Community-acquired pneumonia in the emergency department: a practical approach to diagnosis and management

Antibiotics for treating community-acquired pneumonia in people with sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND

As a consequence of their condition, people with sickle cell disease are at high risk of developing an acute infection of the pulmonary parenchyma called community-acquired pneumonia. Many different bacteria can cause this infection and antibiotic treatment is generally needed to resolve it. There is no standardized approach to antibiotic therapy and treatment is likely to vary from country to country. Thus, there is a need to identify the efficacy and safety of different antibiotic treatment approaches for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of the antibiotic treatment approaches (monotherapy or combined) for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (01 September 2016), which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched LILACS (1982 to 01 September 2016), African Index Medicus (1982 to 20 October 2016) and WHO ICT Registry (20 October 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for published or unpublished randomized controlled trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We intended to summarise data by standard Cochrane methodologies, but no eligible randomized controlled trials were identified.

MAIN RESULTS

We were unable to find any randomized controlled trials on antibiotic treatment approaches for community-acquired pneumonia in people with sickle cell disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The updated review was unable to identify randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the antibiotic treatment approaches for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the optimum antibiotic treatment for this condition. The trials regarding this issue should be structured and reported according to the CONSORT statement for improving the quality of reporting of efficacy and improved reports of harms in clinical research. Triallists should consider including the following outcomes in new trials: number of days to become afebrile; mortality; onset of pain crisis or complications of sickle cell disease following community-acquired pneumonia; diagnosis; hospitalization (admission rate and length of hospital stay); respiratory failure rate; and number of participants receiving a blood transfusion.There are no trials included in the review and we have not identified any relevant trials up to September 2016. We therefore do not plan to update this review until new trials are published.

The Effect of Selected Hospital Characteristics on the Timeliness of Antibiotic Administration for Pneumonia

In this study, we compared large urban teaching hospitals (group 1) with small nonurban nonteaching hospitals (group 2) in terms of administering antibiotics to patients admitted with pneumonia within 4 hours of hospital arrival. The following 2 independent data sets were used: hospital-reported data (comprising 22 193 patients with pneumonia discharged from Michigan hospitals in 2003) and hospital surveillance data (comprising 1053 randomly selected patients with pneumonia in Michigan from 2002 to 2004, reviewed by a central data abstraction center). Using hospital-reported data, the mean antibiotic timeliness rates were 65.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.5%-70.2%) for group 1 and 79.5% (95% CI, 76.8%-80.2%) for group 2 (P<.001). Using hospital surveillance data, the mean antibiotic timeliness rates were 58.2% (95% CI, 52.9%-63.5%) for group 1 and 70.1% (95% CI, 63.7%-76.6%) for group 2 (P = .01). These results support efforts to reduce logistical barriers to pneumonia antibiotic timeliness at large hospitals.

Community-acquired pneumonia: identification and evaluation of nonresponders

Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a relevant public health problem, constituting an important cause of morbidity and mortality. It accounts for a significant number of adult hospital admissions and a large number of those patients ultimately die, especially the population who needed mechanical ventilation or vasopressor support. Thus, early identification of CAP patients and its rapid and appropriate treatment are important features with impact on hospital resource consumption and overall mortality. Although CAP diagnosis may sometimes be straightforward, the diagnostic criteria commonly used are highly sensitive but largely unspecific. Biomarkers and microbiological documentation may be useful but have important limitations. Evaluation of clinical response is also critical especially to identify patients who fail to respond to initial treatment since these patients have a high risk of in-hospital death. However, the criteria of definition of non-response in CAP are largely empirical and frequently markedly diverse between different studies. In this review, we aim to identify criteria defining nonresponse in CAP and the pitfalls associated with this diagnosis. We also aim to overview the main causes of treatment failure especially in severe CAP and the possible strategies to identify and reassess non-responders trying to change the dismal prognosis associated with this condition.

Antibiotics for treating community acquired pneumonia in people with sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND

As a consequence of their condition, people with sickle cell disease are at high risk of developing an acute infection of the pulmonary parenchyma called community-acquired pneumonia. Many different bacteria can cause this infection and antibiotic treatment is generally needed to resolve it. There is no standardized approach to antibiotic therapy and treatment is likely to vary from country to country. Thus, there is a need to identify the efficacy and safety of different antibiotic treatment approaches for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of the antibiotic treatment approaches (monotherapy or combined) for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (25 May 2012), which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched LILACS (1982 to 27 April 2012), African Index Medicus (1982 to 27 April 2012) and WHO ICT Registry (27 April 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for published or unpublished randomized controlled trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We intended to summarise data by standard Cochrane Collaboration methodologies, but no eligible randomized controlled trials were identified.

MAIN RESULTS

We were unable to find any randomized controlled trials on antibiotic treatment approaches for community-acquired pneumonia in people with sickle cell disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The updated review was unable to identify randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the antibiotic treatment approaches for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the optimum antibiotic treatment for this condition. The trials regarding this issue should be structured and reported according to the CONSORT statement for improving the quality of reporting of efficacy and improved reports of harms in clinical research. Triallists should consider including the following outcomes in new trials: number of days to become afebrile; mortality; onset of pain crisis or complications of SCD following CAP; diagnosis; hospitalisation (admission rate and length of hospital stay); respiratory failure rate; and number of participants receiving a blood transfusion.There are no trials included in the review and we have not identified any relevant trials up to May 2012. We therefore do not plan to update this review until new trials are published.

Vital-sign abnormalities as predictors of pneumonia in adults with acute cough illness

PURPOSE

This study examines the strength of the association between vital-sign abnormalities, advanced age, and the diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in the evaluation of adults with acute cough illness.

METHODS

A random sample of adult visits for acute cough to 15 EDs during the winter period of 2 consecutive years (2003-2005) was selected for medical record abstraction. Visits were initially sampled based on discharge diagnoses for a broad range of acute respiratory tract infection diagnoses. Participating sites were a national sample of EDs in Veterans Administration and non-Veterans Administration hospitals stratified across the US region.

RESULTS

Of 4464 charts reviewed, 421 had a diagnosis of CAP based on physician discharge diagnosis and radiographic findings. Age greater than 50 years and vital-sign abnormality (including fever, hypoxemia, tachycardia, or tachypnea) were the only significant predictors of CAP. Hypoxemia had the strongest association with CAP diagnosis (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-5.0). A greater number of abnormalities were associated with a higher prevalence of CAP, from 12% with 1 abnormality to 69% with 4 vital-sign abnormalities (P < .001). Most vital-sign abnormalities were predictive of CAP regardless of age.

CONCLUSIONS

Increases in vital-sign abnormalities are associated with a greater probability of CAP, and the strength of the association does not vary substantially by age.

A simple screening tool for identification of community-acquired pneumonia in an inner city emergency department

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the performance of a simple screening tool for chest radiography for identification of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) among emergency department (ED) patients who present with respiratory-related complaints. Our screening tool is a modification of a previously published guideline, which relied only on the presence of vital-sign abnormality (97% sensitivity, 19% specificity). We included respiratory symptoms to improve the specificity, defining our screening tool as the presence of any one respiratory symptom (cough, chest pain or shortness of breath) and any abnormality of the vital signs (temperature >38 degrees C, heart rate >100 beats/min, respiration rate >20 breaths/min, or pulse oximetry <95%).

METHODS

This was a 3-month retrospective chart review of all ED visits from an inner city teaching hospital. CAP was defined as the presence of a new radiographic infiltrate compatible with CAP. Patients with asthma were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 8811 patient visits evaluated, 1948 presented with a respiratory symptom. Of these, 198 had definitive CAP. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the ED screening tool were 90% (95% CI 85% to 94%), 76% (95% CI 74% to 78%), 30% and 99%, respectively. Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 3.72 (95% CI 3.38 to 4.09) and 0.13 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.19), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple screening tool with high sensitivity and specificity was used in an urban inner city ED to decide on the requirement for chest radiographs for patients with respiratory symptoms for identification of CAP. Validation studies are required to determine the utility of this screening tool for improving time to diagnosis and treatment.

Missed and delayed diagnoses in the emergency department: a study of closed malpractice claims from 4 liability insurers

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic errors in the emergency department (ED) are an important patient safety concern, but little is known about their cause. We identify types and causes of missed or delayed diagnoses in the ED.

METHODS

This is a review of 122 closed malpractice claims from 4 liability insurers in which patients had alleged a missed or delayed diagnosis in the ED. Trained physician reviewers examined the litigation files and the associated medical records to determine whether an adverse outcome because of a missed diagnosis had occurred, what breakdowns were involved in the missed diagnosis, and what factors contributed to it. Main outcome measures were missed diagnoses, process breakdowns, and contributing factors.

RESULTS

A total of 79 claims (65%) involved missed ED diagnoses that harmed patients. Forty-eight percent of these missed diagnoses were associated with serious harm, and 39% resulted in death. The leading breakdowns in the diagnostic process were failure to order an appropriate diagnostic test (58% of errors), failure to perform an adequate medical history or physical examination (42%), incorrect interpretation of a diagnostic test (37%), and failure to order an appropriate consultation (33%). The leading contributing factors to the missed diagnoses were cognitive factors (96%), patient-related factors (34%), lack of appropriate supervision (30%), inadequate handoffs (24%), and excessive workload (23%). The median numbers of process breakdowns and contributing factors per missed diagnosis were 2 and 3, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Missed diagnoses in the ED have a complex cause. They are typically the result of multiple breakdowns in the diagnostic process and several contributing factors.

Antibiotics for treating community acquired pneumonia in people with sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND

As a consequence of their condition, people with sickle cell disease are at high risk of developing an acute infection of the pulmonary parenchyma called community-acquired pneumonia. Many different bacteria can cause this infection and antibiotic treatment is generally needed to resolve it. There is no standardized approach to antibiotic therapy and treatment is likely to vary from country to country. Thus, there is a need to identify the efficacy and safety of different antibiotic treatment approaches for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of the antibiotic treatment approaches (monotherapy or combined) for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (December 2005), which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to December 5th, 2005), EMBASE (1974 to December 7th, 2005), and LILACS (1982 to December 2005). Date of most recent search: December 2005

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for published or unpublished randomized controlled trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We intended to summarise data by standard Cochrane Collaboration methodologies, but no eligible randomized controlled trials were identified.

MAIN RESULTS

We were unable to find any randomized controlled trials on antibiotic treatment approaches for community-acquired pneumonia in people with sickle cell disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to identify randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the antibiotic treatment approaches for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the optimum antibiotic treatment for this condition.

Community-acquired pneumonia in casualty

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Community-acquired pneumonia, because of its substantial treatment costs, incidence, and mortality, is an aggressively researched diagnosis. In this review, we highlight new developments in the diagnosis, etiology, pathophysiology, treatment, and prevention of community-acquired pneumonia published since April 2002.

RECENT FINDINGS

The combined end points of improved patient care and conservation of health care resources have prompted several studies examining current professional society community-acquired pneumonia guidelines. In general, patients treated with the recommended third-generation cephalosporin and macrolide or an antipneumococcal fluoroquinolone when indicated have fared better, including reduced overall costs, inpatient days, and mortality, than those receiving alternative treatments. Etiologic identification efforts by traditional methods, blood and sputum cultures, are being questioned owing to poor success rates and, even when positive, are being underused or ignored in antibiotic selection and patient management. Newer diagnostic tests are becoming commercially available, along with tests for biologic markers that have been only recently identified as contributors to, or prognosticators of, community-acquired pneumonia. Because antibiotic resistance remains a major obstacle to successful patient treatment, prevention or mitigation of community-acquired pneumonia is gaining increasing popularity through more aggressive pneumococcal and influenza vaccination of at risk groups, even before hospital discharge from a community-acquired pneumonia admission.

SUMMARY

Although prevention is our best defense, current community-acquired pneumonia treatment guidelines are effective for treatment and cost containment. However, they should be scrutinized in light of clinical utilization data now entering the literature regarding their testing recommendations. Providers should consider encouraging focused culturing of sicker patients and those with significant comorbidities.