Treatment of severe pneumonia in hospitalized patients: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing intravenous ciprofloxacin with imipenem-cilastatin. The Severe Pneumonia Study Group

M P Fink, D R Snydman, M S Niederman, K V Leeper Jr, R H Johnson, S O Heard, R G Wunderink, J W Caldwell, J J Schentag, G A Siami, M P Fink, D R Snydman, M S Niederman, K V Leeper Jr, R H Johnson, S O Heard, R G Wunderink, J W Caldwell, J J Schentag, G A Siami

Abstract

Intravenously administered ciprofloxacin was compared with imipenem for the treatment of severe pneumonia. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial, which included an intent-to-treat analysis, a total of 405 patients with severe pneumonia were enrolled. The mean APACHE II score was 17.6, 79% of the patients required mechanical ventilation, and 78% had nosocomial pneumonia. A subgroup of 205 patients (98 ciprofloxacin-treated patients and 107 imipenem-treated patients) were evaluable for the major efficacy endpoints. Patients were randomized to receive intravenous treatment with either ciprofloxacin (400 mg every 8 h) or imipenem (1,000 mg every 8 h), and doses were adjusted for renal function. The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were bacteriological and clinical responses at 3 to 7 days after completion of therapy. Ciprofloxacin-treated patients had a higher bacteriological eradication rate than did imipenem-treated patients (69 versus 59%; 95% confidence interval of -0.6%, 26.2%; P = 0.069) and also a significantly higher clinical response rate (69 versus 56%; 95% confidence interval of 3.5%, 28.5%; P = 0.021). The greatest difference between ciprofloxacin and imipenem was in eradication of members of the family Enterobacteriaceae (93 versus 65%; P = 0.009). Stepwise logistic regression analysis demonstrated the following factors to be associated with bacteriological eradication: absence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P < 0.01), higher weight (P < 0.01), a low APACHE II score (P = 0.03), and treatment with ciprofloxacin (P = 0.04). When P. aeruginosa was recovered from initial respiratory tract cultures, failure to achieve bacteriological eradication and development of resistance during therapy were common in both treatment groups (67 and 33% for ciprofloxacin and 59 and 53% for imipenem, respectively). Seizures were observed more frequently with imipenem than with ciprofloxacin (6 versus 1%; P = 0.028). These results demonstrate that in patients with severe pneumonia, monotherapy with ciprofloxacin is at least equivalent to monotherapy with imipenem in terms of bacteriological eradication and clinical response. For both treatment groups, the presence of P. aeruginosa had a negative impact on treatment success. Seizures were more common with imipenem than with ciprofloxacin. Monotherapy for severe pneumonia is a safe and effective initial strategy but may need to be modified if P. aeruginosa is suspected or recovered from patients.

References

    1. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1989 Dec;8(12):1102-10
    1. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988 Jun;21(6):795-9
    1. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1992 Jul;15(5):441-7
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1989 Aug;140(2):306-10
    1. Am J Epidemiol. 1985 Feb;121(2):159-67
    1. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991 Oct;39(10):979-85
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992 Jan;145(1):31-5
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1989 Apr;139(4):877-84
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1988 Jul;138(1):117-20
    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987 Oct;31(10):1491-6
    1. Am J Med. 1985 Jun 7;78(6A):104-9
    1. Chemotherapy. 1989;35 Suppl 1:89-100
    1. Am J Med. 1989 Nov;87(5):540-6
    1. Clin Pharm. 1991 Jan;10(1):49-55
    1. Chest. 1988 Feb;93(2):318-24
    1. Am J Med. 1989 Nov 30;87(5A):221S-224S
    1. Chest. 1992 Feb;101(2):458-63
    1. S Afr Med J. 1988 Oct 15;74(8):390-2
    1. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1989 Oct;2(4):378-424
    1. Am J Med. 1985 Aug 9;79(2A):32-6
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1988 Jul;138(1):110-6
    1. Clin Infect Dis. 1992 Nov;15 Suppl 1:S62-88
    1. Infection. 1991;19 Suppl 6:S320-5
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1988 Feb;137(2):253-5
    1. J Hosp Infect. 1990 Apr;15 Suppl A:61-4
    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982 Jan;21(1):180-7
    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1984 Apr;25(4):518-21
    1. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1992 Jan;15(1):85-8
    1. J Intensive Care Med. 1991 Jul-Aug;6(4):151-2
    1. Chest. 1984 Jan;85(1):39-44
    1. Am J Epidemiol. 1989 Jun;129(6):1258-67
    1. Am J Infect Control. 1984 Aug;12(4):233-8
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1991 Aug;144(2):312-8
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719-48
    1. Am J Med. 1989 Nov 30;87(5A):116S-118S
    1. Arch Intern Med. 1989 Oct;149(10):2269-73
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1990 Aug;142(2):369-73
    1. J Intensive Care Med. 1992 Jan-Feb;7(1):24-35
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1986 May;133(5):792-6
    1. Am J Med. 1988 Jul 25;85(1A):44-8
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1984 Nov;130(5):924-9
    1. Am J Med. 1989 Nov 30;87(5A):92S-97S
    1. Intensive Care Med. 1988;14(1):30-3
    1. DICP. 1991 Apr;25(4):351-4
    1. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1989 Jan;8(1):61-8
    1. Clin Infect Dis. 1992 Nov;15 Suppl 1:S5-32
    1. Crit Care Med. 1985 Oct;13(10):818-29
    1. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1987 Mar;21(3):272-6

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner