Cargando…

Comparison of ceftriaxone plus macrolide and ampicillin/sulbactam plus macrolide in treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia without risk factors for aspiration: an open-label, quasi-randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Ceftriaxone (CTRX) and ampicillin/sulbactam (ABPC/SBT) are recommended by various guidelines as the first-line antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, which of these antibiotics is more effective for treating non-aspiration CAP remains unclear. METHODS: This study wa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hamao, Nobuyoshi, Ito, Isao, Konishi, Satoshi, Tanabe, Naoya, Shirata, Masahiro, Oi, Issei, Tsukino, Mitsuhiro, Matsumoto, Hisako, Yasutomo, Yoshiro, Kadowaki, Seizo, Hirai, Toyohiro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7275365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32503515
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-020-01198-4
_version_ 1783542768717529088
author Hamao, Nobuyoshi
Ito, Isao
Konishi, Satoshi
Tanabe, Naoya
Shirata, Masahiro
Oi, Issei
Tsukino, Mitsuhiro
Matsumoto, Hisako
Yasutomo, Yoshiro
Kadowaki, Seizo
Hirai, Toyohiro
author_facet Hamao, Nobuyoshi
Ito, Isao
Konishi, Satoshi
Tanabe, Naoya
Shirata, Masahiro
Oi, Issei
Tsukino, Mitsuhiro
Matsumoto, Hisako
Yasutomo, Yoshiro
Kadowaki, Seizo
Hirai, Toyohiro
author_sort Hamao, Nobuyoshi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Ceftriaxone (CTRX) and ampicillin/sulbactam (ABPC/SBT) are recommended by various guidelines as the first-line antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, which of these antibiotics is more effective for treating non-aspiration CAP remains unclear. METHODS: This study was a prospective, single-center, open-label, quasi-randomized controlled trial. Patients with adult CAP without risk for aspiration were allocated to either a CTRX or ABPC/SBT group based on the date of hospital admission. Macrolide was added to patients in each group. The primary outcome was the clinical response in the validated per-protocol (VPP) population at end of treatment (EOT). The secondary outcomes were clinical response during treatment and at end of study (EOS) in the VPP population, and mortality rate at day 30 in the modified intention-to-treat (MITT) population. RESULTS: Of 696 screened patients, 433 patients were excluded and 263 patients were allocated to receive either of the treatments. Males comprised 54% of patients and mean age and PSI were 62.1 ± 19.8 years and 69.3 ± 30.0, respectively, with 124 patients allocated to the CTRX group and 138 patients allocated to the ABPC/SBT group. The clinical effectiveness rate for the VPP population at EOT was 90% in the CTRX and 96% in the ABPC/SBT group (p = 0.072, 95% confidence interval [CI] of risk difference [RD]: − 12.6–0.8%). No significant difference in effectiveness at day 4 was observed between the CTRX and ABPC/SBT groups (p = 0.079, 95%CI of RD: − 12.1–0.4%), but at day 7, ABPC/SBT was significantly more effective than CTRX in the VPP population (p = 0.047, 95%CI of RD: − 13.3–-0.4%). No significant difference in late response at EOS was seen between CTRX and ABPC/SBT groups: cure (89 [86%] and 102 [94%]), relapse (5 [5%] and 1 [1%]) and failure (10 [10%] and 5 [5%]; p = 0.053). Deaths within 30 days in MITT population was higher in CTRX group (4 [3%]) than in ABPC/SBT group (0 [0%]) (p = 0.048, 95%CI of RD: 0.1–6.3%). CONCLUSION: No significant difference in effectiveness was found between ABPC/SBT and CTRX at EOT. However, ABPC/SBT might be more effective in the early phase of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR, UMIN000037464. Registered 25 July 2019 – Retrospectively registered, https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000042262
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7275365
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72753652020-06-08 Comparison of ceftriaxone plus macrolide and ampicillin/sulbactam plus macrolide in treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia without risk factors for aspiration: an open-label, quasi-randomized, controlled trial Hamao, Nobuyoshi Ito, Isao Konishi, Satoshi Tanabe, Naoya Shirata, Masahiro Oi, Issei Tsukino, Mitsuhiro Matsumoto, Hisako Yasutomo, Yoshiro Kadowaki, Seizo Hirai, Toyohiro BMC Pulm Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Ceftriaxone (CTRX) and ampicillin/sulbactam (ABPC/SBT) are recommended by various guidelines as the first-line antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, which of these antibiotics is more effective for treating non-aspiration CAP remains unclear. METHODS: This study was a prospective, single-center, open-label, quasi-randomized controlled trial. Patients with adult CAP without risk for aspiration were allocated to either a CTRX or ABPC/SBT group based on the date of hospital admission. Macrolide was added to patients in each group. The primary outcome was the clinical response in the validated per-protocol (VPP) population at end of treatment (EOT). The secondary outcomes were clinical response during treatment and at end of study (EOS) in the VPP population, and mortality rate at day 30 in the modified intention-to-treat (MITT) population. RESULTS: Of 696 screened patients, 433 patients were excluded and 263 patients were allocated to receive either of the treatments. Males comprised 54% of patients and mean age and PSI were 62.1 ± 19.8 years and 69.3 ± 30.0, respectively, with 124 patients allocated to the CTRX group and 138 patients allocated to the ABPC/SBT group. The clinical effectiveness rate for the VPP population at EOT was 90% in the CTRX and 96% in the ABPC/SBT group (p = 0.072, 95% confidence interval [CI] of risk difference [RD]: − 12.6–0.8%). No significant difference in effectiveness at day 4 was observed between the CTRX and ABPC/SBT groups (p = 0.079, 95%CI of RD: − 12.1–0.4%), but at day 7, ABPC/SBT was significantly more effective than CTRX in the VPP population (p = 0.047, 95%CI of RD: − 13.3–-0.4%). No significant difference in late response at EOS was seen between CTRX and ABPC/SBT groups: cure (89 [86%] and 102 [94%]), relapse (5 [5%] and 1 [1%]) and failure (10 [10%] and 5 [5%]; p = 0.053). Deaths within 30 days in MITT population was higher in CTRX group (4 [3%]) than in ABPC/SBT group (0 [0%]) (p = 0.048, 95%CI of RD: 0.1–6.3%). CONCLUSION: No significant difference in effectiveness was found between ABPC/SBT and CTRX at EOT. However, ABPC/SBT might be more effective in the early phase of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR, UMIN000037464. Registered 25 July 2019 – Retrospectively registered, https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000042262 BioMed Central 2020-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7275365/ /pubmed/32503515 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-020-01198-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hamao, Nobuyoshi
Ito, Isao
Konishi, Satoshi
Tanabe, Naoya
Shirata, Masahiro
Oi, Issei
Tsukino, Mitsuhiro
Matsumoto, Hisako
Yasutomo, Yoshiro
Kadowaki, Seizo
Hirai, Toyohiro
Comparison of ceftriaxone plus macrolide and ampicillin/sulbactam plus macrolide in treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia without risk factors for aspiration: an open-label, quasi-randomized, controlled trial
title Comparison of ceftriaxone plus macrolide and ampicillin/sulbactam plus macrolide in treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia without risk factors for aspiration: an open-label, quasi-randomized, controlled trial
title_full Comparison of ceftriaxone plus macrolide and ampicillin/sulbactam plus macrolide in treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia without risk factors for aspiration: an open-label, quasi-randomized, controlled trial
title_fullStr Comparison of ceftriaxone plus macrolide and ampicillin/sulbactam plus macrolide in treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia without risk factors for aspiration: an open-label, quasi-randomized, controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of ceftriaxone plus macrolide and ampicillin/sulbactam plus macrolide in treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia without risk factors for aspiration: an open-label, quasi-randomized, controlled trial
title_short Comparison of ceftriaxone plus macrolide and ampicillin/sulbactam plus macrolide in treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia without risk factors for aspiration: an open-label, quasi-randomized, controlled trial
title_sort comparison of ceftriaxone plus macrolide and ampicillin/sulbactam plus macrolide in treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia without risk factors for aspiration: an open-label, quasi-randomized, controlled trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7275365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32503515
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-020-01198-4
work_keys_str_mv AT hamaonobuyoshi comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT itoisao comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT konishisatoshi comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT tanabenaoya comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT shiratamasahiro comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT oiissei comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT tsukinomitsuhiro comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT matsumotohisako comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT yasutomoyoshiro comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT kadowakiseizo comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT hiraitoyohiro comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial