Oral amoxicillin for management of fast breathing or chest indrawing pneumonia without danger signs in children aged 2-59 months: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 5.5 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Barsha Gadapani Pathak, Yasir Bin Nisar, Uma Chandra Mouli Natchu, Rukman Manapurath, Archana Thakur, Pranay Vats, Temsunaro Rongsen Chandola, Bireshwar Sinha
{"title":"Oral amoxicillin for management of fast breathing or chest indrawing pneumonia without danger signs in children aged 2-59 months: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Barsha Gadapani Pathak, Yasir Bin Nisar, Uma Chandra Mouli Natchu, Rukman Manapurath, Archana Thakur, Pranay Vats, Temsunaro Rongsen Chandola, Bireshwar Sinha","doi":"10.7189/jogh.16.04209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend oral amoxicillin as first-line therapy for pneumonia in children aged 2-59 months. However, uncertainty remains regarding its effectiveness compared with no antibiotics for fast breathing pneumonia and with injectable antibiotics for chest indrawing pneumonia without danger signs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (January 2000-August 2024) for randomised and quasi-randomised trials without language restrictions. Eligible studies compared oral amoxicillin vs. no antibiotics for fast breathing pneumonia or outpatient oral amoxicillin vs. inpatient injectable antibiotics for chest indrawing pneumonia without danger signs in children (2-59 months). Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a random-effects model; certainty was assessed using GRADE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four trials (n = 7,699) compared oral amoxicillin with no antibiotics for fast breathing pneumonia, and three (n = 4,864) compared oral with injectable antibiotics for chest indrawing pneumonia. For fast breathing pneumonia, oral amoxicillin reduced treatment failure by 16% at day 14 (RR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.75, 0.94, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; moderate certainty). For chest indrawing pneumonia, treatment failure was similar between groups at day 6 (RR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.83, 1.11) and day 14 (RR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.79, 1.13), while mortality was 72% lower with oral amoxicillin (RR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.09, 0.86). Serious adverse events did not differ between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In children (2-59 months), oral amoxicillin significantly reduces treatment failure compared to no antibiotics for fast breathing pneumonia and is comparable to injectable antibiotics for chest indrawing pneumonia without danger signs. Notably, oral amoxicillin was associated with a 72% reduction in mortality compared with injectable antibiotics in children with chest-indrawing pneumonia, although absolute risk differences were small. These findings support its broader implementation as an accessible, programmatically feasible, and WHO-recommended option for pneumonia management in low-resource settings.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO: CRD42023439851.</p>","PeriodicalId":48734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Health","volume":"16 ","pages":"04209"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13563637/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.16.04209","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend oral amoxicillin as first-line therapy for pneumonia in children aged 2-59 months. However, uncertainty remains regarding its effectiveness compared with no antibiotics for fast breathing pneumonia and with injectable antibiotics for chest indrawing pneumonia without danger signs.

Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (January 2000-August 2024) for randomised and quasi-randomised trials without language restrictions. Eligible studies compared oral amoxicillin vs. no antibiotics for fast breathing pneumonia or outpatient oral amoxicillin vs. inpatient injectable antibiotics for chest indrawing pneumonia without danger signs in children (2-59 months). Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a random-effects model; certainty was assessed using GRADE.

Results: Four trials (n = 7,699) compared oral amoxicillin with no antibiotics for fast breathing pneumonia, and three (n = 4,864) compared oral with injectable antibiotics for chest indrawing pneumonia. For fast breathing pneumonia, oral amoxicillin reduced treatment failure by 16% at day 14 (RR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.75, 0.94, I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). For chest indrawing pneumonia, treatment failure was similar between groups at day 6 (RR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.83, 1.11) and day 14 (RR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.79, 1.13), while mortality was 72% lower with oral amoxicillin (RR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.09, 0.86). Serious adverse events did not differ between groups.

Conclusions: In children (2-59 months), oral amoxicillin significantly reduces treatment failure compared to no antibiotics for fast breathing pneumonia and is comparable to injectable antibiotics for chest indrawing pneumonia without danger signs. Notably, oral amoxicillin was associated with a 72% reduction in mortality compared with injectable antibiotics in children with chest-indrawing pneumonia, although absolute risk differences were small. These findings support its broader implementation as an accessible, programmatically feasible, and WHO-recommended option for pneumonia management in low-resource settings.

Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42023439851.

口服阿莫西林治疗2-59月龄儿童无危险体征呼吸急促或胸内吸性肺炎:一项系统综述和荟萃分析
背景:世界卫生组织(WHO)指南推荐口服阿莫西林作为2-59个月儿童肺炎的一线治疗。然而,与不使用抗生素治疗呼吸急促肺炎和使用注射抗生素治疗无危险体征的胸内吸性肺炎相比,其有效性仍存在不确定性。方法:我们检索PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane中央对照试验注册库(2000年1月- 2024年8月),检索无语言限制的随机和准随机试验。符合条件的研究比较了口服阿莫西林与无抗生素治疗呼吸急促肺炎或门诊口服阿莫西林与住院注射抗生素治疗无危险体征的儿童(2-59个月)胸内吸肺炎。采用随机效应模型估计95%置信区间(ci)的综合相对风险(rr);采用GRADE评估确定性。结果:4项试验(n = 7699)比较了口服阿莫西林与无抗生素治疗呼吸急促肺炎的疗效,3项试验(n = 4864)比较了口服与注射抗生素治疗吸胸性肺炎的疗效。对于呼吸快的肺炎,口服阿莫西林在第14天减少了16%的治疗失败(RR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.75, 0.94, I2 = 0%;中等确定性)。对于胸内吸收性肺炎,两组在第6天(RR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.83, 1.11)和第14天(RR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.79, 1.13)的治疗失败相似,而口服阿莫西林的死亡率降低72% (RR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.09, 0.86)。严重不良事件在两组间无差异。结论:在儿童(2-59个月)中,与不使用抗生素相比,口服阿莫西林显著减少了治疗快呼吸性肺炎的失败,与无危险体征的吸胸性肺炎的注射抗生素相当。值得注意的是,与注射抗生素相比,口服阿莫西林与吸胸性肺炎儿童死亡率降低72%相关,尽管绝对风险差异很小。这些发现支持将其作为一种可获得的、规划上可行的、世卫组织推荐的低资源环境下肺炎管理选择方案进行更广泛的实施。注册:普洛斯彼罗:CRD42023439851。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Global Health
Journal of Global Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
240
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Global Health is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Edinburgh University Global Health Society, a not-for-profit organization registered in the UK. We publish editorials, news, viewpoints, original research and review articles in two issues per year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书