A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Comparative Study Of The Efficacy And Safety Of Intravenous Tigecycline Vs Intravenous Levofloxacin To Treat Subjects Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Pneumonia
Abstract
To compare the efficacy and safety of IV tigecycline to IV levofloxacin in the treatment of subjects with CAP requiring hospitalization.
Conditions: Community-Acquired Infections, Bacterial Pneumonia, Cross Infection.
Primary outcome: Clinical response in the clinically evaluable population and the clinical modified intent-to-treat population at the TOC visit.; Determine whether tigecycline is noninferior to levofloxacin..
Enrollment: 434 participants.
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: 434 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Severe clinical outcomes of COVID-19 associated with proton pump inhibitors: a nationwide cohort study with propensity score matching
- Thiophenes—Naturally Occurring Plant Metabolites: Biological Activities and In Silico Evaluation of Their Potential as Cathepsin D Inhibitors
- Inhalable Mannosylated Rifampicin–Curcumin Co-Loaded Nanomicelles with Enhanced In Vitro Antimicrobial Efficacy for an Optimized Pulmonary Tuberculosis Therapy
- Association between cord blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations and respiratory tract infections in the first 6 months of age in a Korean population: a birth cohort study (COCOA)
- GC-MS Analysis and Biomedical Therapy of Oil from n-Hexane Fraction of Scutellaria edelbergii Rech. f.: In Vitro, In Vivo, and In Silico Approach
- Novel Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Parameters Quantify the Exposure–Effect Relationship of Levofloxacin against Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Escherichia coli
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.