Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the comparative efficacy and safety of azithromycin against other antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infections

Despina G. Contopoulos-Ioannidisa,b, John P. A. Ioannidisa,c, Priscilla Chewc and Joseph Lauc,*

a Clinical Trials and Evidence-Based Medicine Unit, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina 45110, Greece; b Department of Pediatrics, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC 20010; c Division of Clinical Care Research, New England Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111, USA


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
We carried out a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of azithromycin compared with other antibiotics in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections, including acute bronchitis (five comparisons including 1372 patients), acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (13 comparisons including 1342 patients) and community-acquired pneumonia (18 comparisons with 1664 patients). For the first two indications, azithromycin did not offer any statistically significant reduction in clinical failures [random effects odds ratios 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54–1.31 and 0.64, 95% CI 0.31–1.32, respectively] and absolute risk differences were small. For community-acquired pneumonia, azithromycin significantly reduced clinical failures by about one-third (random effects odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.41–0.95). The absolute incremental benefit was approximately one clinical failure prevented per 50 treated patients with community-acquired pneumonia. There was no significant heterogeneity for different comparators and for bacterial versus atypical pneumonias. Azithromycin was discontinued because of adverse events in only 23 of 3487 patients (0.7%). Although results should be interpreted cautiously as most trials were open-label and susceptible to bias, the meta-analysis indicates that, compared with antibiotics with traditional pharmacokinetics that require more prolonged courses, azithromycin offers no significant advantage for bronchitis, but may be more effective in community-acquired pneumonia.


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
A member of the macrolide antibiotic class, azithromycin is active against many common lower respiratory pathogens such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, non-tuberculous mycobacteria, Bordetella pertussis, Moraxella catarrhalis, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila and Chlamydia pneumoniae.1–3 It is four- to eight-fold more active than erythromycin against H. influenzae1 and has better gastrointestinal absorption.4 Despite low serum concentrations, tissue concentrations of azithromycin typically exceed MICs for many common respiratory pathogens and intracellular concentrations are 10- to 100-fold higher than in serum.1 Because azithromycin concentrates within phagocytes, which release the antibiotic on exposure to bacteria, prolonged tissue and intracellular concentrations are achieved for up to 4 days after a dose.5–7 This allows more convenient dosing and shorter courses of azithromycin compared with other antibiotics, including other marketed macrolides. Despite these advantages, the role of azithromycin in community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections is unclear. Its high cost, higher than that of most other antibiotics used in the community setting, may be a strong disadvantage curtailing its widespread use.

In the last decade, many clinical efficacy trials have been conducted evaluating short courses of azithromycin versus other antibiotics that require typically longer courses in various lower respiratory tract infections. Interpretation of the results is difficult due to the small number of patients in many of the studies. Therefore, we conducted a metaanalysis of evidence on the treatment of acute bronchitis, acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis and community-acquired pneumonia. A companion meta-analysis of azithromycin's comparative efficacy for upper respiratory tract infections was also conducted.8


    Materials and methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Literature search and eligibility of trials

We carried out a literature search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 1990 to March 21, 2000. We used the text word and medical subject heading ‘azithromycin’. We included trials that assessed the use of azithromycin in the treatment of acute bronchitis, acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis and community-acquired pneumonia. We also examined the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry for additional studies, but none were found. Besides types of infection, eligibility criteria were similar to those used in a companion meta-analysis of azithromycin in upper respiratory tract infections.8

Primary outcome

The primary outcome was the clinical failure rate in patients receiving azithromycin versus comparator antibiotics. We selected as time for evaluation of the clinical outcome the day closest to day 10 (all studies carried out primary outcome evaluations between days 6 and 21). Relapses at the time of primary evaluation were counted as failures.

Data extraction

The type of data extracted was similar to what has been described in a companion meta-analysis8 and included information on the study population, types and diagnosis of eligible infections, efficacy and safety outcomes and study design characteristics.

Statistical analysis

We calculated pooled odds ratios, risk ratios, risk differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for clinical failures for each lower respiratory infection of interest. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the {chi}2-based Q statistic.9 We used both the Mantel–Haenszel fixed effects10 and DerSimonian–Laird random effects11 models. For evaluation of toxicity, we pooled and compared rates of discontinuations due to side effects for each agent across all cases of lower respiratory tract infection. In the main analysis, study-specific rates were weighted simply by the sample size of each study. Weighting by the inverse of the fixed or random effects variance yielded qualitatively similar results (not shown).

Subgroup analyses were carried out to evaluate differences in comparative efficacy when different comparator antibiotics were used and for different types of community-acquired pneumonia. Analyses based on source of funding were also conducted. Bias diagnostics included: (i) inverse funnel plots;9 (ii) recursive cumulative meta-analysis12 and (iii) control-rate meta-regression13 as described also in a companion meta-analysis.8

Analyses were conducted in Meta-Analyst (Joseph Lau, Boston, MA, USA) and in SPSS version 9.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All P-values are two-tailed.


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Eligible and excluded studies

The literature search strategy yielded 39 independent studies that were pertinent for the conditions of interest.14–52 Four of these studies19,22,28,51 had two RCTs reported each, resulting in 43 comparisons where an oral azithromycin regimen was involved.

Twenty-one trials14,17,19,21,25,28,32,33,36,38–41,43–46,48–51 studied only one type of lower respiratory tract infection. Four of them were excluded, because they simply compared different azithromycin doses (n = 3),25,45,46 or they were not truly randomized (n = 1).48 The other 17 trials studied more than one lower respiratory tract infection of interest. Articles that described more than one condition were evaluated for eligibility for each condition separately. Nine studies were excluded from all relevant analyses because they did not separate the outcome data for the conditions of interest (n = 8)15,24,26,29,31,35,37,42 or they had fewer than 10 patients per condition of interest (n = 1).47 Five studies20,22,27,30,52 that were excluded from the analysis of one or two condition(s), were eligible for the analysis of the other condition(s).

Acute bronchitis

A total of 16 independent studies15,18,20,22,24,26,27,29–31,34,35,47–49,52 were identified. One study22 reported two separate RCTs and, therefore, there were a total of 17 comparisons. Eleven studies (12 comparisons) were excluded from the meta-analysis because they did not provide separate outcome data for acute bronchitis (n = 6 involving 501 patients);15,24,26,29,31,35 did not provide data on improvement rates but only on cure rates (n = 1; two comparisons involving 233 patients);22 had fewer than 10 patients per treatment arm (n = 3 involving 37 patients);27,30,47 or used envelope randomization although the investigators were free to choose treatment options (n = 1 with 131 patients).48 In total, clinical outcome data on 902 patients with acute bronchitis treated with azithromycin versus a comparator antibiotic were excluded from the analysis for these reasons. Finally, from one study that categorized patients according to presence or absence of underlying pulmonary disease, only data from patients without underlying pulmonary disease were included in this meta-analysis.49

The five eligible studies, involving 1372 patients18,20,34,49,52 were all in the English language, published between 1993 and 1996 and were all multicentre studies conducted exclusively in Europe except for one that was also conducted in Argentina.34 One study18 was sponsored by Pfizer, while another trial49 was sponsored by a different pharmaceutical company. Three studies20,34,52 did not state their source of funding. All studies were conducted in adults. The mean ages of the study populations ranged from 43 to 57 years, and the percentage of males ranged from 47% to 59% (Table 1Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Characteristic of eligible acute bronchitis studies
 
Four of these studies used traditional definitions of acute bronchitis (purulent sputum, fever, cough, chest pain, dyspnoea, increased white blood cell count and/or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection); one study did not specify the clinical criteria used.20

Four studies used a 3 day azithromycin regimen and one study49 used a 5 day regimen. The comparator drugs were co-amoxiclav (n = 2), clarithromycin (n = 2) and roxithromycin (n = 1). The randomization method and efforts for allocation concealment were not clarified in any of the studies. There were three open-label studies and two double blind studies.49,52

The total number of evaluable patients in the five eligible studies was 1372; sample size ranged from 48 to 617 patients. In all studies the outcome evaluation was carried out between 6 and 21 days. Overall, there were 50 clinical failures in 765 (6.5%) evaluable patients in the azithromycin treatment arms and 39 clinical failures in 607 (6.4%) evaluable patients in the comparator arms. There was no significant heterogeneity between the studies. There was no statistically significant difference between azithromycin and comparators (random effects odds ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.54–1.31) (Figure 1Go). The results were similar with the fixed and random effect models.



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Meta-analysis of clinical failures of azithromycin versus comparator antibiotics for acute bronchitis. Each study is shown by author name, year, number of patients, point estimate and 95% confidence intervals of odds ratio and comparator antibiotic used. Also shown are the pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals by random effects calculations.

 
Acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis

A total of 18 independent studies were identified (19 comparisons). Five studies (six comparisons) were excluded from the meta-analysis. One study (n = 8 patients)47 had fewer than 10 patients per treatment arm with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, three studies (n = 179 patients)15,29,37 did not separate the clinical outcome of interest for specific lower respiratory tract infections and another study (n = 152 patients)22 with two comparisons, did not provide data on improvement rates, but only on cure rates. In total, 339 patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis who were treated with azithromycin versus a comparator antibiotic were excluded from the analysis.

The 13 eligible studies with 1342 patients (Table 2Go) were all in the English language, published between 1992 and 1999. Ten of them were conducted exclusively in Europe, two in the USA and one in Argentina and Europe. Four studies18,23,30,36 were sponsored by Pfizer and one study16 was sponsored by another pharmaceutical company. Seven other studies17,20,27,34,39,50,52 did not specify their source of funding. All studies were conducted in adults. The mean age of the study population ranged from 45 to 66 years and males ranged from 55% to 86%.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Characteristics of eligible studies of acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis
 
Seven studies used the American Thoracic Society definition of chronic bronchitis (Table 2Go) (chronic or recurrent productive cough present on most days for a minimum of 3 months per year and for at least two consecutive years) and six studies did not specify the exact criteria used for the clinical diagnosis of chronic bronchitis (Table 2Go). Six studies defined the acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis using the criteria developed by Anthonisen et al.53 (increase in dyspnoea, sputum volume and sputum purulence). One study used the Bartlett criteria along with purulent sputum, positive microscopic examination of sputum or bronchoalveolar lavage and positive sputum or bronchoalveolar lavage culture. Four studies used their own clinical definition of acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis and two studies had not stated their definition in detail (Table 2Go).

Eleven studies used a 3 day azithromycin regimen and two studies23,50 used a 5 day regimen. The comparator drugs were amoxicillin (n = 1), co-amoxiclav (n = 6), cefaclor (n = 2), clarithromycin (n = 2), dirithromycin (n = 1) and roxithromycin (n = 1).

There were four double blind studies27,30,36,52 and two single blind studies.21,50 The other seven trials were unmasked. The randomization method was specified and appears to have been adequately concealed in two studies.30,36

The total number of evaluable patients in the 13 eligible studies was 1342; trial sample size ranged from 47 to 205 patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. Outcome evaluation was carried out around day 12 (range: 8–21 days). Overall, there were 53 clinical failures (7.3%) in 726 evaluable patients in the azithromycin group and 59 clinical failures in 616 (9.6%) evaluable patients in the comparator arms. The combined estimate (random effects odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.31–1.32) showed no statistically significant difference between azithromycin and its comparators (Figure 2Go). There was significant between-study heterogeneity, with one particular outlier study, favouring the comparator arm.17 This study also included cases with radiographic failures and had unusually low efficacy rates for azithromycin-treated cases of S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae without reporting antibiotic susceptibility profiles of the isolates. Sensitivity analysis, after removing this outlier, resulted in a statistically significant reduction of clinical failures in azithromycin-treated patients (random effects odds ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.30–0.82, fixed effect odds ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.31–0.74). In the remaining 12 studies, there was no significant between-study heterogeneity.



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. Meta-analysis of clinical failures of azithromycin versus comparator antibiotics for acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Each study is shown by author name, year, number of patients, point estimate and 95% confidence intervals of odds ratio and comparator antibiotic used. Also shown are the pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals by random effects calculations.

 
Community-acquired pneumonia

We identified 30 independent studies with a total of 34 comparisons. Fifteen studies and one of the two trials included in another study22 were excluded. Nine comparisons (n = 64 patients)15,20,22,27,29,30,37,47,52 had fewer than 10 patients in a treatment arm; the clinical outcomes were not given for specific lower respiratory tract infections in four trials (n = 111 patients);24,26,31,35 the study arms compared different azithromycin treatment schedules in three comparisons.25,45,46 In total, fewer than 175 patients with pneumonia treated with azithromycin versus a comparator antibiotic were excluded from the analysis.

Fifteen studies including 1664 patients were eligible for the quantitative data synthesis (Table 3Go). Three studies19,28,51 reported two qualifying randomized trials each (two independent comparisons in two different patient populations each); thus, 18 independent comparisons were included (Table 3Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3. Characteristics of eligible studies of community-acquired pneumonia
 
Of the 15 eligible studies (Table 3Go), 13 were in the English language, one was in French14 and one was in Japanese, with English abstract and tables.32 They were all published between 1990 and 1999, and with one exception,51 all were multicentre studies. Three studies were conducted in USA, nine in Europe, one in Australia and Europe, one in Argentina and Europe and one in Japan. Six trials with nine comparisons were sponsored by Pfizer,19,22,28,38,42,51 four trials were sponsored by other pharmaceutical companies16,41,43,44 and the other five studies did not state their source of funding. Ten studies were in adult populations and four studies, with six eligible comparisons28,41,42,51 were conducted exclusively in paediatric patients. The percentage of males in the studies ranged from 44% to 77%.

The majority of the studies (n = 10) used traditional clinical signs and symptoms for the definition of pneumonia (Table 3Go). The clinical criteria used were not defined in four studies (Table 3Go). Twelve studies also specifically required or considered new pulmonary infiltrates in chest radiograph as an additional inclusion criterion. Purulent sputum, Gram's stain, leucocytosis, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate, neutrophilia and age were used to target patients with either atypical pneumonia or bacterial pneumonia in most comparisons (n = 13), while five studies did not attempt to separate these syndromes. Few studies specifically excluded special categories of patients, such as patients with leucopenia (n = 2), cystic fibrosis (n = 3), high-risk patients (n = 5), immunocompromised patients (n = 1), patients requiring intravenous or additional antibiotics (n = 3) or cases with pathogens resistant to the study drugs (n = 3). It is conceivable that such categories were also not included in other studies as well, although this was not specifically stated.

Based on eligibility criteria and pathogens detected, typical bacterial pneumonias predominated in five comparisons, atypical pneumonias predominated in seven comparisons, while both bacterial and atypical pneumonias were targeted in another six studies (Table 3Go). Of course, some ‘contamination’ with atypical pneumonias would be unavoidable in trials targeting typical pneumonias and vice versa.

Eight studies used a 3 day azithromycin regimen,16,32,34,38,40–43 and the other seven studies used a 5 day regimen. All the adult studies used 1500 mg total dose of azithromycin, except for one19 where 3000 mg were used. In the paediatric studies the maximal azithromycin dose used was also 1500 mg, when mentioned. The comparator drugs were erythromycin (n = 6), roxithromycin (n = 2), josamycin (n = 2), clarithromycin (n = 3), cefaclor (n = 2), co-amoxiclav (n = 2) and benzylpenicillin (n = 1).

The randomization method was described in detail in three cases.22,42,51 The majority of the studies were open-label (n = 12), but there were three double blind studies (four comparisons)28,32,33 and masking was unclear in two other studies.14,22 The methods ensuring allocation concealment were not described in detail in any of the studies.

The total number of patients in the 18 eligible comparisons was 1664. The largest study had 407 patients, but the largest sample size in a comparison was only 219. In all studies, outcome evaluation was carried out at around day 10 (range, 5–20 days). Overall there were 56 clinical failures in 928 (6.0%) evaluable patients treated with azithromycin and 72 clinical failures in 736 (9.8%) evaluable patients in the comparator arms. There was no significant between-study heterogeneity. A significant reduction in the risk of clinical failures was noted with azithromycin therapy (random effects odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.42–0.95) (Figure 3Go). The fixed effects and random effects results were similar.



View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 3. Meta-analysis of clinical failures of azithromycin versus comparator antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia. Each study is shown by author name, year, number of patients, point estimate and 95% confidence intervals of odds ratio and comparator antibiotic used. Also shown are the pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals by random effects calculations.

 
Summary estimates, subgroup analyses and bias diagnostics

Table 4Go shows the pooled estimates for each of the three conditions and subgroup analyses according to type of antibiotic and, in the case of community-acquired pneumonia, type of syndrome involved. We observed no significant heterogeneity for different comparators or between atypical and typical pneumonias. Nevertheless, subtle differences in subgroups could have been missed due to type II error.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 4. Summary estimates and 95% CI for clinical failures with azithromycin versus comparators
 
Analyses based on source of reported funding showed also no significant differences between such subgroups. Pfizer-sponsored trials seemed to favour azithromycin slightly more than other trials for acute bronchitis and acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, but not for pneumonia. For community-acquired pneumonia, the random effects pooled odds ratio for clinical failures was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.43–1.19) in nine comparisons of studies sponsored by Pfizer, 0.23 (95% 0.07–0.79) in four studies sponsored by other companies (Pliva and Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals) and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.21–2.00) in the five studies where the source of funding was not stated.

There were limited data from double blind studies and their pooled results were inconclusive. The random effects odds ratios for acute bronchitis, acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and community-acquired pneumonia were 1.50 (95% CI, 0.51–4.43), 0.75 (95% CI, 0.32–1.75) and 1.12 (95% CI, 0.32–3.88), respectively. The respective fixed effects point estimates were 1.50, 0.71 and 1.05.

There was no evidence of publication bias and inverted funnel plots were symmetrical for all three conditions of interest. Similarly, there was no evidence that the treatment effect changed over time in more recent publications and for all three conditions the clinical failure rate in the comparator antibiotic was not significantly related to the treatment effect.

Adverse events

All 39 trials were considered in the analysis of safety. Data on discontinuation due to side effects per study arm were available in 33 trials. Data were not available in six trials, for a total of 458 patients with lower respiratory tract infections receiving azithromycin.17,25,32,42,49,51 Overall, there were 23 discontinuations due to adverse events among 3487 patients receiving azithromycin (discontinuation rate 0.7%). The respective discontinuation rates for the other antibiotics were 4.0% for co-amoxiclav, 0.9% for clarithromycin, 2.2% for erythromycin and 2.8% for cefaclor. The side effects that led to discontinuation of azithromycin included gastrointestinal tract side effects (n = 8), rash (n = 3), paraesthesia (n = 1), hyperkinesia and urticaria (n = 1) and unstated reasons (n = 10). In indirect comparisons, therapy was more often discontinued because of adverse events when antibiotics other than azithromycin were used (Table 5Go). In direct comparisons, discontinuations were significantly fewer with azithromycin versus co-amoxiclav, while direct comparison data with other specific antibiotics were sparse.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 5. Discontinuations due to adverse events in comparative trials of azithromycin for lower respiratory tract infections
 
Data on severe-grade side effects per study arm were available only in 16 trials. Twelve of them stated that there were no severe side effect with azithromycin and only four mentioned some severe side effects, precluding a meaningful data analysis.


    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
The meta-analysis indicates that, when compared with other commonly used antibiotics in community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections, azithromycin may have superior efficacy in pneumonia, while it is unclear whether it offers any advantage for acute bronchitis and acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. There was no significant heterogeneity in the results with various types of comparators, including other macrolides and ß-lactam antibiotics, although the number of patients for each type of antibiotic evaluation was unavoidably limited and, moreover, there were no comparisons with quinolones. These findings should be interpreted with caution given the limitations of the design of several studies included in the meta-analysis and the large number of patients with acute bronchitis excluded from the data synthesis because of inextricable information.

Several possibilities may explain the dissociation of the treatment effects for pneumonia and other lower respiratory tract infections. Random error is one such possibility, given the substantial confidence intervals. Bias also cannot be excluded, as the majority of trials were open-label and, therefore, may not be fully objective in the determination of clinical outcomes. The direction of bias would depend on whether there is a subconscious predilection of the investigators in favour of a particular antibiotic. Furthermore, there is a debate on whether meta-analyses of small trials provide similar results to single large studies.54–56 The meta-analysis indicates that small under-powered antibiotic studies may yield results that are very difficult to interpret. Study design in the field can definitely be improved and the meta-analysis shows several deficiencies that would be easy to correct. Careful meta-analyses and well-designed, preferably double blinded and adequately powered large trials should be encouraged in the field of antimicrobial chemotherapy in general.57 We should caution that the few double blind trials are inconclusive about the relative merits of azithromycin for all three types of infection.

Acknowledging these caveats, the superiority of azithromycin for community-acquired pneumonia may also be a true finding. Azithromycin may provide benefits related to its unique pharmacokinetics. Following accumulation in tissue, azithromycin concentrations decline very slowly, remaining in excess of the MICs for many pathogens responsible for respiratory tract infections.7,58 This allows more convenient, short-course dosing, which is valuable for ensuring patient compliance and minimizing the potential for developing antibiotic resistance or re-infection. The optimal duration of treatment for most respiratory tract infections is not known. Acute bronchitis may respond to a few days of antibiotic therapy59 and there is substantial evidence emerging that 5 day regimens of quinolones or ß-lactams may be effective for treating acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis.36,60–64 Conversely, the treatment of pneumonia is likely to require longer courses of antibiotic therapy and prolonged high tissue antibiotic levels may be more important.

Our meta-analysis was limited to studies of oral azithromycin regimens, but recently some randomized evidence has become available for iv azithromycin. Inclusion of two recent trials65,66 where azithromycin was given initially intravenously in patients with community-acquired pneumonia would not change the results: among a total of 2077 randomized patients, the pooled odds ratio for clinical failures is 0.69 (95% CI 0.51–0.94, P = 0.018) favouring azithromycin against the comparator antibiotics. Neither of the two trials of iv azithromycin was double blind, highlighting again the need for more masked trials. Since the completion of the meta-analysis, one more double blind trial of azithromycin versus co-amoxiclav has been published67 and its results (five clinical failures in 56 patients given azithromycin versus seven failures in 54 given co-amoxiclav) reinforce the superiority of azithromycin.

One should also consider the proportion of spontaneous cures (viral or even bacterial) in each of the three types of lower respiratory tract infections that we examined in this meta-analysis. Spontaneously cured infections are likely to represent a larger proportion of cases of acute bronchitis than of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and community-acquired pneumonia. The inclusion of a large proportion of spontaneously cured infections would diminish the ability of any trial or meta-analysis to show a treatment difference between antibiotic regimens. The same explanation may be offered for the lack of treatment differences we observed in the companion meta-analysis of upper respiratory tract infections,8 where most cases of otitis media and sinusitis resolve spontaneously. Such an explanation would account for the lack of demonstrable superiority in acute bronchitis and for acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. A recent meta-analysis has questioned whether antibiotics are generally indicated at all for the treatment of acute bronchitis in otherwise healthy individuals.68 Most patients diagnosed with ‘acute bronchitis’ in outpatient practice may require no antibiotics at all.

Information on severe-grade side effects was not consistently reported in the trial reports, a deficiency we have observed previously in antibiotic trials.69,70 However, there were largely complete data on discontinuations from adverse events. The available data indicated that azithromycin led to few discontinuations with only one out of c. 150 patients discontinuing the drug because of adverse events. More detailed data on adverse events would be important to record in antibiotic trials, since given the comparable efficacy of various antibiotics, tolerability is an important consideration. The available evidence indicates that azithromycin is safe in patients with lower respiratory tract infections and compares favourably against other commonly used antibiotics.

If the superiority of azithromycin for community-acquired pneumonia is real, the estimated treatment benefit may be clinically meaningful, with approximately a one-third reduction in the rate of clinical failure. The absolute benefit amounts to an estimated one failure prevented per 50 patients with community-acquired pneumonia. These figures need to be considered in conjunction with both the tolerability profile, and the increased cost of this regimen in order to determine whether azithromycin should be a first-line antibiotic for lower respiratory infections.


    Acknowledgements
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
This research was supported in part by an unrestricted grant from Pfizer Inc.


    Notes
 
* Correspondence author. Tel: +1-617-636-7670; Fax: +1-617-636-8023; E-mail: JLau1{at}Lifespan.org Back


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
1 . Retsema, J., Girard, A., Schelkly, W., Manousos, M., Anderson, M., Bright, G. et al. (1987). Spectrum and mode of action of azithromycin, a new 15-membered ring macrolide with improved potency against Gram-negative organisms. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 31, 1939–47.[ISI][Medline]

2 . Neu, H. C., Chin, N. X., Saha, G. & Labthavikul, P. (1988). Comparative in vitro activity of the new oral macrolide azithromycin. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 7, 541–4.[ISI][Medline]

3 . Maskell, J. P., Sefton, A. M. & Williams, J. D. (1990). Comparative in vitro activity of azithromycin and erythromycin against Gram-positive cocci, Haemophilus influenza and anaerobes. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 25, Suppl. A, 19–24.[ISI][Medline]

4 . Reed, M. D. & Blumer, J. L. (1997). Azithromycin: a critical review of the first azalide antibiotic and its role in pediatric practice. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal 16, 1069–83.[ISI][Medline]

5 . Girard, A. E., Girard, D., English, A. R., Cootz, T. D., Cimochochowski, C. R., Faiella, J. A. et al. (1987). Pharmacokinetic and in vivo studies with azithromycin (CP-62,993), a new macrolide with an extended half life and excellent tissue distribution. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 31, 1948–54.[ISI][Medline]

6 . Foulds, G., Shepard, R. M. & Johnson, R. B. (1990). The pharmacokinetics of azithromycin in human serum and tissues. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 25, Suppl. A, 73–82.[Abstract]

7 . Gladue, R. P., Bright, G. M., Isaacson, R. E. & Newborg, M. F. (1989). In vitro and in vivo uptake of azithromycin (CP-62,993) by phagocytic cells: possible mechanism of delivery and release at sites of infection. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 33, 277–82.[ISI][Medline]

8 . Ioannidis, J. P. A., Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G., Chew, P. & Lau, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the comparative efficacy and safety of azithromycin against other antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 48, 677–89.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

9 . Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. & Schmid, C. H. (1997). Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine 127, 820–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

10 . Mantel, N. & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 22, 719–48.[ISI][Medline]

11 . DerSimonian, R. & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 7, 177–88.[ISI][Medline]

12 . Ioannidis, J. P. A., Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G. & Lau, J. (1999). Recursive cumulative meta-analysis: a diagnostic for the evolution of total randiomized evidence from group and individual patient data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 52, 281–91.[ISI][Medline]

13 . Schmid, C. H., Lau, J., McIntosh, M. W. & Cappelleri, J. C. (1998). An empirical study of the effect of the control rate as a predictor of treatment efficacy in meta-analysis in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 17, 1923–42.[ISI][Medline]

14 . APRIM: Brion, J. P., Sedallian, A., Le Noc, P., Briffod, J. & Micoud, M. (1990). Azithromycin versus josamycin: treatment of 89 cases of acute pneumonia. Pathologie Biologie 38, 521–5.[ISI][Medline]

15 . Balmes, P., Clerc, G., Dupont, B., Labram, C., Pariente, R. & Poirier, R. (1991). Comparative study of azithromycin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 10, 437–39.[ISI][Medline]

16 . Barsic, B., Schonwald, S., Klinar, I., Sagud, M. & Suskovic, T. (1994). Comparison of three-day azithromycin and ten-day cefaclor in the treatment of patients with bacterial lower respiratory tract infection. Pharmaca 32, 137–46.

17 . Beghi, G., Berni, F., Carratu, L., Caalini, A., Consigli, G., D'Anto, M. et al. (1995). Efficacy and tolerability of azithromycin versus amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in acute purulent exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. Journal of Chemotherapy 7, 146–52.[ISI][Medline]

18 . Biebuyck, X. A. (1996). Comparison of azithromycin and co-amoxiclav in the treatment of acute tracheobronchitis and acute infectious exacerbations of chronic bronchitis in adults. Azithromycin Study Group. Journal of International Medical Research 24, 407–18.[ISI][Medline]

19 . Bohte, R., van't Wout, J. W., Lobatto, S., Blusse van Oud Alblas, A., Boekhout, M., Nauta, E. H. et al. (1995). Efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus benzylpenicillin or erythromycin in community-acquired pneumonia. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 14, 182–7.[ISI][Medline]

20 . Bradbury, F. (1993). Comparison of azithromycin versus clarithromycin in the treatment of patients with lower respiratory tract infection. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 31, Suppl. E, 153–62.

21 . Cazzola, M., Vinciguerra, A., Di Perna, F., Califano, C., Calderato, F., Salzillo, A. et al. (1999). Comparative study of dirithromycin and azithromycin in the treatment of acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Journal of Chemotherapy 11, 119–25.[ISI][Medline]

22 . Daniel, R. (1991). Simplified treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infection with azithromycin: a comparison with erythromycin and amoxycillin. European Azithromycin Study Group. Journal of International Medical Research 19, 373–83.[ISI][Medline]

23 . Dark, D. (1993). Azithromycin versus cefaclor in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Current Therapeutical Research – Clinical and Experimental 53, 203–11.

24 . Dark, D. (1991). Multicenter evaluation of azithromycin and cefaclor in acute lower respiratory tract infections. American Journal of Medicine 91, 31S–35S.[Medline]

25 . Ficnar, B., Huzjak, N., Oreskovic, K., Matrapazovski, M. & Klinar, I. (1997). Azithromycin:3-day versus 5-day course in the treatment of respiratory tract infections in children. Journal of Chemotherapy 9, 38–43.[ISI][Medline]

26 . Galova, K., Sufliarska, S., Kukova, Z., Danisovicova, A., Hrachova, I., Grausova, S. et al. (1996). Multicenter randomized study of two once daily regimens in the initial management of community-acquired respiratory tract infections in 163 children: azithromycin versus ceftibuten. Chemotherapy 42, 231–4.[ISI][Medline]

27 . Gris, P. (1996). Once-daily, 3-day azithromycin versus a three-times-daily, 10-day course of co-amoxiclav in the treatment of adults with lower respiratory tract infections: results of a randomized, double-blind comparative study. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 37, Suppl. C, 93–101.[Abstract]

28 . Harris, J. A., Kolokathis, A., Campbell, M., Cassell, G. H. & Hammerschlag, M. R. (1998). Safety and efficacy of azithromycin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in children. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal 17, 865–71.[ISI][Medline]

29 . Hoepelman, A. I., Sips, A. P., van Helmond, J. L., van Barneveld, P. W., Neve, A. J., Zwinkels, M. et al. (1993). A single-blind comparison of three-day azithromycin and ten-day co-amoxiclav treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infections. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 31, Suppl. E, 147–52.[ISI][Medline]

30 . Hoepelman, I. M., Mollers, M. J., van Schie, M. H., Greefhorst, A. P., Schlosser, N. J., Sinninghe Damste, E. J. et al. (1998). A short (3-day) course of azithromycin tablets versus a 10-day course of amoxycillin-clavulanic acid (co-amoxiclav) in the treatment of adults with lower respiratory tract infections and effects on long-term outcome. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 9, 141–6.[ISI]

31 . Hofmann, D., Schafer, V. & Springsklee, M. (1996). Treatment of children with bacterial lower respiratory tract infections—results of a comparative study of azithromycin vs. cefaclor. München Medizinische Wochenschrift 138, 358–63.

32 . Kobayashi, H., Sakayori, S., Koike, T., Mukai, M., Hiraga, Y., Ohmichi, M. et al. (1995). Clarithromycin-controlled randomized double-blind studies of azithromycin for treatment of pneumonia. Japanese Journal of Chemotherapy 43, 757–74.

33 . Kinasewitz, G. & Wood, R. G. (1991). Azithromycin versus cefaclor in the treatment of acute bacterial pneumonia. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 10, 872–7.[ISI][Medline]

34 . Laurent, K. (1996). Efficacy, safety and tolerability of azithromycin versus roxithromycin in the treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infections. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 37, Suppl. C, 115–24.

35 . Manfredi, R., Jannuzzi, C., Mantero, E., Longo, L., Schiavone, R., Tempesta, A. et al. (1992). Clinical comparative study of azithromycin versus erythromycin in the treatment of acute respiratory tract infections in children. Journal of Chemotherapy 4, 364–70.[ISI][Medline]

36 . Mertens, J. C., van Barneveld, P. W., Asin, H. R., Ligtvoet, E., Visser, M. R., Branger, T. et al. (1992). Double-blind randomized study comparing the efficacies and safeties of a short (3-day) course of azithromycin and a 5-day course of amoxicillin in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 36, 1456–9.[Abstract]

37 . Morandini, G., Perduca, M., Zannini, G., Foschino, M. P., Miragliotta, G. & Carnimeo, N. S. (1993). Clinical efficacy of azithromycin in lower respiratory tract infections. Journal of Chemotherapy 5, 32–6.[Medline]

38 . O'Doherty, B. & Muller, O. (1998). Randomized, multicentre study of the efficacy and tolerance of azithromycin versus clarithromycin in the treatment of adults with mild to moderate community-acquired pneumonia. Azithromycin Study Group. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 17, 828–33.[ISI][Medline]

39 . Pozzi, E., Grossi, E. & Pecori, A. (1994). Azithromycin versus clarithromycin in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Current Therapeutical Research – Clinical and Experimental 55, 759–64.

40 . Rizzato, G., Montemurro, L., Fraioli, P., Montanari, G., Fanti, D., Pozzoli, R. et al. (1995). Efficacy of a three day course of azithromycin in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. European Respiratory Journal 8, 398–402.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

41 . Ronchetti, R., Blasi, F., Grossi, E., Pecori, A. & the Azithromycin Pediatric Research Group. (1994). The role of azithromycin in treating children with community-acquired pneumonia. Current Therapeutical Research – Clinical and Experimental 55, 965–70.

42 . Roord, J. J., Wolf, B. H., Gossens, M. M. & Kimpen, J. L. (1996). Prospective open randomized study comparing efficacies and safeties of a 3-day course of azithromycin and a 10-day course of erythromycin in children with community-acquired acute lower respiratory tract infections. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 40, 2765–8.[Abstract]

43 . Schonwald, S., Barsic, B., Klinar, I. & Gunjaca, M. (1994). Three-day azithromycin compared with ten-day roxithromycin treatment of atypical pneumonia. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 26, 706–10.[ISI][Medline]

44 . Schonwald, S., Gunjaca, M., Kolacny-Babic, L., Car, V. & Gosev, M. (1990). Comparison of azithromycin and erythromycin in the treatment of atypical pneumonias. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 25, Suppl. A, 123–6.[ISI][Medline]

45 . Schonwald, S., Skerk, V., Petricevic, I., Car, V., Majerus-Misic, L. & Gunjaca, M. (1991). Comparison of three-day and five-day courses of azithromycin in the treatment of atypical pneumonia. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 10, 877–80.[ISI][Medline]

46 . Schonwald, S., Kuzman, I., Oreskovic, K., Burek, V., Skerk, V., Car, V. et al. (1999). Azithromycin: Single 1.5 g dose in the treatment of patients with atypical pneumonia syndrome. A randomized study. Infection 27, 198–202.[ISI][Medline]

47 . Soepandi, P., Mangunnegoro, H., Yunus, F. & Gunawan, J. (1998). The pattern of micro-organisms and the efficacy of new macrolide in acute lower respiratory tract infections. Respirology 3, 113–7.[Medline]

48 . Sternon, J., Leclerq, P., Knepper, C. & Blot, K. (1995). Azithromycin compared with clarithromycin in the treatment of adult patients with acute purulent tracheobronchitis: a cost of illness study. Journal of International Medical Research 23, 413–22.[ISI][Medline]

49 . Vincken, W. & Yernault, J. C. (1993). Efficacy and tolerability of clarithromycin versus azithromycin in the short-course treatment of acute bronchitis. Drug Investigation 6, 170–5.[ISI]

50 . Whitlock, W. (1995). Multicenter comparison of azithromycin and amoxicillin/clavulanate in the treatment of patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Current Therapeutical Research – Clinical and Experimental 56, 985–95.

51 . Wubbel, L., Muniz, L., Ahmed, A., Trujillo, M., Carubelli, C., McCoig, C. et al. (1999). Etiology and treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in ambulatory children. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal 18, 98–104.[ISI][Medline]

52 . Zachariah, J. (1996). A randomized, comparative study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a 3-day course of azithromycin versus a 10-day course of co-amoxiclav as treatment of adult patients with lower respiratory tract infections. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 37, Suppl. C, 103–13.[ISI][Medline]

53 . Anthonisen, N. R., Manfreda, J., Warren, C. P., Hershfield, E. S., Harding, K. M. & Nelson, N. A. (1987). Antibiotic therapy in exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Annals of Internal Medicine 106, 196–204.[ISI][Medline]

54 . Cappelleri, J. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Schmid, C. H., de Ferranti, S. D., Aubert, M., Chalmers, T. C. et al. (1996). Large trials vs meta-analyses of smaller trials: How do their results compare? Journal of the American Medical Association 276, 1332–8.[Abstract]

55 . LeLorier, J., Gregoire, G., Benhaddad, A., Lapierre, J. & Derderian, F. (1997). Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized controlled trials. New England Journal of Medicine 337, 536–42.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

56 . Ioannidis, J. P. A., Cappelleri, J. C. & Lau, J. (1998). Issues in comparisons between meta-analyses and large trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 279, 1089–93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

57 . Ioannidis, J. P. A. & Lau, J. (1999). State of the evidence: current status and prospects of meta-analysis in infectious diseases. Clinical Infectious Diseases 29, 1178–85.[ISI][Medline]

58 . Morris, D. L., De Souza, A., Jones, J. A. & Morgan, W. E. (1991). High and prolonged pulmonary tissue concentrations of azithromycin following a single oral dose. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 10, 859–61.[ISI][Medline]

59 . Wettengel, R., Vetter, N. & Waardenburg, F. A. (1993). Clarithromycin versus cefaclor for the treatment of mild-to-moderate acute bacterial bronchitis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 31, 963–72.[Abstract]

60 . Chodosh, S., DeAbate, C.A., Haverstock, D., Aneiro, L. & Church, D. (2000). Short-course moxifloxacin therapy for treatment of acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. The Bronchitis Study Group. Respiratory Medicine 94, 18–27.[ISI][Medline]

61 . Langan, C. E., Zuck, P., Vogel, F., McIvor, A., Peirzchala, W., Smakal, M. et al. (1999). Randomized, double-blind study of short-course (5 day) grepafloxacin versus 10 day clarithromycin in patients with acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 44, 515–23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

62 . Langan, C., Clecner, B., Cazzola, C. M., Brambilla, C., Holmes, C. Y. & Staley, H. (1998). Short-course cefuroxime axetil therapy in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. International Journal of Clinical Practice 52, 289–97.[ISI][Medline]

63 . Guest, N. & Langan, C. E. (1998). Comparison of the efficacy and safety of a short-course of ceftibuten with that of amoxicillin/clavulanate in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 10, 49–54.[ISI][Medline]

64 . Henry, D., Ruoff, G. E., Rhudy, J., Puopolo, A., Drehobl, M., Schoenberger, J. et al. (1995). Effectiveness of short-course therapy (5 days) of cefuroxime axetil in treatment of secondary bacterial infections of acute bronchitis. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 39, 2528–34.[Abstract]

65 . Vergis, E. N., Indorf, A., File, T. M., Jr, Phillips, J., Bates, J., Tan, J. et al. (2000). Azithromycin vs. cefuroxime plus erythromycin for empirical treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients. Archives of Internal Medicine 160, 1294–300.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

66 . Plouffe, J., Schwartz, D. B., Kolokathis, A., Sherman, B. W., Arnow, P. M., Gezon, J. A. et al. (2000). Clinical efficacy of intravenous followed by oral azithromycin monotherapy in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 44, 1796–802.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

67 . Ferwerda, A., Moll, H. A., Hop, W. C., Kouwenberg, J. M., Tjon Pian Gi, C. V., Robben, S. G. et al. (2001). Efficacy, safety and tolerability of 3 day azithromycin versus 10 day co-amoxiclav in the treatment of children with acute lower respiratory tract infections. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 47, 441–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

68 . Bent, S., Saint, S., Vittinghoff, E. & Grady D. (1999). Antibiotics in acute bronchitis: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Medicine 107, 62–7.[ISI][Medline]

69 . Ioannidis, J. P. A. & Lau, J. (2001). Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. Journal of the American Medical Association 285, 437–43.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

70 . Ioannidis, J. P. A. & Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G. (1998). Reporting of safety data from randomised trials. Lancet 352, 1752–3.[ISI][Medline]

Received 25 January 2001; returned 19 July 2001; revised 6 August 2001; accepted 23 August 2001