Efficacy and tolerability of sequential intravenous/oral moxifloxacin therapy in pneumonia: results of the first post-marketing surveillance study with intravenous moxifloxacin in hospital practice

Safety and Tolerability of Moxifloxacin in Children

OBJECTIVES

Moxifloxacin is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for pediatric use. Although its use might be indicated under certain conditions, data regarding its safety and tolerability in pediatric patients are limited. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of systemic moxifloxacin therapy in children.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study of patients aged <18 years who received oral or intravenous moxifloxacin at our institution between January 2011 and July 2016. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, indication for moxifloxacin use, and adverse events (AEs) were extracted via chart review. The attribution of AEs to moxifloxacin use was adjudicated in consultation with a pediatric infectious disease (ID) pharmacist.

RESULTS

We identified 221 patients who received 300 courses of moxifloxacin. The average age at moxifloxacin initiation was 10.4 years. One or more AEs occurred during 195 (65%) of the courses. Of the 463 distinct AEs, 46 (9.9%) were attributed to moxifloxacin. AEs attributed to moxifloxacin included corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation (18 [6%] courses), transaminase level elevation (7 [2.3%] courses), and increased bilirubin level (3 [1%] courses). AEs led to moxifloxacin discontinuation in 18 (6%) courses. ID consultation was associated with QTc (P < .001) and transaminase (P = .002) monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

AEs that occur during pediatric moxifloxacin therapy are relatively common but rarely serious enough to require premature discontinuation. The drug might be used safely in most children with monitoring, including evaluation for QTc prolongation, and guidance from ID specialists.

Gender analysis of moxifloxacin clinical trials

PURPOSE

To determine the inclusion of women and the sex-stratification of results in moxifloxacin Clinical Trials (CTs), and to establish whether these CTs considered issues that specifically affect women, such as pregnancy and use of hormonal therapies. Previous publications about women's inclusion in CTs have not specifically studied therapeutic drugs. Although this type of drug is taken by men and women at a similar rate, adverse effects occur more frequently in the latter.

METHODS

We reviewed 158 published moxifloxacin trials on humans, retrieved from MedLine and the Cochrane Library (1998-2010), to determine whether they complied with the gender recommendations published by U.S. Food and Drug Administration Guideline.

RESULTS

Of a total of 80,417 subjects included in the moxifloxacin CTs, only 33.7% were women in phase I, in contrast to phase II, where women accounted for 45%, phase III, where they represented 38.3% and phase IV, where 51.3% were women. About 40.9% (n=52) of trials were stratified by sex and 15.3% (n=13) and 9% (n=7) provided data by sex on efficacy and adverse effects, respectively. We found little information about the influence of issues that specifically affect women. Only 3 of the 59 journals that published the moxifloxacin CTs stated that authors should stratify their results by sex.

CONCLUSIONS

Women are under-represented in the published moxifloxacin trials, and this trend is more marked in phase I, as they comprise a higher proportion in the other phases. Data by sex on efficacy and adverse effects are scarce in moxifloxacin trials. These facts, together with the lack of data on women-specific issues, suggest that the therapeutic drug moxifloxacin is only a partially evidence-based medicine.

Moxifloxacin safety: an analysis of 14 years of clinical data

Background

Moxifloxacin, a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, is used for the treatment of respiratory tract, pelvic inflammatory disease, skin, and intra-abdominal infections. Its safety profile is considered favorable in most reviews but has been challenged with respect to rare but potentially fatal toxicities (e.g. hepatic, cardiac, or skin reactions).

Objective

To analyze and compare the safety profile of moxifloxacin versus comparators in the entire clinical database of the manufacturer.

Setting

Data on the valid-for-safety population from phase II–IV actively controlled studies (performed between 1996 and 2010) were analyzed. Studies were either double blind (n = 22 369) or open label (n = 7635) and included patients with indications that have been approved in at least one country [acute bacterial sinusitis, acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, community-acquired pneumonia, uncomplicated pelvic inflammatory disease, complicated and uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections, and complicated intra-abdominal infections] (n = 27 824) and patients with other indications (n = 2180), using the recommended daily dose (400 mg) and route of administration (oral, intravenous/oral, intravenous only). The analysis included patients at risk (age ≥65 years, diabetes mellitus, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, cardiac disorders, or body mass index <18 kg/m²). Patients with known contraindications were excluded from enrollment by study protocol design, but any patient having entered a study, even if inappropriately, was included in the analysis.

Main Outcome Measure

Crude incidences and relative risk estimates (Mantel-Haenszel analysis) of patients with any adverse event (AE), adverse drug reaction (ADR), serious AE (SAE), serious ADR (SADR), treatment discontinuation due to an AE or ADR, and fatal outcomes related to an AE or ADR.

Results

Overall incidence rates of AEs were globally similar in the moxifloxacin and comparator groups. By filtering the data for differences in disfavor of moxifloxacin (i) at ≥2.5% for events with an incidence ≥2.5% or at ≥2-fold for events with an incidence <2.5% in one or both groups and (ii) affecting ≥10 patients in either group, we observed slightly more (i) AEs in double-blind intravenous-only and open-label oral studies, (ii) SAEs in double-blind intravenous-only studies, (iii) ADRs and SADRs in open-label oral studies, (iv) SADRs in open-label intravenous/oral studies, and (v) premature discontinuation due to AEs in open-label intravenous-only studies. The actual numbers of SADRs (in all studies) were small, with clinically relevant differences noted only in intravenous/oral studies and mainly driven by ‘gastrointestinal disorders’ (15 versus 7 patients) and ‘changes observed during investigations’ (23 versus 7 patients [asymptomatic QT prolongation: 11 versus 4 patients in double-blind studies]). Analysis by comparator (including another fluoroquinolone) did not reveal medically relevant differences, even in patients at risk. Incidence rates of hepatic disorders, tendon disorders, clinical surrogates of QT prolongation, serious cutaneous reactions, and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea were similar with moxifloxacin and comparators.

Conclusion

The safety of moxifloxacin is essentially comparable to that of standard therapies for patients receiving the currently registered dosage and for whom contraindications and precautions of use (as in the product label) are taken into account.

Switch therapy in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia: tigecycline vs. levofloxacin

Background

Switch therapy is a management approach combining early discontinuation of intravenous (IV) antibiotics, switch to oral antibiotics, and early hospital discharge. This analysis compares switch therapy using tigecycline versus levofloxacin in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

Methods

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 clinical trial; patients were randomized to IV tigecycline (100 mg, then 50 mg q12h) or IV levofloxacin (500 mg q24h). Objective criteria were used to define time to switch therapy; patients were switched to oral levofloxacin after ≥6 IV doses if criteria met. Switch therapy outcomes were assessed within the clinically evaluable (CE) population.

Results

In the CE population, 138 patients were treated with IV tigecycline and 156 were treated with IV levofloxacin. The proportion of the population that met switch therapy criteria was 67.4% (93/138) for tigecycline and 66.7% (104/156) for levofloxacin. The proportion that actually switched to oral therapy was 89.9% (124/138) for tigecycline and 87.8% (137/156) for levofloxacin. Median time to actual switch therapy was 5.0 days each for tigecycline and levofloxacin. Clinical cure rates for patients who switched were 96.8% for tigecycline and 95.6% for levofloxacin. Corresponding cure rates for those that met switch criteria were 95.7% for tigecycline and 92.3% for levofloxacin.

Conclusions

Switch therapy outcomes in hospitalized patients with CAP receiving initial IV therapy with tigecycline are comparable to those of patients receiving initial IV therapy with levofloxacin. These data support the use of IV tigecycline in hospitalized patients with CAP when the switch therapy approach is considered.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier

NCT00081575

Moxifloxacin: update and perspectives after 8 years of usage

Moxifloxacin has a broad spectrum of activity, including Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms, atypical respiratory pathogens, anaerobes and penicillin- and macrolide-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. It achieves good tissue penetration and high concentrations in clinically relevant tissues and fluids. It is available in both an oral and intravenous formulation, has a once-daily administration and a good tolerance and safety profile. Moxifloxacin is used mainly for the treatment of acute bacterial exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, community-acquired pneumonia, acute bacterial sinusitis, complicated skin and skin-structure infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections, as well as pulmonary TB, although it is not approved in this indication. The most recent studies covering these clinical indications are discussed.