Validation of predictive rules and indices of severity for community acquired pneumonia

Use of B-type natriuretic peptide in the risk stratification of community-acquired pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the leading infectious cause of death in developed countries. Risk stratification has previously been difficult.

METHODS

Markers of cardiac stress (B-type natriuretic peptide, BNP) and inflammation (C-reactive protein, white blood cell count, procalcitonin) as well as the pneumonia severity index (PSI) were determined in 302 consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with CAP. The accuracy of these parameters to predict death was evaluated as the primary endpoint. Prediction of treatment failure was considered as the secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

B-type natriuretic peptide levels increased with rising disease severity as classified by the PSI (P = 0.015). BNP levels were significantly higher in nonsurvivors compared to survivors [median 439.2 (IQR 137.1-1384.6) vs. 114.3 (51.3-359.6) pg mL(-1), P < 0.001]. In a receiver operating characteristic analysis for the prediction of survival the area under the curve (AUC) for BNP was comparable to the AUC of the PSI (0.75 vs. 0.71, P = 0.52). Importantly, the combination of BNP and the PSI significantly improved the prognostic accuracy of the PSI alone (AUC 0.78 vs. 0.71; P = 0.02). The optimal cut-off for BNP was 279 pg mL(-1). The accuracy of BNP to predict treatment failure was identical to the accuracy to predict death (AUC 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CAP, BNP levels are powerful and independent predictors of death and treatment failure. When used in conjunction with the PSI, BNP levels significantly improve the risk prediction when compared with the PSI alone.

Integrated results of 2 phase 3 studies comparing tigecycline and levofloxacin in community-acquired pneumonia

Tigecycline (TGC), a glycylcycline, has expanded activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative, anaerobic, and atypical bacteria. Two phase 3 studies were conducted. Hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) were randomized to intravenous (IV) TGC (100 mg followed by 50 mg bid) or IV levofloxacin (LEV) (500 mg bid). In 1 study, patients could be switched to oral LEV after at least 3 days intravenously. The coprimary efficacy end points were as follows: clinical response in clinically evaluable (CE) and clinical modified intent-to-treat (c-mITT) populations at test-of-cure (TOC). The secondary end points were as follows: microbiologic efficacy and susceptibility to TGC for CAP bacteria. Safety evaluations were included. Eight hundred ninety-one were patients screened: 846 mITT (TGC 424, LEV 422), 574 CE (TGC 282, LEV 292). Most patients had Fine Pneumonia Severity Index II to IV (80.7% TGC, 74.4% LEV, mITT). At TOC (CE), TGC cured 253/282 patients (89.7%) and LEV cured 252/292 patients (86.3%); the absolute difference of TGC-LEV was 3.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.2 to 9.1, noninferior [P < 0.001]). In c-mITT, TGC cured 319/394 patients (81.0%) and LEV cured 321/403 patients (79.7%); the absolute difference of TGC-LEV was 1.3% (95% CI -4.5 to 7.1, noninferior [P < 0.001]). The drug-related adverse events (AEs) of nausea (20.8% TGC versus 6.6% LEV) and vomiting (13.2% TGC versus 3.3% LEV) were significantly higher in TGC; elevated alanine aminotransferase (2.8% TGC versus 7.3% LEV) and aspartate aminotransferase (2.6% TGC versus 6.9% LEV) were significantly higher in LEV. Discontinuations for AEs were low (TGC, 26 patients [6.1%]; LEV, 34 patients [8.1%]). TGC appeared safe and achieved cure rates similar to LEV in hospitalized patients with CAP.

Severity scores for community-acquired pneumonia

An assessment of the severity of illness of a patient is one of the most important components of their early management. It guides decisions regarding the most appropriate site of care and the selection of empiric antibiotic therapy. In recent years, prediction tools, known as severity scores, have been promoted to assist early assessments of the severity of illness for patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Several different severity scores now exist and these have been modified over time. Each tool has particular strengths and weaknesses. This article reviews the evolution of severity scores for patients with community-acquired pneumonia and compares their performance in different patient cohorts for different outcomes of interest, as described in the published literature to date. It also discusses how these tools could be evaluated more comprehensively so that their place in patient management can be better appreciated.

Diagnosis and management of pneumonia in the emergency department

Pneumonia is a condition that is often treated by emergency physicians. This article reviews the diagnosis and management of pneumonia in the emergency department and highlights dilemmas in diagnostic testing, use of blood and sputum cultures, hospital admission decisions, infection control, quality measures for pneumonia care, and empiric antimicrobial therapy.

Predicting mortality with pneumonia severity scores: importance of model recalibration to local settings

In patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) prediction rules based on individual predicted mortalities are frequently used to support decision-making for in-patient vs. outpatient management. We studied the accuracy and the need for recalibration of three risk prediction scores in a tertiary-care University hospital emergency-department setting in Switzerland. We pooled data from patients with CAP enrolled in two randomized controlled trials. We compared expected mortality from the original pneumonia severity index (PSI), CURB65 and CRB65 scores against observed mortality (calibration) and recalibrated the scores by fitting the intercept alpha and the calibration slope beta from our calibration model. Each of the original models underestimated the observed 30-day mortality of 11%, in 371 patients admitted to the emergency department with CAP (8.4%, 5.5% and 5.0% for the PSI, CURB65 and CRB65 scores, respectively). In particular, we observed a relevant mortality within the low risk classes of the original models (2.6%, 5.3%, and 3.7% for PSI classes I-III, CURB65 classes 0-1, and CRB65 class 0, respectively). Recalibration of the original risk models corrected the miscalibration. After recalibration, however, only PSI class I was sensitive enough to identify patients with a low risk (i.e. <1%) for mortality suitable for outpatient management. In our tertiary-care setting with mostly referred in-patients, CAP risk scores substantially underestimated observed mortalities misclassifying patients with relevant risks of death suitable for outpatient management. Prior to the implementation of CAP risk scores in the clinical setting, the need for recalibration and the accuracy of low-risk re-classification should be studied in order to adhere with discharge guidelines and guarantee patients' safety.

Review of dyspnoea quantification in the emergency department: is a rating scale for breathlessness suitable for use as an admission prediction tool?

Acute shortness of breath is a potential marker of serious cardiopulmonary disease and requires rapid assessment. In our current health-care system, increasing pressure on the ED to limit costs and waiting times has resulted in the development of many clinical decision aids and admission prediction tools designed to assist ED physicians in meeting these demands. However, most of these tools are disease specific, and none are currently available for application to patients presenting to the ED with shortness of breath. Although somewhat limited, current evidence supports the utilization of a simple dyspnoea rating scale, to assist in the streamlining of clinical severity assessments and urgency evaluations, and to potentially provide useful information to facilitate rapid and accurate site-of-care decisions in this setting.

Pneumonia in the older patient

This article examines the bacteriology, clinical features, therapy for, and prevention of pneumonia in older patients. The discussion focuses on patients who develop pneumonia out of the hospital, including individuals with community-acquired pneumonia and health care-associated pneumonia. Health care-associated pneumonia incorporates patients who live in nursing homes when they develop pneumonia and in many instances requires management similar to nosocomial pneumonia. We have chosen not to discuss nosocomial pneumonia in older patients because it does not have distinctive features or a different management approach than when this illness arises in younger patients.

Pneumonie

nach dem ursächlichem Agens (virale, bakterielle, mykotische oder atypische)

nach klinischem Verlauf (akut, chronisch)

nach dem Ort, an dem die Infektion erworben wurde:

ambulant, außerhalb des Krankenhauses erworbene Pneumonie („community acquired pneumonia“; CAP)

nosokomial erworbene Pneumonie („hospital acquired pneumonia“; HAP); hierzu zählen die

beatmungsassoziierte Pneumonie („ventilator associated pneumonia“; VAP ) und die

Pneumonie bei Patienten, welche aus dem Alten- oder Pflegeheim stammen („health care acquired pneumonia“; HCAP)

3.

Pneumonien bei immunsupprimierten Patienten

•

primäre und sekundäre Pneumonien (als Folge bestimmter Grunderkrankungen, Bronchiektasien, Aspiration, Inhalationsintoxikation, Lungeninfarkt etc.)

Midregional Pro-A-Type Natriuretic Peptide and Carboxy-Terminal Provasopressin May Predict Prognosis in Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Background: Markers to better assess severity of disease in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) would help improve medical care of this condition. The hemodynamic biomarkers carboxy-terminal provasopressin (CT-proAVP; copeptin) and midregional proatrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP) are increased under septic conditions, in which MR-proANP has been described as a prognostic predictor. We aimed to explore the diagnostic accuracy of MR-proANP and CT-proAVP to predict mortality in patients with CAP.

Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of patients with CAP. We measured biomarkers in serum samples obtained at diagnosis and performed univariate and multivariate analyses to identify potential predictors of mortality.

Results: CT-proAVP and MR-proANP concentrations were measured in 173 patients. We found a positive correlation between pneumonia severity index (PSI) and MR-proANP (rs = 0.68, P &lt;0.0001) and between PSI and CT-proAVP (rs = 0.44, P &lt;0.0001). Median (interquartile range) CT-proAVP and MR-proANP values were 8.2 (5.3–16.8) and 73.6 (44.6–144.0) pmol/L, respectively. Nonsurvivors had significantly higher MR-proANP and CT-proAVP than survivors (median 259.0 vs 71.8 pmol/L, P = 0.01, and 24.9 vs 8.1 pmol/L, P = 0.03, respectively). In multivariate analysis including PSI, procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, lipopolysaccharide-binding protein, CT-proAVP, and MR-proANP concentrations, only CT-proAVP remained an independent predictor of death (odds ratio 1.05, P = 0.007). Cutoff values of &gt;18.9 pmol/L for CT-proAVP and &gt;227 pmol/L for MR-proANP showed the highest diagnostic accuracy to predict mortality.

Conclusions: CT-proAVP and MR-proANP may be used to predict prognosis in patients with CAP.

Free and Total Cortisol Levels as Predictors of Severity and Outcome in Community-acquired Pneumonia

RATIONALE

High cortisol levels are of prognostic value in sepsis. The predictive value of cortisol in pneumonia is unknown. Routinely available assays measure serum total cortisol (TC) and not free cortisol (FC). Whether FC concentrations better reflect outcome is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the predictive value of TC and FC in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

METHODS

Preplanned subanalysis of a prospective intervention study in 278 patients presenting to the emergency department with CAP.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

TC, FC, procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, leukocytes, clinical variables, and the pneumonia severity index (PSI) were measured. The major outcome measures were PSI and survival. TC and FC, but not C-reactive protein or leukocytes, increased with increasing severity of CAP according to the PSI (P < 0.001). TC and FC levels on presentation in patients who died during follow-up were significantly higher as compared with levels in survivors. In a receiver operating characteristic analysis to predict survival, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.81) for TC and 0.69 (0.63-0.74) for FC. This was similar to the AUC of the PSI (0.76 [0.70-0.81]), and better as compared with C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, or leukocytes. In univariate analysis, only TC, FC, and the PSI were predictors of death. In multivariate analysis, the predictive potential of TC equaled the prognostic power of PSI points.

CONCLUSIONS

Cortisol levels are predictors of severity and outcome in CAP to a similar extent to the PSI, and are better than routinely measured laboratory parameters. In CAP, the prognostic accuracy of FC is not superior to TC. Clinical trial registered with www.controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN04176397).

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.

[Severity classification and prognosis in hospitalized elderly patients with community-acquired pneumonia]

AIM

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a common and serious illness. CAP can be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in elderly patients. This study aims to investigate the precision of disease severity staging scales such as Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) Severity Index (PSI) and A-DROP (Age, Dehydration, Respiratory failure, Orientation disturbance, shock blood Pressure) in elderly patients with CAP. For this study, 111 elderly CAP patients admitted to our hospital during a two-year period were recruited and stratified using these scales.

METHODS

We reviewed the precision of the above-mentioned scales in the 111 patients aged 65 years or above, and investigated the disease severity classifications, initial treatment, and clinical course of these patients.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 82 (+/-7.6) years. Among these patients, 15% were aged between 65 and 75 years, 50% were older with their ages ranging from 75 to 84 years, and 35% were extremely old with their ages over 85 years. The mortality rates for the patients with the A-DROP score of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 0%, 0%, 2.2%, 17.2%, 20.0%, and 40.0%, respectively, and those for the patients with PSI class I, II, III, IV, and V were 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, and 36.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PSI is a useful method for estimating the prognosis in elderly CAP patients. On the other hand, the A-DROP score may be inadequate in terms of judging the disease severity in these patients. With regard to the severity of pneumonia in elderly patients, we should consider not only the A-DROP score but also the underlying diseases such as malignancy, cardiac failure, cerebrovascular disease, liver disease, or renal disease.

Prognostic scoring systems: which one is best?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the initial evaluation of patients with community-acquired pneumonia, a number of important assessments are made, including that of the severity of the illness. This assessment will determine the appropriate site of care, diagnostic work-up, and choice of empiric antibiotics. A number of severity assessment tools have been developed and some of the recent findings are reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of studies of the efficacy of the individual scoring systems, as well as comparator studies, have been undertaken. A significant number of patients with community-acquired pneumonia in Pneumonia Severity Index classes I and II are admitted to hospital and several of these patients suffer complications. Clinical and social factors other than those contained in the scoring systems need to be taken into consideration when deciding about hospitalization of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. A number of studies of the efficacy of the various scoring systems in predicting 'severe pneumonia' have been undertaken, as well as studies of their accuracy in the sub-set of patients with pneumococcal infections and in the elderly.

SUMMARY

The various scoring systems have reasonable sensitivity and specificity and their own strengths and weaknesses, but should always be used in association with good clinical judgment.

Pneumonia severity index class v patients with community-acquired pneumonia: characteristics, outcomes, and value of severity scores

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) with a pneumonia severity index (PSI) score in risk class V (PSI-V) is a potentially life-threatening condition, yet the majority of patients are not admitted to the ICU. The aim of this study was to characterize CAP patients in PSI-V to determine the risk factors for ICU admission and mortality, and to assess the performance of CAP severity scores in this population.

METHODS

Prospective observational study including hospitalized adults with CAP in PSI-V from 1996 to 2003. Clinical and laboratory data, microbiological findings, and outcomes were recorded. The PSI score; modified American Thoracic Society (ATS) score; the confusion, urea, respiratory rate, low BP (CURB) score, and CURB plus age of >/= 65 years score were calculated. A reduced score based on the acute illness variables contained in the PSI was also obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 457 patients were included in the study (mean [+/- SD] age, 79 +/- 11 years), of whom 92 (20%) were admitted to the ICU. Patients in the ward were older (mean age, 82 +/- 10 vs 70 +/- 10 years, respectively) and had more comorbidities. ICU patients experienced significantly more acute organ failures. The mortality rate was higher in ICU patients, but also was high for non-ICU patients (37% vs 20%, respectively; p = 0,003). A low level of consciousness (odds ratio [OR], 3.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2 to 5) and shock (OR, 24.7; 95% CI, 14 to 44) were associated with a higher risk of death. The modified ATS severity rule had the best accuracy in predicting ICU admission and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Most CAP patients PSI-V were treated on a hospital ward. Those admitted to the ICU were younger and had findings of more acute illness. The PSI performed well as a mortality prediction tool but was less appropriate for guiding site-of-care decisions.

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.

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.

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.

Prospective comparison of three predictive rules for assessing severity of community-acquired pneumonia in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading infectious cause of death throughout the world, including Hong Kong.

AIM

To compare the ability of three validated prediction rules for CAP to predict mortality in Hong Kong: the 20 variable Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI), the 6-point CURB65 scale adopted by the British Thoracic Society and the simpler CRB65.

METHODS

A prospective observational study of 1016 consecutive inpatients with CAP (583 men, mean (SD) age 72 (17) years) was performed in a university hospital in the New Territories of Hong Kong in 2004. The patients were classified into three risk groups (low, intermediate and high) according to each rule. The ability of the three rules to predict 30 day mortality was compared.

RESULTS

The overall mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates were 8.6% and 4.0%, respectively. PSI, CURB65 and CRB65 performed similarly, and the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were 0.736 (95% CI 0.687 to 0.736), 0.733 (95% CI 0.679 to 0.787) and 0.694 (95% CI 0.634 to 0.753), respectively. All three rules had high negative predictive values but relatively low positive predictive values at all cut-off points. Larger proportions of patients were identified as low risk by PSI (47.2%) and CURB65 (43.3%) than by CRB65 (12.6%).

CONCLUSION

All three predictive rules have a similar performance in predicting the severity of CAP, but CURB65 is more suitable than the other two for use in the emergency department because of its simplicity of application and ability to identify low-risk patients.

[Managing lower respiratory tract infections in immunocompetent patients. Definitions, epidemiology, and diagnostic features]

Les infections respiratoires basses sont une des principales cause de mortalité dans le monde et les pneumopathies représentent en France la première cause de décès d'origine infectieuse. Trois entités nosologiques distinctes sont habituellement isolées en fonction de la localisation infectieuse : la bronchite aiguë, la pneumopathie et la bronchopneumopathie (atteignant les bronches et le parenchyme pulmonaire). En cas d'infections de l'arbre bronchique dans le cadre d'une bronchopathie chronique on parle de décompensation infectieuse de la maladie bronchique. Les deux principales difficultés diagnostiques de ces infections sont de déterminer la présence d'une participation alvéolaire au processus infectieux et de définir l'agent (ou les agents) pathogènes. Ces deux éléments vont conditionner la prise en charge thérapeutique. En dehors de l'examen physique, indispensable dans ce contexte, seule la radiographie thoracique pourra, en cas de persistance d'un doute, permettre de confirmer la présence d'une participation alvéolaire. Le diagnostic microbiologique pose la question de sa nécessité systématique et celui de sa valeur. Il n'est pas indispensable de réaliser un diagnostic microbiologique de certitude dans tous les cas. La décision de documentation doit répondre à deux impératifs : faisabilité et valeur diagnostique. La valeur d'un prélèvement dépend de son aptitude à mettre en évidence l'agent pathogène et dans certains cas de la possibilité d'en déterminer le profil de sensibilité (qui reste une indication majeure à la réalisation de ces prélèvements).

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.

The CURB65 pneumonia severity score outperforms generic sepsis and early warning scores in predicting mortality in community-acquired pneumonia

BACKGROUND

The performance of CURB65 in predicting mortality in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has been tested in two large observational studies. However, it has not been tested against generic sepsis and early warning scores, which are increasingly being advocated for identification of high-risk patients in acute medical wards.

METHOD

A retrospective analysis was performed of data prospectively collected for a CAP quality improvement study. The ability to stratify mortality and performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and area under the receiver operating curve) were calculated for stratifications of CURB65, CRB65, the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria and the standardised early warning score (SEWS).

RESULTS

419 patients were included in the main analysis with a median age of 74 years (men = 47%). CURB65 and CRB65 stratified mortality in a more clinically useful way and had more favourable operating characteristics than SIRS or SEWS; for example, mortality in low-risk patients was 2% when defined by CURB65, but 9% when defined by SEWS and 11-17% when defined by variations of the SIRS criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of CURB65 was 71%, 69%, 35% and 91%, respectively, compared with 62%, 73%, 35% and 89% for the best performing version of SIRS and 52%, 67%, 27% and 86% for SEWS. CURB65 had the greatest area under the receiver operating curve (0.78 v 0.73 for CRB65, 0.68 for SIRS and 0.64 for SEWS).

CONCLUSIONS

CURB65 should not be supplanted by SIRS or SEWS for initial prognostic assessment in CAP. Further research to identify better generic prognostic tools is required.

A Validation and Potential Modification of the Pneumonia Severity Index in Elderly Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the discriminatory power of the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) in elderly patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and to improve its performance.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of 193 patients from 1999 to 2001 to derive prognostic rules. The rules were prospectively validated in 144 patients from 2002 to 2003.

SETTING

Iwata City Hospital, a 400-bed general hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 80 and older who had CAP and were admitted to the hospital.

MEASUREMENTS

Predictors of 30-day mortality were identified using logistic regression analysis, and several rules were constructed by combining the PSI and the independent predictors.

RESULTS

The original PSI, which defines PSI Class IV and V as a high-risk group, did not perform well in discriminating survivors from nonsurvivors (sensitivity 100%, specificity 15%), whereas a modified PSI, which defines only PSI Class V as a high-risk group, performed better (sensitivity 86%, specificity 63%). Three predictors for mortality were identified independent from the modified PSI: performance status (PS) Grade 3 or higher, anorexia, and partial pressure of carbon dioxide of 50 mmHg or greater. By combining the modified PSI and PS, the performance could be further improved (sensitivity 79%, specificity 80%).

CONCLUSION

The modified PSI could identify low-risk patients more accurately than the original PSI. In addition, by combining the modified PSI with PS, higher performance was obtained. Such information would aid physicians in clinical decision-making without overestimating the risk for elderly patients with CAP.

CRB-65 predicts death from community-acquired pneumonia

OBJECTIVE

The study was performed to validate the CURB, CRB and CRB-65 scores for the prediction of death from community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in both the hospital and out-patient setting.

DESIGN

Data were derived from a large multi-centre prospective study initiated by the German competence network for community-acquired pneumonia (CAPNETZ) which started in March 2003 and were censored for this analysis in October 2004.

SETTING

Out- and in-hospital patients in 670 private practices and 10 clinical centres.

SUBJECTS

Analysis was done for n = 1343 patients (n = 208 out-patients and n = 1135 hospitalized) with all data sets completed for the calculation of CURB and repeated for n = 1967 patients (n = 482 out-patients and n = 1485 hospitalized) with complete data sets for CRB and CRB-65.

INTERVENTION

None. 30-day mortality from CAP was determined by personal contacts or a structured interview.

RESULTS

Overall 30-day mortality was 4.3% (0.6% in out-patients and 5.5% in hospitalized patients, P < 0.0001). Overall, the CURB, CRB and CRB-65 scores provided comparable predictions for death from CAP as determined by receiver-operator-characteristics (ROC) curves. However, in hospitalized patients, CRB misclassified 26% of deaths as low risk patients. Availability of the CRB-65 score (90%) was far superior to that of CURB (65%), due to missing blood urea nitrogen values (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the CURB and CRB-65 scores can be used in the hospital and out-patients setting to assess pneumonia severity and the risk of death. Given that the CRB-65 is easier to handle, we favour the use of CRB-65 where blood urea nitrogen is unavailable.

[Pneumonia - pathogen-based or constellation-based therapy?]

Community-acquired pneumonia is one of the most frequent infectious diseases with high morbidity and mortality. Early and sufficient antibiotic treatment is crucial for the prognosis of the patient. The underlying pathogens are mostly unknown at the onset of symptoms. The choice of antibiotic treatment depends on the suspected pathogens, derived from the typical germs and the typical resistances in a certain area. In addition, individual risk factors, such as age, severity of the diseases, comorbidities, and previous antibiotic treatment have a major impact on the probability of dying for an individual patient. These factors must be considered at the beginning of any treatment. Pathogen-based treatment has to be switched to constellation-based treatment.

A prospective comparison of severity scores for identifying patients with severe community acquired pneumonia: reconsidering what is meant by severe pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Several severity scores have been proposed to predict patient outcome and to guide initial management of patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP). Most have been derived as predictors of mortality. A study was undertaken to compare the predictive value of these tools using different clinically meaningful outcomes as constructs for "severe pneumonia".

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was performed of all patients presenting to the emergency department with an admission diagnosis of CAP from March 2003 to March 2004. Clinical and laboratory features at presentation were used to calculate severity scores using the pneumonia severity index (PSI), the revised American Thoracic Society score (rATS), and the British Thoracic Society (BTS) severity scores CURB, modified BTS severity score, and CURB-65. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were compared for four different outcomes (death, need for ICU admission, and combined outcomes of death and/or need for ventilatory or inotropic support).

RESULTS

392 patients were included in the analysis; 37 (9.4%) died and 26 (6.6%) required ventilatory and/or inotropic support. The modified BTS severity score performed best for all four outcomes. The PSI (classes IV+V) and CURB had a very similar performance as predictive tools for each outcome. The rATS identified the need for ICU admission well but not mortality. The CURB-65 score predicted mortality well but performed less well when requirement for ICU was included in the outcome of interest. When the combined outcome was evaluated (excluding patients aged >90 years and those from nursing homes), the best predictors were the modified BTS severity score (sensitivity 94.3%) and the PSI and CURB score (sensitivity 83.3% for both).

CONCLUSIONS

Different severity scores have different strengths and weaknesses as prediction tools. Validation should be done in the most relevant clinical setting, using more appropriate constructs of "severe pneumonia" to ensure that these potentially useful tools truly deliver what clinicians expect of them.

PNEUMONIA | Community Acquired Pneumonia, Bacterial and Other Common Pathogens

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the number one cause of death from infectious diseases in the US, and the patient population that is affected is becoming increasingly more complex due to the presence of chronic illness which is commonly managed in outpatients who are at risk for pneumonia. The number one pathogen causing CAP is pneumococcus, which is commonly resistant to multiple antibiotics, thus complicating management. Other common pathogens include atypical organisms (Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, Mycoplasma pneumoniae), Hemophilus influenzae, enteric Gram-negatives (especially in those with chronic illness and aspiration risk factors), and Staphylococcus aureus. Successful management requires careful assessment of disease severity so that a site-of-care decision can be made (outpatient, inpatient, intensive care unit), appropriate samples for diagnostic testing collected, and antibiotic therapy initiated in a timely and accurate fashion. Initial antibiotic therapy is empiric, but even with extensive diagnostic testing, less than half of all patients have an etiologic pathogen identified. All patients with CAP require therapy for pneumococcus, atypical pathogens, and other organisms, as dictated by the presence of specific risk factors. Because pneumonia has both short-term and long-term impact on mortality, it is also important to focus on prevention of this illness, which requires smoking cessation, and giving at-risk individuals both pneumococal and influenza vaccines.

[Management of nosocomial pneumonia-state of the art]

Nosocomial pneumonia is among the most frequent infections in the intensive care unit with high morbidity and mortality. The decisive factor for treatment failure is inadequate previous antibiotic treatment. Broad spectrum and sufficiently high dosed initial treatment is crucial.To prevent further resistances, the antibiotic treatment must be evaluated early. Depending on the treatment success, treatment has to be changed or terminated. Deescalation is possible and sensible after three days. A treatment period of seven days should not routinely be exceeded. The treatment recommendations should be adapted to local resistances and the local statistics of frequent pathogens. A further factor for treatment decision-making is the risk analysis of the patient (previous treatment, stays in hospitals or nursing homes, concomitant diseases).

The JRS guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: an update and new recommendations

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) continues to be a major medical problem. Since CAP is a potentially fatal disease, early appropriate antibiotic treatment is vital. Epidemiologic studies have shown that in the combined cause-of-death category, pneumonia ranks fourth as the leading cause of death in Japan. Therefore, the Japanese Respiratory Society (JRS) provided guidelines for the management of CAP in adults in 2000. Because of evolving resistance to antimicrobials and advances in diagnosis, treatment and prevention of CAP, it is felt that an update should be provided every three years so that important developments can be highlighted and pressing questions can be answered. Thus, the guidelines committee updated its guidelines in 2005. The basic policy and main purposes of the JRS guidelines include; 1) prevention of bacterial resistance and 2) effective and long-term use of medical resources. The JRS guidelines have recommended the exclusion of potential and broad spectrum antibiotics, fluoroquinolones and carbapenems, from the list of first-choice drugs for empirical treatment. In addition, the JRS guidelines have recommended short-term usage of antibiotics of an appropriate dose and pathogen-specific treatment using rapid diagnostic methods if possible.

[New therapeutic strategies for community acquired pneumonia]

Community Acquired Pneumonia (CAP) is the most important infectious disease in Germany. In the acute phase, lethality is almost 10%, and in the six months follow up period following the acute infection, lethality is more than 15%. Problems with resistances had not been found in Germany, except for a decreasing susceptibility of S. pneumoniae against macrolides. The CRB-65 score allows a reliable discrimination between patients with a high and low risk of dying. The new S3 guideline for diagnosis and treatment of community acquired pneumonia recommends a risk adapted treatment. Low risk patients shall receive a monotherapy with e. g. amoxicillin, high risk patients should be treated with a broad spectrum combination therapy (beta-lactam and macrolide).

Prospective comparison of three validated prediction rules for prognosis in community-acquired pneumonia

PURPOSE

We assessed the performance of 3 validated prognostic rules in predicting 30-day mortality in community-acquired pneumonia: the 20 variable Pneumonia Severity Index and the easier to calculate CURB (confusion, urea nitrogen, respiratory rate, blood pressure) and CURB-65 severity scores.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We prospectively followed 3181 patients with community-acquired pneumonia from 32 hospital emergency departments (January-December 2001) and assessed mortality 30 days after initial presentation. Patients were stratified into Pneumonia Severity Index risk classes (I-V) and CURB (0-4) and CURB-65 (0-5) risk strata. We compared the discriminatory power (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of these rules to predict mortality and their accuracy based on sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios.

RESULTS

The Pneumonia Severity Index (risk classes I-III) classified a greater proportion of patients as low risk (68% [2152/3181]) than either a CURB score <1 (51% [1635/3181]) or a CURB-65 score <2 (61% [1952/3181]). Low-risk patients identified based on the Pneumonia Severity Index had a slightly lower mortality (1.4% [31/2152]) than patients classified as low-risk based on the CURB (1.7% [28/1635]) or the CURB-65 (1.7% [33/1952]). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was higher for the Pneumonia Severity Index (0.81) than for either the CURB (0.73) or CURB-65 (0.76) scores (P <0.001, for each pairwise comparison). At comparable cut-points, the Pneumonia Severity Index had a higher sensitivity and a somewhat higher negative predictive value for mortality than either CURB score.

CONCLUSIONS

The more complex Pneumonia Severity Index has a higher discriminatory power for short-term mortality, defines a greater proportion of patients at low risk, and is slightly more accurate in identifying patients at low risk than either CURB score.

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.

Validation of the 2001 American Thoracic Society criteria for severe community-acquired pneumonia

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Ewig et al. proposed a new definition of severe community-acquired pneumonia in 1999, which was adopted by the American Thoracic Society in 2001. We evaluated this definition in an independent population of emergency department patients.

DESIGN

We compared the 2001 American Thoracic Society definition of severe community-acquired pneumonia using emergency department data to intensive care unit (ICU) admission, use of mechanical ventilation, and administration of vasopressors.

SETTING

LDS Hospital, a tertiary care, university-affiliated hospital with 520 total beds and 68 ICU beds in Salt Lake City, UT.

PATIENTS

We studied 980 consecutive emergency department patients with a radiographically confirmed diagnosis of pneumonia between June 1995 and June 1999. Of these patients, 498 were admitted to the hospital, immunocompetent, and without a "do-not-resuscitate" order within 24 hrs of admission.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven patients met the criteria for severe community-acquired pneumonia in the emergency department and were admitted to the ICU. Three hundred eighty patients did not meet the criteria and were admitted to a hospital unit. Nineteen patients met the definition but were admitted to a hospital unit; only one required subsequent ICU admission. Two of the 19 died after a do-not-resuscitate order was entered >24 hrs after admission; the remainder recovered. Fifty-two patients were triaged to the ICU but did not initially meet the definition of severe pneumonia. Sixteen of these 52 patients required mechanical ventilation, 13 of the 16 within 24 hrs of admission to the ICU. The sensitivity for the 2001 American Thoracic Society definition in our population was 44%, specificity was 95%, positive predictive value was 71%, and negative predictive value was 88%.

CONCLUSION

The 2001 American Thoracic Society definition of severe community-acquired pneumonia had high specificity but lower sensitivity in our population compared with the derivation population. Additional factors not reflected in the definition may contribute to ICU admission and the need for mechanical ventilation.

Severe community-acquired pneumonia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Community-acquired pneumonia remains a prevalent and potentially life-threatening infection. In general, the disease is considered severe when inpatient care including ICU admission is required, and this often suggests a poorer prognosis. Severe community-acquired pneumonia continues to be an important subject of research from different perspectives, including assessment of illness severity, etiology, diagnostic tests, and treatment options. The aim of this descriptive review is to comment on the results of the relevant original articles in this area published since April 1, 2003.

RECENT FINDINGS

The main themes in the literature covered by the review include the time course of serum concentrations of different markers of the inflammatory response, validation of severity scores to optimize hospital and ICU admission, outcome improvement (duration of therapy and optimal dosing, time to antibiotic administration, adequate initial treatment, and the impact of positive microbiological diagnosis on management and prognosis), and the efficacy of new antimicrobials.

SUMMARY

The usefulness of inflammatory markers to assess the outcome of the disease is unclear. Data on severity scores are conclusive and different validated and simple predictive rules are available for the classification of patients into risk classes. Therapeutic strategies that have been investigated confirm the impact of adequate empiric antibiotic treatment on clinical outcome and the equivalence between short and long courses in the duration of therapy. A definitive beneficial effect of early administration of antimicrobials or the knowledge of the etiology of pneumonia on the clinical course of the disease has not been demonstrated.

Recently published papers: take your predictions with a drop of saline... and breathe deeply before turning on your phone

Early recognition of sick patients with a poor prognosis, and the rapid institution of appropriate therapy are tenets of good medical management across all specialties. Here we highlight five recent papers that aid us in achieving such goals in and around the intensive care unit (ICU). Both score-generating clinical tools and clinical acumen are championed for identifying the sick, while appropriate, early intervention in acute deterioration is shown to be beneficial, before and after ICU admission. Saline or albumen for resuscitation? The answer became clearer in May, as did what to do about all those mobile phones...