4.7 Article

Effect of Empirical Treatment With Moxifloxacin and Meropenem vs Meropenem on Sepsis-Related Organ Dysfunction in Patients With Severe Sepsis A Randomized Trial

Journal

JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 307, Issue 22, Pages 2390-2399

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.5833

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bayer HealthCare AG
  2. AstraZeneca GmbH
  3. Thermo Fisher Scientific
  4. Pfizer Deutschland GmbH
  5. Becton Dickinson and Company
  6. bioMerieux Deutschland GmbH
  7. SIRS-Lab GmbH
  8. Biosyn GmbH
  9. Roche Diagnostics
  10. Drager Medical GmbH
  11. Sysmex Europe
  12. Biotest Pharma
  13. Merck Sharpe and Dohme
  14. Pulsion Medical Systems
  15. Edwards Life Sciences
  16. Becton Dickinson Management GmbHCo KG
  17. Maquet Critical Care and Carefusion
  18. Johnson Johnson
  19. UpToDate GmbH
  20. sanofi-aventis GmbH
  21. Bayer HeathCare AG
  22. Fresenius Kabi
  23. Baxter Germany
  24. CLS Behring
  25. GlaxoSmithKline
  26. Abbott
  27. Aspect
  28. Baxter
  29. Care Fusion
  30. Deltex
  31. Fresenius
  32. Grunenthal
  33. Hutchinson
  34. Kohler Chemie
  35. Medizinische Congressorganisation Nurnberg AG
  36. Novartis
  37. Pajunk
  38. Pulsion
  39. Roche
  40. Sysmex
  41. Essex Pharma
  42. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [01 KI 0106, 01 EO 1002]
  43. Cubist
  44. Hospira
  45. Brahms GmbH
  46. Bayer HealthCare
  47. AstraZeneca
  48. Astellas
  49. Pfizer
  50. Paul-Martini Clinical Sepsis Research Group
  51. Thuringian Ministry of Education, Science and Culture [PE 108-2]
  52. Thuringian Foundation for Technology, Innovation and Research
  53. Jena Center of Sepsis Control and Care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context Early appropriate antimicrobial therapy leads to lower mortality rates associated with severe sepsis. The role of empirical combination therapy comprising at least 2 antibiotics of different mechanisms remains controversial. Objective To compare the effect of moxifloxacin and meropenem with the effect of meropenem alone on sepsis-related organ dysfunction. Design, Setting, and Patients A randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial of 600 patients who fulfilled criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock (n=298 for monotherapy and n=302 for combination therapy). The trial was performed at 44 intensive care units in Germany from October 16, 2007, to March 23, 2010. The number of evaluable patients was 273 in the monotherapy group and 278 in the combination therapy group. Interventions Intravenous meropenem (1 g every 8 hours) and moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 hours) or meropenem alone. The intervention was recommended for 7 days and up to a maximum of 14 days after randomization or until discharge from the intensive care unit or death, whichever occurred first. Main Outcome Measure Degree of organ failure (mean of daily total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] scores over 14 days; score range: 0-24 points with higher scores indicating worse organ failure); secondary outcome: 28-day and 90-day all-cause mortality. Survivors were followed up for 90 days. Results Among 551 evaluable patients, there was no statistically significant difference in mean SOFA score between the meropenem and moxifloxacin group (8.3 points; 95% CI, 7.8-8.8 points) and the meropenem alone group (7.9 points; 95% CI, 7.5-8.4 points) (P=.36). The rates for 28-day and 90-day mortality also were not statistically significantly different. By day 28, there were 66 deaths (23.9%; 95% CI, 19.0%-29.4%) in the combination therapy group compared with 59 deaths (21.9%; 95% CI, 17.1%-27.4%) in the monotherapy group (P=.58). By day 90, there were 96 deaths (35.3%; 95% CI, 29.6%-41.3%) in the combination therapy group compared with 84 deaths (32.1%; 95% CI, 26.5%-38.1%) in the monotherapy group (P=.43). Conclusion Among adult patients with severe sepsis, treatment with combined meropenem and moxifloxacin compared with meropenem alone did not result in less organ failure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available