Evidence Hub

Chloramphenicol versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of pneumonia and sepsis in elderly patients with advanced dementia and functional disability. A propensity-weighted retrospective cohort study

Y. Eynath, R. McNeil, S. Buchrits, D. Guz, D. Fredman, A. Gafter-Gvili, T. Avni

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 2024

1,558 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sepsis and pneumonia in the elderly comprise a significant portion of medical admissions. Chloramphenicol has been used in Israel for treatment of bacterial infections, without evidence regarding its efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine whether chloramphenicol was associated with similar outcomes to ceftriaxone, for treatment of sepsis and pneumonia in the elderly with dementia and functional disability. METHODS: Patients over 75, with dementia and functional disability, admitted to the internal medicine ward at Beilinson Hospital between 2011 and 2021, with community-acquired aspiration pneumonia or sepsis of undetermined source were included. Patients with mild dementia and independent in their activities of daily living were excluded. Primary outcome was 30- and 90-day all-cause mortality. A propensity-weighted multivariable model was constructed using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results were expressed as OR with 95% CI. RESULTS: In total, 1558 patients were included: 512 treated with chloramphenicol and 1046 with ceftriaxone. The cohort consisted of elderly patients (mean age 87 ± 6.2 years) with comorbidities; 30- and 90-day all-cause mortality were similar [222/512 (43.3%) versus 439/1046 (41.9%) P = 0.602, and 261/512 (50.9%) versus 556/1046 (53.1%) P = 0.419, respectively]. Propensity-weighted, logistic multivariable analysis for 30- and 90-day all-cause mortality revealed similar mortality rates for chloramphenicol and…

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: 1,558 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