Evidence Hub

Exclusive Oral Antibiotic Treatment for Hospitalized Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Post-Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

A. Dinh, C. Duran, Jacques Ropers, F. Bouchand, L. Deconinck, M. Matt, O. Sénard, Aurore Lagrange et al.

Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 2024

200 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we aimed to assess the efficacy of different ways of administration and types of beta-lactams for hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

METHODS

In this post-hoc analysis of a RCT on patients hospitalized for CAP (PTC trial) comparing 3-day versus 8-day durations of beta-lactams, which concluded to non-inferiority, we included patients who received either amoxicillin-clavulanate (AMC) or third-generation cephalosporin (3GC) regimens, and exclusively either intravenous or oral treatment for the first 3 days (followed by either 5 days of oral placebo or AMC according to randomization). Choice of route and molecule was left to the physician in charge. The main outcome was failure at 15 days after first antibiotic intake, defined as temperature>37.9°C, and/or absence of resolution/improvement of respiratory symptoms, and/or additional antibiotic treatment for any cause. The primary outcome according to route of administration was evaluated through logistic regression. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) with a propensity score model was used to adjust for non-randomization of treatment route and potential confounders. The difference in failure rates was also evaluated among several sub-populations (AMC versus 3GC treatments, or intravenous versus oral AMC, patients with multi-lobar infection, patients aged ≥ 65 years old, and patients with CURB65 scores of 3-4).

RESULTS

We included 200 patients from the original trial, with 93/200…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, 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: 200 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