HL301 versus Umckamin in the treatment of acute bronchitis: a phase III, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter study.

Objective: HL301 is a combination product of seven medicinal plants that has been proven effective in acute bronchitis by two phase II studies. In the present study, its efficacy and safety compared with those of Umckamin in the treatment of acute bronchitis were evaluated in phase III, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial design.Methods: A total of 246 acute bronchitis patients were randomized to receive either HL301 (600 mg/day) or Umckamin (333 mg/day) for seven days. The primary outcome was the difference in their baseline (visit 2) and end of treatment (visit 3) bronchitis severity score (BSS). Other efficacy variables included the change in each BSS component (cough, sputum, dyspnea, chest pain, and crackle), response rate, improvement rate, and satisfaction rate with treatment.Results: A full analysis set and per protocol set analysis of both groups revealed that the difference of BSS between visit 2 and visit 3 in the HL301 and Umckamin group was not significantly different (4.58 ± 1.79 versus 4.29 ± 1.88, p = .37 and 4.60 ± 1.81 versus 4.33 ± 1.88, p = .42, respectively). The change in five BSS components (cough, sputum, dyspnea, chest pain, and crackle) of the HL301 and Umckamin groups did not differ after treatment. HL301 or Umckamin treated participants showed an equal level of response, improvement, and satisfaction rates with treatment. Both the HL301 group and Umckamin group showed the same safety profile.Conclusions: HL301 (600 mg/day) was as effective and safe as Umckamin (333 mg/day) in treating acute bronchitis.

Efficacy and safety of HL301 in the treatment of acute bronchitis and acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis: a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study.

PURPOSE: The efficacy and safety of Chinese herbs for symptomatic treatment of bronchitis is not well established. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a combination product of seven herbs (HL301) for the treatment of acute bronchitis (AB) and acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB) using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial design. METHODS: A total of 160 patients with AB or with AECB were randomized to receive placebo or one of three doses of HL301 (0.6 g/day, 1.2 g/day, or 1.8 g/day) for a total of 7 days. The primary study endpoint was the change in bronchitis severity score (BSS) from the baseline visit (visit 2) to the end of treatment visit (visit 3). Other efficacy variables were percentage BSS systemic sign efficacy after treatment and change in individual BSS parameters after treatment. FINDINGS: Changes in BSS from visit 2 to visit 3 in the three treatment groups (4.63 ± 2.24, 4.08 ± 1.63, and 4.15 ± 1.74 in the HL301 0.6 g/day, 1.2 g/day, and 1.8 g/day groups, respectively) were higher than that of the placebo group (2.88 ± 2.57) in the per protocol set (PPS) (P < .05), and it was also valid in the full analysis set (FAS). The number of participants whose symptoms (measured by BSS) improved at least 30% after treatment was higher in all three treatment groups compared to the placebo group in both the FAS and the PPS (P < .05, for all). IMPLICATIONS: Three different doses of HL301 (0.6 g/day, 1.2 g/day, and 1.8 g/day) were effective in decreasing the BSS index compared to placebo. HL301 may be effective for symptomatic treatment of both AB and AECB. LIMITATIONS: Essential components of HL301 have not been delineated in the study and patients with AB and AECB were indiscriminately enrolled in the present study. Respective evaluation of the efficacy of HL301 for AB and AECB will be necessary in the future.

Choice between Levofloxacin and Moxifloxacin and Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Treatment Outcomes.

RATIONALE: We previously showed that the choice of levofloxacin or moxifloxacin for the treatment of patients with fluoroquinolone-sensitive multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) did not affect sputum culture conversion at 3 months of treatment. OBJECTIVES: To compare final treatment outcomes between patients with MDR-TB randomized to levofloxacin or moxifloxacin. METHODS: A total of 151 participants with MDR-TB who were included for the final analysis in our previous trial were followed through the end of treatment. Treatment outcomes were compared between 77 patients in the levofloxacin group and 74 in the moxifloxacin group, based on the 2008 World Health Organization definitions as well as 2013 revised definitions of treatment outcomes. In addition, the time to culture conversion was compared between the two groups. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Treatment outcomes were not different between the two groups, based on 2008 World Health Organization definitions as well as 2013 definitions. With 2008 definitions, cure was achieved in 54 patients (70.1%) in the levofloxacin group and 54 (73.0%) in the moxifloxacin group (P = 0.72). Treatment success rates, including cure and treatment completed, were not different between the two groups (87.0 vs. 81.1%, P = 0.38). With 2013 definitions, cure rates (83.1 vs. 78.4%, P = 0.54) and treatment success rates (84.4 vs. 79.7%, P = 0.53) were also similar between the levofloxacin and moxifloxacin groups. Time to culture conversion was also not different between the two groups (27.0 vs. 45.0 d, P = 0.11 on liquid media; 17.0 vs. 42.0 d, P = 0.14 on solid media). Patients in the levofloxacin group had more adverse events than those in the moxifloxacin group (79.2 vs. 63.5%, P = 0.03), especially musculoskeletal ones (37.7 vs. 14.9%, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The choice of levofloxacin or moxifloxacin made no difference to the final treatment outcome among patients with fluoroquinolone-sensitive MDR-TB. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicalrials.gov (NCT01055145).

Comparison of levofloxacin versus moxifloxacin for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

RATIONALE: Levofloxacin (LFX) and moxifloxacin (MXF) are the two most frequently recommended fluoroquinolones for treatment of patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). However, studies comparing the effectiveness of LFX and MXF among patients with MDR-TB are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of LFX and MXF in terms of culture conversion after 3 months of treatment for MDR-TB. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter randomized open label trial, we randomly assigned 182 patients with MDR-TB (sensitive to LFX and MXF) to receive either LFX (750 mg/day; 90 patients) or MXF (400 mg/day; 92 patients) with a background drug regimen. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved sputum culture conversion at 3 months of treatment. Secondary outcomes were time to culture conversion and time to smear conversion, with data censored at 3 months, and the proportions of adverse drug reactions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At 3 months of treatment, 68 (88.3%) of the 77 patients in the LFX group and 67 (90.5%) of the 74 in the MXF group showed conversion to negative sputum cultures (odds ratio for LFX compared with MXF, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.20). Adverse drug reactions were reported in six patients (7.7%) in the LFX group and four (5.2%) in the MXF group (P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: The choice of LFX or MXF for treatment of patients with MDR-TB may not affect sputum culture conversion at 3 months of treatment. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01055145).

Treatment outcomes for HIV-uninfected patients with multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB) is more difficult to treat than is drug-susceptible TB. To elucidate the optimal therapy for MDR TB, we assessed the treatment outcomes and prognostic factors for patients with MDR TB. METHODS: This study included patients who received an individualized treatment regimen for MDR TB at Samsung Medical Center, a tertiary referral hospital in Seoul, Korea, from January 1995 through December 2004. To identify the prognostic factors related to favorable treatment outcomes, univariate comparison and multiple logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: Of 155 patients, 18 (12%) had newly diagnosed MDR TB, 81 (52%) had previously received treatment with first-line drugs, and 56 (36%) had received treatment with second-line drugs. The isolated strains were resistant to a median of 5 drugs. Twenty-seven patients (17%) had extensively drug-resistant (XDR) TB at the start of treatment. Outcome assessment revealed that 102 patients (66%) were cured or completed therapy. The treatment success rates did not differ significantly between patients with non-XDR MDR TB and those with XDR TB (66% vs. 67%). Surgical resection was performed more frequently for patients with XDR TB than for those with non-XDR MDR TB (48% vs. 17%). Combined surgical resection, body mass index >/=18.5 (calculated as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters), use of >4 effective drugs, and a negative sputum smear result were independent predictors of a favorable outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Early aggressive treatment comprising at least 4 effective drugs and surgical resection, when indicated, may improve the outcome for patients with MDR TB or XDR TB.

Treatment of isoniazid-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Although resistance to isoniazid (INH) is the most common form of drug resistance seen among Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates, there have been few studies on the efficacy and optimal duration of treatment for patients with INH-resistant tuberculosis (TB). METHODS: We evaluated retrospectively the treatment outcomes of 39 patients who were treated for INH-resistant pulmonary TB. The treatment regimens consisted of a 12-month regimen of rifampin (RIF) and ethambutol (EMB), with pyrazinamide (PZA) given during the first 2 months (2HREZ/10RE) (n = 21), a 9-month regimen of RIF and EMB with PZA during the first 2 months (2HREZ/7RE) (n = 5), and a 6-month regimen of RIF, EMB, and PZA (2HREZ/4REZ) (n = 13). After drug susceptibility testing confirmed the INH-resistance of the isolated M. tuberculosis strains, INH was discontinued for all the patients. RESULTS: Among the 39 patients, treatment was successfully completed by 36 patients (92%). However, treatment failure occurred, and acquired resistance to other first-line drugs, such as RIF, developed in three patients (8%). Cavitary and bilateral extensive lesions were commonly found in the chest radiographs of the patients who exhibited treatment failure. CONCLUSION: These findings underline the seriousness of concerns regarding treatment failure and the development of multidrug-resistant TB in patients with INH-resistant TB following treatment with recommended regimens.