Evidence Hub

Utilization of broad- versus narrow-spectrum antibiotics for the treatment of outpatient community-acquired pneumonia among adults in the United States

Nickel KB, Durkin MJ, Olsen MA, Sahrmann JM, Neuner E, O'Neil CA, Butler AM, CDC Prevention Epicenters Program

Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2024

37 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Purpose: To characterize antibiotic utilization for outpatient community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in the United States.

Methods: We conducted a cohort study among adults 18-64 years diagnosed with outpatient CAP and a same-day guideline-recommended oral antibiotic fill in the MarketScan® Commercial Database (2008-2019). We excluded patients coded for chronic lung disease or immunosuppressive disease; recent hospitalization or frequent healthcare exposure (e.g., home wound care, patients with cancer); recent antibiotics; or recent infection. We characterized utilization of broad-spectrum antibiotics (respiratory fluoroquinolone, β-lactam + macrolide, β-lactam + doxycycline) versus narrow-spectrum antibiotics (macrolide, doxycycline) overall and by patient- and provider-level characteristics. Per 2007 IDSA/ATS guidelines, we stratified analyses by otherwise healthy patients and patients with comorbidities (coded for diabetes; chronic heart, liver, or renal disease; etc.).

Results: Among 263 914 otherwise healthy CAP patients, 35% received broad-spectrum antibiotics (not recommended); among 37 161 CAP patients with comorbidities, 44% received broad-spectrum antibiotics (recommended). Ten-day antibiotic treatment durations were the most common for all antibiotic classes except macrolides. From 2008 to 2019, broad-spectrum antibiotic use substantially decreased from 45% to 19% in otherwise healthy patients (average annual percentage change [AAPC], -7.5% [95% CI -9.2%, -5.9%]),…

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: 37 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