Cited by 15Pneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsAntibiotic Use and ResistanceNosocomial Infections in ICU

Short-course antibiotic therapy for hospitalized patients with early clinical response in community-acquired pneumonia: a multicentre cohort study

Open access
Israelsen, Simone Bastrup, Fally, Markus, Tarp, Britta, Kolte, Lilian, Ravn, Pernille, Benfield, Thomas·2023·Clinical Microbiology and Infection

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether short-course antibiotic therapy is efficient and safe in routine clinical settings among patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) who achieve an early clinical response. METHODS: During 2017-2019, we conducted a cohort study of patients admitted with CAP to four hospitals in Denmark. Data were prospectively gathered from medical records and enriched with data from nationwide registries. In the present study, we included patients with early clinical response and divided them into treatment groups based on antibiotic duration, as decided by the attending physician: short-course (4-7 days) or prolonged-course (8-14 days). The primary outcome was post-treatment mortality within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included readmissions or new antibiotics. Logistic regression models were used to estimate ORs with 95% CIs, and inverse probability weighting was applied to adjust for confounding. RESULTS: The study cohort included 1151 patients with a median age of 74 years, predominantly presenting with mild-moderate disease. The 30-day post-treatment mortality was 3.36% (11/327) in the short-course group and 3.40% (28/824) in the prolonged-course group (adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.38-1.88). Readmission occurred in 15.6% (42/269) vs. 14.0% (102/727) (adjusted OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75-1.69) and new prescription of antibiotics in 11.9% (32/269) vs. 12.1% (88/727) (adjusted OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.61-1.49). DISCUSSION: In patients hospitalized with CAP and early clinical response, similar outcomes were observed between short-course and prolonged-course therapies. These results support the use of short-course therapy in routine clinical settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.08.004

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Abbreviated β-lactam courses (typically 3-5 days) can achieve comparable cure rates to longer regimens while reducing microbiome disruption and minimizing adverse effects.

    “Evidence from controlled trials and real-world data consistently demonstrates that abbreviated β-lactam courses (typically 3-5 days) can achieve comparable cure rates to longer regimens while reducing microbiome disruption and minimizing adverse effects [16-18].”

    From Clinical Outcomes and Real-World Effectiveness of Amoxicillin-Clavulanic Acid Across Indian Healthcare Settings: A Retrospective Multicenter Study (2026) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Summary of results (page unavailable) reports comparable outcomes for the cohort’s 4–7-day versus 8–14-day courses and cites a trial finding that 3 days of β-lactams was noninferior to 8 days in clinically stable patients. The cohort did not test a typical 3–5-day β-lactam course, and the paper does not establish reduced microbiome disruption or fewer adverse effects. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Israelsen, S. B., Fally, M., Tarp, B., Kolte, L., Ravn, P., & Benfield, T.
Affiliations
  • Amager Hospital (DK)
  • Bispebjerg Hospital (DK)
  • Regionshospitalet Silkeborg (DK)
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
  • Herlev Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Israelsen, Simone Bastrup
Venue
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-01
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
54-60
ISSN
1198-743X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4296904618
Cited by
15
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Microbiology and Infection (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Gilead Sciences
  • Simonsen Foundation
  • Novo Nordisk Fonden
  • Pfizer
  • Erik og Susanna Olesens Almenvelgørende Fond
  • Lundbeckfonden
  • Ministeriet Sundhed Forebyggelse (ID 1608969)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Pneumonia and Respiratory Infections
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Nosocomial Infections in ICU
Keywords
community-acquired pneumonia, short-course antibiotic therapy, long-term antibiotic therapy, antibiotic duration, early clinical response, 30-day mortality, hospital readmission, antibiotic prescribing, hospitalized patients
MeSH terms
Aged, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Hospitalization, Humans, Pneumonia, Cohort Studies, Community-Acquired Infections

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review