4.1 Article

Efficacy and safety of 0.5% levofloxacin ophthalmic solution for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis in pediatric patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF AAPOS
Volume 7, Issue 5, Pages 317-324

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S1091-8531(03)00168-X

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of 0.5% levofloxacin ophthalmic solution (Quixin; Santen, Napa, CA) with 0.3% ofloxacin (Ocuflox; Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA) and placebo for the treatment of pediatric bacterial conjunctivitis. Methods: This study was a subset analysis of 167 pediatric patients (age range, I to 16 years) from two randomized, double-masked, multicenter, parallel group studies. Eye drops were instilled every 2 hours on days 1 and 2 and every 4 hours on days 3 through 5. Ocular signs and symptoms were noted, and conjunctival cultures were obtained on day 1 (baseline), days 3 to 5 (interim), and days 6 to 10 (final). Endpoint was defined as the last evaluable observation. Microbial and clinical outcomes were based on culture results and cardinal signs, respectively. Results: At endpoint (mean of 6.5 days for 118 evaluable patients), 0.5% levofloxacin treatment demonstrated greater microbial eradication rates (percentage of patients with absence of causative organisms cultured at baseline) compared with 0.3% ofloxacin or placebo. In children age 2 to 11 years, this finding was statistically significant in favor of 0.5% levofloxacin (87% vs 62% with 0.3% ofloxacin [P less than or equal to .032] and 88% vs 24% with placebo [P <.001]). No significant differences between treatment groups in microbial eradication rates were noted in other age subgroups. Conclusions. After 5 days of therapy, 0.5% levofloxacin ophthalmic solution was found to be safe and effective in treating pediatric bacterial conjunctivitis. Treatment with 0.5% levofloxacin achieved microbial eradication rates in children that were statistically superior to those attained with 0.3% ofloxacin or placebo.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available