Advertisement

Drug Investigation

, Volume 7, Issue 6, pp 299–314 | Cite as

Clinical Efficacy of Roxithromycin in the Treatment of Adults with Upper and Lower Respiratory Tract Infection Due to Haemophilus influenzae

A Meta-Analysis of 12 Clinical Studies
  • Bruce C. Cooper
  • P. R. Mullins
  • M. R. Jones
  • S. D. R. Lang
Original Research Article

Summary

12 clinical studies on the use of roxithromycin 300mg daily in adult respiratory tract infection were subject to meta-analysis. Nine of the studies were comparative and 5 were from the published literature. Auditable individual patient data were reviewed for 11 of the 12 studies.

4297 patients with respiratory tract infection were enrolled in these studies and 384 (8.9%) had Haemophilus influenzae identified as a causative pathogen. Of these patients, 331 were treated with roxithromycin: 268 with 150mg twice daily and 63 with 300mg once daily. 53 patients were treated with comparator antibiotics. The primary analysis was undertaken on 300 cases where H. influenzae was the sole pathogen identified: 253 of these cases were treated with roxithromycin and 47 with comparator antibiotics.

On a ‘per protocol’ (PPA) basis, the overall satisfactory clinical and bacteriological response for all roxithromycin regimens was 87% [95% confidence interval (CI), 82 to 92%] and 83%, respectively. Clinical response on an ‘intention-to-treat’ (ITT) basis was 80% (CI: 75 to 85%) excluding studies enrolling only hospitalised patients, and 78% (CI: 73 to 83%) for all cases. Clinical response (ITT) was marginally lower at 76% (CI: 72 to 82%) if mixed infections were included.

Comparator antibiotics were amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, cefaclor, doxycycline, erythromycin and cotrimoxazole. A satisfactory clinical response (ITT) was obtained in 70% of cases treated with comparator antibiotics (CI: 57 to 83%). Roxithromycin demonstrated a response rate similar to that of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and significantly better than erythromycin (p = 0.03). Although the numbers were small, roxithromycin was significantly more effective for the treatment of pneumonia in the directly comparative studies, with 93% success, compared with only 53% for the comparator antibiotics (p = 0.02). The response rate was similar to mat reported for clarithromycin.

Current minimum inhibitory concentration and disc zone susceptibility breakpoints of ≤1mg/L and ≥ 22mm underestimate the clinical efficacy of roxithromycin against H. influenzae. A disc zone diameter susceptibility breakpoint of ≥ 10mm is predictive of a successful outcome in 78% of cases (95% CI: 71 to 85%). This correlates well with recent recommendations to adopt susceptibility breakpoints of ≥ 10mm and ≤ 16 mg/L when using National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) methodology.

The results of this analysis support the empirical use of roxithromycin in respiratory tract infections where H. influenzae is a potential pathogen. Future clinical studies of respiratory tract infection with roxithromycin should evaluate these new breakpoints.

Keywords

Drug Invest Lower Respiratory Tract Infection Minimum Inhibitory Concen Roxithromycin Cefaclor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barlam T, Neu HC. In vitro comparison of the activity of RU 28965, a new macrolide, with that of erythromycin against aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 25: 529–531, 1984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergogne-Berezin E. The tissue distribution of roxithromycin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 20(Suppl. B): 113–120, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanc F, D’Enfert J, Feissenger S, Lenoir A, Renault M, et al. An evaluation of the tolerance of roxithromycin in adults. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 20(Suppl. B): 179–183, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown RB, Sands ML, Morris AB. Community acquired pneumonia caused by mixed aerobic pathogens. Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice 2: 32–39, 1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlier MB, Zenebergh A, Tulkens PM. Cellular uptake and subcellular distribution of roxithromycin and erythromycin in phagocytic cells. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 20(Suppl. B): 47–56, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dabernat H, Delmas C, Lareng MB. In vitro activity of roxithromycin against Branhamella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influenzae. British Journal of Clinical Practice 55 (Suppl.): 15–16, 1988Google Scholar
  7. Erwin ME, Jones RN. Roxithromycin in vitro susceptibility testing of Haemophilus influenzae by NCCLS methods. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 32: 652–654, 1993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernandez PB, Hardy D, Bailer R, McDonald E, Pintar J, et al. Susceptibility testing of macrolide antibiotics against Haemophilus influenzae and correlation of in vitro results with in vivo efficacy in a mouse septicaemia model. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 31: 1243–1250, 1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenland S. Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiological literature. Epidemiologic Reviews 9: 1–30, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones RN. Disk diffusion susceptibility testing of macrolides: the interpretive criteria. In Bryskier et al. (Eds) Macrolides: Chemistry, pharmacy and clinical uses, chapter 12, Arnette Blackwell, 1993Google Scholar
  11. Karalus NC, Garrett JE, Lang SDR, Leng RA, Kostalas GN, et al. Roxithromycin 150mg bid versus amoxycillin 500mg/clavulanic acid 125mg tid for the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections in general practice. Infection, in press, 1994Google Scholar
  12. Levine J. Trial assessment procedure scale (TAPS). In Spilker (Ed.) Guide to clinical trials, chapter 103, pp. 780–786, Raven Press, 1991Google Scholar
  13. Lousbergh D, Jochems G, Everaert L, Puttemans M. Roxithromycin versus amoxicillin-clavulanic acid in the treatment of respiratory tract infections. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 15: 91S–95S, 1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moxon ER, Wilson R. The role of H. influenzae in the pathogenesis of pneumonia. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 13(Suppl. 6): S518–S527, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Neu HC, Wilson APR, Gruneberg RN. Amoxycillin/clavulanic acid: a review of its efficacy in over 38,500 patients from 1979 to 1992. Journal of Chemotherapy 5: 67–93, 1993PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Nicolleti G, Pellegrino MB, Blandino G, Speciale A. In vitro activity of RU28965, a new macrolide, in comparison with erythromycin and ampicillin against Haemophilus species. In Macrolides: a review with an outlook on future developments, pp. 118–120, Ex-cerpta Medica, 1986Google Scholar
  17. Nilsen OG, Aamo T, Zahlsen H, Svarva P. Macrolide pharmacokinetics and dose scheduling of roxithromycin. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 15: 71S–76S, 1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Olsson-Liljequist B, and the Subcommittee on Standardisation of Methodology, Swedish Reference Group for Antibiotics. Susceptibility of bacteria to roxithromycin and definition of interpretive criteria based on a Swedish multicentre study. Poster No. 771,17th ICC, Berlin, 1991Google Scholar
  19. Paulsen O, Christensson BA, Hebelka M, Ljungberg B, Nilsson-Ehle I, et al. Efficacy and tolerance of roxithromycin in comparison with erythromycin stearate in patients with lower respiratory tract infections. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 24: 219–225, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pechere J-C. Clinical evaluation of roxithromycin 300mg once daily as an alternative to 150mg twice daily. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 15: 111S–118S, 1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peters DH, Clissold SP. Clarithromycin. A review of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential. Drugs 44: 117–164, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peterslund NA, Hanninen P, Schreiner A, Black FT, Hulten V. Roxithromycin in the treatment of pneumonia. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 23: 737–741, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Poirier O. Comparative study of clarithromycin and roxithromycin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 27(Suppl. A): 109–116, 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Reynolds HY. Chronic bronchitis and acute infectious exacerbations. In Mandell et al. (Eds) Principles and practice of infectious disease, chapter 51, pp. 531–535, 3rd ed., Churchill Livingstone, 1990Google Scholar
  25. Scott WG, Tilyard MW, Dovey SM, Cooper B, Scott HM. Roxithromycin versus cefaclor in lower respiratory tract infection. PharmacoEconomics 4: 122–130, 1993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steigbigel NH. Erythromycin, lincomycin and clindamycin. In Mandell et al. (Eds) Principles and practice of infectious disease, chapter 26, pp. 308–317, 3rd ed., Churchill Livingstone, 1990Google Scholar
  27. Tulkens PM, Scorneaux B. Activity of roxithromycin against macrophage associated Haemophilus influenzae. Poster No. 216, 16th ICC, Jerusalem, 1989Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce C. Cooper
    • 1
  • P. R. Mullins
    • 2
  • M. R. Jones
    • 3
  • S. D. R. Lang
    • 4
  1. 1.Delpharm LimitedAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of Auckland, and Sage ConsultantsAucklandNew Zealand
  3. 3.Wellington HospitalWellingtonNew Zealand
  4. 4.Middlemore HospitalAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations