ReviewDrugs2003
International guidelines for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: the role of macrolides.
Review in Drugs, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Update of practice guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent adults.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2003Guideline
- Comparative antibiotic failure rates in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: Results from a claims analysis.Advances in therapy · 2010Article
- [Community acquired pneumonia CAP].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2006Review
- Role of beta-lactam agents in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2005Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The significance of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has led to the publication of guidelines from numerous international organisations. Because the macrolide class of antimicrobials is active against most of the key pathogens associated with CAP, agents from this class are commonly included in recommendations from these guidelines. However, there are differences among the various guidelines concerning the positioning of the macrolides for empirical therapy. An important factor concerning the use of macrolides for CAP is the emergence of resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae over the past decade. The rate of S. pneumoniae resistance to macrolides ranges from 4 to 70% of strains in worldwide surveillance studies. The most common mechanisms of resistance include methylation of a ribosomal target encoded by the erm gene and efflux of the macrolides by a cell membrane protein transporter, encoded by the mef gene. S. pneumoniae strains with the mef gene are resistant at a lower level (with minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] values generally 1-16 microg/ml) than erm resistant strains; and it is possible that such strains may be inhibited if sufficiently high levels of macrolide can be obtained at the infected site. Currently mef-associated resistance predominates in North America, whereas erm predominates in Europe. Until recently, reports of failure of treatment of CAP with macrolides has been rare, particularly for patients with low-risk for drug-resistant strains. However, since 2000, several patients treated with an oral macrolide who have subsequently required admission to the hospital for macrolide-resistant S. pneumoniae (MRSP) bacteraemia have been reported in the literature. Major issues, which are fundamental to the use of the macrolides as recommended in the various guidelines, include the importance of providing therapy for 'atypical' pathogens and the clinical significance of MRSP. Presently, the macrolides are more prominently recommended in the North American guidelines than in other parts of the world. The difference in the emphasis placed on the importance of the atypical pathogens as well as the expression of MRSP in North America compared with Europe partly explains this variance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.