Back to Browse Journals » Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management » Volume 9

Cefditoren versus levofloxacin in patients with exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: serum inflammatory biomarkers, clinical efficacy, and microbiological eradication

Authors Blasi F, Tarsia P, Mantero M, Morlacchi LC, Piffer F

Published Date February 2013 Volume 2013:9 Pages 55—64

DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S41131

Received 4 December 2012, Accepted 4 January 2013, Published 12 February 2013

Francesco Blasi, Paolo Tarsia, Marco Mantero, Letizia C Morlacchi, Federico Piffer

Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, IRCCS Fondazione Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy

Background: The aim of this open-label, randomized, parallel-group pilot study was to evaluate the efficacy of cefditoren pivoxil and levofloxacin in terms of speed of reduction in inflammatory parameters, clinical recovery, and microbiological eradication.
Methods: Forty eligible patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB) were randomized to receive cefditoren 200 mg twice a day for 5 days (n = 20) or levofloxacin 500 mg once daily for 7 days (n = 20).
Results: The inflammatory parameters which were significantly reduced at test-of-cure with respect to visit 1 were Krebs von den Lundgen-6 (KL-6) and interleukin-6. KL-6 decreased both in the overall study population (from 19 ± 11 UI/mL to 6 ± 8 UI/mL, P = 0.000) and in the cefditoren (from 19 ± 13 UI/mL to 8 ± 10 UI/mL, P = 0.006) and levofloxacin (from 19 ± 10 UI/mL to 5 ± 5 UI/mL, P = 0.000) arms. Similarly, interleukin-6 decreased both in the overall study population (from 13.35 ± 16.41 pg/mL to 3 ± 4.7 pg/mL, P = 0.000) and in the cefditoren (from 15.90 ± 19.54 pg/mL to 4.13 ± 6.42 pg/mL, P = 0.015) and levofloxacin (from 10.80 ± 12.55 pg/mL to 1.87 ± 1.16 pg/mL, P = 0.003) arms. At the end of treatment (test-of-cure, 6–9 days after drug initiation), the clinical success rate in the overall study population was 78%; the clinical cure rate was 80% in the cefditoren arm and 75% in the levofloxacin arm. Globally, bacteriological eradication at test-of-cure was obtained in 85% of the overall study population. Both treatments were well tolerated.
Conclusion: Cefditoren represents a valid option in the treatment of mild to moderately severe cases of AECB in the outpatient care setting. Moreover, the use of this cephalosporin is associated with a significant reduction of interleukin-6 and KL-6, two key mediators of lung inflammation and epithelial damage.

Keywords: cefditoren pivoxil, levofloxacin, serum inflammatory biomarkers, chronic bronchitis, acute exacerbations

Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML] 

Creative Commons License This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php

Readers of this article also read:

Clinical development of neridronate: potential for new applications

Gatti D, Rossini M, Viapiana O, Idolazzi L, Adami S

Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2013, 9:139-147

Published Date: 3 April 2013

Gender, airborne chemical monitoring, and physical work environment are related to indoor air symptoms among nonindustrial workers in the Klang Valley, Malaysia

Syazwan AI, Hafizan J, Baharudin MR, Azman AZF, Izwyn Z, Zulfadhli I, Syahidatussyakirah K

Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2013, 9:87-105

Published Date: 8 March 2013

Diagnosis and management of miliary tuberculosis: current state and future perspectives

Ray S, Talukdar A, Kundu S, Khanra D, Sonthalia N

Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2013, 9:9-26

Published Date: 8 January 2013