4.3 Review

Management of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection with inhaled levofloxacin in people with cystic fibrosis

期刊

FUTURE MICROBIOLOGY
卷 16, 期 14, 页码 1087-1104

出版社

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/fmb-2021-0150

关键词

antimicrobials; cystic fibrosis; fluoroquinolone; levofloxacin; levofloxacin inhaled suspension; Pseudomonas aeruginosa

资金

  1. Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A
  2. European Commission's Innovative Medicines Initiative (Alaxia)
  3. European Commission's Innovative Medicines Initiative (Novartis)
  4. European Commission's Innovative Medicines Initiative (Polyphor)
  5. Cystic Fibrosis Australia
  6. Cystic Fibrosis Canada
  7. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
  8. European Cystic Fibrosis Society
  9. UK Cystic Fibrosis Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with cystic fibrosis are highly susceptible to bacterial infections of the airways, particularly chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Long-term use of inhaled antimicrobials is standard care for reducing exacerbation frequency and improving quality of life. Levofloxacin has been approved as an inhaled solution for the treatment of chronic P. aeruginosa infections in CF patients in Europe and Canada.
People with cystic fibrosis (CF) are highly susceptible to bacterial infections of the airways. By adulthood, chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Pa) is the most prevalent infective organism and is difficult to eradicate owing to its adaptation to the CF lung microenvironment. Long-term suppressive treatment with inhaled antimicrobials is the standard care for reducing exacerbation frequency, improving quality of life and increasing measures of lung function. Levofloxacin (a fluoroquinolone antimicrobial) has been approved as an inhaled solution in Europe and Canada, for the treatment of adults with CF with chronic P. aeruginosa pulmonary infections. Here, we review the clinical principles relating to the use of inhaled antimicrobials and inhaled levofloxacin for the management of P. aeruginosa infections in patients with CF.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据