Evidence Hub

Antimicrobial chemotherapy for Legionnaires disease: levofloxacin versus macrolides

R. M. B. Garrido, F. J. Espinosa Parra, L. A. Frances, R. M. R. Guevara, Juan Miguel Sánchez-Nieto, M. S. Hernandez, J. A. S. Martinez, F. Herrero Huerta

Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2005

292 participants · 152 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The community outbreak of legionnaires disease that occurred in Murcia, Spain, in July 2001--to our knowledge, the largest such outbreak ever reported--afforded an unusual opportunity to compare the clinical response of patients with Legionella pneumonia treated with levofloxacin with that of patients treated with macrolides and to determine the role of rifampicin combined with levofloxacin in treating severe legionellosis. METHODS: An observational, prospective, nonrandomized study was conducted involving 292 patients seen at our hospital (Hospital "J. M. Morales Meseguer"; Murcia, Spain) who received a diagnosis of Legionella pneumonia during the Murcia outbreak. To compare both antibiotic regimens (macrolides vs. levofloxacin), patients were stratified by the severity of pneumonia. Duration of fever, clinical outcome, complications, side effects, and length of hospital stay were recorded. To assess the potential effects of adjuvant therapy with rifampicin, 45 case patients treated with levofloxacin plus rifampicin were evaluated and compared with 45 control pairs who were treated with levofloxacin alone. RESULTS: With the exception of 2 patients who died, all patients were cured. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in clinical outcome for patients with mild-to-moderate pneumonia. Nevertheless, in patients with severe pneumonia, levofloxacin exerted superior activity; it was associated with fewer complications (3.4% of patients…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical 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: 292 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