Prospective open-label randomized comparative, non-inferiority study of two initial antibiotic strategies for patients with nursing- and healthcare-associated pneumonia: Guideline-concordant therapy versus empiric therapy

Background and objectiveThe nursing- and healthcare-associated pneumonia guideline, proposed by the Japan Respiratory Society, recommends that patients at risk of exposure to drug-resistant pathogens, classified as treatment category C, be treated with antipseudomonal antibiotics. This study aimed to prove the non-inferiority of empirical therapy in our hospital compared with guideline-concordant therapy.MethodsThis was a randomized controlled trial conducted from December 2011 to December 2012. Patients were randomized to the Guideline group receiving guideline-concordant therapy, and the Empiric group treated with sulbactam/ampicillin or ceftriaxone. The primary endpoint was in-hospital relapse of pneumonia and mortality within 30 days, with a predefined non-inferiority margin of 10%. The secondary endpoints included duration, adverse effects, and cost of antibiotic therapy.ResultsOne hundred and eleven patients were assigned to the Guideline group (n = 55) and the Empiric group (n = 56; 3 of which were excluded). The incidence of relapse and death within 30 days was similar in the Guideline and the Empiric groups (31% vs. 26%, risk difference −4.5%, 95% CI −21.5% to 12.5%). While the duration of antibiotic therapy was slightly shorter in the Guideline group than in the Empiric group (7 vs. 8 days), there were no significant differences in adverse effects or cost.ConclusionsThe efficacy of empiric therapy was comparable to guideline-concordant therapy, although non-inferiority was not proven. The administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics to patients at risk of exposure to drug-resistant pathogens may not necessarily improve the prognosis.Trial registrationUMIN000006792.