Evidence Hub

Patterns of initial antibiotic therapy for community-acquired pneumonia in U.S. hospitals, 2000 to 2009

A. Berger, J. Edelsberg, G. Oster, Xingyue Huang, D. Weber

American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 2014

40,392 participants · 18 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although clinical guidelines for management of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in non-intensive care unit ("non-ICU") hospitalized patients have changed substantially over the last decade, it is unknown how treatment of this disease has evolved over this period.

METHODS: Using data from >100 U.S. hospitals, we identified all adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalized for CAP between January 1, 2000, and June 30, 2009 ("study period"). We excluded patients admitted to ICU <24 hours of admission, those not starting antibiotics <24 hours of admission, those not receiving antibiotics for ≥48 hours (if alive), and those with probable healthcare-associated pneumonia. We defined "initial therapy" as all parenteral antibiotics received ≤24 hours of admission, and we examined changes in such therapy over the study period. The statistical significance of changes in initial therapy was ascertained using 2-tailed χ tests.

RESULTS: We identified 40,392 patients who met all selection criteria. In 2000, the most frequently used initial regimens were levofloxacin (24.0% of all such admissions), ceftriaxone (9.0%), cefotaxime (7.3%), ceftriaxone plus levofloxacin (3.2%) and azithromycin plus cefotaxime (3.0%); in 2009, they were ceftriaxone plus azithromycin (18.5%), levofloxacin (12.7%), ceftriaxone (6.6%), moxifloxacin (4.7%) and ceftriaxone + levofloxacin (3.2%). Use of single-agent regimens declined between 2000 and 2009 (from 48.2%-30.0%); use of vancomycin almost doubled…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 40,392 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free