Evidence Hub

Use of pharmacodynamic endpoints for the evaluation of levofloxacin for the treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis

Ambrose PG, Anon JB, Bhavnani SM, Okusanya OO, Jones RN, Paglia MR, Kahn J, Drusano GL

Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2008

18 participants

Abstract

Sinusitis remains 1 of the most common reasons for antimicrobial prescriptions in the United States, with health care costs approaching $4 billion annually. We utilized the serial sinus aspirate sampling (SSAS) technique to obtain daily specimens to evaluate the time course of drug effect in patients with acute maxillary sinusitis. Eighteen patients with a radiologically confirmed acute maxillary sinusitis were enrolled into a study evaluating the relationship between levofloxacin exposure and the time course of antimicrobial effect using SSAS. SSAS was performed daily during therapy for bacteriologic evaluation. Six steady-state levofloxacin concentrations were obtained. Levofloxacin plasma and sinus aspirate concentrations were modeled using Monte Carlo Parametric Expectation Maximization algorithm implemented in S-ADAPT 1.53. Endpoints evaluated included time to resolution of signs and symptoms and time to sinus sterilization. Among the 18 enrolled patients, 15 were clinically evaluable. From these, 1 Streptococcus pneumoniae, 3 Haemophilus influenzae, 1 Moraxella catarrhalis, 1 Corynebacterium spp., and 1 coagulase-negative Staphylococcus organisms were isolated, with the latter 2 organisms being likely contaminants. For the pathogens, levofloxacin MIC values ranged from 0.03 to 2 mg/L. All pathogens were eradicated by the 4th day of therapy. The median and mean time to sinus sterilization (pathogens only) was 1 and 1.4 days, respectively. The median time to resolution…

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: 18 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