4.6 Article

A randomized study of sequential intravenous/oral moxifloxacin in comparison to sequential intravenous ceftriaxone/ora cefuroxime axetil in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia

期刊

INFECTION
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 414-420

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s15010-007-6193-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Empiric treatment of hospitat-acquired pneumonia (HAP) should be focused on the suspected pathogens. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin vs ceftriaxone in patients with HAP without risk of infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other non-fermentative Gram-negative bacteria. Patients and Methods: We performed a prospective, randomized, non-blind, multicentric and multinational study to compare the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin 400 mg IV once daily followed by oral moxifloxacin 400 mg once daily to ceftriaxone 2 g IV once daily followed by oral cefuroxime axetil 500 mg twice daily to treat mild-to-moderate HAP in adult patients requiring initial parenteral therapy. The primary efficacy variable was clinical response 7-10 days after the end of a 7-14-day treatment period, secondary endpoints included clinical and bacteriologic response at different intervals for up to 31 days after treatment. The trial was terminated prematurely due to slow patient recruitment. Results: A total of 161 subjects (87 men, 74 women) between 18 and 95 years of age were enrolled, 120 of whom were eligible for per protocol efficacy analyses (60 each in the moxifloxacin and the comparator groups). Clinical success rates were 87% for moxifloxacin and 83% for the comparator [95% CI (-9.77 to 15.96%)]. The results for secondary endpoints were comparable between groups. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Conclusion: Moxifloxacin IV/oral can be considered as a possible alternative for the antibiotic treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate nosocomial pneumonia without risk factors for highly resistant microorganisms.

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

4.6
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