Adult Outpatients With Acute Cough Due to Suspected Pneumonia or Influenza: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

Canadian Association of Radiologists Thoracic Imaging Referral Guideline

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Thoracic Expert Panel consists of radiologists, respirologists, emergency and family physicians, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 24 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for one or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 30 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 48 recommendation statements across the 24 scenarios. This guideline presents the methods of development and the referral recommendations for screening/asymptomatic individuals, non-specific chest pain, hospital admission for non-thoracic conditions, long-term care admission, routine pre-operative imaging, post-interventional chest procedure, upper respiratory tract infection, acute exacerbation of asthma, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, suspect pneumonia, pneumonia follow-up, immunosuppressed patient with respiratory symptoms/febrile neutropenia, chronic cough, suspected pneumothorax (non-traumatic), clinically suspected pleural effusion, hemoptysis, chronic dyspnea of non-cardiovascular origin, suspected interstitial lung disease, incidental lung nodule, suspected mediastinal lesion, suspected mediastinal lymphadenopathy, and elevated diaphragm on chest radiograph.

Ultra-low-dose CT vs. chest X-ray in non-traumatic emergency department patients - a prospective randomised crossover cohort trial

Background

Ultra-low-dose CT (ULDCT) examinations of the chest at only twice the radiation dose of a chest X-ray (CXR) now offer a valuable imaging alternative to CXR. This trial prospectively compares ULDCT and CXR for the detection rate of diagnoses and their clinical relevance in a low-prevalence cohort of non-traumatic emergency department patients.

Methods

In this prospective crossover cohort trial, 294 non-traumatic emergency department patients with a clinically indicated CXR were included between May 2nd and November 26th of 2019 (www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03922516). All participants received both CXR and ULDCT, and were randomized into two arms with inverse reporting order. The detection rate of CXR was calculated from 'arm CXR' (n = 147; CXR first), and of ULDCT from 'arm ULDCT' (n = 147; ULDCT first). Additional information reported by the second exam in each arm was documented. From all available clinical and imaging data, expert radiologists and emergency physicians built a compound reference standard, including radiologically undetectable diagnoses, and assigned each finding to one of five clinical relevance categories for the respective patient.

Findings

Detection rates for main diagnoses by CXR and ULDCT (mean effective dose: 0.22 mSv) were 9.1% (CI [5.2, 15.5]; 11/121) and 20.1% (CI [14.2, 27.7]; 27/134; P = 0.016), respectively. As an additional imaging modality, ULDCT added 9.1% (CI [5.2, 15.5]; 11/121) of main diagnoses to prior CXRs, whereas CXRs did not add a single main diagnosis (0/134; P < 0.001). Notably, ULDCT also offered higher detection rates than CXR for all other clinical relevance categories, including findings clinically irrelevant for the respective emergency department visit with 78.5% (CI [74.0, 82.5]; 278/354) vs. 16.2% (CI [12.7, 20.3]; 58/359) as a primary modality and 68.2% (CI [63.3, 72.8]; 245/359) vs. 2.5% (CI [1.3, 4.7]; 9/354) as an additional imaging modality.

Interpretation

In non-traumatic emergency department patients, ULDCT of the chest offered more than twice the detection rate for main diagnoses compared to CXR.

Funding

The Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy of Medical University of Vienna received funding from Siemens Healthineers (Erlangen, Germany) to employ two research assistants for one year.

The efficacy and safety of DW1601 in patients with acute bronchitis: a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, phase III clinical trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

DW1601, an oral fixed dose combination syrup composed of DW16011 and Pelargonium sidoides, was developed to enhance the symptom relief effect in patients with acute bronchitis. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of DW1601 compared to DW16011 or P. sidoides for treatment of acute bronchitis using a randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled, multi-centre trial design.

METHODS

A total of 204 patients with acute bronchitis was randomized 1:1:1 to receive DW1601 (n = 67), DW16011 (n = 70), or P. sidoides (n = 64) for 7 days. The primary outcome was efficacy of DW1601 compared to DW16011 or P. sidoides in reducing the total bronchitis severity score (BSS) at day 4 of treatment. Secondary endpoints were changes in total and symptomspecific BSS, response rate and patient satisfaction rate. Safety analysis was assessed at day 7.

RESULTS

At 4 days after medication, decrease of total BSS from baseline was significantly greater in the DW1601 group than in the DW16011 group (-3.51 ± 0.18 vs. -2.65 ± 0.18, p = 0.001) or P. sidoides group (-3.56 ± 0.18 vs. -2.64 ± 0.19, p &lt; 0.001). In addition, the BSS total score at day 7 and the BSS cough and sputum component scores at days 4 and 7 were significantly more improved with DW1601 treatment compared with the DW16011 group or P. sidoides group. Participants treated with DW1601 showed higher rates of response and satisfaction than control groups (response rate, DW1601, 100% vs. DW16011, 85.7% vs. P. sidoides, 85.9%; satisfaction rate, DW1601, 92.6% vs. DW16011, 82.9% vs. P. sidoides, 81.2%). Significant adverse events were not observed in the DW1601 group.

CONCLUSION

DW1601 is superior to DW16011 or P. sidoides in improving symptoms of acute bronchitis.

The diagnostic value of nasal microbiota and clinical parameters in a multi-parametric prediction model to differentiate bacterial versus viral infections in lower respiratory tract infections

Background

The ability to accurately distinguish bacterial from viral infection would help clinicians better target antimicrobial therapy during suspected lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). Although technological developments make it feasible to rapidly generate patient-specific microbiota profiles, evidence is required to show the clinical value of using microbiota data for infection diagnosis. In this study, we investigated whether adding nasal cavity microbiota profiles to readily available clinical information could improve machine learning classifiers to distinguish bacterial from viral infection in patients with LRTI.

Results

Various multi-parametric Random Forests classifiers were evaluated on the clinical and microbiota data of 293 LRTI patients for their prediction accuracies to differentiate bacterial from viral infection. The most predictive variable was C-reactive protein (CRP). We observed a marginal prediction improvement when 7 most prevalent nasal microbiota genera were added to the CRP model. In contrast, adding three clinical variables, absolute neutrophil count, consolidation on X-ray, and age group to the CRP model significantly improved the prediction. The best model correctly predicted 85% of the ‘bacterial’ patients and 82% of the ‘viral’ patients using 13 clinical and 3 nasal cavity microbiota genera (Staphylococcus, Moraxella, and Streptococcus).

Conclusions

We developed high-accuracy multi-parametric machine learning classifiers to differentiate bacterial from viral infections in LRTI patients of various ages. We demonstrated the predictive value of four easy-to-collect clinical variables which facilitate personalized and accurate clinical decision-making. We observed that nasal cavity microbiota correlate with the clinical variables and thus may not add significant value to diagnostic algorithms that aim to differentiate bacterial from viral infections.

Do clinical practice guidelines consider evidence about diagnostic test consequences on patient-relevant outcomes? A critical document analysis

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Supporting evidence for diagnostic test recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) should not only include diagnostic accuracy, but also downstream consequences of the test result on patient-relevant outcomes. The aim of this study is to assess the extent to which evidence-based CPGs about diagnostic tests cover all relevant test-treatment pathway components.

METHODS

We performed a systematic document analysis and quality assessment of publicly accessible CPGs about three common diagnostic tests: C-reactive protein, colonoscopy and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Evaluation of the impact of the full test-treatment pathway (diagnostic accuracy, burden of the test, natural course of target condition, treatment effectiveness, and link between test result and administration of treatment) on patient relevant outcomes was considered best practice for developing medical test recommendations.

RESULTS

We retrieved 15 recommendations in 15 CPGs. The methodological quality of the CPGs varied from poor to excellent. Ten recommendations considered diagnostic accuracy. Four of these were funded on a systematic review and rating of the certainty in the evidence. None of the CPGs evaluated all steps of the test-treatment pathway. Burden of the test was considered in three CPGs, but without systematically reviewing the evidence. Natural course was considered in two CPGs, without a systematic review of the evidence. In three recommendations, treatment effectiveness was considered, supported with a systematic review and rating of the certainty in the evidence in one CPG. The link between test result and treatment administration was not considered in any CPG.

CONCLUSIONS

The included CPGs hardly seem to consider evidence about test consequences on patient-relevant outcomes. This might be explained by reporting issues and challenging methodology. Future research is needed to investigate how to facilitate guideline developers in explicit reliable consideration of all steps of a test-treatment pathway when developing diagnostic test recommendations.

Comparison of Clinical Characteristics for Distinguishing COVID-19 From Influenza During the Early Stages in Guangdong, China

Background: To explore the differences in clinical manifestations and infection marker determination for early diagnosis of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and influenza (A and B).

Methods: A hospital-based retrospective cohort study was designed. Patients with COVID-19 and inpatients with influenza at a sentinel surveillance hospital were recruited. Demographic data, medical history, laboratory findings, and radiographic characteristics were summarized and compared between the two groups. The chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used for categorical variables, and Kruskal–Wallis H-test was used for continuous variables in each group. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to differentiate the intergroup characteristics. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the predisposing factors.

Results: About 23 patients with COVID-19 and 74 patients with influenza were included in this study. Patients with influenza exhibited more symptoms of cough and sputum production than COVID-19 (p < 0.05). CT showed that consolidation and pleural effusion were more common in influenza than COVID-19 (p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that patients with influenza had high values of infection and coagulation function markers, but low values of blood routine and biochemical test markers than patients with COVID-19 (mild or moderate groups) (p < 0.05). In patients with COVID-19, the ROC analysis showed positive predictions of albumin and hematocrit, but negative predictions of C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase (HBDH), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Multivariate analysis revealed that influenza might associate with risk of elevated CRP, PCT, and LDH, whereas COVID-19 might associated with high HBDH.

Conclusion: Patients with influenza had more obvious clinical symptoms but less common consolidation lesions and pleural effusion than those with COVID-19. These findings suggested that influenza likely presents with stronger inflammatory reactions than COVID-19, which provides some insights into the pathogenesis of these two contagious respiratory illnesses.

Impact of COVID-19 on corticosteroids and antibiotics prescribing in England: an interrupted time series analysis

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), prednisolone and antibiotics all play a crucial role in the management of respiratory diseases. The aim of this study was to analyse whether the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic affected prescribing rates, as public health measures were implemented to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Monthly practise-level prescribing data published by NHS Digital were analysed. At the point, the COVID-19 outbreak was declared a pandemic, ICS prescriptions rose significantly. This was followed by a decrease in ICS and prednisolone prescribing in the following months. There was no difference in the antibiotic prescribing trend.

Targeting COVID-19 in Parkinson's Patients: Drugs Repurposed

The last couple of months have witnessed the world in a state of virtual standstill. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has overtaken the globe to economic and social lockdown. Many patients with COVID-19 have compromised immunity, especially in an aged population suffering from Parkinson 's disease (PD). Alteration in dopaminergic neurons and deficiency of dopamine in PD patients are the most common symptoms affecting 1% population above the age of 60 years. The compromised immune system and inflammatory manifestation in PD patients make them an easy target. The most common drugs under trial for COVID-19 are remdesivir, favipiravir, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin along with adjunct drugs like amantadine with some monoclonal antibodies. Presently, clinically US FDA approved drugs in PD include Levodopa, catechol-O-methyl transferase (COMT) inhibitors, (Entacapone and Tolcapone), dopamine agonists (Bromocriptine, Ropinirole, Pramipexole, and Rotigotine), monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitors (Selegiline and Rasagiline), amantadine and antimuscarinic drugs. The drugs have established mechanisms of action on PD patients with known pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetic properties along with dose and adverse effects. Conclusion and relevance of this review focus on the drugs that can be tried on PD patients with SAR CoV-2 infection, in particular, amantadine that has been approved by all the developed countries as a common drug possessing both antiviral properties by downregulation of CTSL, lysosomal pathway disturbance and change in pH necessary to uncoat the viral proteins and anti- Parkinson properties. To deal with the significant prognostic adverse effect of SARS-CoV-2 on PD, the present-day treatment options, clinical presentation and various mechanisms are the need of the hour.

Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults: An update

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the prominent cause of mortality and morbidity with important clinical impact across the globe. India accounts for 23 per cent of global pneumonia burden with case fatality rates between 14 and 30 per cent, and Streptococcus pneumoniae is considered a major bacterial aetiology. Emerging pathogens like Burkholderia pseudomallei is increasingly recognized as an important cause of CAP in Southeast Asian countries. Initial management in the primary care depends on clinical assessment while the hospitalized patients require combinations of clinical scores, chest radiography and various microbiological and biomarker assays. This comprehensive diagnostic approach together with additional sampling and molecular tests in selected high-risk patients should be practiced. Inappropriate therapy in CAP in hospitalized patients lengthens hospital stay and increases cost and mortality. In addition, emergence of multidrug-resistant organisms poses tough challenges in deciding empirical as well as definitive therapy. Developing local evidence on the cause and management should be a priority to improve health outcomes in CAP.

The causes of acute cough: a tertiary-care hospital study in Japan

OBJECTIVES

Cough is the most frequent presenting complaint in general practice and has an adverse effect on an individual's well-being. Understanding the causes of cough is critical for appropriate patient management. According to its duration, cough is classified as acute, subacute, and chronic. While acute respiratory infection is considered to be the major cause of acute cough, there is little evidence.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed the prevalence of acute cough in all patients presenting with cough to the respiratory clinic of Japanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center from May 2018 to April 2019. We subsequently assessed the causes of acute cough, after stratifying patients with acute cough into two subgroups based on the chest X-ray findings.

RESULTS

Among 685 patients (329 males; mean age, 61.8 ± 18.6 years) who presented with cough as a chief complaint, 274 (125 males; mean age, 57.6 ± 20.9 years) reported to have acute cough; chest X-ray abnormalities were detected in 113 of these patients. The most frequent cause of acute cough among 113 patients with chest X-ray abnormalities was pneumonia (55.8%), followed by lung cancer (9.7%) and pneumonia exacerbating asthma (7.1%). Among the 161 patients with acute cough without chest X-ray abnormalities, the most frequent cause was upper respiratory tract infection (57.1%), followed by asthma (23.6%) and cough variant asthma (6.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Cough is the most frequent presenting complaint in general practice. Infections are the most frequent causes of acute cough regardless of the chest X-ray findings.

Community-based palliative care during the COVID 19 pandemic

Novel Coronavirus (COVID 19) has usurped human peace and mobility. Since December 2019, the virus has claimed the lives of 87,816 people across the globe as of April 9, 2020 with India reporting a high case fatality of 3.4%. Among the vulnerable population, elderly people, and patients with comorbidities such as diabetes, chronic life-threatening illnesses, such as COPD and advanced malignancies are susceptible to COVID-19 infection and may have poor clinical outcomes. Considering the imbalance in demand and supply of healthcare resources, initiating palliative care will be essential to alleviate the suffering of such patients. The current paper deliberates on the following aspects of palliative care delivery in the community; the need for palliative care in a pandemic crisis, the role of telemedicine in palliative care delivery in the community, the vital role of a family physician in providing primary palliative care in the community and a "wholistic" community palliative care package to serve the needy in the community.

Managing the supportive care needs of those affected by COVID-19

Globally, the number of people affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is rapidly increasing. In most (>80%), the illness is relatively mild and can be self-managed out of hospital. However, in about 20% the illness causes respiratory compromise severe enough to require hospital admission [1]. Patients with severe and critical disease need full active treatment. This may include oxygen for hypoxaemia and ventilatory support, along with optimal management of complications, e.g. super-imposed bacterial infection, and any underlying co-morbidities, e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure. To date, no antiviral agent has shown to be effective in treating the disease [2].

Utility of Rapid Influenza Molecular Testing in an Outpatient Hemodialysis Unit: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background:

Early initiation of antiviral therapy for individuals at risk for severe influenza infection is important for improving patient outcomes. Current guidelines recommend empiric antiviral therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease presenting with suspected influenza infection. Rapid molecular influenza assays may reduce diagnostic uncertainty and improve patient outcomes by providing faster diagnostics compared to traditional batched polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.

Objective:

To determine the utility of implementing a rapid influenza PCR assay compared to the standard of care in a hemodialysis unit.

Design:

This is a prospective cohort study.

Setting:

A hospital-based dialysis unit in a tertiary care hospital.

Patients:

Adult patients with end-stage kidney disease on intermittent hemodialysis.

Measurements:

Patient characteristics, influenza PCR swab results, antibiotic prescriptions, antiviral prescriptions, emergency room visits and hospitalizations.

Methods:

From November 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018, we assigned samples collected from a single center, hemodialysis unit to be processed using a rapid influenza PCR (cobas® Influenza A/B & respiratory syncytial virus assay) or the standard of care (in-house developed multiplex PCR). Samples were assigned to the rapid PCR if the patient received dialysis treatment in the morning dialysis shift, while the remainder were processed as per standard of care. Study outcomes included the time from collection to result of nasopharyngeal swab, prescription of influenza antiviral therapy, time to receiving prescription, and the need for emergency department visit or hospitalization within 2 weeks of presentation.

Results:

During the study period, 44 patients were assessed (14 with the rapid PCR and 30 with the standard of care assay). Compared to conventional testing, the time to result was shorter using rapid PCR compared to conventional testing (2.3 vs 22.6 hours, P < .0001). Individuals who were tested using the rapid PCR had a tendency to shorter time to receiving antiviral prescriptions (0.7 days vs 2.1 days, P = .11), and fewer emergency department visits (7.1% vs 30%, P = .13) but no difference in hospitalizations (14.3% vs 30%, P = .46) within 2 weeks of testing.

Limitations:

This is a single center non-randomized study with a relatively small sample size. Patients who were tested using the standard of care assay experienced a delay in the prescription of antiviral therapy which deviates from recommended clinical practice.

Conclusions:

Rapid influenza molecular testing in the hemodialysis unit was associated with a shorter time to a reportable result and with a tendency to reduced time to prescription of antiviral therapy. Rapid molecular testing should be compared with standard of care (empiric therapy) in terms of economic costs, adverse events, and influenza-related outcomes.