A large observational data study supporting the PROsPeR score classification in poor ovarian responders according to live birth outcome.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the Poor Responder Outcome Prediction (PROsPeR) score identify live birth outcomes in subpopulations of patients with poor ovarian response (POR) defined according to the ESHRE Bologna criteria (female age, anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), number of oocytes retrieved during the previous cycle (PNO) after treatment with originator recombinant human follitropin alfa? SUMMARY ANSWER: The PROsPeR score discriminated the probability of live birth in patients with POR using observational data with fair discrimination (AUC ≅ 70%) and calibration, and the AUC losing less than 5% precision compared with a model developed using the observational data. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Although scoring systems for the likelihood of live birth after ART have been developed, their accuracy may be insufficient, as they have generally been developed in the general population with infertility and were not validated for patients with POR. The PROsPeR score was developed using data from the follitropin alfa (GONAL-f; Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) arm of the Efficacy and Safety of Pergoveris in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ESPART) randomized controlled trial (RCT) and classifies women with POR as mild, moderate or severe, based upon three variables: female age, serum AMH level and number of oocytes retrieved during the previous cycle (PNO). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The external validation of the PROsPeR score was completed using data derived from eight different centres in France. In addition, the follitropin alfa data from the ESPART RCT, originally used to develop the PROsPeR score, were used as reference cohort. The external validation of the PROsPeR score l was assessed using AUC. A predetermined non-inferiority limit of 0.10 compared with a reference sample and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test) were the two conditions required for evaluation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The observational cohort included data from 8085 ART treatment cycles performed with follitropin alfa in patients with POR defined according to the ESHRE Bologna criteria (17.6% of the initial data set). The ESPART cohort included 477 ART treatment cycles with ovarian stimulation performed with follitropin alfa in patients with POR. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The external validation of the PROsPeR score to identify subpopulations of women with POR with different live birth outcomes was shown in the observational cohort (AUC = 0.688; 95% CI: 0.662, 0.714) compared with the ESPART cohort (AUC = 0.695; 95% CI: 0.623, 0.767). The AUC difference was -0.0074 (95% CI: -0.083, 0.0689). This provided evidence, with 97.5% one-sided confidence, that there was a maximum estimated loss of 8.4% in discrimination between the observational cohort and the ESPART cohort, which was below the predetermined margin of 10%. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test did not reject the calibration when comparing observed and predicted data (Hosmer-Lemeshow test = 1.266688; P = 0.260). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was based on secondary use of data that had not been collected specifically for the analysis reported here and the number of characteristics used to classify women with POR was limited to the available data. The data were from a limited number of ART centres in a single country, which may present a bias risk; however, baseline patient data were similar to other POR studies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This evaluation of the PROsPeR score using observational data supports the notion that the likelihood of live birth may be calculated with reasonable precision using three readily available pieces of data (female age, serum AMH and PNO). The PROsPeR score has potential to be used to discriminate expected probability of live birth according to the degree of POR (mild, moderate, severe) after treatment with follitropin alfa, enabling comparison of performance at one centre over time and the comparison between centres. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This analysis was funded by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. P.L. received grants from Merck KGaA, outside of the submitted work. N.M. reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck KGaA outside the submitted work. T.D.H. is Vice President and Head of Global Medical Affairs Fertility, Research and Development at Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. P.A. has received personal fees from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, outside the submitted work. C.R. has received grants and personal fees from Gedeon Richter and Merck Serono S.A.S., France, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, outside the submitted work. P.S. reports congress support from Merck Serono S.A.S., France (an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Gedeon Richter, TEVA and MDS outside the submitted work. C.A., J.P., G.P. and R.W. declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Long-term outcome of patients undergoing in-vitro fertilisation in France: The outcome study.

The Outcome study examines the fate of 4083 patients beginning IVF in 41 IVF centres, between January 2010 and December 2013. Cumulative live birth rate per patient (CLBR), the best reflection of IVF efficacy, is rarely presented in publications as it requires long-term follow-up, including all successive cycles, and pregnancies outcome. Analysis of international publications shows an average CLBR of 41.6 % and a drop-out rate of 49.5 %, both greatly varying by country and IVF centres. Because of the frequency with which patients change centre (8%), the Outcome study distinguishes patients with a past history of IVF in another centre (CLBR=47.2 %) and patients undergoing their first true cycle (CLBR=56.4 %). Survival techniques by Competing Risk, intended to take account of drop-out and lost to follow-up, assessed the overall CLBR as being 65.4 %. Differences in performance between centres are considerable for both CLBR (32-64%) and Performance Index, taking account of the number of cycles required to achieve a pregnancy (2-5). Multiple variance logistic regression analysis shows that the indicators influencing performance are age, parity, number of oocytes, smoking habit and overweight. These indicators are independent each other and are influencing performance in a high significant way. After adjusting for these indicators, the differences between centres are reduced but remain large and very significant. No centre appears to have specific expertise in the management of patients with adverse indicators. The Outcome study therefore confirms that the large differences in performance between centres are not explained by a difference in the treated population.

Determinants of bacteriological outcomes in exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

PURPOSE: Changes in sputum microbiology following antibiotic treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), including patterns of bacteriological relapse and superinfection are not well understood. Sputum microbiology at exacerbation is not routinely performed, but pathogen presence and species are determinants of outcomes. Therefore, we determined whether baseline clinical factors could predict the presence of bacterial pathogens at exacerbation. Bacterial eradication at end of treatment (EOT) is associated with clinical resolution of exacerbation. We determined the clinical, microbiological and therapeutic factors that were associated with bacteriological eradication in AECOPD at EOT and in the following 8 weeks. METHODS: Sputum bacteriological outcomes (i.e., eradication, persistence, superinfection, reinfection) from AECOPD patients (N = 1352) who were randomized to receive moxifloxacin or amoxicillin/clavulanate in the MAESTRAL study were compared. Independent predictors of bacterial presence in sputum at exacerbation and determinants for bacteriological eradication were analyzed by logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. RESULTS: Significantly greater bacteriological eradication with moxifloxacin was mainly driven by superior Haemophilus influenzae eradication (P = 0.002, EOT). Baseline clinical factors were a weak predictor of the presence of pathogens in sputum (AUCROC = 0.593). On multivariate analysis, poorer bacterial eradication was associated with antibiotic resistance (P = 0.0001), systemic steroid use (P = 0.0024) and presence of P. aeruginosa (P = 0.0282). CONCLUSIONS: Since clinical prediction of bacterial presence in sputum at AECOPD is poor, sputum microbiological analysis should be considered for guiding antibiotic therapy in moderate-to-severe AECOPD, particularly in those who received concomitant systemic corticosteroids or are at risk for infection with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

[GnRH agonist triggering in IVF and luteal phase support in women at risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome]. / Déclenchement de l'ovulation par agonistes du GnRH en FIV et soutien de la phase lutéale chez les femmes à risque d'hyperstimulation ovarienne.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ovulation triggering by agonists in antagonists IVF cycles with fresh embryo transfer in modulating low HCG dose for luteal phase support in patients at risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In an observational study from September 2011 to March 2013, we triggered with agonist 107 cycles with OHSS risk, we initially triggered 39 cycles with 2 doses of Triptorelin 0.1 mg. Injection of 1500 IU HCG was performed one hour after the pick up and a second injection of 1500 IU was made 5 days later (group 1) combined with 400 mg of natural progesterone vaginally. In the following 68 cycles we removed the second HCG injection and increased to 600 mg vaginal progesterone associated with E2 4 mg orally (group 2). RESULTS: Group 1: the ongoing pregnancy rate and birth rate in fresh cycle is respectively 37.1% and 34.3% and the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate and birth rate per patient is 43.6% and 41%. We recorded three late onset OHSS in pregnant women. Group 2: ongoing pregnancy rate in fresh cycle is 39.6%, the current cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate per patient was 45.6%. We observed a case of early onset OHSS. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Triggering with agonist and administering an injection of 1500 IU of HCG the day of the pick up appears to be effective in women at risk of OHSS. The exclusion of all OHSS is still not reached. The search for the best protocol and its indications should continue.

Efficacy and safety of IV/PO moxifloxacin and IV piperacillin/tazobactam followed by PO amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in the treatment of diabetic foot infections: results of the RELIEF study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of two antibiotic regimens in patients with diabetic foot infections (DFIs). METHODS: Data of a subset of patients enrolled in the RELIEF trial with DFIs requiring surgery and antibiotics were evaluated retrospectively. DFI was diagnosed on the basis of the modified Wagner, University of Texas, and PEDIS classification systems. Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous/oral moxifloxacin (MXF, N = 110) 400 mg q.d. or intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam 4.0/0.5 g t.d.s. followed by oral amoxicillin/clavulanate 875/125 mg b.d. (PIP/TAZ-AMC, N = 96), for 7-21 days until the end of treatment (EOT). The primary endpoint was clinical cure rates in the per-protocol (PP) population at the test-of-cure visit (TOC, 14-28 days after EOT). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the demographic characteristics of PP patients in either treatment group. At TOC, MXF and PIP/TAZ-AMC had similar efficacy in both the PP and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations: MXF: 76.4 % versus PIP/TAZ-AMC: 78.1 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -14.5 %, 9.0 % in the PP population; MXF: 69.9 % versus PIP/TAZ-AMC: 69.1 %; 95 % CI -12.4 %, 12.1 % in the ITT population. The overall bacteriological success rates were similar in both treatment groups (MXF: 71.7 % versus PIP/TAZ-AMC: 71.8 %; 95 % CI -16.9 %, 10.7 %). A similar proportion of patients (ITT population) experienced any adverse events in both treatment groups (MXF: 30.9 % versus PIP/TAZ-AMC: 31.8 %, respectively). Death occurred in three MXF-treated patients and one PIP/TAZ-AMC-treated patient; these were unrelated to the study drugs. CONCLUSION: Moxifloxacin has shown favorable safety and efficacy profiles in DFI patients and could be an alternative antibiotic therapy in the management of DFI. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT00402727.

Randomised clinical trial of moxifloxacin versus ertapenem in complicated intra-abdominal infections: results of the PROMISE study.

Antibiotic therapy for complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) should provide broad-spectrum coverage both Gram-positive and Gram-negative microorganisms. The PROMISE study compared the clinical and bacteriological efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin versus ertapenem for the treatment of cIAIs. This randomised, prospective, double-dummy, double-blind, multicentre trial was designed as a non-inferiority study. The safety and efficacy of 5-14 days of daily intravenous moxifloxacin (400mg) or ertapenem (1g) were compared in patients with cIAIs requiring surgery and parenteral antibiotic therapy. The primary and secondary endpoints included clinical and bacteriological responses at 21-28 days after the end of treatment (TOC), respectively. Of 830 enrolled patients, 699 were efficacy valid. Moxifloxacin was non-inferior to ertapenem regarding clinical success [89.5% (315/352) versus 93.4% (324/347); 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.9%, 0.4%]. There were no significant differences between groups for any of the primary causes or types of cIAI regarding clinical response. Bacteriological success was achieved in 86.5% (257/297) of moxifloxacin-treated patients and 90.2% (249/276) of ertapenem-treated patients (95% CI -9.0%, 1.5%). There were no major differences between groups regarding the frequency or types of organisms eradicated. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was higher with moxifloxacin than ertapenem (P=0.039), however a similar number of drug-related AEs was seen in each group (P=1.000). Wound infections, nausea and increased lipase were the most commonly reported AEs with both agents. The results show that moxifloxacin is a valuable treatment option for a range of community-acquired cIAIs with mild-to-moderate severity.

[Predictive models for ART]. / Les modèles prédictifs de grossesse en AMP.

A predictive model is a mathematical expression estimating the probability of pregnancy, by combining predictive variables, or indicators. Its development requires three successive phases: formulation of the model, its validation--internal then external--and the impact study. Its performance is assessed by its discrimination and its calibration. Numerous models were proposed, for spontaneous pregnancies, IUI and IVF, but with rather poor results, and their external validation was seldom carried out and was mainly inconclusive. The impact study-consisting in ascertaining whether their use improves medical practice--was exceptionally done. The ideal ART predictive model is a "Center specific" model, helping physicians to choose between abstention, IUI and IVF, by providing a reliable cumulative rate of pregnancy for each option. This tool would allow to rationalize the practices, by avoiding premature, late, or hopeless treatments. The model would also allow to compare the performances between ART Centers based on objective criteria. Today the best solution is to adjust the existing models to one's own practice, by considering models validated with variables describing the treated population, whilst adjusting the calculation to the Center's performances.

Simple adaptations to the Templeton model for IVF outcome prediction make it current and clinically useful.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the validity of the Templeton model (TM) in predicting live birth (LB) for a couple starting an IVF/ICSI cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER: A centre-specific model based on the original predictors of the TM may reach a sufficient level of accuracy to be used in every day practice, with a few simple adaptations. WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: The TM seems the best predictive model of LB in IVF. However, previous validations of the TM suggest a lack of discrimination and calibration which means that it is not used in regular practice. We confirm this finding, and argue that such results are predictable, and essentially due to a strong centre effect. We provide evidence that the TM constitutes a useful reference reflecting a high proportion of the patient-mix effect since the parameters of the model remain invariant among centres, but also across various cultures, countries and types of hospitals. The only difference was the intercept value, interpreted as the measurement of the global performance of one centre, in particular, for a population of reference. STUDY DESIGN: The validity of the TM was tested by a retrospective analysis all IVF/ICSI cycles (n = 12 901) in our centre since 2000. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING AND METHODS: All IVF/ICSI cycles were included in the analysis. The model discrimination was evaluated by C-statistics, calculated as the area under the curve of an ROC curve. The TM was then adjusted for our data and additional variables were assessed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Poor calibration and discrimination (C = 0.64) was observed in conformity with previous external validations. Fitting the TM to our centre constituted the first substantial improvement in prediction accuracy of discrimination (C = 0.69) and calibration. We identified an important linear time trend effect and the added value of three other predictors (FSH, smoking habits and BMI) that significantly improved the model (C = 0.71). BIAS, CONFOUNDING AND OTHER REASONS FOR CAUTION: Bias due to missing data handling was assessed through sensitivity analyses. GENERALIZABILITY TO OTHER POPULATIONS: Neither the TM nor any other models based on some centres are directly applicable to other centres. However, the TM constitutes a useful basis to build an accurate centre-specific model. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There were no commercial relationships (i.e. consultancies, patent-licensing agreements) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted manuscript. The objective of this research was not directed toward any treatment effects.

[Influence duration of the use of estrogens beyond the menses in estradiol IVF antagonist programming cycles]. / Influence de la durée de prise d'estrogènes au-delà des règles dans les cycles FIV antagonistes programmés par les estrogènes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate by the birth rate the impact of the number of days of estrogens continued beyond the menses in a four days estradiol IVF antagonist programming cycles. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study from September 2004 to January 2009 among women of age ranging between 25 and 38 years. Four milligrams of provames is prescribed 3 to 5 days before the theorical menses and continued until the beginning day of stimulation, which is distributed equitably between Thursday and Sunday. The birth rate is evaluated according to the number of days of estrogen continued beyond the menses within a limit from 1 to 8. RESULTS: No significant difference appears neither in the duration of stimulation, in the quantity of gonadotrophin, the oocytes pick up, nor in the rate of birth between the groups. CONCLUSION: The programming by estrogens of the antagonist IVF cycles implies a variable number of days of estrogens continued beyond the menses, which does not seem to affect the birth rate.

Clinical efficacy of moxifloxacin versus comparator therapies for community-acquired pneumonia caused by Legionella spp.

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) caused by Legionella spp. following treatment with moxifloxacin or a range of comparator antimicrobial agents. Data were pooled from four sequential I.V./P.O. trials of moxifloxacin in the treatment of CAP. Comparators were ceftriaxone +/- erythromycin, amoxicillin/clavulanate +/- clarithromycin, trovafloxacin, levofloxacin, or ceftriaxone + levofloxacin. Legionella infection was diagnosed by culture, urine antigen testing and/or serology. Clinical success rates for the efficacy-valid (per protocol) populations were recorded at the test-of-cure visit (5-30 days post-therapy). Severity of CAP was determined using the modified American Thoracic Society criteria.Of 1786 efficacy-valid patients, 33 (1.8%) had documented infection with Legionella spp. (moxifloxacin: n=13; comparator: n=20). Of these, 30 cases were identified by serology and/or urine antigen detection and 3 by respiratory culture. The success rate of moxifloxacin vs. comparator therapy was 92.3% vs. 80.0% for the I.V./P.O. trials.Sequential (I.V./P.O.) moxifloxacin demonstrated clinical efficacy that was at least as good as that of comparator treatments for the treatment of CAP due to Legionella.

Efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin in uncomplicated pelvic inflammatory disease: the MONALISA study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin versus levofloxacin plus metronidazole in uncomplicated pelvic inflammatory disease (uPID) in Asia. DESIGN: Prospective, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study. SETTING: Multicentre, multinational study in the inpatient and/or outpatient setting. POPULATION: Women (aged ≥18 years) with uPID (defined as PID with no pelvic or tubo-ovarian abscess on pelvic ultrasonography and at laparoscopic examination) and not requiring intravenous treatment. METHODS: Women received a 14-day course of either oral moxifloxacin, 400 mg once daily, or oral levofloxacin, 500 mg once daily, plus oral metronidazole, 500 mg twice daily. Additionally, a single dose of ceftriaxone, 250 mg intramuscularly, was administered to women who had a positive screening test for Neisseria gonorrhoeae. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary measure of efficacy was clinical response at test-of-cure (TOC) (7-14 days after the last dose of study drug) in the per-protocol population. Non-inferiority of moxifloxacin to the comparator regimen was demonstrated if lower limit of 95% CI was >-15%. Other measures were clinical response during therapy and at 4-week follow up, microbiological response at TOC, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 460 women were randomised to the study. For the primary measure of efficacy (clinical cure at TOC), moxifloxacin was noninferior to levofloxacin plus metronidazole (moxifloxacin: 152/194, 78.4%; comparator 155/190, 81.6%; 95% CI -10.7 to +4.9). The most commonly isolated pathogens at baseline included Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Peptostreptococcus spp., Proteus mirabilis, Streptococcus agalactiae and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Bacteriological success rates were high and comparable between treatment arms (microbiologically valid populations, moxifloxacin 27/30, 90.0%; comparator 22/26, 84.6%; 95% CI -12.7 to +20.3). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Moxifloxacin monotherapy, 400 mg once daily for 14 days, is an effective and well-tolerated oral treatment for women with uPID.

[Efficiency of antagonist IVF cycle programming by estrogens]. / Efficacité de la programmation des cycles FIV en antagonistes par les estrogènes.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the efficiency of estradiol programming in In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) with antagonists by comparing with classical long luteal agonist protocol. PATIENTS AND METHODS: It is a prospective randomized study, comparing 426 cycles in the arm estradiol antagonist with 412 cycles in the arm long agonist. Estradiol 4 mg/day begins on the 25th day of the previous cycle and continues during the menses until the first day of the stimulation which is from Thursday to Sunday whatever the beginning of the menses. The luteal protocol use Decapeptyl 0,1mg which begins on the 20th day of the previous cycle. RESULTS: Our two populations are similar. No pick-up has been done on Sunday. We have got significantly less oocytes and embryos in estradiol-antagonist (6,8+/-5,3 vs 7,6+/-5,7) and (3,7+/-3,2 vs 4,1+/-3,6) respectively. The ongoing pregnancy rate is comparable in the two groups: 28,6 % for estradiol antagonist 27,9 % for agonist for the whole population and 37 % vs 34,8 % respectively when at least one top embryo was transferred. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Programming antagonist cycles with estradiol allows the organization of the center; it is easy to implement and seems to give results as good as a long agonist protocol.

Efficacy and safety of sequential intravenous/oral moxifloxacin vs intravenous/oral amoxicillin/clavulanate for complicated skin and skin structure infections.

BACKGROUND: Complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) are an important healthcare concern worldwide, as they can be life-threatening and challenging to treat. cSSSIs are normally managed using a combination of surgical intervention and prompt antibiotic use. New therapeutic options, including novel antibiotics, are required to improve outcomes in terms of duration of illness and to reduce the consumption of healthcare resources. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multinational clinical study comparing sequential intravenous/oral (iv/po) moxifloxacin, 400 mg once daily, and iv amoxicillin/clavulanate, 1,000 mg/ 200 mg three times daily followed by po amoxicillin/ clavulanate, 500 mg/125 mg three times daily, for 7-21 days in hospitalized patients. RESULTS: A total of 804 patients were enrolled (mean age 51.8 years). The most common clinical diagnosis was complicated erysipelas (32.1% moxifloxacin; 30.0% amoxicillin/ clavulanate) and major abscess (31.1% moxifloxacin; 29.3% amoxicillin/clavulanate). Overall clinical success rates at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit (14-28 days post-treatment) for the per-protocol population (primary efficacy variable) were 80.6% (254/315) for patients in the moxifloxacin group and 84.5% (268/317) for those receiving amoxicillin/clavulanate (95% confidence interval [CI] -9.41, 2.18). Similar results were obtained for the intention-to-treat population (95% CI -7.56, 4.31). In both treatment groups, the highest clinical success rates were recorded for patients with complicated erysipelas, major abscess, surgical wound infection, and cellulitis. The lowest clinical cure rates were reported for diabetic foot infection and necrotizing fasciitis. In the microbiologically evaluable population, the bacteriological success rate (eradication and presumed eradication) was 76.0% (127/ 167) in the moxifloxacin group and 81.4% (140/172) in the amoxicillin/clavulanate group (95% CI -12.96, 4.41). Staphylococcus aureus (137 isolates) and Escherichia coli (50 isolates) were the most frequently isolated skin pathogens. Adverse event rates were comparable between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with sequential iv/po moxifloxacin monotherapy once daily is clinically comparable to that with iv/po amoxicillin/clavulanate three times daily in the management of cSSSIs. Moxifloxacin's simple dose regimen offers an advantage over amoxicillin/clavulanate and represents a valuable addition to current antibiotic regimens used in the treatment of cSSSIs.

Moxifloxacin versus ofloxacin plus metronidazole in uncomplicated pelvic inflammatory disease: results of a multicentre, double blind, randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: This multinational, multicentre, prospective, randomised, double blind, parallel group, non-inferiority study compared the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin monotherapy with ofloxacin plus metronidazole in women with uncomplicated pelvic inflammatory disease. METHODS: Women from hospitals throughout 13 countries received a 14 day course of either oral moxifloxacin, 400 mg once daily (n = 384), or oral ofloxacin, 400 mg twice daily plus oral metronidazole, 500 mg twice daily (n = 365). RESULTS: Of the 741 patients in the intent to treat (ITT) population, 564 (74.2%) were valid for the per protocol (PP) analyses; 112 (19.9%) of these were included in the microbiologically valid population (MBV). Clinical resolution rates in the PP population at the test of cure visit (TOC, 5-24 days post-therapy, primary efficacy end point) were 90.2% (248/275) for moxifloxacin and 90.7% (262/289) for ofloxacin plus metronidazole (95% CI: -5.7% to 4.0%). At follow up (28-42 days post-therapy), resolution rates in the PP population were 85.8% (236/275) and 87.9% (254/289) for moxifloxacin and comparator, respectively (95% CI: -8.0% to 3.1%). Bacteriological success rates in the MBV population at TOC were 87.5% (49/56) for moxifloxacin and 82.1% (46/56) for comparator (95% CI: -8.3% to 18.8%). Against Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae, bacteriological success rates with moxifloxacin were 88.5% (23/26) and 100% (13/13) and for comparator 85.7% (18/21) and 81.8% (18/22), respectively. Drug related adverse events occurred less frequently with moxifloxacin (22.5% (85/378)) versus the comparator (30.9% (112/363)) (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In uncomplicated PID, once daily moxifloxacin monotherapy was clinically and bacteriologically as efficacious as twice daily ofloxacin plus metronidazole therapy and was associated with fewer drug related adverse events.

Antibiotic treatment and factors influencing short and long term outcomes of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis.

BACKGROUND: The MOSAIC study compared moxifloxacin with three standard antibiotic regimens in patients with Anthonisen type 1 acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB). Further exploratory analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors of short and long term clinical outcomes and their value for clinical research. METHODS: Outpatients aged > or =45 years were screened between AECB episodes, randomised to treatment upon presenting with an AECB, assessed 7-10 days after study treatment, and followed monthly until a new AECB or for up to 9 months. Logistic regression assessed the predictive factors for clinical cure (return to pre-AECB status) and clinical success (cure or improvement), and a stepwise Cox regression model time to a composite event (failure of study treatment, new AECB, or further antibiotic treatment for AECB). RESULTS: In multivariate analyses, clinical cure was positively influenced by treatment with moxifloxacin (odds ratio (OR) 1.49; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.04) while cardiopulmonary disease (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.90), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) <50% predicted (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.67), and > or =4 AECBs in the previous year (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.97) predicted a poorer outcome. For clinical success, treatment with moxifloxacin had a positive influence (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.41) while cardiopulmonary disease (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68) and use of acute bronchodilators (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.84) predicted a poorer outcome. The occurrence of the composite event was influenced by antibiotic treatment (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98), age > or =65 years (HR 1.22; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.47), FEV1<50% predicted (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.53), > or =4 AECBs in previous year (HR 1.63; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.99), and acute bronchodilator use (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.87). For the composite event the beneficial effect of moxifloxacin was primarily seen in patients aged > or =65 years. CONCLUSION: Despite selection of a homogeneous population of patients with chronic bronchitis, between group differences relating to antibiotic treatment could still be confounded by factors related to medical history, severity of disease, and use of concomitant medications. The design of future clinical trials should take these factors into account.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin and trovafloxacin for the treatment of acute, bacterial maxillary sinusitis in adults.

In this multicentre, multinational, comparative, double-blind clinical trial, out-patients with both symptoms and radiographic evidence of acute sinusitis were randomly assigned to receive either a seven-day, once daily (o.d.) oral regimen of moxifloxacin (400 mg) or a 10-day o.d. oral regimen of trovafloxacin (200 mg). Among 452 patients considered valid for clinical efficacy, moxifloxacin treatment was found to be statistically equivalent to trovafloxacin (96.9 per cent vs 92.1 per cent -95 per cent CI = 0.6 per cent; 8.9 per cent) at the seven to 10 days post-therapy assessment. At follow-up, the success rate in the moxifloxacin group was 94.9 per cent and that for the trovafloxacin group was 97.6 per cent (95 per cent CI = -4.9 per cent; 1.3 per cent). The predominant causative organisms were Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae and Staphylococcus aureus followed by Enterobacteriaceae and Moraxella catarrhalis. The bacteriological success rate at the post-therapy evaluation was similar in both treatment groups: 94.4 per cent and 90.1 per cent in the moxifloxacin and trovafloxacin groups respectively (95 per cent CI = -3.0 per cent; 11.9 per cent). Only three of the 103 baseline isolated pathogens still persisted in the moxifloxacin group, whereas there were 10 of the 121 isolates that failed to respond in the trovafloxacin treatment group. At least one drug-related event was reported by 16.9 per cent of the moxifloxacin-treated patients and by 22.3 per cent of those who received trovafloxacin. CNS events such as dizziness and vertigo were reported more than five times more often in patients receiving trovafloxacin than in the moxifloxacin group. Trovafloxacin recipients were also more than twice as likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than moxifloxacin-treated patients. Overall, moxifloxacin was at least as effective clinically and bacteriologically as trovafloxacin and better tolerated.

Diffusion of oral and intravenous 400 mg once-daily moxifloxacin into lung tissue at pharmacokinetic steady-state.

The degree of penetration of an antibiotic into the infection site is an important factor for its therapeutic efficacy, particularly in respiratory tract infections. In the present study, we examined the lung tissue diffusion of moxifloxacin at a dose of 400 mg administered intravenously or orally once-daily, and the results were correlated to microbiological data to estimate the clinical efficacy of moxifloxacin in lower community-acquired respiratory infections. This was a prospective, randomized, parallel-group trial, open-label, single-center study. Patients undergoing lung surgery for bronchial cancer which necessitates the removal of an anatomical piece of lung tissue were randomized into twelve treatment groups, dependent upon the time of surgery and the moxifloxacin formulation, i.v. or oral, administered. During surgery, one blood sample was taken at the time of tissue collection to determine moxifloxacin plasma concentration. At the same time, tissue samples were taken by pulmonary exeresis. A validated new high performance liquid chromatography assay was used to determine moxifloxacin concentrations in plasma and lung tissue. A total of 49 patients (25 for i.v. administration, 24 for oral administration, 44 men and 5 women, mean age, 61 years, mean body weight, 72 kg, mean creatinine clearance was 84 ml/min/1.73 m2) were enrolled. The mean +/- SD steady-state moxifloxacin ratios between lung and plasma concentrations were respectively: 3.53 +/- 1.89 and 4.36 +/- 1.48 for i.v. and oral administration. The mean steady-state moxifloxacin maximal lung concentrations (Cmax) were respectively 12.37 microg/g and 16.21 microg/g for i.v. and oral administration. Moxifloxacin both intravenously and orally exhibits high penetration in lung tissue, with tissue concentrations far above the MIC90s for most of the susceptible pathogens commonly involved, thus underlining its suitability for the treatment of community-acquired, lower respiratory tract infections.

A prospective, multicentre study of moxifloxacin concentrations in the sinus mucosa tissue of patients undergoing elective surgery of the sinus.

A pharmacokinetic study was carried out to determine moxifloxacin concentrations in sinus tissue, after oral moxifloxacin 400 mg once daily for 5 days to patients with chronic sinusitis, undergoing elective sinus surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to one of seven treatment groups, in which tissues were sampled 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 24 or 36 h post-dose. A control group with non-infected nasal polyps was also included. Forty-eight patients (13 female, 35 male, mean age 47.1 years) were allocated to one of each active treatment group (n = 42) or to the control group (n = 6). Tissue and plasma samples were taken simultaneously and stored frozen until assayed by HPLC. Thirty-nine patients were fully valid for pharmacokinetic analysis. The geometric mean moxifloxacin plasma concentration increased from 2.32 mg/L at 2 h to a maximum of 3.37 mg/L at 4 h post-dose, decreasing to 0.37 mg/L at 36 h post-dose. The moxifloxacin concentration in sinus mucosa was consistently greater than that in plasma being 4.56-5.73 mg/kg from 2 to 6 h and 2.81-1.25 mg/kg from 12 to 36 h post-dose. The elimination rates in plasma and sinus tissues were similar. The tissue/plasma ratio was c. 200% between 2 and 6 h, and up to 328.9% at 36 h. Results were similar whatever the site of tissue sampling (maxillary sinus, anterior ethmoid sinus or nasal polyps). Tissue levels exceeded the MIC(90) of all pathogens commonly causing acute sinusitis (e.g. 5-30 x MIC for Streptococcus pneumoniae: 0.25 mg/L). These results sup-port the use of moxifloxacin 400 mg once daily as a regimen for the treatment of sinus infections.

Oral moxifloxacin vs high-dosage amoxicillin in the treatment of mild-to-moderate, community-acquired, suspected pneumococcal pneumonia in adults.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Comparison of the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin vs amoxicillin for treatment of mild-to-moderate, suspected pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adult patients. DESIGN: Multinational, multicenter, double-blind, randomized study. SETTING: Eighty-two centers in 20 countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hong Kong, Hungary, Lithuania, Mexico, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uruguay). PATIENTS: Four hundred eleven adults (inpatients or outpatients) with suspected pneumococcal CAP. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization 1:1 to moxifloxacin, 400 mg/d, or amoxicillin, 1,000 g tid, for 10 days. RESULTS: Primary efficacy parameter was clinical response, 3 to 5 days after therapy (end of therapy [EOT]) in the per protocol (PP) population (362 patients). The clinical success rate in the PP population was 91.5% (moxifloxacin) and 89.7% (amoxicillin; two-sided 95% confidence interval, -4.2 to 7.8%). The clinical cure rate in patients with proven pneumococcal pneumonia was similar in both treatment groups (87.8%). The bacteriologic success rate in 136 bacteriologically evaluable patients at the EOT was 89.7% (moxifloxacin) and 82.4% (amoxicillin). The bacteriologic success rate against Streptococcus pneumoniae was 89.6% (moxifloxacin) and 84.8% (amoxicillin). The frequency of adverse events was comparable in both treatment groups. Digestive symptoms were the most common drug-related adverse events in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Moxifloxacin was statistically at least as effective as high-dose amoxicillin for treatment of mild-to-moderate, suspected pneumococcal CAP. Moxifloxacin may be an alternative for empiric CAP treatment, especially in areas where multidrug resistance in S pneumoniae is sufficiently prevalent to preclude routine penicillin.