Evidence Hub

Early Clinical Assessment of the Antimicrobial Activity of Finafloxacin Compared to Ciprofloxacin in Subsets of Microbiologically Characterized Isolates

Vente A, Bentley C, Lückermann M, Tambyah P, Dalhoff A

Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2018

132 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

Two phase II studies were performed with patients with uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs) and complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) or acute pyelonephritis (PN) to compare finafloxacin (300 mg twice a day [b.i.d.] orally for uUTI and 800 mg once a day [q.d.] intravenously [i.v.] for cUTI/PN) and ciprofloxacin (250 mg b.i.d. orally for uUTI and 400 mg b.i.d. i.v. for cUTI/PN). The early response to the study medications was evaluated in the microbiological intent-to-treat population (mITT) at day 3. A total of 21% of the isolates were ciprofloxacin resistant, 13.7% were primed pathogens carrying a mutation(s) potentially fostering fluoroquinolone resistance development, and 7.1% produced extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs). Finafloxacin demonstrated very good early clinical activity, with microbiological eradication rates of 88.6% (n = 132), compared to 78.7% (n = 61) for ciprofloxacin, and 69.6% (n = 23), compared to 35.7% (n = 14) for ciprofloxacin, in patients with ciprofloxacin-resistant uropathogens; 94.1% (n = 17), compared to 80.0% (n = 10) for ciprofloxacin, in patients infected with uropathogens primed for fluoroquinolone resistance uropathogens; and 91.7% (n = 11), compared to 0% for ciprofloxacin, in patients infected with ESBL producers. Finafloxacin demonstrated early and rapid activity against uropathogens, including fluoroquinolone-resistant and/or multiresistant pathogens or ESBL producers, while ciprofloxacin was less active against this…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 132 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free