Table 2.

Summary of reported microbiologic and clinical efficacy data

	Condition	Efficacy after completion of therapy		No. subjects evaluated	Days post-therapy	Significantly different from comparator(s)?a
		Microbiologic	Clinical
Klimberg et al 1998c	cUTI	95.3%	93.0%	171	5–9	Nof
Peng 1999d	AP and cUTI	90.0%	90.0%	20	−5	No
Peterson et al 2008b	AP and cUTI	79.8%	82.6%	317	5–7	No
Richard et al 1998ac,e	AP	94.0%	92.0%	89	5–9	Nog
Richard et al 1998b	cUTI	91.0%	92.0%	126	5–9	No

^aalpha = 0.05.

^bData are presented from the modified intention to treat analysis.

^cData are presented from the microbiologically evaluable study subjects; efficacy not reported for intention to treat or modified intention to treat groups.

^dNo end of therapy endpoint assessed. Data presented was collected on day 5 of therapy.

^ePublication reports the findings of two trials; average efficacy presented here.

^fStatistical comparison performed only for microbiologic efficacy outcome.

^gNo statistical comparisons reported; however, microbiologic and clinical efficacy rates for levofloxacin were higher than for the comparators.

Abbreviations: AP, acute pyelonephritis; cUTI, complicated urinary tract infection.