A prediction rule to identify allocation of inpatient care in community-acquired pneumonia

Usefulness of a predictive model to hospitalize patients with low-risk community-acquired pneumonia

INTRODUCTION

A high proportion of patients with low-risk community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) (classes I-III of the Pneumonia Severity Index) are hospitalized. The purpose of this study was to determine whether validated severity scales are used in clinical practice to make admission decisions, identify the variables that influence this decision, and evaluate the potential predictive value of these variables.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, observational study of patients ≥ 18 years of age with a diagnosis of low-risk CAP hospitalized or referred from the Emergency Department to outpatient consultations. A multivariate logistic regression predictive model was built to predict the decision to hospitalize a patient.

RESULTS

The study population was composed of 1,208 patients (806 inpatients and 402 outpatients). The severity of CAP was estimated in 250 patients (20.7%). The factors that determined hospitalization were "abnormal findings in complementary studies" (643/806: 79.8%; due to respiratory failure in 443 patients) and "signs of clinical deterioration" [64/806 (7.9%): hypotension (16/64, 25%); hemoptoic expectoration (12/64, 18.8%); tachypnea (10/64, 15.6%)]. In total, ambulatory management was not contraindicated in 24.7% of hospitalized patients (199). The predictive model built to decide about hospitalization had a good power of discrimination (AUC 0.876; 95%CI: 0.855-0.897).

CONCLUSIONS

Scales are rarely used to estimate the severity of CAP at the emergency department. The decision to hospitalize or not a patient largely depends on the clinical experience of the physician. Our predictive model showed a good power to discriminate the patients who required hospitalization. Further studies are warranted to validate these results.

Comparison between the Severity Scoring Systems A-DROP and CURB-65 for Predicting Safe Discharge from the Emergency Department in Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Background

In most community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) treatment guidelines, the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) and CURB-65 are used as prognostic tools. Recently, simpler and more effective predictive tools for CAP treatment, such as the A-DROP scoring system, have been developed. However, no study has performed a comparative evaluation to identify the superior tool for predicting when patients can be discharged safely.

Objectives

To compare the performances of A-DROP and CURB-65, simple predictive tools for CAP, based on 30-day death rates and 72-hour revisit rates for CAP following discharge from the emergency department (ED).

Method

This single-center retrospective observational study enrolled patients who were at least 18 years old and diagnosed with CAP at the Songklanagarind Hospital ED from January 2015 to April 2021. Following a severity assessment using the A-DROP and CURB-65 scoring systems, the 30-day mortality rates and 72-hour revisit rates after discharge from the ED were compared.

Results

A total of 408 patients were enrolled in this study. Six (1.47%) died within 30 days after presentation, whereas 29 (7.1%) returned to the ED within 72 hours after discharge. Most patients (72%) who revisited the ED were over the age of 65 years. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the prediction of 30-day mortality were 0.756 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.526–0.987) and 0.808 (95% CI: 0.647–0.970) for A-DROP and CURB-65, respectively. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the prediction of 72-hour revisit were 0.617 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.507–0.728) and 0.639 (95% CI: 0.536–0.743) for A-DROP and CURB-65, respectively.

Conclusion

A-DROP and CURB-65 yield similar results and can be used to assess low-risk patients with CAP for discharge from the ED. Older patients, even those with low-risk scores, should be particularly considered for admission to a short-term observation unit or ward.

Application of the respiratory "critical care-sub-critical care-rehabilitation integrated management model" in severe stroke associated pneumonia

Background

This study aimed to explore the feasibility of applying the respiratory “critical care-sub-critical care-rehabilitation integrated management model” in severe stroke-associated pneumonia and evaluate its effect.

Methods

From January to September 2018, 24 patients with severe stroke-associated pneumonia, who were admitted to the Respiratory Intensive Care Unit of the Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Department of Henan Provincial People’s Hospital, were randomly divided into two groups: integrated management group and control group. According to the admission criteria of the respiratory “critical care-sub-critical care-rehabilitation integrated model” prescribed by the above-mentioned hospital, patients were grouped. The professional respiratory therapy team participated in the whole treatment. The acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score, clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) and oxygenation index of these two groups were dynamically observed, and the average hospital stay, 28-day mortality and patient satisfaction were investigated.

Results

Patients in the integrated management group and control group were similar before treatment (P > 0.05). After treatment, the main indicators, the APACHE II score, CPIS score and oxygenation index, were significantly different between the integration group and control group (P < 0.05). The secondary indicators, the average hospitalization days and patient/family member satisfaction scores, were also significantly different between the integration group and control group (P < 0.05). However, the 28-day mortality wasn’t significantly different (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

For patients with severe stroke-associated pneumonia, it was feasible to implement the respiratory “critical care-sub-critical care-rehabilitation integrated management model”, which could significantly improve the treatment effect, shorten average hospitalization days and improve patient/family satisfaction.

Severity scoring systems for pneumonia: current understanding and next steps

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the current understanding and clinical applicability of severity scoring systems in pneumonia management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Severity scores in community-acquired pneumonia are strong markers of mortality, but are not necessarily clinical decision-aid tools. The use of severity scores to support outpatient care in low-risk patients has moderate-to-strong evidence available in the literature, mainly for the pneumonia severity index, and must be applied together with clinical judgment. It is not clear that severity scores are helpful to guide empiric antibiotic treatment. The inclusion of biomarkers and performance status might improve the predictive performance of the well known severity scores in community-acquired pneumonia. We should improve our methods for score evaluation and move toward the development of decision-aid tools.

SUMMARY

The application of the available evidence favors the use of severity scoring systems to improve the delivery of care for pneumonia patients. The incorporation of new methodologies and the formulation of different questions other than mortality prediction might help the further development of severity scoring systems, and enhance their support to the clinical decision-making process for the pneumonia-management cascade.

Guideline for Antibiotic Use in Adults with Community-acquired Pneumonia

Community-acquired pneumonia is common and important infectious disease in adults. This work represents an update to 2009 treatment guideline for community-acquired pneumonia in Korea. The present clinical practice guideline provides revised recommendations on the appropriate diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of community-acquired pneumonia in adults aged 19 years or older, taking into account the current situation regarding community-acquired pneumonia in Korea. This guideline may help reduce the difference in the level of treatment between medical institutions and medical staff, and enable efficient treatment. It may also reduce antibiotic resistance by preventing antibiotic misuse against acute lower respiratory tract infection in Korea.

Pneumonia

Pneumonia is an important cause of morbidity and mortality globally. It is the leading cause of death in infants and young children with the majority of these deaths occurring in low income countries. Risk factors affecting incidence and outcome include extremes of age, poor nutrition, immunosuppression, environmental exposures and socioeconomic determinants. Pneumonia can be caused by a wide range of pathogens including bacteria, viruses and fungi, and the etiology varies by epidemiological setting, comorbidities and whether the pneumonia is community-acquired or hospital-acquired. Streptococcus pneumoniae is the major cause of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia while Gram negative bacteria, often resistant to multiple antibiotics, are common causes of hospital-acquired pneumonia and pneumonia in immunosuppressed individuals. Diagnosis is generally clinical and management is based mainly on knowledge of likely causative pathogens as well as clinical severity and presence of known risk factors. Timely and effective antibiotic treatment and oxygen therapy if hypoxemic are critical to patient outcomes. Preventive measures range from improved nutrition and hygiene to specific vaccines that target common causes in children and adults such as the pneumococcal or influenza vaccines.

Community Acquired Pneumonia in Internal Medicine: A One-Year Retrospective Study Based on Pneumonia Severity Index

Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) represents the sixth cause of death and the first cause of death for an infectious disease in the USA. The aim of the present study is to evaluate how CAP is managed in a hospital setting, with particular attention to the wards of internal medicine, compared to the recommendations based and validated PSI (Pneumonia Severity Index). 42 subjects were included in the study, 25 males and 17 females. According to the PSI, nine (21%) patients were classified in class I, two (5%) in class II, ten (24%) in class III, fifteen (36%) in class IV and six (14%) in class V. Three patients died during the stay in the hospital (2 males and 1 female), all in the highest PSI class (V). According to the criteria used to evaluate the adequacy of the admission to the hospital, twentyeight patients were classified in the HRG, with an appropriate admission, whilst fourteen (33%) were in the LRG, with an inappropriate admission to the hospital. The data of the study confirm the validity of a PSI based strategy for the management of CAP since admittance to the hospital. This approach is not yet widely implemented in Italy, and a better dialogue between hospital and health system representatives would be convenient, to reduce costs and ensure the safety of patients affected by CAP.

Low T3 syndrome is a strong predictor of poor outcomes in patients with community-acquired pneumonia

Low T3 syndrome was previously reported to be linked to poor clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive power of low T3 syndrome for clinical outcomes in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Data for 503 patients were analyzed retrospectively, and the primary end point was 30-day mortality. The intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate and 30-day mortality were 8.3% and 6.4% respectively. The prevalence of low T3 syndrome differed significantly between survivors and nonsurvivors (29.1% vs 71.9%, P < 0.001), and low T3 syndrome was associated with a remarkable increased risk of 30-day mortality and ICU admission in patients with severe CAP. Multivariate logistic regression analysis produced an odds ratio of 2.96 (95% CI 1.14–7.76, P = 0.025) for 30-day mortality in CAP patients with low T3 syndrome. Survival analysis revealed that the survival rate among CAP patients with low T3 syndrome was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.01). Adding low T3 syndrome to the PSI and CURB-65 significantly increased the areas under the ROC curves for predicting ICU admission and 30-day mortality. In conclusion, low T3 syndrome is an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality in CAP patients.

Hospital Treatment Costs and Factors Affecting These Costs in Community-Acquired Pneumonia

OBJECTIVES

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) accounts for an important part of hospital admissions and health expenses worldwide. The cost increases when treated in a hospital, and reports on this issue are limited in Turkey. This study aimed to investigate direct hospital costs and factors affecting these costs for patients who were hospitalized in our clinic because of the diagnosis of CAP.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The records of patients who had been hospitalized for the diagnosis of CAP were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic features, radiological features, pneumonia severity index (PSI), CURB-65 scorings, duration of hospitalization, treatments, and the results of treatments were examined. Total hospitalization costs and the expenses for intervention, medication, examinations, and additional services were recorded. The effect of data on the cost was evaluated.

RESULTS

The study was conducted with 87 patients with CAP. The mean duration of hospitalization was 15.6 days and nine patients (10.3%) were exitus. The median total hospital cost was 2062 (451-11690) TL [952 euros (€), 1305 dollars ($)], and the median hospitalization expense per day was 148 Turkish Lira (TL) (68.3 €, 93.7 $). Medication expenses and total cost were higher in male patients than in female patients. Abscess/necrotizing pneumonia increased the cost depending on the infiltration that occurred either alone or with parapneumonic pleurisy. Whereas an increase in the PSI stage increased the total cost and expenses for intervention and medication, medication expenses increased in patients with CURB-65 score of 3 and 4 (p<0.05). Age, smoking, and low oxygen saturation level did not affect the cost. No statistically significant difference was found between the expenses of exitus patients and the expenses of patients who recovered.

CONCLUSION

CAP can lead to high costs and result in death. In our study, it was concluded that the cost increased in male patients, patients with abscess/necrotizing pneumonia, and patients with high PSI scores.

Community-acquired pneumonia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality, especially in the elderly. Recent advances aimed at improving outcomes and reducing CAP disease burden are summarized.

RECENT FINDINGS

Emerging data suggests that newer CAP risk stratification indices based on disease severity hold promise in predicting intensive care need. Additional evidence supports a role of procalcitonin and pro-adrenomedullin as biomarkers of disease severity and for guiding antimicrobial therapy. New diagnostic tools have greatly contributed to early diagnosis and better-targeted therapy. There is increasing recognition of the role of coinfections in CAP. In patients with severe disease, therefore, current guidelines advise against monotherapy. Although inclusion of coverage for atypical pathogens in nonsevere CAP has been challenged, evidence suggests that such coverage is beneficial in patients with severe disease. Use of steroids as adjunctive therapy for CAP, however, is associated with complications and prolonged hospitalization. Updated prevention strategies include approval of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) for adults at risk.

SUMMARY

Despite these developments research aimed at further reducing CAP-related morbidity and mortality is required. Increasing global life expectancy is likely to expand the at-risk population; therefore, research directed at CAP prevention in view of changing demography is essential.

Hospital admission decision for patients with community-acquired pneumonia

Where to treat patients is probably the single most important decision in the management of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), with a substantial impact on both patients' outcomes and health-care costs. Several factors can contribute to the decision of the site of care for CAP patients, including physicians' experience and clinical judgment and severity scores developed to predict mortality, as well as social and health-care-related issues. The recognition, both in the community and in the emergency department, of the presence of severe sepsis and acute respiratory failure and the coexistence with unstable comorbidities other than CAP are indications for hospital admission. In all the other cases, physician's choice to admit CAP patients should be validated against at least one objective tool of risk assessment, with a clear understanding of each score's limitations.

[Multidisciplinary guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia]

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is an infectious respiratory disease with an incidence that ranges from 3 to 8 cases per 1,000 inhabitants per year. This incidence increases with age and comorbidities. Forty per cent of CAP patients require hospitalization and around 10% of these patients are admitted in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Several studies have suggested that the implementation of clinical guidelines has a positive impact in the outcome of patients including mortality and length of stay. The more recent and used guidelines are those from Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society, published in 2007, the 2009 from the British Thoracic Society, and that from the European Respiratory Society/European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, published in 2010. In Spain, the most recently released guideline is the Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica-2011 guideline. The present guidelines GNAC are designed to be used by the majority of health-care professionals that can participate in the care of CAP patients including diagnosis, decision of hospital and ICU admission, treatment and prevention. The Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano (CCIB) has participated in summarizing the previous guidelines and in the bibliography search. For each one of the following sections the panel of experts has developed a table with recommendations classified according to its evidence, strength and practical applicability using the Grading of Recommendations of Assessment Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system: 1. Epidemiology, microbiological etiology and antibiotic resistances.2. Clinical and microbiological diagnosis.3. Prognostic scales and decision of hospital admission.4. ICU admission criteria. 5. Empirical and definitive antibiotic treatment.6. Treatment failure. 7. Prevention.

Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia in a population-based study: link between etiology and patients characteristics, process-of-care, clinical evolution and outcomes

Background

The etiologic profile of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) for each age group could be similar among inpatients and outpatients. This fact brings up the link between etiology of CAP and its clinical evolution and outcome. Furthermore, the majority of pneumonia etiologic studies are based on hospitalized patients, whereas there have been no recent population-based studies encompassing both inpatients and outpatients.

Methods

To evaluate the etiology of CAP, and the relationship among the different pathogens of CAP to patients characteristics, process-of-care, clinical evolution and outcomes, a prospective population-based study was conducted in Spain from April 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007. Patients (age >18) with CAP were identified through the family physicians and the hospital area.

Results

A total of 700 patients with etiologic evaluation were included: 276 hospitalized and 424 ambulatory patients. We were able to define the aetiology of pneumonia in 55.7% (390/700). The most frequently isolated organism was S. pneumoniae (170/390, 43.6%), followed by C. burnetti (72/390, 18.5%), M. pneumoniae (62/390, 15.9%), virus as a group (56/390, 14.4%), Chlamydia species (39/390, 106%), and L. pneumophila (17/390, 4.4%). The atypical pathogens and the S. pneumoniae are present in pneumonias of a wide spectrum of severity and age. Patients infected by conventional bacteria were elderly, had a greater hospitalization rate, and higher mortality within 30 days.

Conclusions

Our study provides information about the etiology of CAP in the general population. The microbiology of CAP remains stable: infections by conventional bacteria result in higher severity, and the S. pneumoniae remains the most important pathogen. However, atypical pathogens could also infect patients in a wide spectrum of severity and age.

Predicting mortality with severity assessment tools in out-patients with community-acquired pneumonia

INTRODUCTION

In community-acquired pneumonia, severity assessment tools, such as CRB65, CURB65 and Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI), have been promoted to increase the proportion of patients treated in the community. The prognostic accuracy of these scores is established in hospitalized patients, but less is known about their use in out-patients. We aimed to study the accuracy of these severity tools to predict mortality in patients managed as out-patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to MOOSE guidelines. From 1980 to 2010, we identified 13 studies reporting prognostic information for the CRB65, CURB65 and PSI severity scores in out-patients (either exclusively managed in the community or discharged from an emergency department <24 h after admission). Two reviewers independently collected data and assessed study quality. Performance characteristics across the studies were pooled using a random-effects model. Relationships between sensitivity and specificity were plotted using summary receiver operator characteristic curves (sROC).

RESULTS

Out-patient mortality ranged from 0% to 3.5%. Four studies were identified for CRB65, 2 for CURB65 and 10 for PSI. Mortality was low for out-patients in the low-risk CRB65 classes [CRB65 0 or 1: mortality occurred in 3 of 1494 patients (0.2%)] but higher in CRB65 Groups 2-4 [mortality 13 of 154 patients (8.4%)]. Similarly, mortality was low in PSI Classes I-III [mortality 8 of 3655 patients (0.2%)] managed as out-patients but higher in Classes IV and V [mortality 32 of 317 patients (10.1%)]. CRB65 showed pooled sensitivity of 81% (54-96%), pooled specificity of 91% (90-93%) and the area under the sROC was 0.91 [standard error (SE) 0.05]. For PSI, pooled sensitivity was 92% (64-100%), pooled specificity was 90% (89-91%) and area under the sROC was 0.92 (SE 0.03). There were insufficient studies to analyse CURB65.

CONCLUSION

The limited data available suggest that CRB65 and PSI can identify groups of patients at low risk of mortality that can be safely managed in the community.

Changing needs of community-acquired pneumonia

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a serious condition associated with significant morbidity and potential long-term mortality. Although the majority of patients with CAP are treated as outpatients, the greatest proportion of pneumonia-related mortality and healthcare expenditure occurs among the patients who are hospitalized. There has been considerable interest in determining risk factors and severity criteria assessments to assist with site-of-care decisions. For both inpatients and outpatients, the most common pathogens associated with CAP include Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, group A streptococci and Moraxella catarrhalis. Atypical pathogens, Gram-negative bacilli, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and viruses are also recognized aetiological agents of CAP. Despite the availability of antimicrobial therapies, the recent emergence of drug-resistant pneumococcal and staphylococcal isolates has limited the effectiveness of currently available agents. Because early and rapid initiation of empirical antimicrobial treatment is critical for achieving a favourable outcome in CAP, newer agents with activity against drug-resistant strains of S. pneumoniae and MRSA are needed for the management of patients with CAP.

Validation and comparison of SCAP as a predictive score for identifying low-risk patients in community-acquired pneumonia

PURPOSES

(1) To validate the Severe Community Acquired Pneumonia (SCAP) score in predicting 30-day mortality. (2) To validate its ability to identifying patients at low risk of death. (3) To compare it against the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI), and the British Thoracic Society's CURB-65 rules.

METHODS

The SCAP score was validated to predict 30-day mortality in an internal validation cohort of consecutive adult patients seen in one hospital. Consecutive inpatients from other three hospitals were used to externally validate the score and compare the SCAP with the PSI and CURB-65. The discriminatory power of these rules to predict 30-day mortality was tested by the Area under Curve (AUC), and their predictive accuracy with the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality rate increased directly with increasing SCAP score (class 0: 0.5%, to class 4: 66.5% risk) in the internal validation cohort, and from 1.3% to 29.2% in external cohort (P<0.001) with an AUC of 0.83 and 0.75, respectively (P=0.024). The SCAP score identified 62.4% (95% IC 58.8-66.0) low-risk patients, 52.5% (95% IC 48.8-56.2) the PSI and 46.2% (95% CI 42.5-49.9) the CURB-65 in the external cohort. Patients classified as low risk by the three rules had similar 30-day mortality (SCAP: 2.5%, PSI: 1.6% and CURB-65: 2.7%).

CONCLUSION

The SCAP is valid to predict 30-day mortality among low-risk patients and identifies a larger proportion of patients as low-risk than the other studied rules.

Predictors of short-term rehospitalization following discharge of patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Among patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), the risk factors for short-term hospital readmission after discharge are unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational study of 1,117 patients who had been discharged alive after hospitalization for CAP. We collected variables associated with CAP severity at hospital admission, in-hospital clinical evolution, clinical instability factors on hospital discharge, therapy employed during hospitalization, and diagnostic bacteriology. We assessed hospital readmission within 30 days after discharge for the index hospitalization. Risk factors independently associated with 30-day hospital readmission were identified using Cox regression models.

RESULTS

Of the 81 patients (7.3%) who were readmitted to the hospital within 30 days, 29 (35.8%) were rehospitalized for pneumonia-related causes. Variables associated with pneumonia-related hospital readmission were treatment failure (hazard ratio [HR], 2.9; 95% CI, 1.2 to 6.8), and one or more instability factors on hospital discharge (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3 to 6.2). The predictive performance of these variables measured by the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic was 0.65. Variables associated with pneumonia-unrelated hospital readmission were age >or= 65 years (HR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.4 to 14.7), Charlson comorbidity index >or= 2 (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0 to 3.4), and decompensated comorbidities during in-hospital evolution (HR, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.0 to 6.3); the AUC for this model was 0.77. Patients with at least two risk factors were at significantly increased risk of 30-day hospital readmission (pneumonia-related CAP: HR, 9.0; 95% CI, 3.2 to 25.3; pneumonia-unrelated CAP: HR, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.6 to 18.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients hospitalized for CAP, different risk factors are associated with hospital readmission related to pneumonia or to other causes. The identification of two different groups of patients who were at high risk of hospital readmission raises the possibility that different management strategies could decrease the rate of hospital readmissions.

Prospective comparison of severity scores for predicting clinically relevant outcomes for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia

BACKGROUND

The comparative accuracy and discriminatory power of three validated rules for predicting clinically relevant outcomes other than mortality in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are unknown.

METHODS

We prospectively compared the newly developed severe community-acquired pneumonia (SCAP) score, pneumonia severity index (PSI), and the British Thoracic Society confusion, urea > 7 mmol/L, respiratory rate > or = 30 breaths/min, BP < 90 mm Hg systolic or < 60 mm Hg diastolic, age > or = 65 years (CURB-65) rule in an internal validation cohort of 1,189 consecutive adult inpatients with CAP from one hospital and an external validation cohort of 671 consecutive adult inpatients from three other hospitals. Major adverse outcomes were admission to ICU, need for mechanical ventilation, progression to severe sepsis, or treatment failure. Mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was also evaluated. The rules were compared based on sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic.

RESULTS

The rate of all adverse outcomes and hospital LOS increased directly with increasing SCAP, PSI, or CURB-65 scores (p < 0.001) in both cohorts. Patients classified as high risk by the SCAP score showed higher rates of adverse outcomes (ICU admission, 35.8%; mechanical ventilation, 16.4%; severe sepsis, 98.5%; treatment failure, 22.4%) than PSI and CURB-65 high-risk classes. The discriminatory power of SCAP, as measured by AUC, was 0.75 for ICU admission, 0.76 for mechanical ventilation, 0.79 for severe sepsis, and 0.61 for treatment failure in the external validation cohort. AUC differences with PSI or CURB-65 were found.

CONCLUSIONS

The SCAP score is as accurate or better than other current scoring systems in predicting adverse outcomes in patients hospitalized with CAP while helping classify patients into different categories of increasing risk for potentially closer monitoring.

Safety and efficacy of intravenous tigecycline in treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: results from a double-blind randomized phase 3 comparison study with levofloxacin

Tigecycline exhibits potent in vitro activity against many community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) pathogens, including antibiotic-resistant ones. Its spectrum of activity and ability to penetrate lung tissue suggest it may be effective for hospitalized CAP patients. Hospitalized CAP patients (n=418) were randomized to receive intravenous (i.v.) tigecycline or levofloxacin. Patients could be switched to oral levofloxacin after receiving 6 or more doses of i.v. study medication. Therapy duration was 7 to 14 days. Coprimary efficacy end points were clinical responses in the clinically evaluable (CE: tigecycline, n=138; levofloxacin, n=156) and clinical modified intent-to-treat (c-mITT: tigecycline, n=191; levofloxacin, n=203) populations at test-of-cure (TOC). Safety was assessed in the mITT population (tigecycline, n=208; levofloxacin, n=210). Cure rates in tigecycline and levofloxacin groups were comparable in CE (90.6% versus 87.2%, respectively) and c-mITT (78% versus 77.8%, respectively) populations at TOC. Nausea and vomiting occurred in significantly more tigecycline-treated patients; elevated alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels were reported in significantly more levofloxacin-treated patients. There were no significant differences in hospital length of stay, median duration of i.v. or oral antibiotic treatments, hospital readmissions, or number of patients switched to oral levofloxacin. Tigecycline was safe, effective, and noninferior to levofloxacin in hospitalized patients with CAP.

Declining length of hospital stay for pneumonia and postdischarge outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to assess 8-year trends in the duration of hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia and to evaluate the impact of declining length of stay on postdischarge short-term readmission and mortality.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of 1886 patients with community-acquired pneumonia who were discharged from a single hospital between March 1, 2000, and June 30, 2007. The main outcomes measured were all-cause mortality and hospital readmission during the 30-day period after discharge. Regression models were used to identify risk factors associated with hospital length of stay and the adjusted associations between length of stay and mortality and readmission.

RESULTS

Factors associated with a longer hospital stay included the number of comorbid conditions, high risk classification on the Pneumonia Severity Index, bilateral or multilobe radiographic involvement, and treatment failure. Patients treated with an appropriate antibiotic were less likely to have an increased length of stay. The mean length of stay was significantly shorter during the 2006 to 2007 period (3.6 days) than during the 2000 to 2001 period (5.6 days, P<.001). Despite the reduction in length of stay, there were no significant differences in the likelihood of death or readmission at 30 days between the 2 time periods. Adjusted multivariate analysis showed that patients with hospital stays less than 3 days did not have significant increases in postdischarge outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The marked decreased in the length of stay for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia since 2000 has not been accompanied by an increase in short-term mortality or hospital readmission.

Investigation of the ability of the Pneumonia Severity Index to accurately predict clinically relevant outcomes: a European study

In order to confirm the validity of the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) for patients in Europe, data from adults with pneumonia who were enrolled in two prospective multicentre studies, conducted in France (Pneumocom-1, n = 925) and Spain (Pneumocom-2, n = 853), were compared with data from the original North American study (Pneumonia PORT, n = 2287). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality; secondary outcomes were subsequent hospitalisation for outpatients, and intensive care unit admission and length of stay for inpatients. All outcomes within individual risk classes, and mortality rates in low-risk (PSI I-III) and higher-risk patients, were compared across the three cohorts. Overall mortality rates were 4.7% in Pneumonia PORT, 6.3% in Pneumocom-2 and 10.6% in Pneumocom-1 (p <0.01), ranging from 0.4% to 1.6% (p 0.06) for low-risk patients and from 13.0% to 19.1% (p 0.24) for high-risk patients. Despite significant differences in baseline patient characteristics, none of the study outcomes differed within the low-risk classes. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of low-risk classification for mortality exceeded 93% and 98%, respectively. Thus, in two independent European cohorts, the PSI predicted patient outcomes accurately and reliably, particularly for low-risk patients. These findings confirm the validity of the PSI when applied to patients from Europe.

Characteristics of low-risk patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Despite the wide distribution of different severity scoring systems for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) patients, low-risk patients are frequently hospitalized, contrary to current recommendations. The aim of our study was to determine the rate, clinical characteristics, and outcome of low-risk patients with CAP admitted to our institution.

METHODS

During an 18-month period, we prospectively screened all patients admitted to the Division of Internal Medicine with a presumptive diagnosis of CAP. Pneumonia Outcome Research Team (PORT) score and pneumonia severity index (PSI) were calculated for all patients during the first 24 h.

RESULTS

A total of 591 patients had a diagnosis of CAP. Some 196 patients (33.1%) were low-risk (PSI class I, II), 98 (16.6%) intermediate (PSI III), and 297 (50.3%) high-risk patients (PSI IV, V). Patients in low-risk classes were younger (45.5+/-15.8 vs. 65.0+/-12.5 and 74.9+/-11.8 years, respectively, p<0.001) and had fewer background diseases. They had shorter hospitalizations than intermediate- and high-risk groups (4.4+/-3.2, 5.3+/-3.4, and 6.8+/-6.4 days, respectively, p<0.001). There was a significant difference in 30-day mortality between the different risk groups: 0% in the low-risk, 2.0% in the intermediate-risk, and 9.4% in the high-risk group (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The considerable proportion of low-risk patients hospitalized due to CAP was found to be comparable to the stable 30% rate reported in the literature. We conclude that physicians tend to opt for a wide safety range when considering a CAP patient hospitalization, rather than make a decision based only on severity score calculation.

Évaluation des soins et pneumopathies aiguës communautaires

INTRODUCTION

Evaluations of care strategies for patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP) tend to focus more on their necessity (variation in practice...) than on efficacy (adherence, impact of markers of disease severity or medico-economic factors...).

STATE OF THE ART

A number of studies are reported in the literature based on a simple evaluation of practice at a given moment on time or else on the impact of guidelines. These evaluations relate either to outcome criteria (mortality, and duration of stay especially) or the economic impact of CAP (rate of hospitalization, duration of stay, costs of the treatments or hospitalizations...), or on process of care (evaluation of initial severity, delay in administration of antibiotics, appropriateness of antibiotic therapy, evaluation of oxygenation and taking of specimens prior to treatment).

PERSPECTIVES AND CONCLUSIONS

Taken together these studies demonstrate the need to improve and standardise care. Where studies have not found a benefit from guidelines this can often be attributed to problems with assessment or study design and there are many studies showing the benefit of guideline based management and the introduction of standardised care pathways.

Community-Acquired Respiratory Complications in the Intensive Care Unit: Pneumonia and Acute Exacerbations of COPD

This chapter will review the two most common lower respiratory tract infections in the intensive care unit (ICU), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). In addition we will provide an overview of the topics including recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment.

[Evaluation of clinical practice in patients admitted with community-acquired pneumonia over a 4-year period]

OBJECTIVE

Since March 2000 we have been using a clinical practice guideline in the management of patients diagnosed with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The objective of this study was to analyze the evolution of quality of care received by these patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective observational study comparing the process of care and outcomes of 4 consecutive 1-year periods (March 1, 2000 through February 29, 2004) in patients admitted for CAP.

RESULTS

Over the 4 years studied, the following statistically significant trends were observed: reductions in hospital admissions (P< .001), length of hospital stay (P< .05), and total duration of antibiotic treatment (P< .05); and increases in the coverage of atypical pathogens (P< .001) and administration of antibiotics within 8 hours of hospital arrival (P< .001). No significant differences were found in readmissions within 30 days, or in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Two other areas for improvement were also identified: a low percentage of admissions to the intensive care unit (4.4%) and the rate of unnecessary hospitalization of low-risk patients (36.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic monitoring of the indicators of our clinical guidelines provided us with information about our clinical practice and facilitated an evaluation of the same. Many of these indicators were found to have evolved favorably and areas of improvement were identified.

The role of new therapies for severe community-acquired pneumonia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and is the most common cause of death from infectious diseases. CAP patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission carry the highest mortality rates. This paper aims to review the current literature regarding epidemiology, risk factors, severity criteria and reasons for admitting the hospitalized patient to the ICU, and the empiric and specific antibiotic therapeutic regimens employed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple sets of clinical practice guidelines have been published in the past few years addressing the treatment of CAP. The guidelines all agree that CAP patients admitted to the hospital represent a major concern, and appropriate empiric therapy should be instituted to improve clinical outcomes.

SUMMARY

The cost, morbidity and mortality of CAP patients requiring ICU admission remain unacceptably high. These are heterogeneous groups of patients, so it is important to use risk-stratification based on clinical parameters and prediction tools. Appropriate antibiotic therapy is an important component in the management of both groups of patients. In particular, it is essential to administer an appropriate antimicrobial agent from the initiation of therapy, so that the risks of treatment failure and the morbidity of CAP may be minimized.

Routine use of the Pneumonia Severity Index for guiding the site-of-treatment decision of patients with pneumonia in the emergency department: a multicenter, prospective, observational, controlled cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) has been extensively validated, little is known of the impact of its routine use as an aid to site-of-treatment decisions for patients with pneumonia who present to emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

A prospective, observational, controlled cohort study of patients with pneumonia was conducted in 8 EDs that used the PSI (PSI-user EDs) and 8 EDs that did not use the PSI (PSI-nonuser EDs) in France. The outcomes examined included the proportion of "low-risk" patients (PSI risk classes I-III) treated as outpatients, all-cause 28-day mortality, admission of inpatients to the intensive care unit, and subsequent hospitalization of outpatients.

RESULTS

Of the 925 patients enrolled in the study, 472 (51.0%) were treated at PSI-user EDs, and 453 (49.0%) were treated at PSI-nonuser EDs; 449 (48.5%) of all patients were considered to be at low risk. In PSI-user EDs, 92 (42.8%) of 215 patients at low risk were treated as outpatients, compared with 56 (23.9%) of 234 patients at low risk in PSI-nonuser EDs. The adjusted odds ratios for outpatient treatment were higher for patients in PSI risk classes I and II who were treated in PSI-user EDs, compared with PSI-nonuser EDs (adjusted odds ratio, 7.0 [95% confidence interval, 2.0-25.0] and 4.6 [95% confidence interval, 1.3-16.2], respectively), whereas the adjusted odds ratio did not differ by PSI-user status among patients in risk class III or among patients at high risk. After adjusting for pneumonia severity, mortality was lower in patients who were treated in PSI-user EDs; other safety outcomes did not differ between patients treated in PSI-user and PSI-nonuser EDs.

CONCLUSIONS

The routine use of the PSI was associated with a larger proportion of patients in PSI risk classes I and II who had pneumonia and who were treated in the outpatient environment without compromising their safety.

Comment évaluer, orienter et suivre un patient ayant une pneumonie aiguë communautaire ? Une exacerbation de bronchopneumopathie chronique obstructive ?

L'objectif de cette revue est de présenter une analyse bibliographique de la littérature de ces cinq dernières années concernant les pneumonies aiguës communautaires (PAC) et les exacerbations aiguës de bronchopneumopathies chroniques obstructives (EABPCO). La PAC et l'EABPCO sont des pathologies fréquentes grevées d'une mortalité et/ou morbidité encore élevée de nos jours. La connaissance des facteurs de risque d'évolution compliquée et l'identification des signes de gravité souvent liés au risque de mortalité permettent d'orienter le patient pour un traitement ambulatoire, en hospitalisation conventionnelle ou en secteur de réanimation ; des règles prédictives ont été établies dans ce sens. La littérature concernant les critères de sortie d'hospitalisation et le suivi des patients est plus pauvre.

Development and validation of a clinical prediction rule for severe community-acquired pneumonia

RATIONALE

Objective strategies are needed to improve the diagnosis of severe community-acquired pneumonia in the emergency department setting.

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a clinical prediction rule for identifying patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia, comparing it with other prognostic rules.

METHODS

Data collected from clinical information and physical examination of 1,057 patients visiting the emergency department of a hospital were used to derive a clinical prediction rule, which was then validated in two different populations: 719 patients from the same center and 1,121 patients from four other hospitals.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In the multivariate analyses, eight independent predictive factors were correlated with severe community-acquired pneumonia: arterial pH < 7.30, systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min, altered mental status, blood urea nitrogen > 30 mg/dl, oxygen arterial pressure < 54 mm Hg or ratio of arterial oxygen tension to fraction of inspired oxygen < 250 mm Hg, age > or = 80 yr, and multilobar/bilateral lung affectation. From the beta parameter obtained in the multivariate model, a score was assigned to each predictive variable. The model shows an area under the curve of 0.92. This rule proved better at identifying patients evolving toward severe community-acquired pneumonia than either the modified American Thoracic Society rule, the British Thoracic Society's CURB-65, or the Pneumonia Severity Index.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple score using clinical data available at the time of the emergency department visit provides a practical diagnostic decision aid, and predicts the development of severe community-acquired pneumonia.

[Patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: a comparative study of outcomes by medical specialty area]

OBJECTIVE

Variability in the management of patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is attributable to many factors. The objective of this study was to determine whether such variability is influenced by the medical specialty area where the patient is treated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The treatment and outcomes for a random sample of patients with CAP admitted to 4 hospitals over 2 periods (1 year starting March 1, 1998, and 1.5 years starting March 1, 2000) were compared by medical specialty department. Multiple linear and logistic regression models were used to analyze differences.

RESULTS

Differences were found between departments in the coverage of atypical pathogens (P<.001). The adjusted mean length of stay in hospital varied between 6.8 and 9.1 days (P<.01), and the duration of intravenous treatment varied between 4.6 and 7.3 days (P<.05). Adjusted models showed that mortality in hospital and at 30 days was significantly higher for patients treated in internal medicine departments (odds ratios, 2.1 and 2, respectively) than for those treated in pulmonology departments.

CONCLUSIONS

Interdepartmental differences were observed in how patients hospitalized with CAP were treated and in the outcomes achieved. This variation is probably influenced by the differences that were found in the use of antibiotics.

Management of community-acquired pneumonia and secular trends at different hospitals

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to assess variability in the management of patients admitted to hospitals with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), and changes in secular trends of this condition.

METHODS

Observational study carried out, in 5 teaching hospitals, in northern Spain of patients admitted with CAP between March 1,1998 and March 1,1999 (baseline period), and between March 1, 2000 and September 30, 2001 (follow-up period). Clinical histories were analyzed retrospectively for relevant parameters for process-of-care and outcome performance. Those parameters among hospitals during the baseline period were compared. For each hospital, changes in these parameters between baseline and follow-up were also measured. All parameters were adjusted for disease severity.

RESULTS

A total of 844 patients were included in the baseline period, and 654 in the follow-up period. During the baseline period, adjusted analyses revealed statistically significant differences in all process-of-care parameters except the coverage of atypical pathogens. With regard to clinical outcomes, however, only the 30-day readmission rate was significantly different (P=0.03). Adjusted mean length of stay ranged from 6.3 to 9.2 days (P<0.0001). In adjusted analyses of temporal changes within hospitals for process-of-care and outcome performance, revealed few statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Variability discovered between hospitals in the management of patients in the absence of relevant secular changes in each hospital points out the necessity to implement measures designed to reduce such variability between hospitals and to improve the quality of medical treatment.

Community-acquired pneumonia: severity of illness evaluation

Severity-of-illness assessment is now an accepted part of clinical practice and clinical research for the management of adults who have community-acquired pneumonia. Several approaches to this issue have been devised based on severity-of-illness scores or rules, some related to site of management. No single approach has been found to be superior to others, but further research into their effect on outcome in clinical practice is required. It is likely that different approaches may suit different populations and health care systems.

Local guidelines for community-acquired pneumonia: development, implementation, and outcome studies

Published outcome studies mostly report a positive effect of successfully implemented pneumonia guidelines. Confirmatory studies are needed that use randomized, parallel groups with precisely defined treatments, however. Further research also is needed to develop methodology for more easily providing guideline logic to clinicians at the point of care.

Improvement of process-of-care and outcomes after implementing a guideline for the management of community-acquired pneumonia: a controlled before-and-after design study

BACKGROUND

Studies investigating the impact of guideline implementation for inpatient management of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) usually have methodological limitations. We present a controlled study that compared interventions before and after the implementation of a practice guideline.

METHODS

Clinical and demographic characteristics, as well as process-of-care and outcome indicators, were recorded for all patients with CAP who were admitted to Galdakao Hospital (Galdakao, Spain) in the 19-month period after the implementation, on 1 March 2000, of a guideline for the treatment of CAP. These data were also recorded for all patients with CAP who were admitted to this hospital during the year before the guideline was implemented, as well as for randomly selected inpatients with CAP at 4 other hospitals during both periods (i.e., before and after guideline implementation) who were chosen as an external comparison group. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models were employed for adjustment.

RESULTS

Guideline implementation resulted in shorter durations of antibiotic treatment (P<.001) and intravenous treatment (P<.001), better coverage of atypical pathogens (P<.001), and improved appropriateness of antibiotic treatment (P<.001), compared with the period before the guideline was implemented. The adjusted analyses revealed decreases in 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-3.72) and in-hospital mortality (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.37-4.41) and a 1.8-day reduction in the duration of hospital stay. In the control hospitals, there were small but statistically insignificant changes in these indicators for admitted patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study, which was performed with an adequate, controlled before-and-after intervention design, demonstrated significant improvements in both process-of-care and outcome indicators after implementation of a guideline for treating CAP.

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.