Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
2.
Eur Respir J ; 38(1): 112-8, 2011 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21233267

ABSTRACT

European guidelines for treating acute cough/lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) aim to reduce nonevidence-based variation in prescribing, and better target and increase the use of first-line antibiotics. However, their application in primary care is unknown. We explored congruence of both antibiotic prescribing and antibiotic choice with European Respiratory Society (ERS)/European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guidelines for managing LRTI. The present study was an analysis of prospective observational data from patients presenting to primary care with acute cough/LRTI. Clinicians recorded symptoms on presentation, and their examination and management. Patients were followed up with self-complete diaries. 1,776 (52.7%) patients were prescribed antibiotics. Given patients' clinical presentation, clinicians could have justified an antibiotic prescription for 1,915 (71.2%) patients according to the ERS/ESCMID guidelines. 761 (42.8%) of those who were prescribed antibiotics received a first-choice antibiotic (i.e. tetracycline or amoxicillin). Ciprofloxacin was prescribed for 37 (2.1%) and cephalosporins for 117 (6.6%). A lack of specificity in definitions in the ERS/ESCMID guidelines could have enabled clinicians to justify a higher rate of antibiotic prescription. More studies are needed to produce specific clinical definitions and indications for treatment. First-choice antibiotics were prescribed to the minority of patients who received an antibiotic prescription.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Cough/drug therapy , Respiratory Tract Infections/drug therapy , Acute Disease , Adult , Amoxicillin/therapeutic use , Cephalosporins/therapeutic use , Ciprofloxacin/therapeutic use , Drug Resistance, Bacterial , Europe , Female , Guideline Adherence , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Primary Health Care , Prospective Studies , Tetracycline/therapeutic use
3.
Clin Drug Investig ; 26(12): 733-44, 2006.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17274680

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare the real-life treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECBs) using moxifloxacin tablets or one of the oral macrolides azithromycin, clarithromycin or roxithromycin in terms of symptom relief, time until improvement and cure, overall efficacy and tolerability. METHODS: This prospective, non-interventional, multicentre study included out-patients with AECB whose last exacerbation was treated with a macrolide. The current AECB was treated either with moxifloxacin or with one of the macrolides azithromycin, clarithromycin or roxithromycin. Data were obtained on the patient's characteristics, disease and treatment history, the course of the current AECB including time to improvement and cure, and the final assessments of efficacy and tolerability. All adverse events were recorded in patients treated with moxifloxacin; for patients receiving macrolides, only drug-related adverse events were reported. RESULTS: 464 physicians treated 904 patients with moxifloxacin and 846 patients with one of the macrolides. Age, sex and body mass index were well matched between the two treatment groups. However, more moxifloxacin than macrolide patients presented with a generally bad condition (62.8% vs 48.6%). About 42% of patients in both groups had had chronic bronchitis for 1-5 years, and about 27% for 5-10 years. The mean number of AECBs in the previous 12 months was 2.7 and 2.6, respectively. Moxifloxacin was administered to most patients for 5 (43.8%) or 7 days (42.4%). Patients in the macrolide group were treated in most cases with clarithromycin 500 mg for 4-7 days, roxithromycin 300 mg for 6-7 days or azithromycin 500 mg for 3 days. Physicians assessed overall efficacy and tolerability as 'very good' or 'good' in 96.1% and 98.1%, respectively, of moxifloxacin-treated patients and in 67.5% and 91.7%, respectively, of macrolide-treated patients. The mean duration until improvement and cure of AECB was 3.2 days (+/- SD 1.5) and 6.2 days (+/- 2.6) in moxifloxacin-treated patients compared with 4.5 days (+/- 1.8) and 7.5 days (+/- 3.0) in macrolide-treated patients (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study conducted under real-life treatment conditions in patients with AECBs who were previously treated with a macrolide showed faster symptom relief and higher recovery rates with moxifloxacin compared with macrolides. The two treatment groups had comparably good safety and tolerability profiles.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents/therapeutic use , Aza Compounds/therapeutic use , Bronchitis/drug therapy , Macrolides/therapeutic use , Quinolines/therapeutic use , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Aza Compounds/adverse effects , Family Practice , Female , Fluoroquinolones , Humans , Macrolides/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Moxifloxacin , Product Surveillance, Postmarketing , Quinolines/adverse effects
5.
J Int Med Res ; 29(4): 314-28, 2001.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-11675905

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of once daily dosing with moxifloxacin (BAY 12-8039) with that of coamoxiclav given three times daily for the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB). Moxifloxacin (one 400 mg tablet daily) was administered orally for 5 days and co-amoxiclav (three 625 mg tablets daily) was given orally for 7 days. The study was randomized, non-blinded, multinational (12 countries) and multicentre (68 centres). A total of 575 patients, all with clear signs of AECB, were treated, 292 with moxifloxacin and 283 with co-amoxiclav. Of these, 512 patients were evaluable for efficacy (261 in the moxifloxacin group and 251 in the co-amoxiclav group). The primary efficacy parameter was clinical response at 14 days in the evaluable population. A clinical success was classified as resolution or improvement of symptoms. Variables used to assess clinical response included wheeze, cough, dyspnoea, sputum volume, rales and rhonchi. The success rate for moxifloxacin in the evaluable patients was 96.2% and that for co-amoxiclav was 91.6%. The 95% confidence intervals for this difference (0.4%; 8.7%) indicate equivalence in the treatments. Sputum samples were taken from patients and 140 of these contained a pathogen, Haemophilus influenzae being the most frequently isolated. Moraxella catarrhalis and Streptococcus pneumoniae were also commonly isolated pathogens. The eradication rate at 14 days in the evaluable patients was 87.7% in the moxifloxacin group and 89.6% in the coamoxiclav group. Both drugs were well tolerated with no significant differences in the numbers of drug-related adverse events or the numbers of patients withdrawing because of an adverse event. These results and the broad spectrum of antibacterial activity make moxifloxacin a promising and safe alternative to conventional therapy for the empirical treatment of AECB.


Subject(s)
Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination/administration & dosage , Anti-Infective Agents/administration & dosage , Aza Compounds , Bronchitis/drug therapy , Drug Therapy, Combination/administration & dosage , Fluoroquinolones , Quinolines , Acute Disease , Administration, Oral , Adult , Aged , Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination/adverse effects , Anti-Infective Agents/adverse effects , Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Drug Administration Schedule , Drug Therapy, Combination/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Moxifloxacin , Prognosis , Risk Factors , Safety
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL