Evidence Hub

Association between point mutations of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae and clinical antibiotic treatment efficacy: a meta-analysis

Rutong Wang, Junfeng He, Yingqi Feng, Mengyao Wang, Chao Zhong, Siqin He, S C Tu, Na Wen et al.

Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2025

8,960 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background The increasing macrolide resistance in Mycoplasma pneumoniae is mainly driven by mutations in the V domain of 23S rRNA (A2063G/A2064G), which impairs the efficacy of first-line treatment. Previous meta-analyses failed to distinguish between mutation subtypes or quantify age-specific susceptibility, blurring the clinical significance of different mutation burdens. Objective To quantify the differential impact of single mutation (A2063G) and double mutation (A2063G + A2064G) on core clinical outcomes and to dissect the age-adjusted effects between children and adults. Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and CNKI databases (up to June 2025). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. Random-effects models were applied to handle heterogeneity (I 2 > 50%), and subgroup analyses were conducted to compare mutation subtypes and age-stratified effects. Results A total of 53 studies (n = 8,960 individuals, covering 5 countries) were included. Double mutations significantly prolonged the duration of fever compared to single mutations (HR = 5.32, 95% CI: 4.27–6.61 vs. HR = 3.66, 95% CI: 1.89–7.09; P < 0.001) and were more likely to cause severe illness (HR = 7.80, 95% CI: 2.51–24.18 vs. HR = 5.89, 95% CI: 2.03–17.08). There was no difference in hospital stay between the two mutation subtypes, but both were longer than the wild type (MD = −3.33 days). The duration of fever in children was shorter than that in adults for all genotypes…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 8,960 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