Antibiotics for hospital‐acquired pneumonia in newborns and | Figure 1

%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-14%27%20transform=%27translate(13.000000,%20103.176124)%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-Copy-5%27%20transform=%27translate(0.000000,%20182.676124)%27%3e%3crect%20id=%27Rectangle-8%27%20fill=%27%23E2E0DE%27%20x=%270%27%20y=%270%27%20width=%2736%27%20height=%2736%27%20rx=%2718%27%3e%3c/rect%3e%3cpath%20d=%27M28,27.6503435%20C28,22.127496%2023.5228474,17.6503435%2018,17.6503435%20C12.4771525,17.6503435%208,22.127496%208,27.6503435%20M18,16.3472505%20C20.8165136,16.3472505%2023.099749,14.0640151%2023.099749,11.2475015%20C23.099749,8.43098783%2020.8165136,6.1477524%2018,6.1477524%20C15.1834863,6.1477524%2012.9002509,8.43098783%2012.9002509,11.2475015%20C12.9002509,14.0640151%2015.1834863,16.3472505%2018,16.3472505%20Z%27%20id=%27Combined-Shape%27%20fill=%27%23FFFFFF%27%20fill-rule=%27nonzero%27%3e%3c/path%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)

Deleted account

Some actions are only available when you log in.

Report case

Report this to our moderators

Antibiotics for hospital‐acquired pneumonia in newborns and children

You can view up to 4 cases without signing up Sign up for unlimited access

Which antibiotic regimen is safer and more effective in treating neonates (newborns) and children with hospital‐acquired pneumonia?

Background

Hospital‐acquired pneumonia is one of the most common hospital‐acquired infections in children worldwide, and is associated with a high death rate. Most of our understanding of hospital‐acquired pneumonia in children is drawn from adult studies. To our knowledge this is the first review with meta‐analysis that assesses the benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens in newborns and children with hospital‐acquired pneumonia.

We included four trials randomising 84 children with hospital‐acquired pneumonia to different antibiotic regimens.

Each of the four included trials compared different antibiotic regimens, as follows: cefepime versus ceftazidime; linezolid versus vancomycin; meropenem versus cefotaxime; and ceftobiprole versus cephalosporin.

Study funding sources

Three trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies (Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, Pharmacia Corp, and Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd.), indicating a possible risk of bias related to a vested interest risk.

Key results

Only one trial reported our primary outcomes of death from all causes and serious adverse events (major complications). Three trials reported our secondary outcome of treatment failure. Two trials primarily included community‐acquired pneumonia and hospitalised children with bacterial infections, hence the children with hospital‐acquired pneumonia constituted only subgroups of the total study populations.

Where outcomes were reported, the certainty of the evidence was very low for each of the comparisons. We were unable to draw any meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.

None of the included trials assessed health‐related quality of life, pneumonia‐related death, or non‐serious adverse events (minor complications).

Conclusions

The available evidence does not suggest that one antibiotic regimen is safer and more effective than another in treating newborns and children with hospital‐acquired pneumonia.

Read the full Cochrane Review:

Comment

Sign up to add a comment

More about this case

Resolved

Why you should join Figure 1

Sign up to explore now

Similar cases

\ \ Objective: To analyze indications for systemic FQ prescriptions in hospitalized children and the appropriateness of the prescribed dose.\ Methods: Using data obtained from electronic medical files in two Belgian university children’s hospitals between 2010 and 2013. Logistic regression models were used to analyze risk factors for inadequately dosing.\ Key findings: Infants and preschool children were at particular risk for inadequate dose, with associated adjusted OR of 0.263 (0.097–0.701) and 0.254 (0.106–0.588) respectively.\ Questions:\ \

  1. In table 3, the percentage of dose adequate were reported over 100%, why?\
  2. How do you interpret adjusted OR as showed in key findings?\
  3. Mycoplasma pneumonia is found to be the treatment challenge, why?\
  4. Should if suspected mycoplasma pneumonia infection, what is the antibiotic of choice, why?](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/26a9744b-629f-4da7-a06d-e90ea144e2e9)

\ \ Is the use of antibiotics beneficial for treating leptospirosis?\ Key message\ – Antibiotics (for example, penicillin, doxycycline, azithromycin, cefotaxime, and chloramphenicol) may have no effect on mortality (death) and side effects associated with leptospirosis infection. However, due to the limited evidence, these findings may change if more trials of high quality are conducted.\ Leptospirosis is a disease transmitted from animals (e.g cattle, pigs, horses, dogs) to humans.\ What did we find?\ We found nine trials with 1019 participants, which took place in Barbados, Brazil, Malaysia, Panama, the Philippines, and Thailand. The participants were aged 13 to 92 years.\ Participants resided in these areas except two trials which recruited military personnel.\ Main results\ Four trials compared penicillin versus either placebo or no intervention. One trial compared penicillin versus doxycycline versus cefotaxime. One trial compared penicillin versus ceftriaxone. One trial compared penicillin versus chloramphenicol versus no intervention. One trial compared doxycycline versus azithromycin. One trial compared doxycycline versus placebo. We combined results from six trials.\ Antibiotics versus placebo:\ – May not reduce deaths (3 trials, 367 participants)\ – May not reduce minor side effects (for example, diarrhoea (loose stools), nausea (feeling sick), and vomiting (being sick); 2 trials, 162 participants)\ None of the included trials reported serious side effects.\ Antibiotics versus other antibiotics:\ – May not decrease deaths (penicillin versus cephalosporin: 2 trials, 348 participants; penicillin versus doxycycline: 1 trial, 168 participants; cefotaxime versus doxycycline: 1 trial, 169 participants)\ – May not affect the occurrence of serious side effects (penicillin versus doxycycline: 1 trial, 168 participants; penicillin versus cefotaxime: 1 trial, 175 participants; doxycycline versus cefotaxime: 1 trial, 175 participants)\ – May not affect the occurrence of side effects considered non‐serious (penicillin versus cefotaxime: 1 trial, 175 participants; penicillin versus doxycycline: 1 trial, 168 participants; penicillin versus chloramphenicol: 1 trial, 52 participants)\ What are the limitations of the evidence?\ We have low confidence in our results for death and side effects because of the small number of trials with widely varying results.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/2c0a7bea-2eeb-43a5-9739-3add93337ab4)

\ \ Review question\ We aimed to assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.\ Background\ Infective endocarditis is an infection of the inner lining of the heart. It is a serious infection that is frequently fatal, and cardiac surgery is often required. Antibiotics are medicines that treat infections and are the cornerstone of treatment for infective endocarditis. Treatment of patients with infective endocarditis is nosocomial (in‐hospital). Despite this, there are surprising differences between guidelines in their recommendations for antibiotic therapy. Furthermore, due to the dose and length of time that antibiotics must be given for, the antibiotics can have serious side effects, such as kidney and ear damage, and cause allergic reactions.\ Study characteristics\ We identified only six randomised controlled trials (studies in which participants are assigned to one of two or more treatment groups using a random method) that compared different antibiotic regimens, which included a limited number of participants. Each trial investigated different types and doses of antibiotics. The included studies were published between 1998 and 2019 and were conducted in the USA, Spain, Finland, and Denmark. The evidence is up‐to‐date as of 6 January 2020.\ Key results\ This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low‐quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few randomised controlled trials with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, the current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.\ Quality of evidence\ The confidence in the results of this review is low to very low. The included studies had limitations in the way they were designed and performed, and three studies were sponsored by the manufacturer of the medicine that was assessed. Moreover, the limited number of people included in the studies led to uncertain results. Larger studies are required to provide more information about the best antibiotic regimens to treat people with infective endocarditis.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/8d91aa84-5994-44e6-a7e3-fe24fecde3d5)

\ \ Review question\ We tried to identify whether there was a difference in the outcomes for children aged 2 to 59 months with non‐severe pneumonia and wheeze, treated with or without antibiotics.\ Background\ Pneumonia is an infection of the lungs. In children, it is one of the leading causes of deaths globally. Pneumonia can be classified according to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Classification includes assessment of certain clinical signs and symptoms, severity of the disease and its treatment according to the severity. For non‐severe pneumonia, the WHO recommends treatment with oral antibiotics. We used the 2014 WHO definition of non‐severe pneumonia for this review: an acute episode of cough, or difficulty in breathing, combined with fast breathing and chest indrawing.\ More commonly, pneumonia is caused by viruses that require supportive care rather than antibiotic treatment; however, pneumonia caused by bacteria should be treated with antibiotics to avoid complications. Since there is no clear way to quickly distinguish which organism actually caused the pneumonia, it is considered safe to give antibiotics. However, this may lead to the development of antibiotic resistance, and limit their use in future infections. The question is whether the use of antibiotics is justified in non‐severe pneumonia.\ Search date\ Our evidence is current to 23 December 2020.\ Study characteristics\ We included three trials (3256 children). They were conducted in four hospitals in three cities in Pakistan (Islamabad, Lahore and Rawalpindi), and in hospital outpatient departments in India and Malawi. The children were treated with a three‐day course of amoxicillin (antibiotic) or placebo, and followed up for two weeks. One trial is awaiting classification.\ Study funding source\ The included trials were supported by the USAID through INCLEN and IndiaClen; ARI Research Cell, Children Hospital, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan, and by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.\ Key results\ Limited data showed a 20% reduction in treatment failure, however, no impact was observed on clinical cure, relapse, and treatment harms. No deaths were reported in either group. Our review did not have enough evidence to support or challenge the continued use of antibiotics for the treatment of non‐severe pneumonia.\ Certainty of the evidence\ The certainty of evidence for clinical cure was moderate. The certainty of evidence for treatment failure, relapse, and treatments harms was low, due to downgrading for imprecision and risk of bias.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/90a3093c-b1d8-437e-879b-853cdd46218f)

Trending now

\ \ A 52-year-old man presented with a 20-minute history of chest pain radiating to the left shoulder and neck, associated with dyspnea and diaphoresis.\ He had a history of hypertension, long-term smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle.\ On physical examination, bibasilar crackles were noted on lung auscultation. An electrocardiogram (ECG) was performed in the primary care setting, and the patient was promptly referred to the emergency department.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/ae0fe999-6875-4474-94f0-ad823dbb9b3a)

\ \ A 28-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of intense pruritus over the lower back. She reported no recent travel or exposure to new environments. She cares for a small kennel with approximately eight dogs rescued from the streets.\ Physical examination revealed multiple small vesicles, some clustered and others scattered, predominantly involving the lumbar region and the left gluteal area.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/c271070f-2bc7-4052-9895-635277e1a7d5)

\ \ A 4-month-old male infant presented with skin lesions localized to the chin for the past 3 days. Physical examination revealed multiple small pustules with surrounding inflammatory signs on the chin, along with a few scattered papules on the chest.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/48f41642-b9db-4089-b120-a94ee52328de)

\ \ patient in late teens presenting after a collapse, no chest pain, no previous cardiac history, no history of sudden death in family, are there any features in this ekg that would warrant further work-up or is this just a pediatric ekg?](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/2af390e1-ace8-40ed-ba1c-98fb2d72f4c5)