Dataset Information

Effectiveness of beta lactam antibiotics compared with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in non-severe community acquired pneumonia: meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To systematically compare beta lactam antibiotics with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in the management of community acquired pneumonia.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, Cochrane register of controlled trials, international conference proceedings, drug registration authorities, and pharmaceutical companies. Review methods Double blind randomised controlled monotherapy trials comparing beta lactam antibiotics with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in adults with community acquired pneumonia. Primary outcome was failure to achieve clinical cure or improvement.

Results

18 trials totalling 6749 participants were identified, with most patients having mild to moderate community acquired pneumonia. The summary relative risk for treatment failure in all cause community acquired pneumonia showed no advantage of antibiotics active against atypical pathogens over beta lactam antibiotics (0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.07). Subgroup analysis was undertaken in those with a specific diagnosis involving atypical pathogens. We found a significantly lower failure rate in patients with Legionella species who were treated with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens (0.40, 0.19 to 0.85). Equivalence was seen for Mycoplasma pneumoniae (0.60, 0.31 to 1.17) and Chlamydia pneumoniae (2.32, 0.67 to 8.03).

Conclusions

Evidence is lacking that clinical outcomes are improved by using antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in all cause non-severe community acquired pneumonia. Although such antibiotics were superior in the management of patients later shown to have legionella related pneumonia, this pathogen was rarely responsible for pneumonia within the included trials. beta lactam agents should remain the antibiotics of initial choice in adults with non-severe community acquired pneumonia.

SUBMITTER: Mills GD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC549658 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of beta lactam antibiotics compared with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in non-severe community acquired pneumonia: meta-analysis.

Mills Graham D GD Oehley Michael R MR Arrol Bruce B

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20050131 7489

<h4>Objective</h4>To systematically compare beta lactam antibiotics with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in the management of community acquired pneumonia.<h4>Data sources</h4>Medline, Embase, Cochrane register of controlled trials, international conference proceedings, drug registration authorities, and pharmaceutical companies. Review methods Double blind randomised controlled monotherapy trials comparing beta lactam antibiotics with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens ...[more]

PMID: 15684024

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Empirical antibiotic coverage for atypical pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has long been debated, mainly because of a lack of epidemiological data. We aimed to assess both testing for atypical pathogens and their prevalence in hospitalized patients with CAP worldwide, especially in relation with disease severity. METHODS:A secondary analysis of the GLIMP database, an international, multicentre, point-prevalence study of adult patients admitted for CAP in 222 hospitals across 6 continents in 2015, was performed. The study evaluated frequency of testing for atypical pathogens, including L. pneumophila, M. pneumoniae, C. pneumoniae, and their prevalence. Risk factors for testing and prevalence for atypical pathogens were assessed through univariate analysis. RESULTS:Among 3702 CAP patients 1250 (33.8%) underwent at least one test for atypical pathogens. Testing varies greatly among countries and its frequency was higher in Europe than elsewhere (46.0% vs. 12.7%, respectively, p?<?0.0001). Detection of L. pneumophila urinary antigen was the most common test performed worldwide (32.0%). Patients with severe CAP were less likely to be tested for both atypical pathogens considered together (30.5% vs. 35.0%, p?=?0.009) and specifically for legionellosis (28.3% vs. 33.5%, p?=?0.003) than the rest of the population. Similarly, L. pneumophila testing was lower in ICU patients. At least one atypical pathogen was isolated in 62 patients (4.7%), including M. pneumoniae (26/251 patients, 10.3%), L. pneumophila (30/1186 patients, 2.5%), and C. pneumoniae (8/228 patients, 3.5%). Patients with CAP due to atypical pathogens were significantly younger, showed less cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic comorbidities in comparison to adult patients hospitalized due to non-atypical pathogen CAP. CONCLUSIONS:Testing for atypical pathogens in patients admitted for CAP in poorly standardized in real life and does not mirror atypical prevalence in different settings. Further evidence on the impact of atypical pathogens, expecially in the low-income countries, is needed to guidelines implementation.

Project description:Lefamulin was the first systemic pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for intravenous and oral use in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia based on two phase 3 trials (Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia [LEAP]-1 and LEAP-2). This pooled analysis evaluated lefamulin efficacy and safety in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia caused by atypical pathogens (Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, and Chlamydia pneumoniae). In LEAP-1, participants received intravenous lefamulin 150 mg every 12 h for 5-7 days or moxifloxacin 400 mg every 24 h for 7 days, with optional intravenous-to-oral switch. In LEAP-2, participants received oral lefamulin 600 mg every 12 h for 5 days or moxifloxacin 400 mg every 24 h for 7 days. Primary outcomes were early clinical response at 96 ± 24 h after first dose and investigator assessment of clinical response at test of cure (5-10 days after last dose). Atypical pathogens were identified in 25.0% (91/364) of lefamulin-treated patients and 25.2% (87/345) of moxifloxacin-treated patients; most were identified by ≥1 standard diagnostic modality (M. pneumoniae 71.2% [52/73]; L. pneumophila 96.9% [63/65]; C. pneumoniae 79.3% [46/58]); the most common standard diagnostic modality was serology. In terms of disease severity, more than 90% of patients had CURB-65 (confusion of new onset, blood urea nitrogen > 19 mg/dL, respiratory rate ≥ 30 breaths/min, blood pressure <90 mm Hg systolic or ≤60 mm Hg diastolic, and age ≥ 65 years) scores of 0-2; approximately 50% of patients had PORT (Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team) risk class of III, and the remaining patients were more likely to have PORT risk class of II or IV versus V. In patients with atypical pathogens, early clinical response (lefamulin 84.4-96.6%; moxifloxacin 90.3-96.8%) and investigator assessment of clinical response at test of cure (lefamulin 74.1-89.7%; moxifloxacin 74.2-97.1%) were high and similar between arms. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar in the lefamulin (34.1% [31/91]) and moxifloxacin (32.2% [28/87]) groups. Limitations to this analysis include its post hoc nature, the small numbers of patients infected with atypical pathogens, the possibility of PCR-based diagnostic methods to identify non-etiologically relevant pathogens, and the possibility that these findings may not be generalizable to all patients. Lefamulin as short-course empiric monotherapy, including 5-day oral therapy, was well tolerated in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and demonstrated high clinical response rates against atypical pathogens.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Although previous studies have suggested that macrolide therapy is beneficial for ARDS, its benefit for severe CAP-associated ARDS remains uncertain. Previous studies were limited in that they had a small sample size and included patients with non-pulmonary ARDS and those with pulmonary ARDS. This study aimed to investigate the additional effect of azithromycin when used with β-lactam compared with the effect of β-lactam alone in mechanically ventilated patients with CAP-associated ARDS.MethodsWe identified mechanically ventilated patients with CAP-associated ARDS between July 2010 and March 2015 using data in the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, a Japanese nationwide inpatient database. We performed propensity score matching analysis to assess 28-day mortality and in-hospital mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with CAP-associated ARDS who received β-lactam with and without azithromycin within hospital 2 days after admission. The inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis was also conducted.ResultsEligible patients (n = 1257) were divided into the azithromycin group (n = 226) and the control group (n = 1031). The one-to-four propensity score matching analysis included 139 azithromycin users and 556 non-users. No significant difference was observed between the groups with respect to 28-day mortality (34.5% vs. 37.6%, p = 0.556) or in-hospital mortality (46.0% vs. 49.1%, p = 0.569). The inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis showed similar results.ConclusionsCompared with treatment with β-lactam alone, treatment with azithromycin plus β-lactam had no significant additional effect on 28-day mortality or in-hospital mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with CAP-associated ARDS. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to determine the effect of azithromycin in mechanically ventilated patients with CAP-associated ARDS.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of beta lactam antibiotics compared with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in non-severe community acquired pneumonia: meta-analysis.

Objective

Data sources

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Effectiveness of beta lactam antibiotics compared with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in non-severe community acquired pneumonia: meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets