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

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Stella M Fabiane, Chen-Yuan Chiang, Sarah K Meredith, Meera Gurumurthy, Adamu Bayissa, Andrew J Nunn, Ruth L Goodall
{"title":"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","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"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":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"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}","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

摘要

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

(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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信