ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2021
Concordance of Early and Late End Points for Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Trials.
Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of omadacycline versus moxifloxacin as the initial treatment for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in China.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- A Review of Omadacycline for Potential Utility in the Military Health System for the Treatment of Wound Infections.Military medicine · 2024Review
- Inflammation and Microbiota Regulation Potentiate Pneumonia Therapy by Biomimetic Bacteria and Macrophage Membrane Nanosystem.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2023Article
- Understanding Early and Late Endpoints in Registrational Trials of Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile there are ongoing regulatory convergence efforts, differences remain in primary end points recommended for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) trials. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends assessing CABP symptom resolution at an early time point (3-5 days after randomization). Other regulatory agencies recommend assessing overall clinical response at a later time point (5-10 days after therapy ends).
methodsWe analyzed participant-level data from 6 recent CABP trials submitted to the FDA (n = 4645 participants) to evaluate concordance between early and late end-point outcomes. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with discordance.
resultsEarly and late end-point outcomes were concordant for 85.6% of participants. The proportions of early end-point responders that ultimately failed and early end-point nonresponders that ultimately succeeded were similar (6.0% vs 8.4%, respectively). Early end-point response was highly predictive of late end-point success (positive predictive value, 92.9%). Multivariate logistic regression identified early end-point responders/late end-point failures as less likely to be obese and more likely to be infected with Chlamydophila pneumoniae or Staphylococcus aureus, have received antibacterial drug therapy prior to randomization, and have severe chest pain at baseline. The most common investigator-provided reasons for failure among early end-point responders/late end-point failures were receipt of nonstudy antibacterial drug therapy and loss to follow-up.
conclusionsEarly and late end-point outcomes were highly concordant. These data may be useful in the continuing efforts to reach international regulatory convergence on CABP clinical trial design recommendations.
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.