4.5 Article

Comparative Effectiveness of Beta-lactam Versus Macrolide Monotherapy in Children with Pneumonia Diagnosed in the Outpatient Setting

期刊

PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL
卷 34, 期 8, 页码 839-842

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/INF.0000000000000740

关键词

pneumonia; child; pediatric

资金

  1. Ruth L. Kirschestein National Research Service Award [NRSA T32HP10027-14-00]
  2. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [K01 73729, K24AI073957]
  3. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Most children diagnosed with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are treated in the outpatient setting. The objective of this study was to determine the comparative clinical effectiveness of beta-lactam monotherapy and macrolide monotherapy in this population. Study Design: Children, 1-18 years old, with a clinical diagnosis of CAP at an outpatient practice affiliated (n = 71) with Geisinger Health System during January 1, 2008 to January 31, 2010 were eligible. The primary exposure was receipt of beta-lactam or macrolide monotherapy. The primary outcome was treatment failure defined as change in antibiotic prescription within 14 days of the initial pneumonia diagnosis. Propensity scores were used to determine the likelihood of receiving macrolide monotherapy. Treatment groups were matched 1:1, based on propensity score, age group and asthma status. Multivariable conditional logistic regression models estimated the association between macrolide monotherapy and treatment failures. Results: Of 1999 children with CAP, 1164 were matched. In the matched cohorts, 24% of children had asthma. Patients who received macrolide monotherapy had no statistical difference in treatment failure regardless of age when compared with patients who received beta-lactam monotherapy. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that children diagnosed with CAP in the outpatient setting and treated with beta-lactam or macrolide monotherapy have the same likelihood to fail treatment regardless of age.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据