Evidence Hub

A comparative study on the efficacy of levofloxacin and ceftazidime in acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis

Tsang KW, Chan WM, Ho PL, Chan K, Lam WK, Ip MS

The European respiratory journal, 1999

Abstract

A prospective randomized study was performed in order to compare the efficacy of oral levofloxacin, a new S- isomer of ofloxacin, with intravenous ceftazidime in the empirical treatment of acute exacerbations of bronchiectasis. Consecutive patients with acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis were recruited at a tertiary referral centre and were randomized to receive 10 days' treatment with either oral levofloxacin (300 mg b..d.) or ceftazidime (1 g i.v.t.d.). Body temperature, cough score, dyspnoea score, sputum purulence and volume and white blood cell and neutrophil count were assessed on day 1 and day 10. Thirty-five patients (mean age 61 yrs, 15 males) completed the study; 17 of these were in the levofloxacin group. There was no significant difference in the distribution of sputum pathogens or clinical parameters between the two groups at entry to and completion of the study. Both groups of patients showed significant improvement in 24-h sputum volume, sputum purulence score, cough score and dyspnoea score (p0.05). The results of this study suggest that oral administration of levofloxacin is as effective as parenteral ceftazidime in the empirical treatment of exacerbations in bronchiectasis.

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