Trial reportSurgical infections2014
Efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin in hospitalized patients with secondary peritonitis: pooled analysis of four randomized phase III trials.
Trial report in Surgical infections, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spectrum adequacy of antibiotic regimens for secondary peritonitis: a retrospective analysis in intermediate and intensive care unit patients.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSecondary peritonitis is an advanced form of complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) requiring hospitalization, surgical source control, and empiric antibiotic therapy against causative aerobic and anaerobic bacteria.
methodsThis pooled analysis of four prospective, active-controlled randomized clinical trials compared the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin with that of comparator antibiotics in patients with confirmed secondary peritonitis. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical success rate at test-of-cure (TOC) between day 10 and 45 post-therapy in the per-protocol (PP) population. Safety and clinical efficacy were assessed also in the intent-to-treat population (ITT). Bacteriological success was assessed at TOC in the microbiologically-valid population as a secondary efficacy endpoint.
resultsOverall clinical success rates at TOC were 85.3% (431 of 505 patients) in the moxifloxacin and 88.4% (459 of 519 patients) in the comparator treatment groups (PP population, point estimate for the difference in success rates: -3.0%; 95% CI -7.06%, 1.05%), respectively. Similar clinical success rates between moxifloxacin and comparators were observed by anatomical site of infection, and ranged from 80.6% to 100% for moxifloxacin and from 71.4% to 96.6% for comparators, respectively. Bacteriologic success rates were similar with moxifloxacin (82.4%) and comparators (86.8%), respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing any treatment-emergent adverse events was slightly higher with moxifloxacin (67.3%) versus comparators (59.8%). Rates of drug-related adverse events (20.9% versus 20.0%) and deaths (4.3% versus 3.4%) were similar in moxifloxacin and comparator groups; none of the deaths were drug-related.
conclusionsThe data suggests that once-daily IV (or IV/PO) moxifloxacin has a comparable efficacy and safety profile to antibiotic regimens approved previously in the subgroup of patients with secondary peritonitis of mild-to-moderate severity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.