Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Moxifloxacin and Levofloxacin in a Short Standardised Rifampicin Resistant TB Regimen: A STREAM 2 Secondary Analysis.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.3390/tropicalmed9090211
Stella M Fabiane, Chen-Yuan Chiang, Sarah K Meredith, Meera Gurumurthy, Adamu Bayissa, Andrew J Nunn, Ruth L Goodall
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Moxifloxacin and Levofloxacin in a Short Standardised Rifampicin Resistant TB Regimen: A STREAM 2 Secondary Analysis.","authors":"Stella M Fabiane, Chen-Yuan Chiang, Sarah K Meredith, Meera Gurumurthy, Adamu Bayissa, Andrew J Nunn, Ruth L Goodall","doi":"10.3390/tropicalmed9090211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>(1) Background: The World Health Organisation (WHO) categorises moxifloxacin and levofloxacin as Group A drugs, which should be prioritised in the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. We compare their relative efficacy and safety using data from the STREAM trial; (2) Methods: Marginal structural models were used to balance differences in the baseline characteristics of participants receiving the STREAM control regimen containing either moxifloxacin or levofloxacin as this was not a randomised comparison. The difference in proportions between regimens was estimated for favourable outcome, any grade 3/4 adverse event, QTcF increase to ≥500 ms, QTcF increase from baseline by at least 60 ms, and any grade 3/4 adverse event excluding QT events, using weighted analyses; (3) Results: In efficacy analyses (<i>n</i> = 123), the weighted risk difference (moxifloxacin-levofloxacin, wRD) for a favourable outcome was -0.045 (-0.213, 0.123), <i>p</i> = 0.60. Similarly, estimates from the safety analyses (<i>n</i> = 127) showed no evidence of a difference between the fluoroquinolones, other than a suggestion of fewer QTcF increases from baseline on levofloxacin (wRD 0.160 (-0.026, 0.346), <i>p</i> = 0.091); (4) Conclusions: In this small dataset, we found no statistically significant difference in key efficacy or safety outcomes between the moxifloxacin- and levofloxacin-containing regimens; there was a suggestion that QTcF increases from baseline were fewer on levofloxacin.</p>","PeriodicalId":23330,"journal":{"name":"Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease","volume":"9 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11435486/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed9090211","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

(1) Background: The World Health Organisation (WHO) categorises moxifloxacin and levofloxacin as Group A drugs, which should be prioritised in the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. We compare their relative efficacy and safety using data from the STREAM trial; (2) Methods: Marginal structural models were used to balance differences in the baseline characteristics of participants receiving the STREAM control regimen containing either moxifloxacin or levofloxacin as this was not a randomised comparison. The difference in proportions between regimens was estimated for favourable outcome, any grade 3/4 adverse event, QTcF increase to ≥500 ms, QTcF increase from baseline by at least 60 ms, and any grade 3/4 adverse event excluding QT events, using weighted analyses; (3) Results: In efficacy analyses (n = 123), the weighted risk difference (moxifloxacin-levofloxacin, wRD) for a favourable outcome was -0.045 (-0.213, 0.123), p = 0.60. Similarly, estimates from the safety analyses (n = 127) showed no evidence of a difference between the fluoroquinolones, other than a suggestion of fewer QTcF increases from baseline on levofloxacin (wRD 0.160 (-0.026, 0.346), p = 0.091); (4) Conclusions: In this small dataset, we found no statistically significant difference in key efficacy or safety outcomes between the moxifloxacin- and levofloxacin-containing regimens; there was a suggestion that QTcF increases from baseline were fewer on levofloxacin.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
莫西沙星和左氧氟沙星在利福平耐药结核病短期标准化治疗方案中的疗效和安全性比较:STREAM 2 二次分析
(1) 背景:世界卫生组织(WHO)将莫西沙星和左氧氟沙星列为A类药物,应优先用于治疗耐利福平结核病。我们利用 STREAM 试验的数据比较了它们的相对疗效和安全性;(2)方法:边际结构模型用于平衡接受含有莫西沙星或左氧氟沙星的 STREAM 对照方案的参与者的基线特征差异,因为这不是随机比较。采用加权分析法估算了有利结果、任何3/4级不良事件、QTcF升高至≥500毫秒、QTcF比基线升高至少60毫秒以及任何3/4级不良事件(不包括QT事件)的方案间比例差异;(3) 结果:在疗效分析中(n = 123),有利结果的加权风险差(莫西沙星-来氟沙星,wRD)为-0.045 (-0.213, 0.123),p = 0.60。同样,安全性分析(n = 127)的估计值也没有显示氟喹诺酮类药物之间存在差异,只是显示左氧氟沙星的 QTcF 从基线开始上升较少(wRD 0.160 (-0.026, 0.346),p = 0.091);(4)结论:在这个小型数据集中,我们发现含莫西沙星和含左氧氟沙星的治疗方案在主要疗效或安全性结果方面没有统计学意义上的显著差异;有迹象表明,左氧氟沙星治疗方案的 QTcF 从基线开始升高的情况较少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.30%
发文量
353
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of the Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) Technique in Swab Samples from Ulcerated Cutaneous Lesions Compared with Conventional Diagnostic Methods for American Tegumentary Leishmaniasis in Patients Treated at a Reference Center in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. HIV/AIDS Mortality in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, 2000-2023: Trends, Age-Sex Composition, and a Persistent Provincial Burden. Malaria Coinfections Worldwide: An Umbrella Systematic Review of Prevalence and Epidemiological Patterns. Evaluation of Bait Acceptance and Immune Response in a Local Dog Population During an Oral Rabies Vaccination Field Study in Cambodia. Beyond Cure: A Scoping Review of Post-Tuberculosis Long-Term Health Outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1