Evidence Hub

Efficacy of empiric macrolides versus fluoroquinolones in community-acquired pneumonia associated with atypical bacteria: A meta-analysis

Ahmed Basilim, Haytham Wali, A. Rabaan, K. Eljaaly

Respiratory medical research, 2022

8 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

It is unclear if one empiric regimen for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) associated with atypical bacteria is superior to another. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare fluoroquinolones to macrolides in the rates of clinical failure in CAP associated with atypical pathogens.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy of fluoroquinolones with macrolides for CAP associated with atypical bacteria. We estimated risk differences (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models and assessed for heterogeneity (I2).

RESULTS

Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria. No significant differences between macrolides and fluoroquinolones and were identified in rates of clinical failure in CAP associated with any atypical bacteria (RR = 1.57 [95% CI 0.73 to 3.38]; p = 0.251; I2 = 0%), Chlamydia pneumoniae (RR = 2.12 [95% CI 0.63 to 7.14]; p = 0.223; I2 = 0%), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (RR = 1.28 [95% CI 0.57 to 2.92]; p = 0.550; I2 = 0%), or Legionella pneumophila (RR = 0.24 [95% CI 0.02 to 2.86]; p = 0.256; I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of RCTs found no significant differences between macrolides and fluoroquinolones in rates of clinical failure in CAP associated with atypical bacteria.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

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