These data are presented as table SDC-V. Concentrating on differences in disfavor of moxifloxacin, there was a near to 2-fold increased risk estimate in intravenous-only studies for (i) discontinuation due to AEs in comparison with β-lactams (moxifloxacin 11 [2.7%] versus β-lactam 6 [1.5%]); (ii) discontinuation due to AEs in comparison with another

fluoroquinolone (moxifloxacin 21 [6.0%] versus other fluoroquinolone 11 [3.1%]); and (iii) discontinuation due to ADRs also in comparison with another fluoroquinolone (moxifloxacin 17 [4.9%] versus other fluoroquinolone 9 [2.6%]). Analysis by Main Indication Moxifloxacin is indicated for infections of different levels of severity. The data were, therefore, GF120918 nmr stratified by the main approved indications for

which there were sufficient numbers of patients to draw meaningful www.selleckchem.com/p38-MAPK.html conclusions – namely ABS, AECB, CAP, uPID, cSSSI, and cIAI. The results are presented graphically in figure 1 with substratification by administration route (oral, intravenous/oral, intravenous). A 2-fold excess in event frequencies for moxifloxacin versus comparator was only seen (i) for SADRs in cIAI patients treated by the intravenous/oral routes, and (ii) for discontinuation due to AEs or to ADRs in AECB patients treated by the intravenous route only. However, in each case, there were relatively small numbers of patients (moxifloxacin 21 [3.4%] versus comparator 9 [1.4%] in patients with cIAI; moxifloxacin 7 [7.3%] versus comparator 2 [2.0%] in patients with AECB). Fig. 1 Relative risk estimates (moxifloxacin versus comparator) for adverse events from pooled data stratified according to indications (the most pertinent or most frequent ones). The data are substratified according to the route of administration approved or commonly used for the corresponding indication: (a) oral route; (b) intravenous

route followed by oral route [sequential]; (c) intravenous route. The number of patients enrolled in each cohort (moxifloxacin versus the comparator) is shown at the SB-3CT top of each graph. Calculations were made using the Mantel–Haenszel method stratified by study, with a continuity correction of 0.1 in the event of a null value. The relative risk estimates are presented on a 0–3 linear scale (1 denotes no difference; values <1 and >1 denote a correspondingly lower and higher risk, LY3039478 respectively, associated with moxifloxacin treatment relative to the comparator). Values ≤3 are displayed as squares. Circles placed at the edge of the scale indicate that the actual value is >3 (the numbers of patients who received moxifloxacin versus the comparator are shown to the left of the circle). White symbols indicate values with a lower limit of the calculated 95% confidence interval >1, indicating a nominally significantly higher risk for moxifloxacin relative to the comparator (the number of patients in each group is shown to the right of the symbol).