Clinical And Bacteriological Impact Of Clarithromycin In Streptococcal Pharyngitis: Findings From A Meta-Analysis Of Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daryl J Hoban,1 Jos Nauta2 1Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; 2Department of Innovation & Development, Established Pharmaceuticals Division, Abbott Healthcare Products B.V., Weesp 1381 CP, The NetherlandsCorrespondence: Jos NautaDepartment of Innovation & Development, Established Pharmaceuticals Division, Abbott Healthcare Products B.V., C.J. van Houtenlaan 36, Weesp 1381 CP, The NetherlandsTel +31 294 47 7360Email jos.nauta@abbott.comIntroduction: Among the bacterial upper respiratory tract infections (UTRIs), the most medically significant is pharyngitis due to Group A beta-hemolytic Streptococci (GABHS). A 2012 meta-review and a 2016 Cochrane systematic review reported favorably on the comparative efficacy and safety of clarithromycin in pediatric patients with URTIs and in adults with GABHS pharyngitis. In this paper, the evidence base for clarithromycin in patients with URTIs is augmented by a meta-analysis of comparative studies in GABHS pharyngitis.Methods: A series of five outpatient trials of clarithromycin for the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis from an internal database were subjected to meta-analysis. Active comparators comprised penicillin VK and erythromycin.Results: Rates of clinical cure or improvement were very similar in all treatment assignments, but the rates of bacteriological cure were numerically higher with clarithromycin than with comparator antibiotics. Adverse events data indicated that clarithromycin was generally well tolerated in these studies, with a relatively low incidence of adverse events and few severe incidents.Discussion: Though currently not advised as a first-line therapy for URTI in most guidelines, the results of the meta-analysis indicate that clarithromycin is nevertheless a valid, effective and largely well-tolerated treatment option for GABHS pharyngitis patients who cannot benefit from other agents.Keywords: clarithromycin, erythromycin, amoxicillin, Streptococcus, pharyngitis, metaanalysis
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".