Evidence Hub

Clinical efficacy comparison of Doxycycline versus Azithromycin combined with Methylprednisolone in the treatment of macrolide-unresponsive Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia in children

Zheng K, Zhou SH, Han ZB

European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2026

1,112 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background: The escalating prevalence of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) in China has posed substantial challenges for pediatricians managing mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia (MPP). This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and prognostic outcomes between two treatment strategies for pediatric patients with macrolide-unresponsive mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia (MUMPP) following initial 72-hour intravenous azithromycin therapy: (1) continuation of intravenous azithromycin combined with methylprednisolone, versus (2) switch to oral doxycycline monotherapy.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of children hospitalized for MPP at our institution between November 2023 and October 2024. Children with MPP who showed no clinical response to an initial 72-hour course of intravenous azithromycin were assigned to two groups: (1) intravenous azithromycin combined with methylprednisolone (AZM + methylprednisolone group), and (2) doxycycline monotherapy (DXC group). Clinical efficacy and prognosis were compared between groups using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust for baseline confounding, followed by calculation of statistical power for the primary outcomes.

Results: A total of 1,112 children with MPP were screened, of whom 493 (44.33%) met the criteria for MUMPP, and 382 were included in the final analysis. The DXC group showed a significantly higher rate of pulmonary imaging improvement at discharge compared to the AZM +…

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: 1,112 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