Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16641447›Full record

Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2006

Clinical and bacteriological efficacy in treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis with cefditoren-pivoxil versus cefuroxime-axetil.

Jose-Luis Alvarez-Sala, Peter Kardos, Jesús Martínez-Beltrán, Pilar Coronel, Lorenzo Aguilar

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Antibiotics for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jose-Luis Alvarez-SalaMicrobiology Department, School of Medicine, Universidad Complutense, Avda. Complutense s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Peter Kardos
Jesús Martínez-Beltrán
Pilar Coronel
Lorenzo Aguilar
German Red Cross · DEHospital Clínico San Carlos · ESHospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal · ESMeiji Pharma Spain · ESUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial was performed comparing 200 mg of cefditoren-pivoxil twice daily for 5 days versus standard cefuroxime-axetil treatment (250 mg twice daily for 10 days) of Anthonisen type I or II acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. The modified intention-to-treat population included 541 patients. Patients were assessed during therapy, at the end of therapy (visit 3; primary evaluation time point), and at follow-up. Clinical success was obtained in 79.9% of the 264 patients included in the cefditoren-pivoxil group and in 82.7% of the 277 patients in the cefuroxime-axetil group (treatment difference, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.8, -9.7 to 3.6%). Treatment clinical effects were more clearly seen in sputum signs (decreasing volume and purulence from approximately 80% to approximately 10% of the patients). At the end of treatment, exploratory analysis of the per-pathogen bacteriological response showed 72.8% (of 103 isolates) in the cefditoren-pivoxil arm versus 67.0% (of 94 isolates) in the cefuroxime-axetil group (treatment difference; 95% CI: 5.8, -7.0 to 18.6%). Globally, the per-pathogen bacteriological response correlated well with clinical success: 83.5% of 164 baseline isolates from patients with a clinical success were eradicated or presumably eradicated, in contrast to only 3% of 33 isolates from patients with a clinical failure. Clinical success in patients infected with Haemophilus influenzae, the most frequent isolate, was 84% (of 50) and 82.5% (of 40) (treatment difference; 95% CI: 1.5, -14 to 17%) in the cefditoren-pivoxil versus the cefuroxime-axetil group. Although this study does not prove that either drug is better than a placebo, cefditoren-pivoxil and the standard 10-day cefuroxime-axetil course had similar point estimates of success in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAdministration, OralAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsBronchitis, ChronicCefuroximeCephalosporinsConfidence IntervalsDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHaemophilus influenzaeHumansMaleMiddle AgedSputumAnti-Bacterial Agentscefditoren pivoxilCefuroximecefuroxime axetilCephalosporins

Identifiers

PMID16641447
PMCPMC1472220
OpenAlexW2089041876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.