ReviewDrugs2005
Optimal pharmacological therapy for community-acquired pneumonia: the role of dual antibacterial therapy.
Review in Drugs, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding the impact of moxifloxacin on immune function: Findings from cytokine analyses and immunological assays in mice.PloS one · 2025Article
- Pathogen- and host-directed anti-inflammatory activities of macrolide antibiotics.Mediators of inflammation · 2012Review
- Efficacy and tolerability of moxifloxacin in patients with respiratory tract infections treated in general practice: Results of a post-marketing surveillance study.Clinical drug investigation · 2006Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal pharmacological therapy of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is one of the most ardently debated issues in medicine. Presently, most guidelines recommend either a fluoroquinolone alone or dual therapy with a third-generation cephalosporin plus a macrolide in patients hospitalised with CAP, but few provide clinicians with specific considerations for selecting from these agents. Despite a similar spectrum of activity and favourable resistance patterns (for fluoroquinolones and third-generation cephalosporins) against CAP pathogens, there is emerging evidence that dual therapy may be superior to monotherapy in certain populations.In patients with non-severe CAP, the evidence supports the use of either monotherapy or dual therapy in most patients; however, patients with severe CAP or bacteraemic pneumococcal CAP experience improved survival when treated with dual therapy. It is unclear from this evidence if any specific combination of agents is the most effective, but the combination of a third-generation cephalosporin plus a macrolide is the most extensively studied. Dual therapy was superior to monotherapy irrespective of the susceptibility of the aetiological pathogen, thus insufficient antimicrobial spectrum does not explain the disparity. The most likely explanation for improved outcomes with dual therapy is the combined effect of optimised antimicrobial spectrum (including atypicals), decreased impact of resistance to a single agent and the immunomodulatory effects of macrolides. Increasing resistance in patients with non-severe CAP warrants the consideration of dual therapy and perhaps a reappraisal of agents usually reserved for second-line therapy, including doxycycline, in these populations as well. In light of the available evidence, dual therapy should be strongly considered in all patients with severe CAP, especially when complicated by pneumococcal bacteraemia.
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.