4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Treatment with sequential intravenous or oral moxifloxacin was associated with faster clinical improvement than was standard therapy for hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia who received initial parenteral therapy

Journal

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 41, Issue 12, Pages 1697-1705

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/498149

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Although third-generation cephalosporins, such as ceftriaxone (CTRX), and pneumococcal fluoroquinolones, such as moxifloxacin (MXF), are currently recommended first-line antibiotics for empirical treatment of inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia, CTRX and MXF have never undergone a head-to-head comparison. We therefore compared the efficacy, safety, and speed and quality of defervescence of sequential intravenous or oral MXF and high-dose CTRX with or without erythromycin (CTRX +/- ERY) for patients with community-acquired pneumonia requiring parenteral therapy. Methods. In this prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, nonblinded study, 397 patients were randomly assigned to receive either MXF (400 mg once daily intravenously, possibly followed by oral tablets) or CTRX (2 g intravenously once daily) with or without ERY (1 g intravenously every 6-8 h) for 7-14 days. Results. Among 317 patients evaluable for efficacy and safety, 138 (85.7%) of 161 MXF-treated patients and 135 (86.5%) of 156-treated patients (59 [37.8%] of whom received CTRX and ERY) achieved CTRX +/- ERY continued clinical resolution. Defervescence and relief of symptoms, such as chest pain, occurred significantly earlier in the MXF-treated group than in the - treated group. Both regimens were generally well CTRX +/- ERY tolerated. Conclusions. For adult patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia, sequential MXF therapy was clinically equivalent to high-dose therapy but led to a faster clinical improvement.

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