Pulsed moxifloxacin for the prevention of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute exacerbations contribute to the morbidity and mortality associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This proof-of-concept study evaluates whether intermittent pulsed moxifloxacin treatment could reduce the frequency of these exacerbations. METHODS: Stable patients with COPD were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to receive moxifloxacin 400 mg PO once daily (N = 573) or placebo (N = 584) once a day for 5 days. Treatment was repeated every 8 weeks for a total of six courses. Patients were repeatedly assessed clinically and microbiologically during the 48-week treatment period, and for a further 24 weeks' follow-up. RESULTS: At 48 weeks the odds ratio (OR) for suffering an exacerbation favoured moxifloxacin: per-protocol (PP) population (N = 738, OR 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.565-0.994, p = 0.046), intent-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 1149, OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.645-1.008, p = 0.059), and a post-hoc analysis of per-protocol (PP) patients with purulent/mucopurulent sputum production at baseline (N = 323, OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.84, p = 0.006).There were no significant differences between moxifloxacin and placebo in any pre-specified efficacy subgroup analyses or in hospitalization rates, mortality rates, lung function or changes in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores. There was, however, a significant difference in favour of moxifloxacin in the SGRQ symptom domain (ITT: -8.2 vs -3.8, p = 0.009; PP: -8.8 vs -4.4, p = 0.006). Moxifloxacin treatment was not associated with consistent changes in moxifloxacin susceptibility. There were more treatment-emergent, drug related adverse events with moxifloxacin vs placebo (p < 0.001) largely due to gastrointestinal events (4.7% vs 0.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent pulsed therapy with moxifloxacin reduced the odds of exacerbation by 20% in the ITT population, by 25% among the PP population and by 45% in PP patients with purulent/mucopurulent sputum at baseline. There were no unexpected adverse events and there was no evidence of resistance development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00473460 (ClincalTrials.gov).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".