Evidence Hub

Beta-lactam plus macrolide treatment versus beta-lactam monotherapy for community-acquired pneumonia: a propensity score analysis using data from a multicenter prospective cohort study

Kei Nakashima, Masahiro Aoshima, Hiroki Matusi, Atsushi Shiraishi, Hiroyuki Ito, Motoi Suzuki, Konosuke Morimoto, Koya Ariyoshi et al.

BMC Infectious Diseases, 2025

3,470 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) substantially contributes to mortality and morbidity globally, with beta-lactams being a primary therapeutic agent. The efficacy of adding macrolides to beta-lactams in CAP treatment remains controversial. Here, we evaluated whether beta-lactam plus macrolide treatment (BLM) is more effective than beta-lactam monotherapy (BL) for preventing CAP mortality. METHODS: We performed a secondary data analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with CAP at four institutions. We selected patients treated with either BLM or BL. The primary endpoint was the outcome at the end of the observation period (death or recovery). The secondary endpoints were the length of hospital stay and duration of antibiotic use. Multiple imputations with bootstrapping were used to address missing data. Background characteristics were adjusted via propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of the 3,470 patients initially included in the study, 2,784 were analyzed; 306 received BLM and 2,478 received BL. The average observation period for the groups was 17.0 (± 18.4) and 24.0 days (± 24.6), respectively. After propensity score matching, mortality was similar between the groups (5.06% for BLM vs. 4.98% for BL; difference 0.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] − 3.73 to 3.71), as were recovery rates (91.79% for BLM vs. 91.69% for BL; difference 0.00, 95% CI − 4.48 to 4.82). In the subgroup analysis of patients with severe CAP, mortality…

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: 3,470 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