Evidence Hub

Safety and efficacy of sequential i.v. to p.o. moxifloxacin versus conventional combination therapies for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in patients requiring initial i.v. therapy

Katz E, Larsen LS, Fogarty CM, Hamed K, Song J, Choudhri S

The Journal of emergency medicine, 2004

31 citations

Abstract

To compare the efficacy of sequential i.v. to p.o. moxifloxacin with ceftriaxone +/- azithromycin +/- metronidazole for the treatment of patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP), a multi-centered, prospective, randomized, open label study was performed. CAP patients were randomized to moxifloxacin (400 mg/d-at least one i.v. dose) or ceftriaxone (at least one dose of 2 g i.v. q.d. followed by cefuroxime 500 mg p.o. b.i.d.) +/- azithromycin, +/- metronidazole (cephalosporin/macrolide control: CMC). The primary endpoint was clinical response at test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Bacteriological response at TOC was the secondary endpoint. Clinical cure was found in 83.3% (90/108) of moxifloxacin patients and 79.6% (90/113) of control patients. Microbiological responses were 81.8% (18/22) for moxifloxacin and 60.7% (17/28) for CMC patients. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 18.0% of moxifloxacin and 16% of CMC patients. It is concluded that i.v. to p.o. moxifloxacin is as effective as CMC for treatment of CAP and is a reliable alternative antimicrobial therapy.

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.

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