4.4 Review

Childhood community-acquired pneumonia: A review of etiology- and antimicrobial treatment studies

期刊

PAEDIATRIC RESPIRATORY REVIEWS
卷 26, 期 -, 页码 41-48

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.prrv.2017.06.013

关键词

Pneumonia; Children; Epidemiology; Etiology; Antimicrobial treatment

资金

  1. ESPID
  2. Stichting Coolsingel
  3. ZonMw

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of childhood morbidity worldwide. Because of the rising antimicrobial resistance rates and adverse effects of childhood antibiotic use on the developing microbiome, rational prescribing of antibiotics for CAP is important. This review summarizes and critically reflects on the available evidence for the epidemiology, etiology and antimicrobial management of childhood CAP. Larger prospective studies on antimicrobial management derive mostly from low- or middle-income countries as they have the highest burden of CAP. Optimal antimicrobial management depends on the etiology, age, local vaccination policies and resistance patterns. As long as non-rapid surrogate markers are used to distinguish viral- from bacterial pneumonia, the management is probably suboptimal. For a young child with signs of non-severe pneumonia (with or without wheezing), watchful waiting is recommended because of probable viral etiology. For children with more severe CAP with fever, a five-day oral amoxicillin course would be the first choice therapy and dosage will depend on local resistance rates. There is no clear evidence yet for superiority of a macrolide-based regimen for all ages. For cases with CAP requiring hospitalization, several studies have shown that narrow-spectrum IV betalactam therapy is as effective as a broad-spectrum cephalosporin therapy. For most severe disease, broadspectrum therapy with or without a macrolide is suggested. In case of empyema, rapid IV-to-oral switch seems to be equivalent to prolonged IV treatment. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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