Evidence Hub

Clinical efficacy of moxifloxacin in the treatment of exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Miravitlles M, Molina J, Brosa M

Archivos de bronconeumologia, 2007

3,905 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: As the research undertaken to date on the efficacy of the new antibiotics in the treatment of exacerbations of chronic bronchitis has taken the form of trials designed to demonstrate equivalence, we have no data on the advantages associated with the use of these new drugs with greater bactericidal activity. Our objective was to compare the clinical efficacy of moxifloxacin to that of the antibiotic regimens routinely used to treat such exacerbations by a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis.

METHODS: A manual and electronic search was performed to identify all clinical trials carried out between January 1997 and July 2005 to compare moxifloxacin and the antibiotics that are currently the first line treatment for exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Once it had been established that the designs of the trials included were acceptable, a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes was performed.

RESULTS: Of the 45 studies identified, 9 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 5 were double-blind randomized trials and 4 were randomized open trials. The 9 trials comprised a total of 3905 patients. The aggregate standardized mean difference in clinical success rate was 1.5% (95% confidence interval, -0.4 to 3.4%). Bacterial eradication rates ranged from 68.4% to 96% for the standard regimens, and from 87.7% to 96% for moxifloxacin. No intergroup differences in the percentages of patients lost to follow-up were observed in any of the studies.

CONCLUSIONS: Although…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,905 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