Clinical Effectiveness and Outcomes of Azithromycin versus Doxycycline Containing Regimen in Inpatients with Community Acquired Pneumonia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Alaa S. Babonji, Sara J. Alshehri, Abdulrahman Alturaiki
{"title":"Clinical Effectiveness and Outcomes of Azithromycin versus Doxycycline Containing Regimen in Inpatients with Community Acquired Pneumonia: A Retrospective Cohort Study","authors":"Alaa S. Babonji, Sara J. Alshehri, Abdulrahman Alturaiki","doi":"10.1155/2023/8861376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common serious infection that is usually treated with a macrolide with a β-lactam while doxycycline is considered an alternative due to limited evidence. Hence, we aimed to evaluate azithromycin versus doxycycline containing regimen in achieving clinical stability for inpatients with CAP. Materials and Methods. a retrospective cohort of inpatients with CAP receiving either azithromycin or doxycycline combined with a β-lactam. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who achieved clinical stability within 3 days, while secondary endpoints were the average days required to achieve clinical stability. Results. A total of 447 were included of which 379 received azithromycin while 68 received doxycycline containing regimen. The average age of the study population was 65.4 ± 21.1, of which 49% were females. Ceftriaxone was the most prescribed β-lactam. Majority of this cohort had a length of hospital stay of 5 days or less. Total percentage of patients who achieved clinical stability within 3 days were 257 (57.5%), of which 222 (58.6%) were in azithromycin group versus 35 (51.5%) in doxycycline containing regimen group; \n \n p\n =\n 0.275\n \n . While the average day required to achieve clinical stability in both groups was 3.8 ± 3.2, in which 3.8 ± 3.3 in azithromycin versus 3.9 ± 2.7 in doxycycline containing regimen; (95% CI −0.98–0.68; \n \n p\n =\n 0.727\n \n ) Conclusions. These findings support that doxycycline is comparable in efficacy to macrolides with a β-lactam for inpatients with CAP as supported by current guideline recommendations.","PeriodicalId":15381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8861376","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common serious infection that is usually treated with a macrolide with a β-lactam while doxycycline is considered an alternative due to limited evidence. Hence, we aimed to evaluate azithromycin versus doxycycline containing regimen in achieving clinical stability for inpatients with CAP. Materials and Methods. a retrospective cohort of inpatients with CAP receiving either azithromycin or doxycycline combined with a β-lactam. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who achieved clinical stability within 3 days, while secondary endpoints were the average days required to achieve clinical stability. Results. A total of 447 were included of which 379 received azithromycin while 68 received doxycycline containing regimen. The average age of the study population was 65.4 ± 21.1, of which 49% were females. Ceftriaxone was the most prescribed β-lactam. Majority of this cohort had a length of hospital stay of 5 days or less. Total percentage of patients who achieved clinical stability within 3 days were 257 (57.5%), of which 222 (58.6%) were in azithromycin group versus 35 (51.5%) in doxycycline containing regimen group; p = 0.275 . While the average day required to achieve clinical stability in both groups was 3.8 ± 3.2, in which 3.8 ± 3.3 in azithromycin versus 3.9 ± 2.7 in doxycycline containing regimen; (95% CI −0.98–0.68; p = 0.727 ) Conclusions. These findings support that doxycycline is comparable in efficacy to macrolides with a β-lactam for inpatients with CAP as supported by current guideline recommendations.
阿奇霉素与含多西环素方案治疗社区获得性肺炎的临床疗效和转归:回顾性队列研究
背景社区获得性肺炎(CAP)是一种常见的严重感染,通常用大环内酯和β-内酰胺治疗,而由于证据有限,多西环素被认为是一种替代品。因此,我们旨在评估阿奇霉素与含多西环素的方案在CAP住院患者中实现临床稳定性的效果。材料和方法。接受阿奇霉素或多西环素联合β-内酰胺治疗的CAP住院患者的回顾性队列。主要终点是在3 天,而次要终点是达到临床稳定性所需的平均天数。后果共纳入447例,其中379例接受阿奇霉素治疗,68例接受含多西环素方案治疗。研究人群的平均年龄为65.4岁 ± 21.1例,其中女性占49%。头孢曲松是处方最多的β-内酰胺。这一群体中的大多数人住院时间为5年 天或更短时间。3年内达到临床稳定的患者的总百分比 天数257天(57.5%),其中阿奇霉素组222天(58.6%),含多西环素方案组35天(51.5%);p=0.275。而两组患者达到临床稳定性所需的平均天数均为3.8天 ± 3.2,其中3.8 ± 阿奇霉素3.3与3.9 ± 2.7在含有多西环素的方案中;(95%CI−0.98–0.68;p=0.727)结论。这些发现支持多西环素在治疗CAP住院患者的疗效上与含有β-内酰胺的大环内酯类药物相当,这得到了当前指南建议的支持。
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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics provides a forum for clinicians, pharmacists and pharmacologists to explore and report on issues of common interest. Reports and commentaries on current issues in medical and pharmaceutical practice are encouraged. Papers on evidence-based clinical practice and multidisciplinary collaborative work are particularly welcome. Regular sections in the journal include: editorials, commentaries, reviews (including systematic overviews and meta-analyses), original research and reports, and book reviews. Its scope embraces all aspects of clinical drug development and therapeutics, including: Rational therapeutics Evidence-based practice Safety, cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy of drugs Drug interactions Clinical impact of drug formulations Pharmacogenetics Personalised, stratified and translational medicine Clinical pharmacokinetics.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信