Your goal is to extract structured information from the user's input that matches the form described below. When extracting information please make sure it matches the type information exactly. Do not add any attributes that do not appear in the schema shown below.

```TypeScript

 { // Information on the clinical trial characteristics from the abstract
 conditions: string // The condition or disease being treated in the clinical trial
 drug_or_intervention: string // The drug or intervention used in the clinical trial
}
```


Please output the extracted information in JSON format. Do not output anything except for the extracted information. Do not add any clarifying information. Do not add any fields that are not in the schema. If the text contains attributes that do not appear in the schema, please ignore them. All output must be in JSON format and follow the schema specified above. Wrap the JSON in <json> tags.



Input:A randomised, double-blind trial comparing ceftobiprole medocaril with ceftriaxone with or without linezolid for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalisation.  Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a serious infection requiring hospitalisation in 20% of cases. The novel cephalosporin ceftobiprole has microbiological activity against the major bacterial pathogens causing CAP, including Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae and Klebsiella pneumoniae, as well as against Staphylococcus aureus, including meticillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). This was a multicentre, double-blind study in which 706 patients with CAP severe enough to require hospitalisation were randomised to ceftobiprole or to an expert-recommended course of ceftriaxone ± linezolid (comparator group). Clinical and microbiological outcomes were determined 7-14 days after completion of therapy (test-of-cure visit). For the 469 clinically evaluable patients, cure rates were 86.6% vs. 87.4% for ceftobiprole and comparator, respectively [95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference, -6.9% to 5.3%]; in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of 638 CAP patients, these cure rates were 76.4% vs. 79.3%, respectively (95% CI of the difference, -9.3% to 3.6%). A typical bacterial pathogen was identified in 29% of the ITT population. Microbiological eradication rates in the 144 microbiologically evaluable patients were 88.2% and 90.8% for the respective treatment groups (95% CI of the difference, -12.6% to 7.5%). Both study drugs were well tolerated, with but a minority of patients requiring premature discontinuation due to an adverse event (6% in the ceftobiprole group and 4% in the comparator group). The overall incidence of treatment-related adverse events was higher in the ceftobiprole group, primarily owing to differences in rates of self-limited nausea (7% vs. 2%) and vomiting (5% vs. 2%). In summary, ceftobiprole was non-inferior to the comparator (ceftriaxone ± linezolid) in all clinical and microbiological analyses conducted, suggesting that ceftobiprole has a potential role in treating hospitalised patients with CAP. [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00326287]. Output:
{'conditions': 'Pneumonia', 'interventions': 'Drug: Ceftobiprole medocaril|Drug: Ceftriaxone with or without Linezolid'}