ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

Empirical Atypical Coverage for Inpatients With Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Daphna Shefet, MD; Eyal Robenshtok, MD; Mical Paul, MD; Leonard Leibovici, MD

Background: Current guidelines of empirical antibiotic treatment for inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia recommend antibiotics whose spectrum covers intracellular (atypical) pathogens. No sufficient evidence exists to support the necessity of such coverage, whereas limiting it may reduce toxic effects, resistance, and expense. Our goal was to assess the efficacy of empirical coverage of atypical pathogens in terms of mortality and clinical and bacteriological success. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of

randomized, controlled trials comparing treatment regimens with and without coverage of atypical pathogens. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and references. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using the fixedeffects model. The primary outcome assessed was all-cause mortality.
Results: We included 24 trials encompassing 5015 pa-

coverage that compared it with the same drug supplemented with a drug with atypical coverage; nearly all compared a -lactam with a single quinolone or macrolide. There was no difference in mortality between the 2 arms (RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.82-1.54]). Regimens with coverage of atypical pathogens showed a trend toward clinical success and a significant advantage to bacteriological eradication. Both disappeared when evaluating methodologically high-quality studies alone. These regimens further showed a significant advantage in clinical success for Legionella pneumophila, whereas no advantage for pneumococcal pneumonia was seen. There was no difference between study arms in the frequency of total adverse events.
Conclusion: Empirical antibiotic coverage of atypical pathogens in hospitalized patients with communityacquired pneumonia showed no benefit of survival or clinical efficacy in this synthesis of randomized trials.

tients. We found no studies of a drug without atypical

Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1992-2000

GUIDELINES

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine E, Beilinson Campus, Rabin Medical Center, Petah-Tiqva, Israel (Drs Shefet, Robenshtok, Paul, and Leibovici); and Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel (Drs Paul and Leibovici).

for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) generally differentiate between outpatients, inpatients, and patients hospitalized in intensive care units.1-4 Suggested antibiotic regimens for inpatients include a -lactam combined with macrolides, or monotherapy with a respiratory fluoroquinolone. Although Streptococcus pneumoniae remains the leading pathogen in CAP, the rationale for a macrolide supplement or fluoroquinolone monotherapy lies in its ability to cover intracellular (atypical) pathogens such as Chlamydia pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Legionella pneumophila. Coverage of the latter pathogen is recommended explicitly for patients in intensive care units. To our knowledge, no

AJOR

randomized, controlled trial has compared, as an objective, the superiority of antibiotic regimens containing coverage of atypical pathogens with regimens lacking such coverage. A systematic review of nonrandomized studies found a significant reduction in mortality when the antibiotic spectrum covered atypical pathogens in 6 of its 8 selected studies. 5 However, all studies were cohort studies, and 2 were restricted to bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia.6,7 In the largest study,8 the choice of such regimens was associated with an initial lower severity score, thus underlining the potential bias of nonrandomized studies. Whereas the advantage of combination therapy is unproved, dual therapy may increase toxic effects, resistance, and cost. Moreover, an antagonism between penicillin and erythromycin has been shown in vitro and in

(REPRINTED) ARCH INTERN MED/ VOL 165, SEP 26, 2005 1992

WWW.ARCHINTERNMED.COM

2005 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

vivo against S pneumoniae isolates,9 the most prevalent pathogen causing CAP.10,11 The present review evaluates the need for empirical antibiotic coverage of atypical pathogens in adults hospitalized owing to CAP. It includes all randomized, controlled trials that compared an antibiotic regimen containing coverage of atypical pathogens with one not containing such coverage. The main outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included clinical efficacy, bacteriological failure, and adverse events.
METHODS

Potentially Relevant RCTs Identified and Screened for Retrieval (n = 994)

Potentially Appropriate RCTs to Be Included in Meta-analysis, Full Text Retrieved (n = 56)

INCLUSION CRITERIA
We included randomized, controlled trials that assessed treatment of CAP in hospitalized adults and in which an antibiotic regimen containing coverage of atypical pathogens was compared with a regimen not containing such coverage. Regimens including a macrolide, fluoroquinolone, tetracycline, doxycycline, or chloramphenicol were considered to afford atypical coverage. Regimens lacking these drugs were considered regimens without atypical coverage. We included oral and intravenous therapies. Trials that included mainly patients with major immunosuppressive states were not considered for this review. Trials with a dropout rate of more than 30% were excluded.

RCTs Not Fulfilling Inclusion Criteria / With Exclusion Criteria (n = 30) Outpatients (n = 9)16,20,23,29,31,34,38,39,41 Mainly Nosocomial Pneumonia (n = 4)19,24,35,40 Antibiotics With Coverage of Atypical Pathogens May Be Added to Arm 2 per Investigators Discretion (n = 5)14,15,18,30,33 CAP Patients Included but Constitute <50% and Cannot Undergo Separate Evaluation (n = 6)17,21,22,27,32,36 Dropout Rate >30% (n = 1)26 Double Publication or Data Extracted and Complemented Main Publication (n = 5)25,28,37,42,43

RCTs Included in Meta-analysis (n = 26)

RCTs Withdrawn When Data Unavailable From Publication or Author (n = 2)44,45

SEARCH STRATEGY
The search string combined community-acquired infections/ pneumonia, inpatients, and antibiotic names and classes of atypical drugs identified in the previous section (string specified at The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2). Databases searched included CENTRAL (Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (to August 2004), and EMBASE (to July 2003). We inspected references of identified studies for more trials and contacted corresponding authors for complementary information.

RCTs With Usable Information by Outcome: Overall Mortality (n = 23) Clinical Treatment Failure (n = 24) Bacteriological Failure (n = 18) Adverse Events (n = 22)

Figure 1. Selection process for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). CAP indicates community-acquired pneumonia.

DATA ANALYSIS
Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. We used a fixed-effects model and compared it with a random-effects model when significant heterogeneity between trials was observed. Heterogeneity of trial results was assessed by calculating a 2 test of heterogeneity and the I2 measure of inconsistency. Significant heterogeneity was predefined as a 2 test P value smaller than .1 or an I2 measure larger than 50%. We had anticipated between-trial variation in the estimation of morbidity and mortality for different geographic areas, age groups, sample size, and the drug affording atypical coverage (macrolides or fluoroquinolones). Subgroup analyses to assess the impact of these factors on the main results were performed. A funnel plot estimating the trial precision (logarithm of the RR for efficacy against sample size) was examined to estimate potential asymmetry. RESULTS

OUTCOMES
The primary outcome was overall mortality up to 30 days after the end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included clinical treatment failure, bacteriological eradication, and development of superinfections and adverse events, specifically gastrointestinal events or events resulting in treatment discontinuation.

DATA EXTRACTION
Outcomes were extracted by intention to treat (ITT), including all individuals randomized in the outcome assessment. When data for ITT analysis were unavailable, available cases were assessed. Two reviewers (D.S. and E.R.) independently extracted data from included trials. Methodological assessment was performed using a component approach, including allocation generation and concealment, blinding, and analysis by ITT. Allocation generation and concealment were classified as adequate, unclear, or inadequate, using criteria from the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook 4.2.2.12 We did not assess a composite quality scale, because different scales may lead to discordant results.13 Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the findings per the following trial methods: allocation concealment, allocation generation, and blinding.
(REPRINTED) ARCH INTERN MED/ VOL 165, SEP 26, 2005 1993

DESCRIPTION OF STUDIES Our search resulted in 994 references. Fifty-six publications were retrieved for full-text inspection,14-69 of which 26 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two were withdrawn from analysis owing to unavailable data,44,45 and thus 24 trials are included in the review46-69 (Figure 1 and Table 1).
WWW.ARCHINTERNMED.COM

2005 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Table 1. Included Studies*

Treatment (No. of Randomized Patients) Source Aubier et al,46 1998 Bohte et al,47 1995 Carbon et al,48 1992 Chuard and Regamey,49 1989 Feldman et al,50 2001 Fourrier et al,51 1986 Country MC Europe MC Europe MC France MC Germany MC worldwide France Arm 1 Oral sparfloxacin, 400 mg/d (159) Oral azithromycin, 500 mg/d (36) Oral temafloxacin, 600 mg BID (125) Oral ofloxacin, 200 mg BID (several, 400 mg BID) (59) Intravenous sitafloxacin, 400 mg/d (35) Oral pefloxacin, 1200 mg/d (20) Arm 2 Oral amoxicillin, 1 g/d (170) Intravenous benzylpenicillin, 1 million IU QID (30) Oral amoxicillin, 500 mg TID (121) Oral amoxicillin, 750 mg TID (several, 375 mg QID) (62) Intravenous combined imipenem and cilastatin, 500 mg TID (34) Customary treatment of -lactam, cephalosporin, and antistaphylococcal (20) Intravenous combined amoxicillin and clavulanate, 1.2 g QID 3-5 days, followed by oral amoxicillinclavulanate, 625 mg TID (56) Oral amoxicillin, 250 mg TID (22) Intravenous ceftriaxone, 2 g/d, followed by intramuscular ceftriaxone, 1 g/d (26) Intravenous amoxicillin-clavulanate, 1 g TID (28) Intravenous ceftriaxone, 1 g BID (28) Intravenous ceftazidime, 1-2 g BID-TID (66) Oral amoxicillin, 250 mg QID (34) Amoxicillin, 1 g TID, and clavulanate, 125 mg TID (156) Oral amoxicillin, 500 mg TID, and clavulanic acid, 125 mg TID (199) Oral amoxicillin, 1 g/d (73) Intravenous ceftriaxone, 4 g/d (306) Mean Age, y 42 53 55 66 43 Not reported

Genne et al,52 1997

Switzerland

Intravenous clarithromycin, 500 mg BID 3-5 days, followed by oral clarithromycin, 500 mg BID (56) Oral ciprofloxacin, 500 mg BID (26) Intravenous ciprofloxacin, 200-400 mg BID, followed by oral ciprofloxacin, 750 mg BID (24) Oral levofloxacin, 500 mg BID (28)

70

Gleadhill et al,53 1986 Hirata-Dulas et al,54 1991

Ireland United States

71 79

Kalbermatter et al,55 2000

Argentina

60

Khan and Basir,56 1989 Kobayashi et al,57 1984 Lephonte et al,58 2004 Lode et al,59 1995 Miki et al,60 1984 Norrby et al,61 1998

United States Japan MC worldwide MC Europe Japan MC worldwide

Intravenous ciprofloxacin, 200 mg BID (74) Oral levofloxacin, 200 mg TID (42) Oral gemifloxacin, 320 mg/d (168) Oral sparfloxacin, 200 mg/d (401), oral erythromycin, 1g BID (208) Oral enoxacin, 600 mg/d (74) Intravenous levofloxacin, 500 mg BID, followed by oral levofloxacin, 500 mg BID (319) Oral ciprofloxacin, 750 mg BID (30) Oral moxifloxacin, 400 mg/d (203) Intravenous teicoplanin, 400 mg last dose, followed by 400/200 mg/d and oral ciprofloxacin, 500 mg BID (121) Intravenous clarithromycin, 500 mg, and intravenous ceftriaxone, 1g BID (52) Intravenous clarithromycin, 500 mg, and intravenous amikacin, 250 mg BID (49) Oral trovafloxacin, 200 mg/d (173) Oral pefloxacin, 400 mg BID (82) Oral temafloxacin, 600 mg BID (49) Oral roxithromycin, 150 mg BID (80)

58 Not reported 54 54 Not reported 65

Peterson et al,62 1988 Petitpretz et al,63 2001 Rizzato et al,64 1997

United States MC worldwide MC Italy

Intramuscular cefamandole, 1g QID (30) Oral amoxicillin, 1 g TID (208) Intravenous ceftriaxone, 2 g/d (119)

81 51 69

Romanelli et al,65 2002

MC Italy

Intravenous meropenem, 500 mg TID (52) Intravenous imipenem-cilastatin, 500 mg TID (51)

76

Tremolieres et al,66 1998 Vanderdonckt,67 1990 Vogel and Lode,68 1991 Zeluff et al,69 1988

MC Europe MC Europe MC Europe South Africa

Oral amoxicillin, 1g TID (169) Intravenous ceftazidime, 2 g BID (88) Intravenous cefotaxime, 2 g TID (51) Oral cephradine, 1 g BID (78)

52 60 62 31

Abbreviations: BID, twice per day; MC, multicenter; QID, 4 times per day; TID, 3 times per day. *For the methodology of the studies, see the full meta-analysis as published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. All inclusion criteria are adults with CAP. Includes regimens with coverage of intracellular (atypical) pathogens. Includes regimens without coverage of intracellular (atypical) pathogens. Some participants received 400 mg/d while others received 200 mg/d (both optional in the study design).

Included studies were performed between 1982 and 2004 and encompassed 5015 patients. Inclusion criteria in all studies consisted of adults hospitalized with CAP. The number of participants was 100 or fewer in 8 trials and more than 100 in 16 trials (range, 40-808 participants). All trials were restricted to adults, with a mean age less than 65 years in 12 studies and 65 years or greater in 9. Among the latter, 2 studies were performed in nursing homes,54,62 and 1
(REPRINTED) ARCH INTERN MED/ VOL 165, SEP 26, 2005 1994

exclusively included patients older than 70 years.65 Three studies did not report mean age. Ten studies provided the percentage of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ranging from 25% to 52.5%.64 None analyzed separately results for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and/or smokers. Pneumonia was defined by a combination of clinical signs, radiological confirmation (the sole criteria in 2 studWWW.ARCHINTERNMED.COM

2005 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

ies), laboratory values, and/or bacteriological evidence. Thirteen trials further included outpatients, patients with nosocomial pneumonia, and/or patients with bronchitis. In all cases, most of the patients had CAP or could undergo separate analysis. The antibiotic regimens, dosages, and routes of administration are detailed in Table 1. In nearly all studies, the comparison was between monotherapy in the arm covering atypical pathogens and a -lactam. We found no comparison of a -lactammacrolide combination with -lactam monotherapy. Treatment duration was conveyed in 14 studies and was almost uniformly 10 days, with no difference between the arms. The main outcome in all studies was clinical treatment failure. Six studies mandated radiological resolution for success definition, and 1 required bacteriological eradication. None chose mortality as the primary outcome. Eighteen trials assessed bacteriological failure (per patient or per pathogen). Only 8 performed serologic tests for atypical pathogens, of which 1 study found negative results for all tests,68 and 4 others did not fully report eradication rates. Superinfection and colonization rates were reported in only 5 studies each, precluding further evaluation. Adverse events were addressed in all studies, although 2 did not specify the number of events per treatment arm. METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF INCLUDED STUDIES Of the 24 included studies, adequate allocation concealment was reported in 6 and adequate allocation generation in 9. No information was available for the remaining studies. All studies of adequate allocation concealment were also of adequate allocation generation. Seven studies reported results by ITT. Another 13 reported the number of dropouts per study arm, permitting reanalysis by ITT by assuming failure for all dropouts. Four studies did not refer to dropouts and were analyzed only by patients undergoing evaluation. Follow-up duration was specified in 21 studies, of which 16 defined a specific time for outcome measurement. Follow-up ranged from the end of treatment to 3 months after. Overall mortality was assessed at the end of treatment or at follow-up in all studies. Data at the furthest point in time, up to 30 days, was chosen for analysis. At least 18 of the 24 studies were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, all of which manufactured the drug with atypical coverage. OVERALL MORTALITY Twenty-three of the 24 studies could be evaluated for mortality, encompassing 4846 of 5015 randomized patients (96.6%) (Figure 2). Six studies reported no deaths, whereas 10 reported mortality rates of 0.4% to 5%; 6, 5% to 8%, and 1, 25%.51 There was no significant difference between the arms in the overall mortality rate (RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.82-1.54]) (Figure 2). The difference was nonsignificant when evaluating quinolones (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.69-1.41) and macrolides (RR, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.52-3.01]). No heterogeneity was seen for the overall comparison.
(REPRINTED) ARCH INTERN MED/ VOL 165, SEP 26, 2005 1995

Mortality was further analyzed by age, geographic area, and sample size, and the results disclosed no significant difference. Overall mortality in both arms was similar when analyzing studies per allocation generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and the ITT analysis (Table 2). In the funnel plot for overall mortality, results are symmetrically centered around the combined RR. CLINICAL FAILURE Clinical failure was the primary outcome in all studies, encompassing 4682 patients. No significant difference between study arms was observed (RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.821.03]) (Figure 3). When we evaluated the different drug regimens, opposing trends were noticeable, with an advantage for quinolone monotherapy (RR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.77-1.02]) and a disadvantage for macrolide monotherapy (RR, 1.17 [95% CI, 0.77-1.77]). Clinical failure with macrolide treatment was the only comparison in which heterogene2 ity was detected ( 3 =6.68; P=.08; I2 =55.1%). Reanalysis by the random-effects model did not alter the results. Relative risks were similar regardless of age or sample size. An advantage for coverage of atypical pathogens was statistically significant in the 13 European studies (RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.70-0.95]), but not in studies performed elsewhere. When we analyzed studies by methodological quality, an advantage toward coverage of atypical pathogens was accentuated in studies of unclear or inadequate allocation concealment and allocation generation. In the analysis of studies of high methodological quality, the effect was nearly identical in the 2 arms (for adequate allocation generation, RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.821.19]; for adequate allocation concealment, RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.81-1.19]) (Table 2). In an ITT vs perprotocol design sensitivity analysis, no significant difference was found. Clinical treatment failure rates were evaluated among patients with microbiologically documented infections. No significant difference between the study arms in the treatment of documented pneumococcal infections was detected (RR, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.81-1.63] among 16 studies and 906 patients). Data were insufficient to analyze cases of pneumococcal bacteremia. For atypical pathogens, a trend in favor of atypical coverage did not reach statistical significance (RR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.24-1.10] among 4 studies and 158 patients). A significant advantage to coverage of atypical pathogens was found for eradication of Legionella species, with an RR of 0.17 and narrow 95% CIs (0.05-0.63), based on relatively few cases (n=43). Sixty-one of 78 atypical cases and 9 of 20 cases of L pneumophila were successfully resolved in the arm without coverage of atypical pathogens. BACTERIOLOGICAL ERADICATION Eighteen studies reported bacteriological eradication rates, encompassing 1968 patients and/or isolates. There was a statistically significant advantage to bacteriological eradication for the arm covering atypical pathogens (RR, 0.73
WWW.ARCHINTERNMED.COM

2005 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Study or Subcategory 01 Quinolone (Atypical Arm) Chuard and Regamey,49 1989 Gleadhill et al,53 1986 Kalbermatter et al,54 2000 Miki et al,60 1984 Vanderdonckt,67 1990 Feldman et al,50 1991 Peterson et al,62 1988 Carbon et al,48 1992 Hirata-Dulas et al,54 1991 Aubier et al,46 1998 Tremolieres et al,66 1998 Lephonte et al,58 2004 Khan and Bashir,56 1989 Vogel and Lode,68 1991 Petitpretz et al,63 2001 Rizzato et al,64 1997 Fourrier et al,51 1986 Norrby et al,61 1998 Subtotal

Atypical Coverage, n/N

Nonatypical Coverage, n/N

Fixed RR (95% CI)

Weight, %

Fixed RR (95% CI)

0/59 0/26 0/28 0/73 0/82 1/35 3/30 0/125 2/24 1/159 4/173 4/167 4/66 0/49 3/200 7/110 5/20 21/314 1740

0/62 0/22 0/56 0/72 0/88 0/34 1/30 1/121 2/26 3/170 3/169 3/153 3/56 3/51 4/208 5/115 5/20 22/305 1758 0.71 1.40 2.14 2.69 4.07 4.26 4.39 4.55 4.81 5.50 6.86 7.01 31.31 79.71

Not Estimable Not Estimable Not Estimable Not Estimable Not Estimable 2.92 (0.12-69.20) 3.00 (0.33-27.23) 0.32 (0.01-7.85) 1.08 (0.17-7.10) 0.36 (0.04-3.39) 1.30 (0.30-5.73) 1.22 (0.28-5.37) 1.13 (0.26-4.84) 0.15 (0.01-2.80) 0.78 (0.18-3.44) 1.46 (0.48-4.47) 1.00 (0.34-2.93) 0.93 (0.52-1.65) 0.98 (0.69-1.41)

Total Events: 55 (Atypical Coverage), 55 (Nonatypical)

2 Test for Heterogeneity: 12 = 5.16 (P = .95), I2 = 0%

Test for Overall Effect: Z = 0.08 (P = .93)

02 Macrolide (Atypical Arm) Bohte et al,47 1995 Zeluff et al,69 1988 Genne et al,52 1997 Romanelli et al,65 2002 Subtotal

0/36 1/80 2/56 7/101 273

0/30 0/78 1/56 7/103 267 0.71 1.40 9.72 11.84

Not Estimable 2.93 (0.12-70.75) 2.00 (0.19-21.43) 1.02 (0.37-2.80) 1.25 (0.52-3.01)

Total Events: 10 (Atypical Coverage), 8 (Nonatypical) Test for Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.58 (P = .75), I2 = 0% 2 Test for Overall Effect: Z = 0.50 (P = .62)

03 Combined Quinolone and Macrolide (Atypical Arm) Lode et al,59 1995 Subtotal (95% CI) 28/609 609 4/199 199 8.46 8.46 2.29 (0.81-6.44) 2.29 (0.81-6.44)

Total Events: 28 (Atypical Coverage), 4 (Nonatypical) Test for Heterogeneity: Not Applicable Test for Overall Effect: Z = 1.57 (P = .1)

Total

2622

2224

100.00

1.13 (0.82-1.54)

Total Events: 93 (Atypical Coverage), 67 (Nonatypical)

2 Test for Heterogeneity: 16 = 7.91 (P = .95), I2 = 0%

Test for Overall Effect: Z = 0.74 (P = .46)

0.1

0.2

0.5

10

Favors Atypical Coverage

Favors Nonatypical Coverage

Figure 2. The number of patients who died within the follow-up period (overall mortality). The left side depicts arms with atypical coverage; the right side, arms without atypical coverage. A value of less than 1 favors atypical coverage. Studies are subdivided by the antibiotic used as the atypical regimen, including quinolone therapy (01), macrolide therapy (02), and combined macrolide and quinolone therapy (03). The total indicates the total number of patients (sum of groups 01-03). CAP indicates community-acquired pneumonia; CI, confidence interval; I2, measure of inconsistency (see Methods section); n/N, number of patients/total number of patients in the study; RR, relative risk; and solid oblong diamond, total events.

(REPRINTED) ARCH INTERN MED/ VOL 165, SEP 26, 2005 1996

WWW.ARCHINTERNMED.COM

2005 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

[95% CI, 0.59-0.91]), with no heterogeneity seen. However, in an analysis restricted to studies of adequate allocation generation and concealment, this advantage disappeared (RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.61-1.52]) (Table 2). ADVERSE EVENTS Adverse events per treatment arm were reported for 4261 patients. Total adverse events (RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.911.13]) and events requiring treatment discontinuation (RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.67-1.42]) were similar in both treatment arms, with no heterogeneity seen. Gastrointestinal events were reported in 15 studies and were significantly more common in the arm without atypical coverage (which consisted mainly of -lactams) (RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.54-0.99]). However, the definitions of gastrointestinal events differed, some including abdominal pain and some diarrhea alone, thereby precluding an accurate comparison of antibiotic-associated diarrhea.
COMMENT

Table 2. Sensitivity Analyses for Individual Methodological Quality Components*

Unclear or Inadequate

Variable Allocation concealment Overall mortality RR (95% CI) No. of studies/patients Clinical failure RR (95% CI) No. of studies/patients Bacteriological failure RR (95% CI) No. of studies/patients Allocation generation Overall mortality RR (95% CI) No. of studies/patients Clinical failure RR (95% CI) No. of studies/patients Bacteriological failure RR (95% CI) No. of studies/patients

Adequate

1.06 (0.66-1.69) 6/1390 0.98 (0.81-1.19) 6/1390 0.96 (0.61-1.52) 5/469

1.18 (0.77-1.80) 17/3456 0.89 (0.77-1.02) 18/3292 0.68 (0.53-0.86) 13/1499

1.09 (0.69-1.73) 9/1753 0.99 (0.82-1.19) 9/1685 0.89 (0.60-1.30) 7/602

1.16 (0.76-1.77) 14/3093 0.87 (0.77-1.01) 15/2997 0.67 (0.52-0.87) 11/1366

The objective of our review was to assess empirical antibiotic coverage of atypical pathogens in hospitalized patients with CAP, in terms of mortality and successful treatment. We found no difference in mortality between regimens with coverage of atypical pathogens and regimens without such coverage, persisting in all subgroup analyses. There was a nonsignificant trend toward clinical success to coverage of atypical pathogens, accentuated with quinolone monotherapy. The advantage disappeared when we evaluated high-quality methodological studies alone. A significant advantage in bacteriological eradication was detected in the coverage of atypical pathogens, especially in reference to Legionella species. This advantage was not demonstrated in an analysis restricted to studies of adequate allocation generation and concealment. There was no difference in the frequency of total adverse events between the 2 groups, although more gastrointestinal events (but not explicitly diarrhea) were noted in the arm without atypical coverage. Mortality data were obtained for 96.6% of randomized patients. The overall mortality rate (adjusted mean mortality rate, 3.7%) was lower than that reported in the literature (eg, MedisGroups, 10.6%70; validation cohort inpatient mortality for the Pneumonia Patient Outcome Research Team, 8.0%71). This is surprising because nearly half of the studies target relatively severe pneumonia cases. Thus, patients recruited to randomized trials may not adequately represent all patients hospitalized with CAP. Although mortality is the most significant outcome in a potentially lethal infection, all studies chose clinical failure as their primary outcome. This end point is subjective and should be studied with care. Our review clearly demonstrates its potential for bias. A trend in favor of clinical success for the arm covering atypical pathogens originated in studies with unclear allocation generation. Similarly, the clear statistical advantage of that arm, found in the overall analysis of bacteriological eradica(REPRINTED) ARCH INTERN MED/ VOL 165, SEP 26, 2005 1997

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; RR, relative risk. *Combined effect estimates for each comparison are shown for studies reporting adequate vs unclear or inadequate methodological quality criteria.

tion rates, did not exist in an analysis restricted to studies of adequate allocation generation. Thus, we should be wary about relying solely on subjective outcomes when comparing treatment regimens for pneumonia, especially because pharmaceutical companies sponsored most studies and many studies were nonblinded. The similar response of the young and old is somewhat surprising, as an advantage to atypical coverage would be expected in younger people with a higher prevalence of atypical pneumonia. Perhaps this prevalence diminishes in the hospitalized population. The clear advantage of the arm with atypical pathogen coverage in the successful treatment of L pneumophila infections is not surprising, although cases of atypical pneumonia (including L pneumophila) often resolved without such coverage. Coinfections with typical pathogens may explain some of these cases. We had set out to investigate the contribution of coverage of atypical pathogens to empirical treatment of CAP in hospitalized patients. The most suitable study for our purpose would have been one comparing a drug without atypical coverage (eg, -lactam) with a combination of that drug and a drug with atypical coverage (eg, -lactam and a macrolide). None was found, although the need to add a macrolide to -lactam therapy is a common dilemma manifested within the guidelines themselves. Furthermore, many studies included treatment arms that do not adhere to current guidelines. Therefore, our meta-analysis is chiefly based on comparison of various regimens without coverage of atypical pathogens to monotherapy, mainly quinolone monotherapy. Regarding this comparison, we found no advantage to coverage of atypical pathogens in terms of mortality or clinical success.
WWW.ARCHINTERNMED.COM

2005 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Study or Subcategory 01 Quinolone (Atypical Arm) Kobayashi et al,57 1984 Kalbermatter et al,55 2000 Feldman et al,50 2001 Vogel and Lode,68 1991 Gleadhill et al,53 1986 Chuard and Regamey,49 1989 Khan and Basir,56 1989 Fourrier et al,51 1986 Miki et al,60 1984 Peterson et al,62 1988 Hirata-Dulas et al,54 1991 Vanderdonckt,67 1990 Aubier et al,46 1998 Carbon et al,48 1992 Tremolieres et al,66 1998 Rizzato et al,64 1997 Lephonte et al,58 2004 Petitpretz et al,63 2001 Norrby et al,61 1998 Subtotal

Atypical Coverage, n/N

Nonatypical Coverage, n/N

Fixed RR (95% CI)

Weight, %

Fixed RR (95% CI)

4/41 1/28 3/35 2/38 5/26 5/59 6/66 6/20 11/71 7/30 12/24 21/75 14/126 19/123 13/138 7/110 38/167 46/200 85/314 1691

0/33 4/56 3/34 3/37 4/22 6/62 6/56 7/20 7/68 9/30 12/26 21/81 22/140 24/120 28/147 28/115 32/153 44/208 85/305 1713

0.11 0.55 0.63 0.63 0.90 1.22 1.35 1.45 1.48 1.87 2.39 4.19 4.33 5.05 5.63 5.69 6.94 8.96 17.91 71.28

7.29 (0.41-130.64) 0.50 (0.06-4.27) 0.97 (0.21-4.48) 0.65 (0.11-3.67) 1.06 (0.32-3.46) 0.88 (0.28-2.72) 0.85 (0.29-2.48) 0.86 (0.35-2.10) 1.51 (0.62-3.66) 0.78 (0.33-1.82) 1.08 (0.61-1.93) 1.08 (0.64-1.81) 0.71 (0.38-1.32) 0.77 (0.45-1.33) 0.49 (0.27-0.92) 0.26 (0.12-0.57) 1.09 (0.72-1.65) 1.09 (0.75-1.57) 0.97 (0.75-1.25) 0.89 (0.77-1.02)

Total Events: 305 (Atypical Coverage), 345 (Nonatypical)

2 Test for Heterogeneity: 18 = 21.13 (P = .27), I2 = 14.8%

Test for Overall Effect: Z = 1.71 (P = .09)

02 Macrolide (Atypical Arm) Zeluff et al,69 1988 Genne et al,52 1997 Bohte et al,47 1995 Romanelli et al,65 2002 Subtotal 3/46 8/56 6/35 23/101 238 0/44 9/56 10/29 14/103 232 0.11 1.87 2.27 2.88 7.12 6.70 (0.36-126.13) 0.89 (0.37-2.14) 0.50 (0.21-1.20) 1.68 (0.91-3.07) 1.17 (0.77-1.77)

Total Events: 40 (Atypical Coverage), 33 (Nonatypical) Test for Heterogeneity: 2 = 6.68 (P = .08), I2 = 55.1% 3 Test for Overall Effect: Z = 0.74 (P = .46)

03 Combined Quinolone and Macrolide (Atypical Arm) Lode et al,59 1995 Subtotal 197/609 609 69/199 199 21.60 21.60 0.93 (0.75-1.17) 0.93 (0.75-1.17)

Total Events: 197 (Atypical Coverage), 69 (Nonatypical) Test for Heterogeneity: Not Applicable Test for Overall Effect: Z = 0.61 (P = .54)

Total

2538

2144

100.00

0.92 (0.82-1.03)

Total Events: 542 (Atypical Coverage), 447 (Nonatypical)

2 Test for Heterogeneity: 23 = 28.43 (P = .20), I2 = 19.1%

Test for Overall Effect: Z = 1.50 (P = .13)

0.1

0.2

0.5

10

Favors Atypical Coverage

Favors Nonatypical Coverage

Figure 3. The number of patients considered to have a clinical treatment failure. The left side depicts arms with atypical coverage; the right side, arms without atypical coverage. Studies are subdivided by the antibiotic used as the atypical regimen, including quinolone therapy (01), macrolide therapy (02), and combined macrolide and quinolone therapy (03). Total indicates the total number of patients (sum of groups 01-03). CAP indicate community-acquired pneumonia; CI, confidence interval; I2, measure of inconsistency (see Methods section); n/N, number of patients/total number of patients in the study; RR, relative risk; and solid oblong diamond, total events.

(REPRINTED) ARCH INTERN MED/ VOL 165, SEP 26, 2005 1998

WWW.ARCHINTERNMED.COM

2005 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Our conclusion of no benefit might be due to lack of power when using available randomized trials. Large observational studies showed benefit for atypical coverage. However, correction for the baseline differences between patients given or not given atypical coverage in these studies may be impossible. Studies designed specifically to evaluate the necessity of atypical coverage are needed. The optimal design would be a randomized controlled trial comparing the same -lactam in both study arms with and without the addition of antibiotics against atypical pathogens. Studies must be of adequate generation concealment and allocation, and patients included should resemble more closely the general population of inpatients with CAP. Accepted for Publication: May 2, 2005. Correspondence: Daphna Shefet, MD, Department of Medicine E, Beilinson Campus, Rabin Medical Center, Petah-Tiqva, Israel (dshefet@yahoo.com). Financial Disclosure: None. Funding/Support: This study was supported by a European Union Fifth Framework Information Society Technologies program (TREAT), Brussels, Belgium. Additional Information: A detailed protocol of the methodology used for this study was published in The Cochrane Library, where the full review has been accepted for publication. Acknowledgment: We thank Claude Carbon, MD, Christian Chuard, MD, Francois Fourrier, MD, Daniel Genne, MD, Hartmut Lode, MD, Phillip Peterson, MD, Patrick Petitpretz, MD, and Jose Sifuentes Osornio, MD, for supplying complementary information for their trials; Karla Soares-Weiser, MD, PhD, for her guidance; Gabriel Izbicki, MD, for translation from German; and Rika Fujia for obtaining and translating the Japanese articles.
REFERENCES
1. Niederman MS, Mandell LA, Anzueto A, et al; American Thoracic Society. American Thoracic Society Guidelines: community-acquired pneumonia in adults: diagnosis, assessment of severity, antimicrobial therapy, and prevention. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;163:1730-1754. 2. British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee. BTS guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults. Thorax. 2001;56 (suppl 4):IV1-IV64. 3. Bartlett JG, Dowell SF, Mandell LA, File TM Jr, Musher DM, Fine MJ; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Practice guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31:347-382. 4. Mandell LA, Marrie TJ, Grossman RF, Chow AW, Hyland RH; Canadian CommunityAcquired Pneumonia Working Group. Canadian guidelines for the initial management of community-acquired pneumonia: an evidence-based update by the Canadian Infectious Disease Society and the Canadian Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31:383-421. 5. Oosterheert JJ, Bonten MJM, Hak E, Schneider MM, Hoepelman IM. How good is the evidence for the recommended empirical antimicrobial treatment of patients hospitalized because of community-acquired pneumonia? a systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;52:555-563. 6. Waterer GW, Somes GW, Wunderink RG. Monotherapy may be suboptimal for severe bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161: 1837-1842. 7. Martinez JA, Horcajada JP, Almela M, et al. Addition of a macrolide to a -lactam based empirical antibiotic regimen is associated with lower in-hospital mortality for patients with bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2003; 36:389-395. 8. Gleason PP, Meehan TP, Fine JM, Galusha DH, Fine MJ. Association between

9.

10. 11. 12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17. 18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23. 24.

25. 26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

initial antimicrobial therapy and medical outcomes for hospitalized elderly patients with pneumonia. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:2562-2572. Johansen HK, Jensen TG, Dessau RB, Lundgren B, Frimodt-Moller N. Antagonism between penicillin and erythromycin against Streptococcus pneumoniae in vitro and in vivo. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000;46:973-980. Fine MJ, Smith MA, Carson CA, et al. Prognosis and outcome of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. JAMA. 1996;275:134-141. File TM, Mandell LA. What is optimal antimicrobial therapy for bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia? Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36:396-398. Alderson P, Green S, Higgins JPT, eds. Selection Bias: Cochrane Reviewers Handbook 4.2.2 [updated December 2003]. Section 6.3. In: Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD-ROM]. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2004: issue 1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408-412. Ailani RK, Agastya G, Ailani RK, Mukunda BN, Shekar R. Doxycycline is a costeffective therapy for hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:266-270. Aubier M, Lode H, Gialdroni-Grassi G, et al. Sparfloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: a pooled data analysis of two studies. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996;37(suppl A):73-82. Donowitz GR, Brandon ML, Salisbury JP, et al. Sparfloxacin versus cefaclor in the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized, double-masked, comparative, multicenter study. Clin Ther. 1997;19:936-953. Fass RJ, Plouffe JF, Russell JA. Intravenous/oral ciprofloxacin vs ceftazidime in the treatment of serious infections. Am J Med. 1989;87:164S-168S. File TM, Segreti J, Dunbar L, et al. A multicenter, randomized study comparing the efficacy and saftey of intravenous and/or oral levofloxacin versus cerftriaxone and/or cefuroxime axetil in treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41:1965-1972. Fink MP, Snydman DR, Niederman MS, et al; Severe Pneumonia Study Group. Treatment of severe pneumonia in hospitalized patients: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing intravenous ciprofloxacin with imipenem-cilastatin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994;38:547-557. Fong IW, Laforge J, Dubois J, Small D, Grossman R, Zakhari R; Canadian Bronchitis Study Group. Clarithromycin versus cefaclor in lower respiratory tract infections. Clin Invest Med. 1995;18:131-138. Hoepelman AI, Sips AP, van Helmond JL, et al. A single-blind comparison of threeday azithromycin and ten-day co-amoxiclav treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993;31(suppl E):147-152. Khajotia R, Drlicek M, Vetter N. A comparative study of ofloxacin and amoxycillin/ clavulanate in hospitalized patients with lower respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990;26(suppl D):83-91. Kinasewitz G, Wood RG. Azithromycin versus cefaclor in the treatment of acute bacterial pneumonia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1991;10:872-877. Krumpe PE, Cohn S, Garreltes J, et al; Ciprofloxacin Study Group. Intravenous and oral mono- or combination-therapy in the treatment of severe infections: ciprofloxacin versus standard antibiotic therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1999; 43(suppl A):117-128. Leophonte P, Veyssier P. Levofloxacin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumococcal pneumonia [in French]. Presse Med. 1999;28:1975-1979. Levine D, McNeil P, Lerner SA. Randomized, double-blind comparative study of intravenous ciprofloxacin versus ceftazidime in the treatment of serious infections. Am J Med. 1989;87(suppl 5A):160S-163S. Lode H, Wiley R, Hoffken G, et al. Prospective randomized controlled study of ciprofloxacin versus imipenem-cilastatin in severe clinical infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987;31:1491-1496. Lode H, Aubier M, Portier H, Ortquist A. Sparfloxacin as alternative treatment to standard therapy for community-acquired bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia. Clin Microbiol Infect. 1998;4:135-143. Lode H, Magyar P, Muir JF, Loos U, Kleutgens K; International Gatifloxacin Study Group. Once-daily oral gatifloxacin vs three-times-daily co-amoxiclav in the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2004; 10:512-520. Mouton Y, Beuscart C, Leroy O, Ajana F, Charrel J; Groupe Multicentrique. Evaluation of ciprofloxacin versus amoxicillin clavulanic acid or erythromycin for the empiric treatment of community-acquired pneumonia [in French]. Pathol Biol (Paris). 1991;39:34-37. ODoherty B, Dutchman DA, Pettit R, Maroli A. Randomized, double blind, comparative study of grepafloxacin and amoxycillin in the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997;40(suppl A): 73-81. Peacock JE Jr, Pegram SP, Weber SF, Leone PA. Prospective, randomized comparison of sequential intravenous followed by oral ciprofloxacin with intrave-

(REPRINTED) ARCH INTERN MED/ VOL 165, SEP 26, 2005 1999

WWW.ARCHINTERNMED.COM

2005 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

nous ceftazidime in the treatment of serious infections. Am J Med. 1989;87: 185S-190S. Plouffe JF, Herbert MT, File TM Jr, et al. Ofloxacin versus standard therapy in treatment of community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalization. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996;40:1175-1179. Rahav G, Fidel J, Gibor Y, Shapiro M. Azithromycin versus comparative therapy for the treatment of community acquired pneumonia. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2004;24:181-184. Siami GA, Wilkins WT, Bess DT, Christman JW. Comparison of ciprofloxacin with imipenem in the treatment of severe pneumonia in hospitalised geriatric patients. Drugs. 1995;49(suppl 2):436-438. Sifuentes-Osornio J, Macias A, Amieva RI, Ramos A, Ruiz-Palacios GM. Intravenous ciprofloxacin and ceftazidime in serious infections: a prospective, controlled clinical trial with third-party blinding. Am J Med. 1989;87:202S-205S. Snydman D, Fink F, Niederman M, Reinhart H. Treatment of severe pneumonia in hospitalised patients: results of a multicentre trial comparing IV ciprofloxacin with imipenem/cilastatin. Drugs. 1995;49(suppl 2):439-441. Stocks JM, Wallace RJ Jr, Griffith DE, Garcia JG, Kohler RB. Ofloxacin in communityacquired lower respiratory infections: a comparison with amoxicillin or erythromycin. Am J Med. 1989;87:52S-56S. Torres A, Muir JF, Corris P, et al. Effectiveness of oral moxifloxacin in standard first-line therapy in community-acquired pneumonia. Eur Respir J. 2003;21: 135-143. Trenholme GM, Schmitt BA, Spear J, Gvazdinskas LC. Randomized study of intravenous/oral ciprofloxacin versus ceftazidime in the treatment of hospital and nursing home patients with lower respiratory tract infections. Am J Med. 1989; 87:116S-118S. Wollschlager CM, Raoof S, Khan FA, Guarneri JJ, LaBombardi V, Afzal Q. Controlled, comparative study of ciprofloxacin versus ampicillin in treatment of bacterial respiratory tract infections. Am J Med. 1987;82:164-168. Jardim JR, Rico G, de la Roza C, et al; Grupo de Estudio Latinoamericano CAP. A comparison of moxifloxacin and amoxicillin in the treatment of communityacquired pneumonia in Latin America: results of a multicenter clinical trial [in Spanish]. Arch Bronconeumol. 2003;39:387-389. Allegra L, Berni F, Boisisio E, et al. Efficacy of the teicoplanin-ciprofloxacin combination in high risk community acquired pneumonia: comparison to ceftriaxone in a multicenter study. Internista. 1995;31:39-43. Johnson RH. Sequential intravenous/oral ciprofloxacin compared with parenteral ceftriaxone in the treatment of hospitalized patients with communityacquired pneumonia. Infect Dis Clin Pract. 1996;5:265-272. Lode H, Wiley E, Olschewski P, et al. Prospective randomized clinical trials of new quinolones versus beta-lactam antibiotics in lower respiratory tract infections. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl. 1990;68:50-55. Aubier M, Verster R, Regamey C, Geslin P, Vercken JB; Sparfloxacin European Study Group. Once-daily sparfloxacin versus high-dosage amoxicillin in the treatment of community-acquired, suspected pneumococcal pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;26:1312-1320. Bohte R, vant Wout JW, Lobatto S, et al. Efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus benzylpenicillin or erythromycin in community-acquired pneumonia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995;14:182-187. Carbon C, Lephonte P, Petitpretz P, Chauvin JP, Hazebroucq J. Efficacy and safety of temafloxacin versus those of amoxicillin in hospitalized adults with communityacquired pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992;36:833-839. Chuard C, Regamey C. Effect and tolerance of ofloxacin in bronchopulmonary infections in comparison with amoxicillin [in German]. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1989;119:1913-1916. Feldman C, White H, OGrady J, Flitcroft A, Briggs A, Richards G. An open, randomised, multi-centre study comparing the safety and efficacy of sitafloxacin and imipenem/cilastatin in the intravenous treatment of hospitalised patients with pneumonia. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2001;17:177-188. Fourrier F, Chopin C, Lestavel Ph, Savage C. Initial antibiotherapy in severe bacterial bronchopneumopathies: randomized study of a new quinolone: pefloxacin [in French]. Presse Med. 1986;15:1240.

52. Genne D, Siegrist HH, Janin-Jaquat B, de Torrente A. Clarithromycin versus amoxicillin-clavulanic acid in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1997;16:783-788. 53. Gleadhill IC, Ferguson WP, Lowry RC. Efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin in patients with respiratory infections in comparison with amoxycillin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1986;18(suppl D):133-138. 54. Hirata-Dulas CA, Stein DJ, Guay DR, Gruninger RP, Peterson PK. A randomized study of ciprofloxacin versus ceftriaxone in the treatment of nursing homeacquired lower respiratory tract infections. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39: 979-985. 55. Kalbermatter V, Bagilet D, Diab M, Javkin E. Oral levofloxacin versus intravenous ceftriaxone and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in the treatment of communityacquired pneumonia that requires hospitalization [in Spanish]. Med Clin (Barc). 2000;115:561-563. 56. Khan FA, Basir R. Sequential intravenous-oral administration of ciprofloxacin vs ceftazidime in serious bacterial respiratory tract infections. Chest. 1989;96: 528-537. 57. Kobayashi H, Takamura K, Kono K, et al. Comparison of DL-8280 and amoxicillin in the treatment of respiratory tract infections [in Japanese]. Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 1984;58:525-555. 58. Leophonte P, File T, Feldman C. Gemifloxacin once daily for 7 days compared to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid thrice daily for 10 days for the treatment of communityacquired pneumonia of suspected pneumococcal origin. Respir Med. 2004; 98:708-720. 59. Lode H, Garau J, Grassi C, et al. Treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized comparison of sparfloxacin, amoxycillin-clavulanic acid and erythromycin. Eur Respir J. 1995;8:1999-2007. 60. Miki F, Saito A, Tomizawa M, et al. Comparative study of the effectiveness of enoxacin and amoxicillin in bacterial pneumonia by a double blind method [in Japanese]. Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 1984;58:1083-1113. 61. Norrby SR, Petermann W, Willcox PA, Vetter N, Salewski E. A comparative study of levofloxacin and ceftriaxone in the treatment of hospitalized patients with pneumonia. Scand J Infect Dis. 1998;30:397-404. 62. Peterson PK, Stein D, Guay DR, et al. Prospective study of lower respiratory tract infections in an extended-care nursing home program: potential role of oral ciprofloxacin. Am J Med. 1988;85:164-171. 63. Petitpretz P, Arvis P, Marel M, Moita J, Urueta J; CAP5 Moxifloxacin Study Group. Oral moxifloxacin vs high-dosage amoxicillin in the treatment of mild-tomoderate, community-acquired, suspected pneumococcal pneumonia in adults. Chest. 2001;119:185-195. 64. Rizzato G, Allegra L; Multicentre Italian Study Group (Coordinated by Centro Thorax). Efficacy and tolerability of teicoplanin-ciprofloxacin combination in severe community-acquired pneumonia: comparison with ceftriaxone in a multicentre Italian study. Clin Drug Invest. 1997;14:337-345. 65. Romanelli G, Cravarezza P, Pozzi A, et al. Carbapenems in the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized elderly patients: a comparative study against standard therapy. J Chemother. 2002;14:609-617. 66. Tremolieres F, de Kock F, Pluck N, Daniel R. Trovafloxacin versus high-dose amoxicillin (1 g three times daily) in the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1998;17:447-453. 67. Vanderdonckt J. Comparison of pefloxacin with ceftazidime in severe bronchopulmonary infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990;26(suppl B):111-116. 68. Vogel F, Lode H. The use of oral temafloxacin compared with a parenteral cephalosporin in hospitalized patients with pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991; 28(suppl C):81-86. 69. Zeluff BJ, Lowe P, Koorhof HJ, Gentry LO. Evaluation of roxithromycin (RU965) versus cephradine in pneumococcal pneumonia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1988;7:69-71. 70. Iezzoni LI, Moskowitz MA. A clinical assessment of MedisGroups. JAMA. 1988; 260:3159-3163. 71. Fine MJ, Auble TE, Yealy DM, et al. A prediction rule to identify low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:243-250.

(REPRINTED) ARCH INTERN MED/ VOL 165, SEP 26, 2005 2000

WWW.ARCHINTERNMED.COM

2005 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.