Search

Background: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AE-COPD) are a common cause of hospital admission. Many exacerbations are believed to be due to upper and/or lower respiratory tract viral [...]

Theophylline is effective in the treatment of central apneas and periodic breathing. In obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), results of pharmacological monotherapy with theophylline are inconsistent. The present study investigates whether additional theophylline in patients with OSAS and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy might improve ventilation, lower effective CPAP pressure levels or affect sleep architecture. Patients with mild to moderate OSAS (mean apnea index [AI] 12.8+/-11.7) and CPAP therapy (Autoset^T^M system; n=16, all male) received either 900mg of oral sustained-release theophylline (T) or placebo (P) on two separate nights, 3 days apart, using a randomized double-blind crossover study design. There was no change in AI (T: 0.7+/-1.4 vs. P: 0.7+/-0.6/h; P=0.3) or apnea-hypopnea index (AHI; T: 4.3+/-3.3 vs. P: 4.5+/-3.7/h; P=0.84) when theophylline was added to CPAP therapy. We observed no difference in mean CPAP pressure (T: 6.9+/-2.1 vs. P: 6.7+/-1.9cm H"2O; P=0.7) or 95% pressure percentiles (T: 9.7+/-2.7 vs. P: 9.3+/-2.1cm H"2O; P=0.3) when nights with theophylline were compared to placebo nights. Theophylline reduced significantly total sleep time (T: 290.6+/-58.9 vs. P: 338.0+/-40.1min; P=0.02) and thus sleep efficiency (SE; T: 70.5+/-14.9%, P: 82.0+/-70.5%; P=0.005). Rapid eye movement and slow wave sleep were not affected. Oral theophylline did not show any additional effects on ventilation parameters or pressures in patients with mild to moderate OSAS once CPAP therapy has been successfully installed. SE was reduced with theophylline with unchanged sleep architecture. The role of oral theophylline may be in patients with predominately central apneas not eligible for ventilation therapy or severe cases.

BackgroundA prospective multicentre study was undertaken to compare the efficacy of intravenous ciprofloxacin or imipenem in the treatment of severe nosocomial pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation.MethodsPatients with a clinical suspicion of pneumonia were randomised to receive either ciprofloxacin (800-1200 mg/day) or imipenem (2-4 g/day) in doses adjusted for renal function and specimens of the lower respiratory tract were taken. Patients were included in the study when specimens showed significant growth for potentially pathogenic microorganisms in quantitative bacterial cultures (n = 75, ciprofloxacin 41/75 (55%); imipenem 34/75 (45%)). The clinical and bacteriological success rates were the primary and secondary efficacy variables. An intent-to-treat analysis was performed for all randomised patients who received at least one dose of the study medication (n = 149, ciprofloxacin 72/149 (48%), imipenem 77/149 (52%)).ResultsThe success rates were generally good, but neither the clinical success rates (ciprofloxacin, 29/41 (71%), imipenem, 27/34 (79%); 95% CI -10.8 to 28.1; p = 0.435) nor the bacteriological response rate (ciprofloxacin, 20/41 (49%), imipenem, 17/34 (50%); 95% CI -21.5 to 23.9; p = 1.0) were significantly different between the study arms. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was recovered in 26/75 patients (35%) and clinical (ciprofloxacin, 10/14 (71%), imipenem, 8/12 (67%); 95% CI -40.4 to 30.9; p = 1.0) and bacteriological response rates (ciprofloxacin, 7/14 (50%), imipenem, 3/12 (25%), 95% CI -60.9 to 10.9, p = 0.247) were not significantly different in this subgroup of patients. Resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa developed in 5/26 cases (19%), 1/14 (7%) to ciprofloxacin and 4/12 (33%) to imipenem (p = 0.147), and the mortality was 12/75 (16%) with no difference between treatment groups (ciprofloxacin, 8/41(24%), imipenem 4/34 (17%); p = 0.362). The clinical response was evaluable in 109/149 patients (73%) in the intent-to-treat analysis and was successful in 74/109 patients (68%). The clinical response rates were also not significantly different in the intent-to-treat analysis (ciprofloxacin, 34/52 (65%), imipenem, 40/57 (70%); 95% CI -12.8 to 22.3; p = 0.746).ConclusionsTreatment with either ciprofloxacin or imipenem was effective in a selected group of patients with microbiologically confirmed, severe nosocomial pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation. Although no differences between the study medication could be documented in this trial, smaller differences between treatment arms may have been missed because of sample size limitations.