Empiric antibiotic coverage of atypical pathogens for community acquired pneumonia in hospitalized adults

Pediatric Antibiotic Stewardship for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Pre-Post Intervention Study

We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of an antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) on antibiotic prescription in children with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Antibiotic purchasing data were collected for children aged 3 months to 18 years diagnosed with CAP from November 2016 to April 2017 (pre-intervention period) and from November 2017 to April 2018 (post-intervention period). The intervention was a 1-day seminar for primary care pediatricians on the diagnosis and treatment of CAP in children according to national guidelines. There was a substantial decrease in the use of azithromycin after the intervention. In younger children, there was a 42% decrease, alongside an increased use of amoxicillin (P < .001). In older children, there was a smaller, non-statistically significant decrease in the use of azithromycin (P = .45). Our data demonstrate that the implementation of an ASP was associated with a reduction in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and macrolides and increased guideline adherence for the safe treatment of CAP.

Azithromycin combination therapy for community-acquired pneumonia: propensity score analysis

Whether macrolide combination therapy reduces the mortality of patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) hospitalized in the non-intensive care unit (ICU) remains unclear. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy of adding azithromycin to β-lactam antibiotics for such patients. This prospective cohort study enrolled consecutive patients with CAP hospitalized in the non-ICU between October 2010 and November 2016. The 30-day mortality between β-lactam and azithromycin combination therapy and β-lactam monotherapy was compared in patients classified as mild to moderate and severe according to the CURB-65, Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI), and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) criteria. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was used to reduce biases. Based on the CURB-65 and PSI, combination therapy did not significantly reduce the 30-day mortality in either group (179 patients in the combination group, 952 in the monotherapy group). However, based on the IDSA/ATS criteria, combination therapy significantly reduced the 30-day mortality in patients with severe (odds ratio [OR] 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.007–0.57), but not non-severe pneumonia (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.51–5.40); these results were similar after IPTW analysis. Azithromycin combination therapy significantly reduced the mortality of patients with severe CAP who met the IDSA/ATS criteria.

Does macrolide use confer risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with penicillin V? A Danish national case-crossover and case-time-control study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Macrolides have been associated with proarrhythmic properties, but the evidence is conflicting. We evaluated the risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) associated with specific macrolides in a retrospective study. Associations between specific macrolides and OHCA were examined by conditional logistic regression analyses in case-crossover and case-time-control models, using penicillin-V treatment as the comparative reference. From nationwide registries, we identified all OHCAs in Denmark from 2001 to 2010 and use of antibiotics.

ETHICS

The present study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (Danish Data Protection Agency (ref.no. 2007-58-0015, local ref.no. GEH-2014-017, (I-Suite.nr. 02 735)).

PARTICIPANTS

We identified 29 111 patients with an OHCA. Of these, 514 were in macrolide treatment ≤7 days before OHCA and 1237 in penicillin-V treatment.

RESULTS

In the case-crossover analyses, overall macrolide use was not associated with OHCA with penicillin V as negative comparative reference (OR=0.90; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.10). Compared with penicillin-V treatment, specific macrolides were not associated with increased risk of OHCA: roxithromycin (OR=0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.26), erythromycin (OR=0.68; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.06), clarithromycin (OR=0.95; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.48) and azithromycin (OR=0.85; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27).Similar results were obtained using case-time-control models: overall macrolide use (OR=0.81; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.06) and specific macrolides (roxithromycin (OR=0.70; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.00), erythromycin (OR=0.67; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.18), clarithromycin (OR=0.75; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.39) or azithromycin (OR=1.17; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.95)).

CONCLUSION

The risk of OHCA during treatment with macrolides was similar to that of penicillin V, suggesting no additional risk of OHCA associated with macrolides.

Beta-lactam plus macrolides or beta-lactam alone for community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

It is unclear whether in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) beta-lactam plus macrolide antibiotics lead to better survival than beta-lactam alone. We report a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trials and observational studies published in English were included, if they provided sufficient data on odds ratio for all-cause mortality for a beta-lactam plus macrolide regimen compared with beta-lactam alone. Two investigators independently searched for eligible articles. Of 514 articles screened, 14 were included: two open-label randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising 1975 patients, one non-RCT interventional study comprising 1011 patients and 11 observational studies comprising 33 332 patients. Random-model meta-analysis yielded an odds ratio for all-cause death for beta-lactam plus macrolide compared with beta-lactam alone of 0.80 (95% CI 0.69-0.92, P = 0.002) with substantial heterogeneity (I(2)  = 59%, P for heterogeneity = 0.002). Severity-based subgroup analysis and meta-regression revealed that adding macrolide had a favourable effect on mortality only for severe CAP. Of the two RCTs, one suggested that macrolide plus beta-lactam lead to better outcome compared with beta-lactam alone, while the other did not. Subgrouping based on study design, that is, RCT versus non-RCT, which was almost identical to subgrouping based on severity, revealed substantial inter-subgroup heterogeneity. Compared with beta-lactam alone, beta-lactam plus macrolide may decrease all-cause death only for severe CAP. However, this conclusion is tentative because this was based mainly on observational studies.

Diagnostic Accuracy of PCR Alone and Compared to Urinary Antigen Testing for Detection of Legionella spp.: a Systematic Review

The diagnosis of Legionnaires' disease (LD) is based on the isolation of Legionella spp., a 4-fold rise in antibodies, a positive urinary antigen (UA), or direct immunofluorescence tests. PCR is not accepted as a diagnostic tool for LD. This systematic review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of PCR in various clinical samples with a direct comparison versus UA. We included prospective or retrospective cohort and case-control studies. Studies were included if they used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention consensus definition criteria of LD or a similar one, assessed only patients with clinical pneumonia, and reported data for all true-positive, false-positive, true-negative, and false-negative results. Two reviewers abstracted data independently. Risk of bias was assessed using Quadas-2. Summary sensitivity and specificity values were estimated using a bivariate model and reported with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Thirty-eight studies were included. A total of 653 patients had confirmed LD, and 3,593 patients had pneumonia due to other pathogens. The methodological quality of the studies as assessed by the Quadas-2 tool was poor to fair. The summary sensitivity and specificity values for diagnosis of LD in respiratory samples were 97.4% (95% CI, 91.1% to 99.2%) and 98.6% (95% CI, 97.4% to 99.3%), respectively. These results were mainly unchanged by any covariates tested and subgroup analysis. The diagnostic performance of PCR in respiratory samples was much better than that of UA. Compared to UA, PCR in respiratory samples (especially in sputum samples or swabs) revealed a significant advantage in sensitivity and an additional diagnosis of 18% to 30% of LD cases. The diagnostic performance of PCR in respiratory samples was excellent and preferable to that of the UA. Results were independent on the covariate tested. PCR in respiratory samples should be regarded as a valid tool for the diagnosis of LD.

Antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia in adult outpatients

BACKGROUND

Lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) is the third leading cause of death worldwide and the first leading cause of death in low-income countries. Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common condition that causes a significant disease burden for the community, particularly in children younger than five years, the elderly and immunocompromised people. Antibiotics are the standard treatment for CAP. However, increasing antibiotic use is associated with the development of bacterial resistance and side effects for the patient. Several studies have been published regarding optimal antibiotic treatment for CAP but many of these data address treatments in hospitalised patients. This is an update of our 2009 Cochrane Review and addresses antibiotic therapies for CAP in outpatient settings.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of different antibiotic treatments for CAP in participants older than 12 years treated in outpatient settings with respect to clinical, radiological and bacteriological outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March week 3, 2014), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2014), CINAHL (2009 to March 2014), Web of Science (2009 to March 2014) and LILACS (2009 to March 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), fully published in peer-reviewed journals, of antibiotics versus placebo as well as antibiotics versus another antibiotic for the treatment of CAP in outpatient settings in participants older than 12 years of age. However, we did not find any studies of antibiotics versus placebo. Therefore, this review includes RCTs of one or more antibiotics, which report the diagnostic criteria and describe the clinical outcomes considered for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (LMB, TJMV) independently assessed study reports in the first publication. In the 2009 update, LMB performed study selection, which was checked by TJMV and MMK. In this 2014 update, two review authors (SP, SM) independently performed and checked study selection. We contacted trial authors to resolve any ambiguities in the study reports. We compiled and analysed the data. We resolved differences between review authors by discussion and consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs in this review update (3352 participants older than 12 years with a diagnosis of CAP); 10 RCTs assessed nine antibiotic pairs (3321 participants) and one RCT assessed four antibiotics (31 participants) in people with CAP. The study quality was generally good, with some differences in the extent of the reporting. A variety of clinical, bacteriological and adverse events were reported. Overall, there was no significant difference in the efficacy of the various antibiotics. Studies evaluating clarithromycin and amoxicillin provided only descriptive data regarding the primary outcome. Though the majority of adverse events were similar between all antibiotics, nemonoxacin demonstrated higher gastrointestinal and nervous system adverse events when compared to levofloxacin, while cethromycin demonstrated significantly more nervous system side effects, especially dysgeusia, when compared to clarithromycin. Similarly, high-dose amoxicillin (1 g three times a day) was associated with higher incidence of gastritis and diarrhoea compared to clarithromycin, azithromycin and levofloxacin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence from recent RCTs is insufficient to make new evidence-based recommendations for the choice of antibiotic to be used for the treatment of CAP in outpatient settings. Pooling of study data was limited by the very low number of studies assessing the same antibiotic pairs. Individual study results do not reveal significant differences in efficacy between various antibiotics and antibiotic groups. However, two studies did find significantly more adverse events with use of cethromycin as compared to clarithromycin and nemonoxacin when compared to levofloxacin. Multi-drug comparisons using similar administration schedules are needed to provide the evidence necessary for practice recommendations. Further studies focusing on diagnosis, management, cost-effectiveness and misuse of antibiotics in CAP and LRTI are warranted in high-, middle- and low-income countries.

Role of atypical pathogens in nursing home-acquired pneumonia

Objectives

No international consensus has been reached on the empirical use of antibiotics with atypical coverage in nursing home–acquired pneumonia (NHAP). Aspiration is an important cause of NHAP, but it may not require antimicrobial treatment. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and clinical characteristics of AP infections and review the need for empirical antibiotics with atypical coverage in NHAP.

Design

A prospective cohort study.

Setting

Four nursing homes with a total number of 772 residents.

Participants

Patients were aged ≥ 65 years, hospitalized for NHAP, which was defined as the presence of respiratory symptoms and abnormal chest radiographs, from April 2006 to March 2007.

Measurements

Demographics, clinical parameters, and investigation results were recorded. Microbial investigations comprised sputum routine and mycobacterial cultures, blood and urine cultures, serology, and nasopharyngeal aspirate viral culture and polymerase chain reaction tests. Suspected aspiration pneumonitis was arbitrarily defined as NHAP without pathogens identified.

Results

After excluding lone bacteriuria, 108 episodes of NHAP in 94 patients were included. Twelve APs were detected in 11 patients. There was no clinical feature to distinguish between infections caused by APs and other pathogens. The commonest APs were Mycoplasma pneumoniae (6) and Chlamydophila pneumoniae (3). No Legionella pneumophila was detected by urinary antigen test. None of the patients with AP infection received antibiotics indicated for AP infections. However, AP infections did not result in mortality. No pathogen was isolated in 31.5% of cases. Patients without pathogens isolated were less likely to have purulent sputum and crepitations on chest auscultation, compared with those with pneumonia caused by identified pathogens.

Conclusions

Atypical pathogens (APs) were not associated with mortality even in cases where the prescribed antibiotics did not cover APs. NHAP may not necessarily be treated with empirical antibiotics covering APs.

Empiric antibiotic coverage of atypical pathogens for community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized adults

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is caused by various pathogens, traditionally divided into 'typical' and 'atypical'. Initial antibiotic treatment of CAP is usually empirical, customarily covering both typical and atypical pathogens. To date, no sufficient evidence exists to support this broad coverage, while limiting coverage is bound to reduce toxicity, resistance and expense.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to estimate the mortality and proportion with treatment failure using regimens containing atypical antibiotic coverage compared to those that had typical coverage only. Secondary objectives included the assessment of adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 3, 2012 which includes the Acute Respiratory Infection Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (January 1966 to April week 1, 2012) and EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients hospitalized due to CAP, comparing antibiotic regimens with atypical coverage (quinolones, macrolides, tetracyclines, chloramphenicol, streptogramins or ketolides) to a regimen without atypical antibiotic coverage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from included trials. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using a Chi(2) test.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 trials, encompassing 5939 randomized patients. The atypical antibiotic was administered as monotherapy in all but three studies. Only one study assessed a beta-lactam combined with a macrolide compared to the same beta-lactam. There was no difference in mortality between the atypical arm and the non-atypical arm (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.55), RR < 1 favors the atypical arm. The atypical arm showed an insignificant trend toward clinical success and a significant advantage to bacteriological eradication, which disappeared when evaluating methodologically high quality studies alone. Clinical success for the atypical arm was significantly higher for Legionella pneumophilae (L. pneumophilae) and non-significantly lower for pneumococcal pneumonia. There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of (total) adverse events, or those requiring discontinuation of treatment. However, gastrointestinal events were less common in the atypical arm (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92). Although the trials assessed different antibiotics, no significant heterogeneity was detected in the analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No benefit of survival or clinical efficacy was shown with empirical atypical coverage in hospitalized patients with CAP. This conclusion relates mostly to the comparison of quinolone monotherapy to beta-lactams. Further trials, comparing beta-lactam monotherapy to the same combined with a macrolide, should be performed.

Diagnostic tests for agents of community-acquired pneumonia

Lower respiratory infections are the major cause of death due to infectious disease in the United States and worldwide. Most forms of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are treatable, and there is consensus that the selection of antimicrobial agents is notably simplified if the pathogen is defined. The rich history of CAP studies in the prepenicillin era showed that an etiologic diagnosis was established in >90% of cases, but the 2009 data from Medicare indicate that a probable pathogen is now detected in <10% according to a review of the records of >17,000 patients hospitalized with CAP. This review addresses the issue of the state of the art of microbiological studies of CAP in terms of the realities of current-day practice. Unfortunately, the desire for better data to achieve pathogen-directed treatment clashes with a multitude of harsh realities, including cost, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requirements for antibiotics to be administered within 6 h of disease onset, guidelines that discourage any microbiological studies in most cases, belief in empiricism that is well supported by at least 1 prospective study, the decline of microbiological analysis standards in most laboratories, and the devastating impact of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) regulations that led to the demise of "the house staff laboratory" and the distancing of microbiological analysis from the site of care. Microbiological principles are reviewed, with emphasis on specimen source, pathogenic potential of isolates, concentrations, impact of antecedent antibiotics, and the "Washington criteria" for expectorated sputum. The recommendation is that the high-quality microbiological analysis that is still achieved in some places should be retained but that to advance the field on the basis of the contemporary realities, two goals should be adopted: First is the broad use of antigen tests for Streptococcus pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila with interpretation by clinical staff under the CLIA waiver for low-complexity tests. The second and more ambitious recommendation is the adoption of molecular techniques, with particular emphasis on nucleic acid detection, which is rapid and sensitive and has already been developed for virtually all recognized pulmonary pathogens. This may be the ultimate solution for many laboratories, and it is likely to have selected use.

Chlamydophila pneumoniae

Chlamydophila pneumoniae is estimated to cause about 10% of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) cases and 5% of bronchitis cases, although most patients with C pneumoniae infection are asymptomatic, and the course of respiratory illness is relatively mild. The incubation period of C pneumoniae infection is around 21 days, and such symptoms as cough and malaise show a gradual onset, yet may persist for several weeks or months despite appropriate antibiotic therapy. Diagnosis by nasopharyngeal specimen culture, serum antibody titers, or molecular techniques is usually delayed with respect to the onset of symptoms, antibiotic treatment, or disease resolution and there is no accurate, standardized, commercial US Food and Drug Administration-cleared diagnostic method available. Erythromycin, tetracycline, and doxycycline are used as first-line therapy, although some investigators report no clinical or survival benefits from treating CAP caused by atypical pathogens. Meanwhile, adequate prospective studies have met with ethical and logistic barriers. Despite these limitations, North American guidelines recommend the antimicrobial treatment of patients with acute C pneumoniae respiratory infection.

Antibiotics for community acquired pneumonia in adult outpatients

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), the sixth most common cause of death worldwide, is a common condition representing a significant disease burden for the community, particularly in the elderly. Antibiotics are helpful in treating CAP and are the standard treatment. CAP contributes significantly to antibiotic use, which is associated with the development of bacterial resistance and side-effects. Several studies have been published concerning treatment for CAP. Available data arises mainly hospitalized patients studies. This is an update of our 2004 Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize current evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy of different antibiotic treatments for CAP in participants older than 12.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2009, issue 1) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to February week 2, 2009), and EMBASE (January 1974 to February 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs in which one or more antibiotics were tested for the treatment of CAP in ambulatory adolescents or adults. Studies testing one or more antibiotics and reporting the diagnostic criteria as well as the clinical outcomes achieved, were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (LMB, TJMV) independently assessed study reports in the first publication. In this update, LMB performed study selection, which was checked by TJMV and MMK. Study authors were contacted to resolve any ambiguities in the study reports. Data were compiled and analyzed. Differences between review authors were resolved by discussion and consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs assessing five antibiotic pairs (1857 participants aged 12 years and older diagnosed with CAP) were included. The study quality was generally good, with some differences in the extent of the reporting. A variety of clinical, radiological and bacteriological diagnostic criteria and outcomes were reported. Overall, there was no significant difference in the efficacy of the various antibiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently available evidence from RCTs is insufficient to make evidence-based recommendations for the choice of antibiotic to be used for the treatment of CAP in ambulatory patients. Pooling of study data was limited by the very low number of studies assessing the same antibiotic pairs. Individual study results do not reveal significant differences in efficacy between various antibiotics and antibiotic groups. Multi-drug comparisons using similar administration schedules are needed to provide the evidence necessary for practice recommendations.

Evidence for moxifloxacin in community-acquired pneumonia: the impact of pharmaco-economic considerations on guidelines

OBJECTIVE

In an era of limited resources, policy makers and health care payers are concerned about the costs of treatment in addition to its effectiveness. However, guidelines do not tend to consider the cost-effectiveness of treatment options. This paper aims to conduct an international literature review with a view to assessing the impact of pharmaco-economic considerations of CAP treatment with moxifloxacin on recent guidelines.

METHODS

The pharmaco-economic state of the art of treating CAP with moxifloxacin is assessed and compared with guidelines issued by the European Respiratory Society and by the Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society. Also, evidence on moxifloxacin consumption and antimicrobial resistance, and the impact of resistance on the cost-effectiveness of moxifloxacin is reviewed. Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EconLit up to January 2009.

RESULTS

The existing pharmaco-economic evidence indicates that moxifloxacin is a cost-effective treatment for CAP. However, data limitations and uncertainty surrounding the evolution of resistance emphasize the need for caution. As recommended by guidelines, the choice of antimicrobial should consider the local frequency of causative pathogens, the local pattern of antimicrobial resistance, and risk factors for resistant bacteria. The pharmaco-economic evidence corroborates the importance of these factors as they have an impact on the cost-effectiveness of treating CAP patients with moxifloxacin.

CONCLUSIONS

CAP guidelines need to take into account pharmaco-economic considerations by balancing the effectiveness of antimicrobial regimens against their costs. The pharmaco-economic value of moxifloxacin is influenced by the causative pathogens involved and resistance patterns. Therefore, it may be advisable to identify patient subgroups in which treatment with moxifloxacin is cost-effective and should be recommended by guidelines.

[Bacterial infections in critically ill patients: review of studies published between 2006 and 2008]

A systematic revision of medical publications between 2006 and 2008 regarding bacterial infections that affect the critical patients was performed. Four subjects were selected: Community-acquired pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, catheter-related bloodstream infection and new antimicrobial treatments. When dealing with community-acquired pneumonia and due to the absence of completely reliable standards, it is necessary to follow the locally adapted guidelines of clinical practice, to identify patients related to the health-care system and admit patients to the ICU in accordance with the criteria. Regarding the etiological diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia, any microbiological information available must be used. Due to the risk of multidrug bacteria, combined empiric therapy should be initiated immediately and then mono-therapy adjusted to the antibiogram should be established. Already established measures for mechanical ventilation associated pneumonia and catheter-related bacteriemias, which have been effective, should be implemented. The empirical treatment of catheter-related bacteremia must be directed towards the most probable pathogens according to the puncture site. The most recently sold antibiotics are basically directed towards multidrug gram positive resistant bacteria. However, for the treatment of gram negative resistant bacilli, the use of the new antimicrobials must be combined with a new evaluation of the antibiotics that have been used for years and the possibility of choosing different administration forms.