Spotlight on inhaled ciprofloxacin and its potential in the treatment of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis.

Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB) is a severe chronic illness characterized by irreversible dilation of airways and thickening of bronchial walls, chronic inflammation, repeated infections, and progressive obstruction of the airways. In contrast to cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (CFB), which is a well-defined genetic disorder, NCFB is a heterogeneous disease caused by many different medical entities. Inhaled antibiotics are effective for patients with CFB, but their efficacy in NCFB has not been proven. The main pathogens involved in the colonization of patients with bronchiectasis are Haemophilus influenza, Moraxella catarrhalis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The latter is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In addition, in NCFB, P. aeruginosa strains are frequently more resistant than those in CFB. At present, there are no approved inhaled antibiotic therapies for NCFB patients. Inhaled ciprofloxacin has been under investigation in the last few years. In two phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, the use of inhaled ciprofloxacin was significantly associated with reduction in sputum bacterial density and greater eradication rates. In four phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, the results regarding the time of the first exacerbation and the rate of exacerbations were inconsistent. Specifically, ORBIT-4 and RESPIRE-1 trials showed clinical benefit (prolongation of the time of the first exacerbation and reduced rate of exacerbations in the treatment group compared to the placebo group), whereas the ORBIT-3 and RESPIRE-2 failed to achieve their primary endpoints. The RESPIRE-1 was the first trial that examined the 14-days on/off course separate from the standard 28-days on/off regimen, which is based on CFB protocol treatments. The current data on the efficacy of inhaled ciprofloxacin are encouraging, but further evaluation is needed to determine the appropriate target group and the ideal duration of treatment.

Effectiveness and safety of high-dose tigecycline-containing regimens for the treatment of severe bacterial infections.

Here we review the effectiveness and safety of high-dose tigecycline (200mg daily). A systematic search was performed in PubMed and Scopus databases as well as of abstracts presented at scientific conferences. Eight studies (263 patients; 58% critically ill) were included, comprising one randomised controlled trial (RCT), four non-randomised cohorts and three case reports. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most commonly isolated pathogen (reported in seven studies). In the RCT, response in the clinically evaluable patients was 85.0% (17/20) in the 100mg every 12h (q12h) group and 69.6% (16/23) in the 75mg q12h group (P=0.4). More episodes of diarrhoea, treatment-related nausea and vomiting developed in the high-dose group (14.3% vs. 2.8%, 8.6% vs. 2.8% and 5.7% vs. 2.8%, respectively; P>0.05 for all comparisons). Three (8.6%) and 7 (19.6%) patients died in the 200mg and 150mg daily dose groups, respectively. The cohort studies enrolled patients with severe infections, including ventilator-associated pneumonia and complicated intra-abdominal infections. Mortality with high-dose tigecycline (100mg q12h) in the cohort studies ranged from 8.3% to 26%; mortality in the low-dose groups (50mg q12h) ranged from 8% to 61% and depended on the severity of the underlying infection. There are limited available data regarding the effectiveness and safety of high-dose tigecycline. Most of the data come from critically ill patients with difficult-to-treat infections. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of tigecycline suggest that high-dose regimens may be more effective than low-dose regimens. Candidates for administration of high-dose tigecycline should be also defined.