trial for community-acquired pneumonia?

Blinding a randomized, controlled clinical trial provides benefits on several levels but often is not perfectly executed or well described. Most recent registration trials of therapy for community-acquired pneumonia were designed and conducted as blinded trials, although the descriptions of blinding were frequently incomplete. Issues related to definitions, conduct, testing success, and reporting of blinding are addressed in this article. The benefits of blinding clinical trial participants, study drug assignment, microbiological data, and outcome assessments of both efficacy and safety are presented. Particular attention is paid to challenges inherent in the blinding of trials of therapy for pneumonia, especially in trials involving seriously ill patients who require intravenous therapy.

Empiric antibiotic coverage of atypical pathogens for community acquired pneumonia in hospitalized adults

BACKGROUND

Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is caused by various pathogens, traditionally divided to 'typical' and 'atypical'. Initial antibiotic treatment of CAP is usually empirical, customarily covering both typical and atypical pathogens. To date, no sufficient evidence exists to support this broad coverage, while limiting coverage is bound to reduce toxicity, resistance and expense.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and need of adding antibiotic coverage for atypical pathogens in hospitalized patients with CAP, in terms of mortality and successful treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infection Group's specialized register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2007); and EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of adult patients hospitalized due to CAP, comparing antibiotic regimens with atypical antibiotic coverage to a regimen without atypical antibiotic coverage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently appraised the quality of each trial and extracted the data from included trials. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated, assuming an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis for the outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty five trials were included, encompassing 5244 randomized patients. There was no difference in mortality between the atypical arm and the non-atypical arm (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.56). The atypical arm showed an insignificant trend toward clinical success and a significant advantage to bacteriological eradication, which disappeared when evaluating methodologically high-quality studies alone. Clinical success for the atypical arm was significantly higher for Legionella pneumophilae (L. pneumophilae) and non-significantly lower for pneumococcal pneumonia. There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of (total) adverse events, or those requiring discontinuation of treatment. However, gastrointestinal events were more common in the non-atypical arm (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99). All but two included trials compared a single atypical antibiotic to a beta-lactam, while no trials assessing the addition of an atypical antibiotic to a beta-lactam were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No benefit of survival or clinical efficacy was shown to empirical atypical coverage in hospitalized patients with CAP. This conclusion relates mostly to the comparison of quinolone monotherapy to beta-lactams (BL) or cephalosporins. Further trials, comparing BL or cephalosporins therapy to BL or cephalosporins combined with a macrolide in this population, using mortality as its primary outcome, should be performed.

Empiric antibiotic coverage of atypical pathogens for community acquired pneumonia in hospitalized adults

BACKGROUND

Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is caused by various pathogens, traditionally divided to 'typical' and 'atypical'. Initial antibiotic treatment of CAP is usually empirical, customarily covering both typical and atypical pathogens. To date, no sufficient evidence exists to support this broad coverage, while limiting coverage is bound to reduce toxicity, resistance and expense.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the efficacy and need of adding antibiotic coverage for atypical pathogens in hospitalized patients with CAP, in terms of mortality and successful treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infection Group's specialized register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to January Week 2 2005); and EMBASE (January 1980 to January Week 2 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of adult patients hospitalized due to CAP, comparing antibiotic regimens with atypical antibiotic coverage to a regimen without atypical antibiotic coverage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently appraised the quality of each trial and extracted the data from included trials. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated, assuming an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis for the outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty four trials were included, encompassing 5015 randomized patients. There was no difference in mortality between the atypical arm and the non-atypical arm (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.54). The atypical arm showed an insignificant trend toward clinical success and a significant advantage to bacteriological eradication, which disappeared when evaluating methodologically high-quality studies alone. Clinical success for the atypical arm was significantly higher for Legionella pneumophilae (L. pneumophilae) and non-significantly lower for pneumococcal pneumonia. There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of (total) adverse events, or those requiring discontinuation of treatment. However, gastrointestinal events were more common in the non-atypical arm (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No benefit of survival or clinical efficacy was shown to empirical atypical coverage in hospitalized patients with CAP. This conclusion relates mostly to the comparison of quinolone monotherapy to non-atypical monotherapy. Further trials, comparing beta-lactam (BL) or cephalosporin therapy to BL or cephalosporin combined with a macrolide in this population, using mortality as its primary outcome, should be performed.

Effectiveness of beta lactam antibiotics compared with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in non-severe community acquired pneumonia: meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically compare beta lactam antibiotics with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in the management of community acquired pneumonia.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane register of controlled trials, international conference proceedings, drug registration authorities, and pharmaceutical companies. Review methods Double blind randomised controlled monotherapy trials comparing beta lactam antibiotics with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in adults with community acquired pneumonia. Primary outcome was failure to achieve clinical cure or improvement.

RESULTS

18 trials totalling 6749 participants were identified, with most patients having mild to moderate community acquired pneumonia. The summary relative risk for treatment failure in all cause community acquired pneumonia showed no advantage of antibiotics active against atypical pathogens over beta lactam antibiotics (0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.07). Subgroup analysis was undertaken in those with a specific diagnosis involving atypical pathogens. We found a significantly lower failure rate in patients with Legionella species who were treated with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens (0.40, 0.19 to 0.85). Equivalence was seen for Mycoplasma pneumoniae (0.60, 0.31 to 1.17) and Chlamydia pneumoniae (2.32, 0.67 to 8.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is lacking that clinical outcomes are improved by using antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in all cause non-severe community acquired pneumonia. Although such antibiotics were superior in the management of patients later shown to have legionella related pneumonia, this pathogen was rarely responsible for pneumonia within the included trials. beta lactam agents should remain the antibiotics of initial choice in adults with non-severe community acquired pneumonia.

Guide to selection of fluoroquinolones in patients with lower respiratory tract infections

Newer fluoroquinolones such as levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin and gemifloxacin have several attributes that make them excellent choices for the therapy of lower respiratory tract infections. In particular, they have excellent intrinsic activity against Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis and the atypical respiratory pathogens. Fluoroquinolones may be used as monotherapy to treat high-risk patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, and for patients with community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalisation, but not admission to intensive care. Overall, the newer fluoroquinolones often achieve clinical cure rates in > or =90% of these patients. However, rates may be lower in hospital-acquired pneumonia, and this infection should be treated on the basis of anticipated organisms and evaluation of risk factors for specific pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In this setting, an antipseudomonal fluoroquinolone may be used in combination with an antipseudomonalbeta-lactam. Concerns are now being raised about the widespread use, and possibly misuse, of fluoroquinolones and the emergence of resistance among S. pneumoniae, Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa. A number of pharmacokinetic parameters such as the peak concentration of the antibacterial after a dose (C(max)), and the 24-hour area under the concentration-time curve (AUC24) and their relationship to pharmacodynamic parameters such as the minimum inhibitory and the mutant prevention concentrations (MIC and MPC, respectively) have been proposed to predict the effect of fluoroquinolones on bacterial killing and the emergence of resistance. Higher C(max)/MIC or AUC24/MIC and C(max)/MPC or AUC24/MPC ratios, either as a result of dose administration or the susceptibility of the organism, may lead to a better clinical outcome and decrease the emergence of resistance, respectively. Pharmacokinetic profiles that are optimised to target low-level resistant minor subpopulations of bacteria that often exist in infections may help preserve fluoroquinolones as a class. To this end, optimising the AUC24/MPC or C(max)/MPC ratios is important, particularly against S. pneumoniae, in the setting of lower respiratory tract infections. Agents such as moxifloxacin and gemifloxacin with high ratios against this organism are preferred, and agents such as ciprofloxacin with low ratios should be avoided. For agents such as levofloxacin and gatifloxacin, with intermediate ratios against S. pneumoniae, it may be worthwhile considering alternative dose administration strategies, such as using higher dosages, to eradicate low-level resistant variants. This must, of course, be balanced against the potential of toxicity. Innovative approaches to the use of fluoroquinolones are worth testing in further in vitro experiments as well as in clinical trials.