The comparative ability of commonly used disease severity scores to predict death or a requirement for ICU care in patients hospitalised with possible sepsis in Yangon, Myanmar

The Epidemiological, Clinical, and Microbiological Features of Patients with Burkholderia pseudomallei Bacteraemia-Implications for Clinical Management

Patients with melioidosis are commonly bacteraemic. However, the epidemiological characteristics, the microbiological findings, and the clinical associations of Burkholderia pseudomallei bacteraemia are incompletely defined. All cases of culture-confirmed melioidosis at Cairns Hospital in tropical Australia between January 1998 and June 2023 were reviewed. The presence of bacteraemia was determined and correlated with patient characteristics and outcomes; 332/477 (70%) individuals in the cohort were bacteraemic. In multivariable analysis, immunosuppression (odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI)): (2.76 (1.21-6.27), p = 0.02), a wet season presentation (2.27 (1.44-3.59), p < 0.0001) and male sex (1.69 (1.08-2.63), p = 0.02), increased the likelihood of bacteraemia. Patients with a skin or soft tissue infection (0.32 (0.19-0.57), p < 0.0001) or without predisposing factors for melioidosis (0.53 (0.30-0.93), p = 0.03) were less likely to be bacteraemic. Bacteraemia was associated with intensive care unit admission (OR (95%CI): 4.27 (2.35-7.76), p < 0.0001), and death (2.12 (1.04-4.33), p = 0.04). The median (interquartile range) time to blood culture positivity was 31 (26-39) hours. Patients with positive blood cultures within 24 h were more likely to die than patients whose blood culture flagged positive after this time (OR (95%CI): 11.05 (3.96-30.83), p < 0.0001). Bacteraemia portends a worse outcome in patients with melioidosis. Its presence or absence might be used to help predict outcomes in cases of melioidosis and to inform optimal clinical management.

A comparison of different scores for diagnosis and mortality prediction of adults with sepsis in Low-and-Middlencome Countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical scores for sepsis have been primarily developed for, and applied in High-Income Countries. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the performance of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and Universal Vital Assessment (UVA) scores for diagnosis and prediction of mortality in patients with suspected infection in Low-and-Middle-Income Countries.

METHODS

PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched until May 18, 2021. Studies reporting the performance of at least one of the above-mentioned scores for predicting mortality in patients of 15 years of age and older with suspected infection or sepsis were eligible. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used for risk-of-bias assessment. PRISMA guidelines were followed (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020153906). The bivariate random-effects regression model was used to pool the individual sensitivities, specificities and areas-under-the-curve (AUC).

FINDINGS

Twenty-four articles (of 5669 identified) with 27,237 patients were eligible for inclusion. qSOFA pooled sensitivity was 0·70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0·60-0·78), specificity 0·73 (95% CI 0·67-0·79), and AUC 0·77 (95% CI 0·72-0·82). SIRS pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0·88 (95% CI 0·79 -0·93), 0·34 (95% CI 0·25-0·44), and 0·69 (95% CI 0·50-0·83), respectively. MEWS pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0·70 (95% CI 0·57 -0·81), 0·61 (95% CI 0·42-0·77), and 0·72 (95% CI 0·64-0·77), respectively. UVA pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0·49 (95% CI 0·33 -0·65), 0·91(95% CI 0·84-0·96), and 0·76 (95% CI 0·44-0·93), respectively. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the pooled analysis.

INTERPRETATION

Individual score performances ranged from poor to acceptable. Future studies should combine selected or modified elements of different scores.

FUNDING

Partially funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (17/63/42).