Letters to the Editor

Positive Chest Radiograph Findings Are Not Enough to Warrant Antibiotics in Patients with Acute Cough


Am Fam Physician. 2020 Jan 1;101(1):5.

Original Article: Identifying Outpatients with Acute Cough at Very Low Risk of Pneumonia [Point-of-Care Guides]

Issue Date: August 15, 2019

See additional reader comments at: https://www.aafp.org/afp/2019/0815/p246.html

To the Editor: Given how common it is for patients to present with acute cough in the primary care setting, I read Dr. Ebell’s article with great interest, and I agree with his assessment of the trials mentioned. However, I would point out that the authors of the GRACE study, as well as the two similar U.S. studies mentioned, make the assumption that acute cough in the setting of positive chest radiograph findings establishes a diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and warrants antibiotic use. Although many experts would agree with this assumption, others require the patient to meet more rigorous clinical and laboratory criteria before diagnosing CAP and prescribing antibiotics.1

This lack of consensus stems from a dearth of data on which patients with acute cough benefit from antibiotics and which do not. Indeed, only two placebo-controlled trials exist for patients with CAP.2,3 These trials showed the benefit of antibiotics, but they also used more stringent inclusion criteria than simply the presence of acute cough and suggestive chest radiograph findings—both required patients to have a fever, and one required patients to have confirmed Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection.2,3

There may be a subset of patients with acute cough and suggestive radiograph findings who do not benefit from antibiotics, and even a subset of patients with a particular constellation of symptoms and negative chest radiograph findings who do benefit. We simply do not have adequate evidence to definitively state which patients will and will not benefit from antibiotics. A far more helpful study to reduce unwarranted antibiotic use would determine which patients with acute cough benefit from antibiotics and which do not, instead of which patients with acute cough will likely have positive chest radiograph findings, as existing studies demonstrate.

Finally, any discussion of identifying a patient’s risk of CAP should include the increasingly widespread use of bedside ultrasonography. A lung examination with ultrasonography takes less than one minute to perform and has superior accuracy to chest radiography when using chest computed tomography as the reference standard.4 However, it is unclear if a patient with positive ultrasound findings, especially in the context of negative radiograph findings, should receive antibiotics, underscoring the need for studies evaluating which patients with acute cough benefit from antibiotics.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.


show all references

1. Welker JA, Huston M, McCue JD. Antibiotic timing and errors in diagnosing pneumonia. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(4):351–356....

2. Kingston JR, Chanock R, Mufson MA, et al. Eaton agent pneumonia. JAMA. 1961;176118–123.

3. Smilack JD, Burgin WW Jr, Moore WL Jr, et al. Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia and clindamycin therapy: failure to demonstrate efficacy. JAMA. 1974;228729–731.

4. Reissig A, Copetti R, Mathis G, et al. Lung ultrasound in the diagnosis and follow-up of community-acquired pneumonia: a prospective, multicenter, diagnostic accuracy study. Chest. 2012;142(4):965–972.

In Reply: I thank Dr. Tanael for his thoughtful letter and agree with his comments, with some caveats. He correctly notes that not all patients with radiographic CAP benefit from an antibiotic. However, because approximately 70% of patients with acute cough receive an antibiotic,1 and only 4% of primary care patients with cough are diagnosed with CAP,2 the larger task is reducing inappropriate antibiotic use among those without CAP rather than in those with CAP. To that end, identifying patients who are unlikely to have radiographic CAP may be helpful. In addition, as he notes, data are lacking regarding which patients with radiographic CAP benefit from an antibiotic. However, a study found that C-reactive protein has independent predictive value for identifying lower respiratory tract infections caused by a bacterial pathogen.3 My colleagues and I are in the process of gathering prospective data on 1,400 patients with acute cough, to learn more about how to identify patients with acute cough who are unlikely to benefit from antibiotics. This study is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and involves data collection in Madison, Wis.; Washington, D.C.; and Athens, Ga. Reducing inappropriate antibiotic use in patients with nonpneumonia lower respiratory tract infections by 30% would yield a much larger benefit than reducing antibiotic use in patients with CAP by the same amount.

Regarding ultrasonography, I agree that it has good accuracy for the diagnosis of pneumonia in the hands of adequately trained clinicians. However, as Dr. Tanael notes, it is unclear how ultrasound-diagnosed CAP differs from radiographically diagnosed CAP in terms of the benefit (or lack of benefit) of antibiotics.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Ebell is Deputy Editor for Evidence-Based Medicine for AFP.


1. Ebell MH, Radke T. Antibiotic use for viral acute respiratory tract infections remains common. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21(10):e567–e575.

2. Van Vugt S, Broekhuizen BD, Lammens C, et al. Use of serum C reactive protein and procalcitonin concentrations in addition to symptoms and signs to predict pneumonia in patients presenting to primary care with acute cough: diagnostic study. BMJ. 2013;346f2450.

3. Teepe J, Broekhuizen BD, Loens K, et al. Predicting the presence of bacterial pathogens in the airways of primary care patients with acute cough. CMAJ. 2016;189(2):e50–e55.

Send letters to afplet@aafp.org, or 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211-2680. Include your complete address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Letters should be fewer than 400 words and limited to six references, one table or figure, and three authors.

Letters submitted for publication in AFP must not be submitted to any other publication. Possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed at time of submission. Submission of a letter will be construed as granting the AAFP permission to publish the letter in any of its publications in any form. The editors may edit letters to meet style and space requirements.

This series is coordinated by Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, Associate Deputy Editor for AFP Online.



Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


Jan 2022

Access the latest issue of American Family Physician

Read the Issue

Email Alerts

Don't miss a single issue. Sign up for the free AFP email table of contents.

Sign Up Now

Navigate this Article