Evidence Hub

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Moxifloxacin and Levofloxacin in a Short Standardised Rifampicin Resistant TB Regimen: A STREAM 2 Secondary Analysis

Fabiane SM, Chiang CY, Meredith SK, Gurumurthy M, Bayissa A, Nunn AJ, Goodall RL, STREAM Collaborators

Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 2024

127 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

(1) Background: The World Health Organisation (WHO) categorises moxifloxacin and levofloxacin as Group A drugs, which should be prioritised in the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. We compare their relative efficacy and safety using data from the STREAM trial; (2) Methods: Marginal structural models were used to balance differences in the baseline characteristics of participants receiving the STREAM control regimen containing either moxifloxacin or levofloxacin as this was not a randomised comparison. The difference in proportions between regimens was estimated for favourable outcome, any grade 3/4 adverse event, QTcF increase to ≥500 ms, QTcF increase from baseline by at least 60 ms, and any grade 3/4 adverse event excluding QT events, using weighted analyses; (3) Results: In efficacy analyses (n = 123), the weighted risk difference (moxifloxacin-levofloxacin, wRD) for a favourable outcome was -0.045 (-0.213, 0.123), p = 0.60. Similarly, estimates from the safety analyses (n = 127) showed no evidence of a difference between the fluoroquinolones, other than a suggestion of fewer QTcF increases from baseline on levofloxacin (wRD 0.160 (-0.026, 0.346), p = 0.091); (4) Conclusions: In this small dataset, we found no statistically significant difference in key efficacy or safety outcomes between the moxifloxacin- and levofloxacin-containing regimens; there was a suggestion that QTcF increases from baseline were fewer on levofloxacin.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis. 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: 127 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