Moxifloxacin Monotherapy Is Effective in Hospitalized Patients with Community‐Acquired Pneumonia: The MOTIV Study—A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to show that sequential intravenous and oral moxifloxacin monotherapy (400 mg once per day) is as efficacious and safe as a combination regimen (intravenous ceftriaxone, 2 g once per day, plus sequential intravenous and oral levofloxacin, 500 mg twice per day) in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind noninferiority trial. Patients with a Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) of III-V were stratified on the basis of PSI risk class before randomization. The primary efficacy end point was clinical response at test of cure (4-14 days after the completion of treatment). Secondary efficacy end points were clinical and bacteriological response at end of treatment (days 7-14) and at follow-up assessment (21-28 days after the end of treatment), overall mortality, and mortality attributable to pneumonia. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-three patients were enrolled in the study (368 in the moxifloxacin arm and 365 in the comparator arm); 49% had a PSI of IV, and 10% had a PSI of V. Of 569 patients (291 in the moxifloxacin arm and 278 in the comparator arm) valid for per-protocol analysis, the overall clinical cure rates at test of cure were 86.9% for moxifloxacin and 89.9% for the comparator regimen (95% confidence interval, -8.1% to 2.2%). Bacteriological success at test of cure was 83.3% for moxifloxacin and 85.1% for the comparator regimen (95% confidence interval, -15.4% to 11.8%). There were no significant differences between moxifloxacin and comparator treatments in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events or in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with sequential intravenous/oral moxifloxacin was noninferior to treatment with ceftriaxone plus levofloxacin combination therapy in patients with community-acquired pneumonia who required hospitalization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".