Evidence Hub

Comparison of chest X-ray findings and other parameters in acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis in Japan and the West

Watanabe A, Kohno S, Niki Y, Saito A

Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy, 2001

105 participants

Abstract

One of the issues concerning harmonization in the development of pharmaceutical products, especially antimicrobials, is discrepancy in the indications to be studied clinically. In particular, it has been very much questioned whether the underlying disease in Western patients diagnosed with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB) is identical with chronic bronchitis in Japan. We assessed chest X-ray films from 105 AECB patients enrolled in a clinical study of SB265805 (a fluoroquinolone antibacterial agent under development) conducted in Europe, and then compared their clinical signs/symptoms and laboratory data with Japanese historical data. Five of the 105 patients did not meet the criteria of AECB; i.e., 2 of them were diagnosed with pneumonia, 1 with bronchiectasis, 1 with pneumoconiosis, and 1 with bronchiectasis plus pulmonary emphysema. In the remaining 100 patients, chest X-ray findings and laboratory test results were consistent with the concept of chronic bronchitis, although 23 of them had other cardiac or pulmonary diseases as well. There were significant imbalances in distribution between Western patients and Japanese historical data in terms of age, cough, WBC counts, and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. Compared with Japanese historical data, Western patients were younger and had a more severe cough, although increases in WBC and CRP were less remarkable. For other variables, i.e., sex, fever, and volume of sputum, no significant difference was detected…

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: 105 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