De-escalation therapy among bacteraemic patients with community-acquired pneumonia

Increased Risk of Hospitalization for Pneumonia in Italian Adults from 2010 to 2019: Scientific Evidence for a Call to Action

Background: Understanding trends in pneumonia-associated hospitalizations can help to quantify the burden of disease and identify risk conditions and at-risk populations. This study evaluated characteristics of hospitalizations due to pneumonia that occurred in Italy in a 10-year period from 2010 to 2019. Methods: All hospitalizations with a principal or secondary diagnosis of pneumonia over the 10-year period were included, which were identified by hospital discharges for all-cause pneumonia and pneumococcal pneumonia in the anonymized hospital discharge database of the Italian Health Ministry. Results: A total of 2,481,213 patients were hospitalized for pneumonia between 2010 and 2019; patients aged 75−86 years accounted for 30.1% of hospitalizations. Most hospitalizations (88.1%) had an unspecified pneumonia discharge code. In-hospital death was recorded in 13.0% of cases. The cumulative cost for pneumonia hospitalizations of the 10-year period were EUR 11,303,461,591. Over the observation period, the incidence rate for hospitalized all-cause pneumonia in any ages increased from 100 per 100,000 in 2010 to over 160 cases per 100,000 per year in 2019 (p < 0.001). Overall, there was a significant increase in annual percent changes in hospitalization rates (+3.47 per year), in-hospital death (+4.6% per year), and costs (+3.95% per year) over the 10-year period. Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that hospitalizations for pneumonia are increasing over time in almost all age groups, especially in the elderly. Given the substantial burden of pneumonia in terms of mortality, healthcare resources, and economic costs, greater public health efforts should thus be made to promote vaccinations against influenza and pneumococcus, particularly in high-risk groups.

Multidisciplinary Collaboration for the Optimization of Antibiotic Prescription: Analysis of Clinical Cases of Pneumonia between Emergency, Internal Medicine, and Pharmacy Services

BACKGROUND

Pneumonia is a lung parenchyma acute infection usually treated with antibiotics. Increasing bacterial resistances force the review and control of antibiotic use criteria in different health departments.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the adequacy of antibiotic treatment in community-acquired pneumonia in patients initially attended at the emergency department and then admitted to the internal medicine service of the Alto Deba Hospital-Osakidetza Basque Country Health Service (Spain).

METHODS

Observational, retrospective study, based on the review of medical records of patients with community-acquired pneumonia attended at the hospital between January and May 2021. The review was made considering the following items: antimicrobial treatment indication, choice of antibiotic, time of administration of the first dose, adequacy of the de-escalation-sequential therapy, duration of treatment, monitoring of efficacy and adverse effects, and registry in the medical records. The review was made by the research team (professionals from the emergency department, internal medicine, and pharmacy services).

RESULTS

Fifty-five medical records were reviewed. The adequacy of the treatments showed that antibiotic indication, time of administration of the first dose, and monitoring of efficacy and adverse effects were the items with the greatest agreement between the three departments. This was not the case with the choice of antibiotic, de-escalation/sequential therapy, duration of treatment, and registration in the medical record, which have been widely discussed. The choice of antibiotic was optimal in 63.64% and might have been better in 25.45%. De-escalation/oral sequencing might have been better in 50.91%. The treatment duration was optimal in 45.45% of the patients and excessive in 45.45%.

DISCUSSION

The team agreed to disseminate these data among the hospital professionals and to propose audits and feedback through an antibiotic stewardship program. Besides this, implementing the local guideline and defining stability criteria to apply sequential therapy/de-escalation was considered essential.

Effect of positive microbiological testing on antibiotic de-escalation and outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia: A propensity score analysis

OBJECTIVES

The usefulness of routine microbiological testing for rationalizing antibiotic use in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) continues to be a subject of debate. We aim to determine the effect of positive microbiological testing on antimicrobial de-escalation and clinical outcomes in CAP.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort of non-immunosuppressed adults hospitalized with CAP was performed. The primary study outcome was antimicrobial de-escalation. Secondary outcomes included 30-day case-fatality rate, adverse events, and CAP recurrence. Adjustment for confounders, was performed by inverse probability weighting propensity score (IPW-PS), logistic regression and cause-specific Cox model.

RESULTS

Of 3677 patients with CAP, 1924 (52.3%) had any positive microbiological test. Antimicrobial de-escalation was performed in 648/1924 (33.7%) of patients with positive microbiological testing and in 179/1753 (10.2%) of those with non positive results. When propensity score was entered into the multivariate analysis, positive microbiological testing (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 2.59 (1.96 - 3.41) and clinical stability at day 3 (AOR 1.87; 1.45 - 2.10) were two of the main factors independently associated with antimicrobial de-escalation. After applying an adjusted cause-specific Cox model, antimicrobial de-escalation was not associated with a higher 30-day case-fatality rate (Adjusted Hazard Ratio [AHR] 0.44; 0.14 - 1.43), higher frequency of adverse events (AHR 0.77; 0.53 - 1.12) or CAP recurrence (AHR 0.77; 0.45 - 1.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Antimicrobial de-escalation was more often performed in hospitalized patients with CAP who had positive microbiological tests than in those with non positive results, and it did not adversely affect relevant clinical outcomes.

Urinary Antigen Testing for Respiratory Infections: Current Perspectives on Utility and Limitations

Pneumonia is a leading cause of hospitalization and death due to infection worldwide. Streptococcus pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila remain among the most commonly identified bacterial pathogens. Unfortunately, more than half of all pneumonia cases today lack an etiologic diagnosis due to limitations in traditional microbiological methods like blood and sputum cultures, which are affected by poor sample collection, prior antibiotic administration, and delayed processing. Urinary antigen tests (UATs) for S. pneumoniae and L. pneumophila have emerged as powerful tools for improving the diagnosis of bacterial respiratory infections, enabling physicians to administer early directed therapy and improve antimicrobial stewardship. UATs are simple, rapid, and non-invasive diagnostic tests with high specificity (>90%) and moderate sensitivity (<80%). The potential impact of urinary antigen testing is especially significant for respiratory infections caused by Legionella. While all recommended community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) therapies are adequate for treating pneumococcal pneumonia, only certain antibiotics are effective against Legionella. Delayed therapy for Legionella is associated with worse clinical outcomes, which underscores the importance of rapid diagnostic methods like UATs. Despite their potential impact, current American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines argue against the routine use of urinary antigen testing for S. pneumoniae and L. pneumophila, except in patients with severe CAP and those with epidemiological risk factors for Legionella. Further research is necessary to evaluate the impact of early targeted treatment due to positive UAT results, as well as optimal strategies for UAT utilization. The purpose of this review is to summarize the UATs available for bacterial respiratory infections, describe current guidelines on their usage, and assess their impact on clinical outcomes and targeted therapy.

Impact of Extended and Restricted Antibiotic Deescalation on Mortality

BACKGROUND

More data are needed about the safety of antibiotic de-escalation in specific clinical situations as a strategy to reduce exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics. This study aims to compare the survival curve of patient de-escalated (early or late) against those not de-escalated on antibiotics, to determine the association of patient related, clinical related, and pressure sore/device related characteristics on all-cause 30-day mortality and determine the impact of early and late antibiotic de-escalation on 30-day all-cause mortality.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study on patients in medical ward Hospital Kuala Lumpur, admitted between January 2016 and June 2019. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve and Fleming-Harrington test were used to compare the overall survival rates between early, late, and those not de-escalated on antibiotics while multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine prognostic factors associated with mortality and the impact of de-escalation on 30-day all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Overall mortality rates were not significantly different when patients were not de-escalated on extended or restricted antibiotics, compared to those de-escalated early or later (p = 0.760). Variables associated with 30-day all-cause mortality were a Sequential Organ Function Assessment (SOFA) score on the day of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) intervention and Charlson's comorbidity score (CCS). After controlling for confounders, early and late antibiotics were not associated with an increased risk of mortality.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study reinforce that restricted or extended antibiotic de-escalation in patients does not significantly affect 30-day all-cause mortality compared to continuation with extended and restricted antibiotics.

Guía de práctica clínica para el manejo de la neumonía adquirida en la comunidad

La neumonía sigue siendo una de las principales causas de consulta y de hospitalización a la que, además de su un alto impacto en términos de morbilidad y mortalidad, se suma la actual problemática de resistencia a los antimicrobianos, por lo que establecer directrices que permitan su adecuado diagnóstico y tratamiento es de gran importancia para obtener mejores desenlaces clínicos y promover un uso racional de antibióticos en estos pacientes. La presente guía de práctica clínica (GPC) contiene recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la neumonía adquirida en la comunidad en adultos, las cuales fueron realizadas mediante el proceso de adaptación de GPC basadas en la evidencia para el contexto colombiano.

Community-acquired pneumonia

Community-acquired pneumonia is not usually considered a high-priority problem by the public, although it is responsible for substantial mortality, with a third of patients dying within 1 year after being discharged from hospital for pneumoniae. Although up to 18% of patients with community-acquired pneumonia who were hospitalised (admitted to hospital and treated there) have at least one risk factor for immunosuppression worldwide, strong evidence on community-acquired pneumonia management in this population is scarce. Several features of clinical management for community-acquired pneumonia should be addressed to reduce mortality, morbidity, and complications related to community-acquired pneumonia in patients who are immunocompetent and patients who are immunocompromised. These features include rapid diagnosis, microbiological investigation, prevention and management of complications (eg, respiratory failure, sepsis, and multiorgan failure), empirical antibiotic therapy in accordance with patient's risk factors and local microbiological epidemiology, individualised antibiotic therapy according to microbiological data, appropriate outcomes for therapeutic switch from parenteral to oral antibiotics, discharge planning, and long-term follow-up. This Seminar offers an updated view on community-acquired pneumonia in adults, with suggestions for clinical and translational research.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Reducing the use of empiric antibiotic therapy in COVID-19 on hospital admission

BACKGROUND

Empiric antibiotics for community acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) are often prescribed to patients with COVID-19, despite a low reported incidence of co-infections. Stewardship interventions targeted at facilitating appropriate antibiotic prescribing for CABP among COVID-19 patients are needed. We developed a guideline for antibiotic initiation and discontinuation for CABP in COVID-19 patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of this intervention on the duration of empiric CABP antibiotic therapy among patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, quasi-experimental study of adult patients admitted between 3/1/2020 to 4/25/2020 with COVID-19 pneumonia, who were initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics. Patients were excluded if they were initiated on antibiotics > 48 h following admission or if another source of infection was identified. The primary outcome was the duration of antibiotic therapy (DOT) prior to the guideline (March 1 to March27, 2020) and after guideline implementation (March 28 to April 25, 2020). We also evaluated the clinical outcomes (mortality, readmissions, length of stay) among those initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics.

RESULTS

A total of 506 patients with COVID-19 were evaluated, 102 pre-intervention and 404 post-intervention. Prior to the intervention, 74.5% (n = 76) of patients with COVID-19 received empiric antibiotics compared to only 42% of patients post-intervention (n = 170), p < 0.001. The median DOT in the post-intervention group was 1.3 days shorter (p < 0.001) than the pre-intervention group, and antibiotics directed at atypical bacteria DOT was reduced by 2.8 days (p < 0.001). More patients in the post-intervention group were initiated on antibiotics based on criteria consistent with our guideline (68% versus 87%, p = 0.001). There were no differences between groups in terms of clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Following the implementation of a guideline outlining recommendations for initiating and discontinuing antibiotics for CABP among COVID-19 inpatients, we observed a reduction in antibiotic prescribing and DOT. The guideline also resulted in a significant increase in the rate of guideline-congruent empiric antibiotic initiation.

Antimicrobial management in community acquired pneumonia in hospital at home: Is there room for improvement?

INTRODUCTION

Community Acquired Pneumonia (CAP) is common disease that can be treated in Hospital At Home (HAH). In this paper we evaluate the room of improvement in the use of antibiotics in CAP in HH.

METHODS

Patients with CAP were retrospectively recruited in two Spanish hospitals from 1/1/18 to 10/30/19. Demographic, clinical and quality of antibiotic prescription variables were recorded. Subsequently, we created a new variable that collected six quality of care indicator, categorizing and comparing patients into two groups: good quality of care (4 or more indicators performed) or poor quality of care (3 or less indicators performed).

RESULTS

We recruited 260 patients. The request for diagnostic tests and the adequacy to Clinical Practice Guidelines were 85.4% and 85.8% respectively. Percentages of de-escalation (53.7%) and sequential therapy (57.7%) when indicated were low. The average length of treatment was 7.3 days for intravenous and 9.5 days for total. Quality of prescription was good in 134 (63.2%) patients, being more frequent in those who were admitted directly to HAD from the emergency room. It was also associated with less readmission at 30 days.

CONCLUSION

There is a wide room for improvement in some fields of antimicrobials use in HAH that could stimulate the implementation of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Safety and Feasibility of Antibiotic De-escalation in Critically Ill Children With Sepsis - A Prospective Analytical Study From a Pediatric ICU

Introduction: De-escalation is the key to balance judicious antibiotic usage for life-threatening infections and reducing the emergence of antibiotic resistance caused by antibiotic overuse. Robust evidence is lacking regarding the safety of antibiotic de-escalation in culture negative sepsis. Materials and Methods: Children admitted to the PICU during the first 6 months of 2019 with suspected infection were included. Based on the clinical condition, cultures and septic markers, antibiotics were de-escalated or continued at 48-72 h. Outcome data like worsening of primary infection, acquisition of hospital acquired infection, level of ICU support and mortality were captured. Results: Among the 360 admissions, 247 (68.6%) children received antibiotics. After excluding 92 children, 155 children with 162 episodes of sepsis were included in the study. Thirty four episodes were not eligible for de-escalation. Among the eligible group of 128 episodes, antibiotics were de-escalated in 95 (74.2%) and continued in 33 (25.8%). The primary infection worsened in 5 (5.2%) children in the de-escalation group and in 1 (3%) in non de-escalation group [Hazard ratio: 2.12 (95%CI: 0.39-11.46)]. There were no significant differences in rates of hospital acquired infection, mortality or length of ICU stay amongst the groups. Blood cultures and assessment of clinical recovery played a major role in de-escalation of antibiotics and the clinician's hesitation to de-escalate in critically ill culture negative children was the main reason for not de-escalating among eligible children. Conclusion: Antibiotic de-escalation appears to be a safe strategy to apply in criticallly ill children, even in those with negative cultures.

Antimicrobial management in community acquired pneumonia in hospital at home: Is there room for improvement?

INTRODUCTION

Community Acquired Pneumonia (CAP) is common disease that can be treated in Hospital At Home (HAH). In this paper we evaluate the room of improvement in the use of antibiotics in CAP in HH.

METHODS

Patients with CAP were retrospectively recruited in two Spanish hospitals from 1/1/18 to 10/30/19. Demographic, clinical and quality of antibiotic prescription variables were recorded. Subsequently, we created a new variable that collected six quality of care indicator, categorizing and comparing patients into two groups: good quality of care (4 or more indicators performed) or poor quality of care (3 or less indicators performed).

RESULTS

We recruited 260 patients. The request for diagnostic tests and the adequacy to Clinical Practice Guidelines were 85.4% and 85.8% respectively. Percentages of de-escalation (53.7%) and sequential therapy (57.7%) when indicated were low. The average length of treatment was 7.3 days for intravenous and 9.5 days for total. Quality of prescription was good in 134 (63.2%) patients, being more frequent in those who were admitted directly to HAD from the emergency room. It was also associated with less readmission at 30 days.

CONCLUSION

There is a wide room for improvement in some fields of antimicrobials use in HAH that could stimulate the implementation of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs.

Impact of antimicrobial de-escalation on mortality: a literature review of study methodology and recommendations for observational studies

Introduction: The safety of de-escalation of empirical antimicrobial therapy is largely based on observational data, with many reporting protective effects on mortality. As there is no plausible biological explanation for this phenomenon, it is most probably caused by confounding by indication.Areas covered: We evaluate the methodology used in observational studies on the effects of de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy on mortality. We extended the search for a recent systematic review and identified 52 observational studies. The heterogeneity in study populations was large. Only 19 (36.5%) studies adjusted for confounders and four (8%) adjusted for clinical stability during admission, all as a fixed variable. All studies had methodological limitations, most importantly the lack of adjustment for clinical stability, causing bias toward a protective effect.Expert opinion: The methodology used in studies evaluating the effects of de-escalation on mortality requires improvement. We depicted all potential confounders in a directed acyclic graph to illustrate all associations between exposure (de-escalation) and outcome (mortality). Clinical stability is an important confounder in this association and should be modeled as a time-varying variable. We recommend to include de-escalation as time-varying exposure and use inverse-probability-of-treatment weighted marginal structural models to properly adjust for time-varying confounders.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Adults with Community-acquired Pneumonia. An Official Clinical Practice Guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America

Background: This document provides evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the management of adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

Methods: A multidisciplinary panel conducted pragmatic systematic reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations.

Results: The panel addressed 16 specific areas for recommendations spanning questions of diagnostic testing, determination of site of care, selection of initial empiric antibiotic therapy, and subsequent management decisions. Although some recommendations remain unchanged from the 2007 guideline, the availability of results from new therapeutic trials and epidemiological investigations led to revised recommendations for empiric treatment strategies and additional management decisions.

Conclusions: The panel formulated and provided the rationale for recommendations on selected diagnostic and treatment strategies for adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

Confounding by indication of the safety of de-escalation in community-acquired pneumonia: A simulation study embedded in a prospective cohort

Observational studies have demonstrated that de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy is independently associated with lower mortality. This most probably results from confounding by indication. Reaching clinical stability is associated with the decision to de-escalate and with survival. However, studies rarely adjust for this confounder. We quantified the potential confounding effect of clinical stability on the estimated impact of de-escalation on mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Data were used from the Community-Acquired Pneumonia immunization Trial in Adults (CAPiTA). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. We performed Cox proportional-hazards regression with de-escalation as time-dependent variable and adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores. The potential impact of unmeasured confounding was quantified through simulating a variable representing clinical stability on day three, using data on prevalence and associations with mortality from the literature. Of 1,536 included patients, 257 (16.7%) were de-escalated, 123 (8.0%) were escalated and in 1156 (75.3%) the antibiotic spectrum remained unchanged. Crude 30-day mortality was 3.5% (9/257) and 10.9% (107/986) in the de-escalation and continuation groups, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio of de-escalation for 30-day mortality (compared to patients with unchanged coverage), without adjustment for clinical stability, was 0.39 (95%CI: 0.19–0.79). If 90% to 100% of de-escalated patients were clinically stable on day three, the fully adjusted hazard ratio would be 0.56 (95%CI: 0.27–1.12) to 1.04 (95%CI: 0.49–2.23), respectively. The simulated confounder was substantially stronger than any of the baseline confounders in our dataset. Quantification of effects of de-escalation on patient outcomes without proper adjustment for clinical stability results in strong negative bias. This study suggests the effect of de-escalation on mortality needs further well-designed prospective research to determine effect size more accurately.

Clinical outcomes of carbapenem de-escalation regardless of microbiological results: A propensity score analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of de-escalation in patients under treatment with carbapenems and its impact on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted for 1year. Patients administered active carbapenems for at least 24h were included. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, mortality at 30 days after carbapenem prescription, and infection-related readmission within 30 days. De-escalation was defined as the substitution of carbapenem with narrower spectrum antimicrobial agents or its discontinuation during the first 96h of treatment.

RESULTS

The study included 1161 patients, and de-escalation was performed in 667 (57.5%) of these. In the de-escalation group, 54.9% of cultures were positive. After propensity score matching, 30-day mortality was lower (17.4% vs. 25.7%, p=0.036), carbapenem treatment was 4 days shorter (4 vs. 8 days, p<0.001), total antibiotic therapy duration was 2 days longer (12 vs. 10 days, p=0.003), and length of hospital stay was 5 days shorter (8 vs. 13 days, p=0.008) in the de-escalated versus non-de-escalated patients. In-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission rates did not differ significantly between these groups.

CONCLUSION

Carbapenem de-escalation is a safe strategy that does not compromise the clinical status of patients.

How can we improve clinical research in pneumonia?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The primary challenges in the field of clinical research include a lack of support within existing infrastructure, insufficient number of clinical research training programs and a paucity of qualified mentors. Most medical centers offer infrastructure support for investigators working with industry sponsors or government-funded clinical trials, yet there are a significant amount of clinical studies performed in the field of pneumonia which are observational studies. For this type of research, which is frequently unfunded, support is usually lacking.

RECENT FINDINGS

In an attempt to optimize clinical research in pneumonia, at the University of Louisville, we developed a clinical research coordinating center (CRCC). The center manages clinical studies in the field of respiratory infections, with the primary focus being pneumonia. Other activities of the CRCC include the organization of an annual clinical research training course for physicians and other healthcare workers, and the facilitation of international research mentoring by a process of connecting new pneumonia investigators with established clinical investigators.

SUMMARY

To improve clinical research in pneumonia, institutions need to have the appropriate infrastructure in place to support investigators in all aspects of the clinical research process.

Urinary antigen testing in community-acquired pneumonia in adults: an update

INTRODUCTION

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) continues to be a leading cause of hospitalization and mortality worldwide. Streptococcus pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila remain the major etiological agents and are responsible for a significant proportion of CAP mortality. Among diagnostic tests for CAP, urine antigen detection of S. pneumoniae and L. pneumophila is widely accepted due to the simplicity of collection and the rapidity of the test results. Areas covered: This comprehensive review outlines the urinary antigen tests available, discusses their sensitivity and specificity, and assesses the usefulness of their results as the basis for targeted therapy. Expert commentary: There have been advances in urine antigen detection tests for patients with CAP. New methodologies show greater sensitivity, detect S. pneumoniae and L. pneumophila in a single test, and also detect pneumococcal serotypes. In addition, urine antigen detection tests have shown a high specificity, which means that a positive result practically indicates the causative pathogen of CAP. Therefore, a positive result can lead to a targeted therapy that is likely to improve patient outcomes and reduce the risk of resistance and adverse events. However, well-designed studies are needed to evaluate the usefulness of urine antigen detection tests with regard to clinical outcomes.

Indian Antimicrobial Prescription Guidelines in Critically Ill Immunocompromised Patients

How to cite this article: Kulkarni AP, Sengar M, Chinnaswamy G, Hegde A, Rodrigues C, Soman R, Khilnani GC, Ramasubban S, Desai M, Pandit R, Khasne R, Shetty A, Gilada T, Bhosale S, Kothekar A, Dixit S, Zirpe K, Mehta Y, Pulinilkunnathil JG, Bhagat V, Khan MS, Narkhede AM, Baliga N, Ammapalli S, Bamne S, Turkar S, Bhat KV, Choudhary J, Kumar R, Divatia JV. Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine 2019;23(Suppl 1): S64-S96.

An Interferon Signature Discriminates Pneumococcal From Staphylococcal Pneumonia

Streptococcus pneumoniae is the most common cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Despite the low prevalence of CAP caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), CAP patients often receive empirical antibiotic therapy providing coverage for MRSA such as vancomycin or linezolid. An early differentiation between S. pneumoniae and S. aureus pneumonia can help to reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics. The objective of this study was to identify candidate biomarkers that can discriminate pneumococcal from staphylococcal pneumonia. A genome-wide transcriptional analysis of lung and peripheral blood performed in murine models of S. pneumoniae and S. aureus lung infection identified an interferon signature specifically associated with S. pneumoniae infection. Prediction models built using a support vector machine and Monte Carlo cross-validation, identified the combination of the interferon-induced chemokines CXCL9 and CXCL10 serum concentrations as the set of biomarkers with best sensitivity, specificity, and predictive power that enabled an accurate discrimination between S. pneumoniae and S. aureus pneumonia. The predictive performance of these biomarkers was further validated in an independent cohort of mice. This study highlights the potential of serum CXCL9 and CXCL10 biomarkers as an adjunctive diagnostic tool that could facilitate prompt and correct pathogen-targeted therapy in CAP patients.

Community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalization: rational decision making and interpretation of guidelines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review focuses on the evidence base for guideline recommendations on the diagnosis, the optimal choice, timing and duration of empirical antibiotic therapy, and the use of microbiological tests for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP): issues for which guidelines are frequently used as a quick reference. Furthermore, we will discuss possibilities for future research in these topics.

RECENT FINDINGS

Many national and international guideline recommendations, even on critical elements of CAP management, are based on low-to-moderate quality evidence.

SUMMARY

The diagnosis and management of CAP has hardly changed for decades. The recommendation to cover atypical pathogens in all hospitalized CAP patients is based on observational studies only and is challenged by two recent trials. The following years, improved diagnostic testing, radiologically by low-dose Computed Tomography or ultrasound and/or microbiologically by point-of-care multiplex PCR, has the potential to largely influence the choice and start of antibiotic therapy in hospitalized CAP patients. Rapid microbiological testing will hopefully improve antibiotic de-escalation or early pathogen-directed therapy, both potent ways of reducing broad-spectrum antibiotic use. Current guideline recommendations on the timing and duration of antibiotic therapy are based on limited evidence, but will be hard to improve.

An update on the pharmacotherapeutic management of lower respiratory tract infections

INTRODUCTION

Our knowledge about lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) has improved substantially in the last years, but the management of respiratory infections is still a challenge and we are still far from using precision medicine in their treatment. Areas covered: The approaches developed in recent years to improve the pharmacotherapeutic management of LRTIs, such as novel diagnostic assays to facilitate medical decision-making, attempts for selecting an optimal empiric antibiotic regimen, and the role of new and possibly unproven adjunctive therapies, are described. Expert opinion: Early and appropriate antibiotics remain the cornerstone in the treatment of LRTIs. The updated trend is to apply antimicrobial stewardship principles and initiatives to optimize both the management and the outcomes of LTRIs. Biomarkers, mainly C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT), can improve the diagnostic and prognostic assessment of LRTIs and aid to guide antibiotic therapy. The widespread use of antimicrobial agents has greatly contributed to faster development of antibiotic resistance and the emergence of opportunistic pathogens, which substitute the indigenous microbiota. However, very few new antibiotics in development to overcome existing resistance and ensure continued success in the treatment of LRTIs have been approved, likely because antibiotic stewardship programs discourage the use of new agents.

Antibiotic stewardship in community-acquired pneumonia

INTRODUCTION

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) continues to be associated with significant mortality and morbidity. As with other infectious diseases, in recent years there has been a marked increase in resistance to the antibiotics commonly used against the pathogens that cause CAP. Antimicrobial stewardship denotes coordinated interventions to improve and measure the appropriate use of antibiotics by encouraging the selection of optimal drug regimens. Areas covered: Several elements can be applied to antibiotic stewardship strategies for CAP in order to maintain or improve patient outcomes. In this regard, antibiotic de-escalation, duration of antibiotic treatment, adherence to CAP guidelines recommendations about empirical treatment, and switching from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy may each be relevant in this context. Antimicrobial stewardship strategies, such as prospective audit with intervention and feedback, clinical pathways, and dedicated multidisciplinary teams, that have included some of these elements have demonstrated improvements in antimicrobial use for CAP without negatively affecting clinical outcomes. Expert commentary: Although there are a limited number of randomized clinical studies addressing antimicrobial stewardship strategies in CAP, there is evidence that antibiotic stewardship initiatives can be securely applied, providing benefits to both healthcare systems and patients.

Impact of antibiotic de-escalation on clinical outcomes in community-acquired pneumococcal pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Although antibiotic de-escalation is regarded as a measure that reduces selection pressure, adverse drug effects and costs, evidence supporting this practice in community-acquired pneumococcal pneumonia (CAPP) is lacking.

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of a cohort of hospitalized adults with CAPP. Pneumococcal aetiology was established in patients with one or more positive cultures for Streptococcus pneumoniae obtained from blood, sterile fluids or sputum, and/or a positive urinary antigen test. De-escalation therapy was considered when the initial antibiotic therapy was narrowed to penicillin, amoxicillin or amoxicillin/clavulanate within the first 72 h after admission. The primary outcomes were 30 day mortality and length of hospital stay (LOS). Adjustment for confounders was performed with multivariate and propensity score analyses.

RESULTS

Of 1410 episodes of CAPP, antibiotic de-escalation within the first 72 h after admission was performed in 166 cases. After adjustment, antibiotic de-escalation was not associated with a higher risk of mortality (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.24-2.81), but it was found to be a protective factor for prolonged LOS (above the median) (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.30-0.70). Similar results were found in patients classified into high-risk pneumonia severity index classes (IV-V), those with clinical instability and those with bacteraemia. No significant differences were documented in adverse drug reactions or readmission (<30 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic de-escalation seems to be safe and effective in reducing the duration of LOS, and did not adversely affect outcomes of patients with CAPP, even those with bacteraemia and severe disease, and those who were clinically unstable.

Determinants of Deescalation Failure in Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis: A Prospective Cohort Study

Introduction. Deescalation refers to either discontinuation or a step-down of antimicrobials. Despite strong recommendations in the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines (2012) to deescalate, actual practices can vary. Our objective was to identify variables that are associated with deescalation failure. Methods. In this prospective study of patients with sepsis/septic shock, patients were categorized into 4 groups based on antibiotic administration: no change in antibiotics, deescalation, escalation (where antibiotics were changed to those with a broader spectrum of antimicrobial coverage), or mixed changes (where both escalation to a broader spectrum of coverage and discontinuation of antibiotics were carried out). Results. 395 patients were studied; mean APACHE II score was 24 ± 7.8. Antimicrobial deescalation occurred in 189 (48%) patients; no changes were made in 156 (39%) patients. On multivariate regression analysis, failure to deescalate was significantly predicted by hematologic malignancy OR 3.3 (95% CI 1.4-7.4) p < 0.004, fungal sepsis OR 2.7 (95% CI 1.2-5.8) p = 0.011, multidrug resistance OR 2.9 (95% CI 1.4-6.0) p = 0.003, baseline serum procalcitonin OR 1.01 (95% CI 1.003-1.016) p = 0.002, and SAPS II scores OR 1.01 (95% CI 1.004-1.02) p = 0.006. Conclusions. Current deescalation practices reflect physician reluctance when dealing with complicated, sicker patients or with drug-resistance or fungal sepsis. Integrating an antibiotic stewardship program may increase physician confidence and provide support towards increasing deescalation rates.