Effectiveness of amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives The aim of this study is to evaluate existing evidence on the effectiveness of amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate for community-acquired pneumonia in children and adults.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Ovid-MEDLINER were searched with no language restrictions through 16 July 2024.Eligibility criteria We included studies comparing the effectiveness of amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate versus other antibiotics or placebo.Data extraction and synthesis Only randomised controlled trials comparing amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate with another antibiotic or placebo with a primary outcome of clinical resolution or clinical failure were eligible for our review. We used random-effects and fixed-effects logistic regression models to estimate the pooled treatment effect size. Heterogeneity of the studies was evaluated using the τ statistic. We performed an unplanned frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis for the indirect comparison between amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials was used to assess and categorise studies into low risk of bias, some concerns or high risk of bias.Results We extracted data from 44 studies including 45 400 patients. We found no evidence of a differential effect on clinical resolution when comparing amoxicillin with other antibiotics (n=15 trials; pooled OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38, where >1 favours amoxicillin) or amoxicillin-clavulanate with other antibiotics (n=17; OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.04). Similarly, evidence of difference in clinical failure between amoxicillin and other antibiotics was unclear and unable to rule out clinically important benefits or harms (n=8; OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.06, where <1 favours amoxicillin). We found no evidence of a differential effect on clinical resolution between adults treated with amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate (n=28; OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.70, where >1 favours amoxicillin-clavulanate). Sixty-three per cent and 29% of amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate studies, respectively, had low risk of bias according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials.Conclusions Current evidence is unclear as to whether amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate differs from other antibiotics, or from each other, in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia, owing to the small number of trials and substantial heterogeneity in comparators used across study settings.PROSPERO registration number CRD42024568554.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-112219
Primary Topic
Pneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effectiveness of amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ben S. Cooper, Julia Bielicki, Lilia Potter-Schwartz, Michael Sharland et al.
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)
Pneumonia and Respiratory Infections
article

Effectiveness of amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ben S. Cooper, Julia Bielicki, Lilia Potter-Schwartz, Michael Sharland, Cherry Lim, Myo MM Swe
article en

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study is to evaluate existing evidence on the effectiveness of amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate for community-acquired pneumonia in children and adults.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Ovid-MEDLINER were searched with no language restrictions through 16 July 2024.Eligibility criteria We included studies comparing the effectiveness of amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate versus other antibiotics or placebo.Data extraction and synthesis Only randomised controlled trials comparing amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate with another antibiotic or placebo with a primary outcome of clinical resolution or clinical failure were eligible for our review. We used random-effects and fixed-effects logistic regression models to estimate the pooled treatment effect size. Heterogeneity of the studies was evaluated using the τ statistic. We performed an unplanned frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis for the indirect comparison between amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials was used to assess and categorise studies into low risk of bias, some concerns or high risk of bias.Results We extracted data from 44 studies including 45 400 patients. We found no evidence of a differential effect on clinical resolution when comparing amoxicillin with other antibiotics (n=15 trials; pooled OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38, where >1 favours amoxicillin) or amoxicillin-clavulanate with other antibiotics (n=17; OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.04). Similarly, evidence of difference in clinical failure between amoxicillin and other antibiotics was unclear and unable to rule out clinically important benefits or harms (n=8; OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.06, where <1 favours amoxicillin). We found no evidence of a differential effect on clinical resolution between adults treated with amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate (n=28; OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.70, where >1 favours amoxicillin-clavulanate). Sixty-three per cent and 29% of amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate studies, respectively, had low risk of bias according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials.Conclusions Current evidence is unclear as to whether amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate differs from other antibiotics, or from each other, in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia, owing to the small number of trials and substantial heterogeneity in comparators used across study settings.PROSPERO registration number CRD42024568554.

DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)
St George's, University of London (GB), Yale University (US), University of Oxford (GB), University Children’s Hospital Basel (CH)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Pneumonia and Respiratory Infections
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.