Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of oral moxifloxacin in standard first-line therapy in community-acquired pneumonia

Torres A, Muir JF, Corris P, Kubin R, Duprat-Lomon I, Sagnier PP, Höffken G

The European respiratory journal, 2003

564 participants · 90 citations

Abstract

Based on recent guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia, this study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a new fluoroquinolone compared with standard antimicrobial regimens, in conditions relating as closely as possible to the real world setting. In this study, 564 patients were randomised to either oral moxifloxacin (400 mg o.d.) or to standard oral therapy (amoxicillin 1 g t.i.d. or clarithromycin 500 mg b.i.d. alone or in combination) for up to 14 days using a double-blind procedure. The choice between the three standard regimens was made by the clinician prior to randomisation. Clinical response, quality of life, symptoms, healthcare resources and safety were assessed. In the per-protocol population, clinical success was reported for 201 of 215 (93.5%) and 217 of 231 (93.9%) in the moxifloxacin and standard groups, respectively, at 7-10 days post-therapy. At 28-35 days follow-up, continued clinical cure was observed in 183 of 192 (95.3%) moxifloxacin and 207 of 221 (93.7%) standard groups. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 55 of 274 (20%) moxifloxacin and 86 of 279 (31%) standard patients with diarrhoea >5%. Oral moxifloxacin monotherapy was as effective as, and better tolerated than, optimal antibiotic strategy represented either by mono- or combination therapy (amoxicillin and/or clarithromycin) in community-acquired pneumonia management.

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: 564 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