Lung Center of the Philippines

About: Lung Center of the Philippines is a healthcare organization based out in Quezon City, Philippines. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Randomized controlled trial & Tuberculosis. The organization has 34 authors who have published 42 publications receiving 1693 citations.

Omadacycline for Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia

Abstract: Background Omadacycline, a new once-daily aminomethylcycline antibiotic agent that can be administered intravenously or orally, reaches high concentrations in pulmonary tissues and is acti...

Reminder systems to improve patient adherence to tuberculosis clinic appointments for diagnosis and treatment

Abstract: Background People with active tuberculosis (TB) require six months of treatment. Some people find it difficult to complete treatment, and there are several approaches to help ensure completion. One such system relies on reminders, where the health system prompts patients to attend for appointments on time, or re-engages people who have missed or defaulted on a scheduled appointment. Objectives To assess the effects of reminder systems on improving attendance at TB diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment clinic appointments, and their effects on TB treatment outcomes. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, mRCT, and the Indian Journal of Tuberculosis without language restriction up to 29 August 2014. We also checked reference lists and contacted researchers working in the field. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster RCTs and quasi-RCTs, and controlled before-and-after studies comparing reminder systems with no reminders or an alternative reminder system for people with scheduled appointments for TB diagnosis, prophylaxis, or treatment. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. We compared the effects of interventions by using risk ratios (RR) and presented RRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Also we assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results Nine trials, including 4654 participants, met our inclusion criteria. Five trials evaluated appointment reminders for people on treatment for active TB, two for people on prophylaxis for latent TB, and four for people undergoing TB screening using skin tests. We classified the interventions into 'pre-appointment' reminders (telephone calls or letters prior to a scheduled appointment) or 'default' reminders (telephone calls, letters, or home visits to people who had missed an appointment). For people being treated for active TB, clinic attendance and TB treatment completion were higher in people receiving pre-appointment reminder phone-calls (clinic attendance: 66% versus 50%; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.59, one trial (USA), 615 participants, low quality evidence; TB treatment completion: 100% versus 88%; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27, one trial (Thailand), 92 participants, low quality evidence). Clinic attendance and TB treatment completion were also higher with default reminders (letters or home visits) (clinic attendance: 52% versus 10%; RR 5.04, 95% CI 1.61 to 15.78, one trial (India), 52 participants, low quality evidence; treatment completion: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24, two trials (Iraq and India), 680 participants, moderate quality evidence). For people on TB prophylaxis, clinic attendance was higher with a policy of pre-appointment phone-calls (63% versus 48%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.59, one trial (USA), 536 participants); and attendance at the final clinic was higher with regular three-monthly phone-calls or nurse visits (93% versus 65%, one trial (Spain), 318 participants). For people undergoing screening for TB, three trials of pre-appointment phone-calls found little or no effect on the proportion of people returning to clinic for the result of their skin test (three trials, 1189 participants, low quality evidence), and two trials found little or no effect with take home reminder cards (two trials, 711 participants). All four trials were conducted among healthy volunteers in the USA. Authors' conclusions Policies of sending reminders to people pre-appointment, and contacting people who miss appointments, seem sensible additions to any TB programme, and the limited evidence available suggests they have small but potentially important benefits. Future studies of modern technologies such as short message service (SMS) reminders would be useful, particularly in low-resource settings.

SOLITAIRE-IV: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous-to-Oral Solithromycin to Intravenous-to-Oral Moxifloxacin for Treatment of Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia

Abstract: Background Solithromycin, a novel macrolide antibiotic with both intravenous and oral formulations dosed once daily, has completed 2 global phase 3 trials for treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Methods A total of 863 adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team [PORT] class II-IV) were randomized 1:1 to receive either intravenous-to-oral solithromycin or moxifloxacin for 7 once-daily doses. All patients received 400 mg intravenously on day 1 and were permitted to switch to oral dosing when clinically indicated. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority (10% margin) of solithromycin to moxifloxacin in achievement of early clinical response (ECR) assessed 3 days after first dose in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary endpoints included demonstrating noninferiority in ECR in the microbiological ITT population (micro-ITT) and determination of investigator-assessed success rates at the short-term follow-up (SFU) visit 5-10 days posttherapy. Results In the ITT population, 79.3% of solithromycin patients and 79.7% of moxifloxacin patients achieved ECR (treatment difference, -0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.1 to 5.2). In the micro-ITT population, 80.3% of solithromycin patients and 79.1% of moxifloxacin patients achieved ECR (treatment difference, 1.26; 95% CI, -8.1 to 10.6). In the ITT population, 84.6% of solithromycin patients and 88.6% of moxifloxacin patients achieved clinical success at SFU based on investigator assessment. Mostly mild/moderate infusion events led to higher incidence of adverse events overall in the solithromycin group. Other adverse events were comparable between treatment groups. Conclusions Intravenous-to-oral solithromycin was noninferior to intravenous-to-oral moxifloxacin. Solithromycin has potential to provide an intravenous and oral option for monotherapy for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Clinical trials registration NCT01968733.