McDonald Marguerite B, Protzko Eugene E, Brunner Lynne S, Morris Timothy W, Haas Wolfgang, Paterno Michael R, Comstock Timothy L, Usner Dale W
Corneal Specialist and Cataract & Refractive Surgery, Ophthalmic Consultants of Long Island, Lynbrook, NY, USA.
Ophthalmology. 2009 Sep;116(9):1615-1623.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.05.014. Epub 2009 Jul 29.
To compare the clinical and antimicrobial efficacy of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% with that of moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.
Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, active-controlled, noninferiority study.
Patients 1 year of age or older with clinical manifestations of bacterial conjunctivitis.
Eligible patients were randomized to either besifloxacin suspension or moxifloxacin solution, instilled in the infected eye(s) 3 times daily for 5 days, and participated in study visits on days 1, 5 (+/-1 day), and 8 (+1 day). Assessments included clinical evaluation of signs and symptoms, visual acuity, biomicroscopy, and culture of the infected eye(s) at each visit, as well as direct ophthalmoscopy on days 1 and 8.
The primary efficacy end points were clinical resolution and microbial eradication of baseline bacterial infection on day 5 in patients with culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis. Secondary end points included clinical resolution and microbial eradication on day 8, individual clinical outcomes, microbial and clinical outcomes by bacterial species, and safety.
A total of 1161 patients (533 with culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis) were randomized. Based on the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference, besifloxacin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for clinical resolution on day 5 (58.3% vs. 59.4%, respectively; 95% CI, -9.48 to 7.29) and day 8 (84.5% vs. 84.0%, respectively, 95% CI, -5.6% to 6.75%) and for microbial eradication on day 5 (93.3% vs. 91.1%, respectively, 95% CI, -2.44 to 6.74) and day 8 (87.3% vs. 84.7%; 95% CI, -3.32 to 8.53). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 treatment groups for either efficacy end points on days 5 or 8 (P>0.05). Besifloxacin and moxifloxacin were well tolerated. The cumulative frequency of ocular adverse events was similar between treatments (12% and 14% with besifloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively). However, eye irritation occurred more often in moxifloxacin-treated eyes (0.3% for besifloxacin vs. 1.4% for moxifloxacin; P = 0.0201).
Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension was non inferior to moxifloxacin ophthalmic suspension and provided similar safety and efficacy (clinical and microbiological) outcomes when used for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
比较0.6%贝西沙星眼用混悬液与0.5%莫西沙星滴眼液治疗细菌性结膜炎的临床疗效及抗菌效果。
多中心、随机、双盲、平行组、活性对照、非劣效性研究。
年龄1岁及以上有细菌性结膜炎临床表现的患者。
符合条件的患者被随机分为贝西沙星混悬液组或莫西沙星溶液组,感染眼每日滴眼3次,共5天,并在第1天、第5天(±1天)和第8天(+1天)参加研究访视。每次访视的评估包括对体征和症状的临床评估、视力、生物显微镜检查以及感染眼的培养,以及在第1天和第8天进行直接检眼镜检查。
主要疗效终点为培养确诊的细菌性结膜炎患者在第5天临床症状消退及基线细菌感染的微生物清除情况。次要终点包括第8天的临床症状消退及微生物清除情况、个体临床结局、按细菌种类划分的微生物和临床结局以及安全性。
共1161例患者(533例培养确诊的细菌性结膜炎患者)被随机分组。根据差异的95%置信区间(CI),贝西沙星在第5天(分别为58.3%和59.4%;95%CI,-9.48至7.29)和第8天(分别为84.5%和84.0%,95%CI,-5.6%至6.75%)的临床症状消退方面不劣于莫西沙星,在第5天(分别为93.3%和91.1%,95%CI,-2.44至6.74)和第8天(分别为87.3%和84.7%;95%CI,-3.32至8.53)的微生物清除方面也不劣于莫西沙星。在第5天或第8天,两种治疗组在任何疗效终点上均无统计学显著差异(P>0.05)。贝西沙星和莫西沙星耐受性良好。治疗组间眼部不良事件的累积发生率相似(贝西沙星组和莫西沙星组分别为12%和14%)。然而,莫西沙星治疗的眼睛中眼刺激更常见(贝西沙星为0.3%,莫西沙星为1.4%;P = 0.0201)。
贝西沙星眼用混悬液不劣于莫西沙星眼用混悬液,在用于治疗细菌性结膜炎时提供了相似的安全性和疗效(临床和微生物学)结果。
专利或商业披露可在参考文献之后找到。