Evidence Hub

The clinical and microbiological utility of inhaled aztreonam lysine for the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis: An open-label randomised crossover study (AZTEC-CF)

F. Frost, G. Young, L. Wright, Nahida Miah, Darren L. Smith, C. Winstanley, M. Walshaw, J. Fothergill et al.

Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, 2020

16 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to explore the clinical and microbiological outcomes associated with substituting inhaled aztreonam lysine for an intravenous antibiotic in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations of CF.

METHODS

An open-label randomised crossover pilot trial was conducted at a UK CF centre among 16 adults with CF and P. aeruginosa infection. Median [IQR] age was 29.5 [24.5-32.5], mean ± SD forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 52.4 ± 14.7 % predicted. Over the course of two exacerbations, participants were randomised to sequentially receive 14 days of inhaled aztreonam lysine plus IV colistimethate (AZLI+IV), or dual IV antibiotics (IV+IV). Primary outcome was absolute change in % predicted FEV1. Other outcomes evaluated changes in quality of life, bacterial load and the lung microbiota.

RESULTS

The difference between mean change in lung function at day 14 between AZLI+IV and IV+IV was +4.6% (95% CI 2.1-7.2, p=0.002). The minimum clinically important difference of the Cystic Fibrosis Revised Questionnaire (CFQ-R) was achieved more frequently with AZLI+IV (10/12, 83.3%) than IV+IV (7/16, 43.8%), p=0.05. No differences were observed for modulation of serum white cell count, C-reactive protein or sputum bacterial load. Microbiome compositional changes were observed with IV+IV (Bray-Curtis r2=0.14, p=0.02), but not AZLI+IV (r2=0.03, p=0.64).

CONCLUSION

In adults with CF and P. aeruginosa infection experiencing an acute pulmonary…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 16 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