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

Abstract 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 s...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nobuyoshi Hamao, Isao Ito, Satoshi Konishi, Naoya Tanabe, Masahiro Shirata, Issei Oi, Mitsuhiro Tsukino, Hisako Matsumoto, Yoshiro Yasutomo, Seizo Kadowaki, Toyohiro Hirai
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2020-06-01
Series:BMC Pulmonary Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12890-020-01198-4
id doaj-52d4d1c5e57348e19b58eea88e499ebd
record_format Article
spelling doaj-52d4d1c5e57348e19b58eea88e499ebd2020-11-25T03:16:52ZengBMCBMC Pulmonary Medicine1471-24662020-06-0120111110.1186/s12890-020-01198-4Comparison 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 trialNobuyoshi Hamao0Isao Ito1Satoshi Konishi2Naoya Tanabe3Masahiro Shirata4Issei Oi5Mitsuhiro Tsukino6Hisako Matsumoto7Yoshiro Yasutomo8Seizo Kadowaki9Toyohiro Hirai10Department of Respiratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto UniversityDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto UniversityDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto UniversityDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto UniversityDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto UniversityDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto UniversityDepartment of Internal Medicine, Ono Municipal HospitalDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto UniversityDepartment of Internal Medicine, Ono Municipal HospitalDepartment of Internal Medicine, Ono Municipal HospitalDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto UniversityAbstract 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=R000042262http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12890-020-01198-4PneumoniaABPC/SBTCTRX
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Nobuyoshi Hamao
Isao Ito
Satoshi Konishi
Naoya Tanabe
Masahiro Shirata
Issei Oi
Mitsuhiro Tsukino
Hisako Matsumoto
Yoshiro Yasutomo
Seizo Kadowaki
Toyohiro Hirai
spellingShingle Nobuyoshi Hamao
Isao Ito
Satoshi Konishi
Naoya Tanabe
Masahiro Shirata
Issei Oi
Mitsuhiro Tsukino
Hisako Matsumoto
Yoshiro Yasutomo
Seizo Kadowaki
Toyohiro Hirai
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
BMC Pulmonary Medicine
Pneumonia
ABPC/SBT
CTRX
author_facet Nobuyoshi Hamao
Isao Ito
Satoshi Konishi
Naoya Tanabe
Masahiro Shirata
Issei Oi
Mitsuhiro Tsukino
Hisako Matsumoto
Yoshiro Yasutomo
Seizo Kadowaki
Toyohiro Hirai
author_sort Nobuyoshi Hamao
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_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_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_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
publisher BMC
series BMC Pulmonary Medicine
issn 1471-2466
publishDate 2020-06-01
description Abstract 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
topic Pneumonia
ABPC/SBT
CTRX
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12890-020-01198-4
work_keys_str_mv AT nobuyoshihamao comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT isaoito comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT satoshikonishi comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT naoyatanabe comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT masahiroshirata comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT isseioi comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mitsuhirotsukino comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT hisakomatsumoto comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT yoshiroyasutomo comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT seizokadowaki comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT toyohirohirai comparisonofceftriaxoneplusmacrolideandampicillinsulbactamplusmacrolideintreatmentforpatientswithcommunityacquiredpneumoniawithoutriskfactorsforaspirationanopenlabelquasirandomizedcontrolledtrial
_version_ 1724634555440168960