Comparative Efficacy of Beta-Lactams and Macrolides in the Treatment of Pediatric Pneumonia: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is an acute infection of the lung parenchyma that is differentiated among three main diagnoses: community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), and healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP). Though CAP is initially presented as a mild infection, it contributes to childhood mortality rates globally. A vast number of pathogens are the cause of CAP, but the two main causative organisms include Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, with the former causing up to 50% of all childhood cases. In the current treatment guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), amoxicillin is the recommended treatment choice for mild-to-moderate CAP while ampicillin is recommended for cases of severe CAP. Previous studies compared treatment between macrolides and beta-lactams to provide more information on the effectiveness in the pediatric population. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to systematically review the literature on the comparative efficacy of beta-lactams and macrolides in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia among children and to evaluate the outcomes that are used to determine drug efficacy in order to provide medication recommendations. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, TRIP, Cochrane and SCOPUS. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials between the years 2000 and 2020 that compared the efficacy of amoxicillin and macrolides in treating pediatric pneumonia were included in the systematic review. Eligible patients included patients who were 17 years and younger, diagnosed with community-acquired pneumonia, and were given beta-lactams or macrolides, either as monotherapy or combination. Two reviewers were involved in the appraisal process to assess the quality of the methods used in the selected studies. RESULTS: A total of six articles were eligible according to the inclusion criteria and quality assessment. Four articles compared beta-lactam monotherapy with beta-lactam and macrolide combination therapy, while Kogan R et al. compared macrolide therapy monotherapy with beta-lactam and macrolide combination therapy and Leyenaar JK et al. compared ceftriaxone monotherapy to ceftriaxone plus macrolide combination therapy. The studies defined treatment failure as either a change in antibiotic therapy or hospital admission within 14 days of CAP diagnosis. Three studies used the length of hospital stay as their primary outcome for comparison of treatment efficacy. Four studies showed that the use of macrolides provided better treatment outcomes by reducing hospital stay and treatment failure rates. Beta-lactam and macrolide combination therapy did not show a significant effect on treatment failure compared to beta-lactam monotherapy regimens and it did not affect mortality compared to placebo or diet alone. Within the macrolide class, azithromycin was more clinically significant compared to erythromycin. CONCLUSION: The use of macrolides as monotherapy or add-on therapy to beta-lactams is more effective in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in the pediatric population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».