Evidence Hub

Comparison of the in vitro activity of and pathogen responses to sparfloxacin with those of other agents in the treatment of respiratory tract, urinary tract, and skin and skin-structure infections

Michael Dowzicky, H. Nadler, M. Dorr, Andre Acusta, G. H. Talbot

Clinical Therapeutics, 1999

3 citations

Abstract

The in vitro activity of and pathogen responses to sparfloxacin were compared with those of standard therapies for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia, complicated skin or skin-structure infections, urinary tract infections, acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, and acute maxillary sinusitis in 7 multicenter controlled trials in North America. Sparfloxacin was administered orally as a 400-mg loading dose followed by 200 mg once daily for up to 10 days. The bacteriologic efficacy of sparfloxacin (84% to 95%) was comparable to that of comparator drugs (77% to 100%). Sparfloxacin was generally 2 to 8 times more active (minimum inhibitory concentration for 90% of strains tested [MIC90]: 0.03 to 0.5 microg/mL) than comparators against common pathogens isolated in community-acquired infections, especially Streptococcus pneumoniae, including penicillin-resistant strains; Moraxella catarrhalis; Haemophilus influenzae; Streptococcus pyogenes; and Staphylococcus aureus. Sparfloxacin was also effective against Chlamydia and Mycoplasma species. The emergence of resistance was uncommon during sparfloxacin therapy (0.3% of 1100 cases). Higher area under the plasma concentration-time curve/MIC and maximum plasma concentration/MIC ratios for sparfloxacin were associated with clinical and bacteriologic efficacy, whereas lower ratios were associated with clinical and bacteriologic failure. The clinical efficacy of sparfloxacin (80% to 95%) was comparable…

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.

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