Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32026415›Full record

ReviewPulmonary therapy2019

Comparison of Phospholipid-Based Particles for Sustained Release of Ciprofloxacin Following Pulmonary Administration to Bronchiectasis Patients.

Jeffry Weers

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pulmonary therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeffry WeersRespira Therapeutics, Inc., Burlingame, CA, USA. jweers@respiratherapeutics.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8473-1625
Collaborative Drug Discovery (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid clearance of ciprofloxacin hydrochloride from the lungs following administration as an aerosol leads to poor efficacy in the treatment of pulmonary infections. The development of formulations capable of sustaining ciprofloxacin concentrations in the lungs has the potential to significantly improve antibacterial activity. The present review compares two approaches for sustaining levels of ciprofloxacin in the lungs, a liposomal formulation where ciprofloxacin is encapsulated in small unilamellar vesicles, and a dry powder formulation of the practically insoluble zwitterionic form of the drug. These two formulations recently completed large multicenter, phase 3 clinical studies in bronchiectasis patients. As such, they present a unique opportunity to examine the chemistry, manufacturing, and control of the dosage forms in addition to their tolerability and efficacy in more than 1000 bronchiectasis patients. Both formulations were generally well tolerated with most adverse events found to be mild to moderate in intensity. While the formulations were effective in reducing and/or eradicating infections, this did not lead to reductions in pulmonary exacerbations, the primary endpoint. The failures speak more to the heterogeneous nature of the disease and the difficulty in identifying bronchiectasis patients likely to exacerbate, rather than an inherent limitation of the formulations. While the formulations are similar in many respects, they also present some interesting differences. This review explores the implications of these differences on the treatment of respiratory infections.

Indexed as

Ciprofloxacin DPILinhaliq®LiposomesPulmoSphere™Sustained releaseTolerability

Identifiers

PMID32026415
PMCPMC6967322
OpenAlexW2989112880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.