Pneumonia is a potentially lethal disease. The causative agents are traditionally divided into “typical” and “atypical,” each dictating a distinct antibiotic treatment. Because the causative agent at presentation is usually unknown, initial treatment is empirical, customarily covering both groups. No sufficient evidence exists to support the necessity of such coverage, while limiting it may reduce toxic effects, resistance, and expense. Shefet et al conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials comparing treatment regimens with and without coverage of atypical pathogens in adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. For the regimens tested, no advantage in clinical efficacy or mortality was found for coverage of atypical pathogens. Studies specifically assessing the addition of atypical coverage to a β-lactam are lacking.