Oral vs. parenteral antibiotic therapy in adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: Antibiotic therapy is widely used for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), and yet whether the efficacy of antibiotics differs based on the treatment mode remains unclear. This study aimed to summarize the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of oral vs. parenteral administration of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of patients with CAP. METHODS: The databases of PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception until 11 December 2021. The effectiveness of oral vs. parenteral administration of antibiotic therapy was estimated using a random-effects model. Additional sensitivity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 912 identified articles, 12 RCTs involving 2158 patients with CAP were included in our pooled analysis. This mostly included trials with low certainty and some concerns regarding risk of bias, including lack of allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel. Overall, oral antibiotic therapy did not affect the incidence of clinical success at the end of treatment (relative risk [RR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.05; P = 0.417), clinical success at follow-up (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.06; P = 0.301), or adverse events (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.56-1.35; P = 0.527). Moreover, oral antibiotic therapy had a beneficial effect on the risk of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.96; P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Oral administration of antibiotics is associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality compared with parenteral therapy based on RCTs with low to moderate quality. This finding should be verified in further large-scale RCTs.

[Application of detecting bronchoalveolar lavage fluid Aspergillus galactomannan antigen in the diagnosis of pulmonary aspergillosis].

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the utility of detecting bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) Aspergillus galactomannan antigen (GM) in the diagnosis of pulmonary aspergillosis. METHODS: From August 2008 to April 2012, 121 patients suspected of pulmonary aspergillosis were recruited and classified into pulmonary aspergillosis group (n = 57) and non-pulmonary disease group (n = 64) according to the 2008 diagnostic criteria and classification of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/National Institute of Mycoses Study Group(EORTC/MSG). The absorbency (A) and I value of GM in the patients' serum and BALF were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). And their values were compared and analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty cases were confirmed by pathological examinations and 37 cases by clinical diagnosis in the pulmonary aspergillosis group. The mean rank of GM's I value in the serum and BALF samples was 88.21 and 86.49. And they significantly increased compared with the non-pulmonary aspergillosis group (36.77, 38.30) (P < 0.01). At a different serum GM threshold I = 0.5, 0.8, 1.0, the sensitivities were 0.842, 0.649 and 0.228; the specificities 0.906, 0.938, 0.929; the positive predictive values 0.889, 0.902, 0.984 and the negative predictive values 0.866, 0.750, 0.589 respectively. And at a different BALF GM threshold I = 0.5, 0.8, 1.0, the sensitivities were 0.930, 0.657, 0.561; the specificities 0.766, 0.922, 0.969; the positive predictive values 0.779, 0.884, 0.941 and the negative predictive values 0.925, 0.756, 0.713 respectively. CONCLUSION: The detection of GM in BALF may be employed for the clinical diagnosis of pulmonary aspergillosis.