Managing community-acquired pneumonia: a European perspective

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common disease and a frequent cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It puts an enormous burden on medical and economic resources, particularly if hospitalization is required. Initial antibacterial therapy for CAP is usually empirical, as culture and antibacterial sensitivity test results are rarely available at initial diagnosis. Any agent selected for empirical therapy should have good activity against the pathogens commonly associated with CAP, a favorable tolerability profile, and be administered in a simple dosage regimen for good compliance. Streptococcus pneumoniae remains the most common causative pathogen, although the incidence of this organism varies widely. Streptococcus pneumoniae strains with decreased susceptibility to penicillin have become increasingly prevalent over the past 30 years and are now a serious problem worldwide. In addition, an increase in the prevalence of pneumococci resistant to macrolides has been observed in Europe over recent years. Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydia pneumoniae are among the most common atypical pathogens isolated from patients with CAP. Haemophilus influenzae, Staphylococcus aureus and Moraxella catarrhalis are less commonly identified as causative organisms. The emergence and spread of resistance to commonly used antibiotics has challenged the management of CAP. Multiple sets of CAP guidelines have been published to address the continued changes in this complex disease.     

The controversy of combination vs monotherapy in the treatment of hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia

BACKGROUND: The majority of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) patients (about 80%) will be treated as outpatients, because therapy with a single agent will work. For the remaining 20% of patients requiring hospitalization, there is some growing debate regarding the efficacy of different management approaches. For hospitalized patients, monotherapy with a respiratory fluoroquinolone agent seems to be gaining popularity, but dual therapy combining a beta-lactam and an advanced macrolide still represents a good choice. Indeed, this regimen was recommended for all of the inpatient categories in the latest Infectious Disease Society of America CAP guidelines in 2003. AIM: The purpose of this review was to examine the current clinical evidence to support one option or the other by gathering all of the available published literature. We will review the existing controversies in terms of microbiology, immunology, and clinical outcomes comparing dual therapy (ie, with any combination of beta-lactams, macrolides, or fluoroquinolones) with monotherapy in the treatment of CAP. RESULTS: For the vast majority of patients with CAP (ie, outpatients and inpatients on medical wards), the type of antibiotic regimen prescribed does not have any significant impact. For patients with severe pneumonia, for which there is no accepted definition so far, the controversy remains alive. Mortality from pneumococcal pneumonia has been reduced over the last decades, but despite improved medical care, bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia is still as lethal as ever, probably because of the aging population, the greater number of immunocompromised patients, and the number of patients with frequent comorbid conditions. Worldwide, the increasing rates of resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to antibiotics are also a serious concern, and the clinical implications are not always obvious. Although limited in number, the four studies showing the importance of adding a macrolide to a beta-lactam regimen for the treatment of bacteremic S pneumoniae pneumonia are retrospective and nonblinded, the findings are consistent, and they point to a trend that has to be explored more thoroughly. Studies published in the last few years suggest that combination therapy may be superior for bacteremic S pneumoniae pneumonia. CONCLUSION: In the meantime, for practical purposes, patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of severe CAP may benefit from a dual antibiotic therapy combining a third-generation cephalosporin and a macrolide. For the majority of hospitalized patients with CAP who are not severely ill, fluoroquinolone monotherapy remains an approved, tested, and reliable option. Indeed, the time for more aggressive outpatient fluoroquinolone therapy may reduce the number of patients who are hospitalized with CAP. Independent prospective studies comparing combination therapy with standard monotherapy are urgently required for hospitalized patients with severe CAP.     

Community-acquired Chlamydia pneumoniae pneumonia in Japan: a prospective multicenter community-acquired pneumonia study

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical features of Chlamydia pneumoniae pneumonia in Japan and to evaluate the newly created Japanese community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter CAP surveillance study was carried out in 20 hospitals between December 1999 and March 2000. The diagnosis of C. pneumoniae infection was based on isolation in cell culture, the polymerase chain reaction and serologic testing of antibodies by the microimmunofluorescence test. RESULTS: Among 232 CAP cases, C. pneumoniae was identified as the etiologic agent in 15 cases (6.5%). C. pneumoniae was the only pathogen identified in nine of these cases, while one or more additional etiological agents were found in the other six cases. Of the present and previously reported single agent C. pneumoniae pneumonia cases, about 50% were more than 60 years old and had underlying diseases. A relatively slow pulse rate in relation to fever was not seen in these patients. The mean WBC count of all patients was normal. No patient required respiratory support or admission to an intensive care unit and no deaths occurred among these patients. CONCLUSION: The clinical pictures of C. pneumoniae pneumonia as a single agent were mild to moderate and were remarkably different from those of cases of C. pneumoniae pneumonia concomitant with other bacteria. If the patient is less than 60 years old and some guideline headings are excluded, we think it would be possible to distinguish between C. pneumoniae and bacterial pneumonia.     

Guidelines for Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is common, costly, and clinically serious. Several national and international practice guidelines have been developed to promote more appropriate, cost-effective care for patients with CAP. This article compares and contrasts eight international practice guidelines for the management of CAP, describes the extent to which recommendations are reflected in practice, and proposes explanations for non-adherence to guidelines. We found consistency in recommendations across all the guidelines for the management of patients with CAP requiring intensive care. In this setting, all guidelines recommend chest radiography, sputum Gram stain and culture, blood cultures, testing for Legionella pneumophila, and timely administration of antibiotics active against both typical (i.e. Streptococcus pneumoniae, Hemophilus influenzae) and atypical organisms (i.e. Legionella spp., Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Chlamydia pneumoniae). Recommendations for the management of the average inpatient with pneumonia were more variable, with the greatest differences between the North American and European guidelines. The North American guidelines (in contrast to European ones), recommended empiric treatment of typical and atypical organisms in all inpatients. There were also differences in policies regarding the necessity of chest radiography, sputum studies, and serologic testing. Some guidelines explicitly embrace the use of prediction rules to inform the decision to hospitalize, while others do not. Some of these admission decision algorithms focus on identifying low risk patients, while others are most concerned with high risk patients. There was also considerable variation in the specificity and operationalization of clinical criteria for switching from parenteral to oral antibiotics or judging appropriateness for discharge. Many recommendations for key management decisions tended to lack explicit, objective, and actionable criteria that could be easily implemented in real world practice. Review of the pneumonia literature revealed that physician performance of guideline-recommended best practices is often suboptimal. Administration of timely antibiotics (< or =8 hours of presentation) and use of first-line antibiotics occurred in 75-85% and 18-79% of cases, respectively. Collection of blood cultures within 24 hours of presentation and prior to administration of antibiotics was achieved in 69-83% and 63-82% of cases, respectively. Screening the eligibility of CAP patients for hospital-based pneumococcal and influenza vaccination occurred on average in 11 and 14% of hospitalizations, respectively, in the US. Lack of awareness of guidelines, conflicting advice among them, and lack of specific, objective, actionable recommendations most likely contribute to nonadherence to CAP guidelines. Increased attention to these factors will be needed if professional society practice guidelines are to fulfill their promise as tools for improving the quality and outcomes of care for patients with pneumonia.     

Community-acquired pneumonia in the elderly.

The incidence of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in the elderly is higher compared to younger populations. In addition, pneumonia in the elderly is a life-threatening problem. As our demographics have changed, clinicians have developed a heightened interest in managing pneumonia in the elderly. The development of pneumonia in elderly patients differs from that in younger individuals due to a complex array of factors. (1) The organisms involved depend on the setting in which the pneumonia developed: either the nonhospitalized elderly patient with CAP or the institutionalized patient who develops nursing-home-acquired pneumonia. (2) Underlying comorbid conditions commonly exist in the elderly that affect the etiology and outcome of pneumonia. Overall, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae are still the most common etiologies of pneumonia in the elderly. The true role of gram-negative bacilli remains unclear although these micro-organisms may be more common etiologic agents in nursing-home pneumonia. Some recent studies from Mediterranean areas have reported high rates of infection by Chlamydia pneumoniae, but the real role of this micro-organism has to be confirmed. Another important issue is that the presenting symptoms of pneumonia in the elderly can be subtle and sometimes difficult to recognize. Fever is frequently absent, and delirium or alteration of functional physical capacity may be the only manifestations. Mortality in the elderly with CAP is higher when compared to younger populations. However, this may be explained by the concomitant presence of comorbid conditions more than by age per se. This statement has to be kept in mind when considering hospital and, particularly, intensive care unit admissions. Finally, antibiotic pharmacokinetics in the elderly populations with CAP ought to be considered to avoid frequent side-effects and complications. Overall, antibiotic regimens in hospitalized elderly patients with CAP do not differ from other hospitalized CAP populations. An organized approach to assessing elderly patients with suspicion of pneumonia and an awareness of common pitfalls in the management of this pulmonary infection in this population are essential to improving outcomes.     

Update on community-acquired pneumonia: impact of antibiotic resistance on clinical outcomes

In contrast to the rapid expansion in the number of published studies reporting the increasing rate of antimicrobial drug resistance among common respiratory pathogens, there remain few controlled studies examining the impact of these trends on clinical outcomes. Those studies that are published are hampered by small sample sizes, biases inherent in observational designs, and the relative infrequency of isolates showing high-level resistance, particularly high-level beta-lactam resistance among clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae. This update summarizes recent published studies addressing the impact of drug resistance on outcomes for lower respiratory tract infections. The majority of these studies are retrospective cohort studies, focusing on the impact of beta-lactam-resistant pneumococcal infections in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. These studies support the conclusion that current levels of pneumococcal drug resistance do not result in clinical treatment failures for patients with community-acquired pneumonia. However, as patterns of drug resistance evolve, future studies will be needed to address the continued appropriateness of current empirical treatment guidelines for these patients.     

Management of community-acquired pneumonia: a focus on conversion from hospital to the ambulatory setting

Patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are treated in hospital or in the ambulatory care setting depending on the severity of illness. Despite numerous guidelines proposed, there is no agreement on specific criteria for hospitalization other than the clinicians' experience. The purpose of this review is to discuss the importance of the appropriate choice and timely administration of antibacterial agents, either in the hospital or in the outpatient setting. Since a high proportion of CAP patients will not have an etiologic agent identified at the time of initiation of treatment, the choice of antibacterial therapy is usually empiric. Antibacterial agents with activity against pneumococci and atypical pathogens causing pneumonia are the preferred choices. Macrolides, doxycycline, or respiratory fluoroquinolones have been recommended by various guidelines committees in North America for the treatment of pneumonia in patients with or without underlying comorbidities. Because of the increasing resistance to beta-lactams as well other antibacterial agents such as macrolides, doxycycline, and sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (cotrimoxazole), it is important that clinicians are aware of local statistics on resistance to Streptococcus pneumoniae, as infection with this bacterium is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. More recently, fluoroquinolone resistance has been reported, but the percentage of pneumococcal strains resistant to this agent is relatively low compared with the other antibacterial agents. Switch (intravenous to oral) therapy is recommended for hospitalized patients with CAP to facilitate early discharge, which has been shown to improve patient satisfaction and reduce hospital costs. Early conversion to oral therapy has not been shown to be associated with increased complications or higher mortality. Following prompt intravenous therapy and stabilization, patients with CAP should be treated with oral therapy in the ambulatory setting.     

Community-acquired pneumonia guidelines: a global perspective

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and since 1993, guidelines for management have been available. The process, which first began in the United States and Canada, has now been implemented in numerous countries throughout the world, and often each geographic region or country develops locally specific recommendations. It is interesting to realize that guidelines from different regions often interpret the same evidence base differently, and guidelines differ from one country to another, even though the bacteriology of CAP is often more similar than different from one region to another. One of the unique contributions of the 2007 US guidelines is the inclusion of quality and performance measures. In addition, US guidelines emphasize management principles that differ from some of the principles in European guidelines because of unique epidemiological considerations. In addition, certain therapy principles apply in the United States that differ from those in other regions, including the need for all patients to receive routine therapy for atypical pathogens, the emergence of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in some patients following influenza, and the need for all patients admitted to the intensive care unit to receive at least two antimicrobial agents. In the future, as guidelines evolve, there will be an important place for regional guidelines, particularly if these guidelines can recommend locally specific strategies to implement guidelines, which if successful, can lead to improved patient outcomes.     

Streptococcus pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila pneumonia in HIV-infected patients

We compared the epidemiological data, clinical features and mortality of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) by Streptococcus pneumoniae and Legionella in HIV-infected patients and determined discriminative features. An observational, comparative study was performed (January 1994 to December 2004) in 15 HIV patients with CAP by Legionella and 46 by S. pneumoniae. No significant differences were observed in delay until initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy. Smoking, cancer and chemotherapy were more frequent in patients with Legionella pneumonia (p=0.03, p=0.00009 and p=0.01). Patients with Legionella pneumonia had a higher mean CD4 count (p=0.04), undetectable viral load (p=0.01) and received highly active antiretroviral therapy more frequently (p=0.004). AIDS was more frequent in patients with S. pneumoniae pneumonia (p=0.03). Legionella pneumonia was more severe (p=0.007). Extrarespiratory symptoms, hyponatraemia and increased creatine phosphokinase were more frequent in Legionella pneumonia (p=0.02, p=0.002 and p=0.006). Respiratory failure, need for ventilation and bilateral chest X-ray involvement were of note in the Legionella group (p=0.003, p=0.002 and p=0.002). Mortality tended to be higher in the Legionella group (6.7 vs 2.2%). In conclusion, CAP by Legionella has a higher morbimortality than CAP by S. pneumoniae in HIV-infected patients. Detailed analysis of CAP presentation features allows suspicion of Legionnaires' disease in this subset.     

Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent adults

In an ideal clinical setting, empiric antimicrobial treatment prescribed in adult community acquired pneumonia (CAP) should be based on national etiological surveillance and in vitro susceptibility assays. Available information about etiology in ambulatory patients and intensive care unit (ICU) patients is scarce, compared to information obtained in hospitalized patients. In studies designed to explore the etiology of pneumonia, no microorganism is detected in 40-50% of patients, a fact that represents limited yields in diagnostic methods. In all settings, Streptococcus pneumoniae is the main respiratory pathogen recovered in adults CAP, being responsible of about 16% of cases among ambulatory patients and about 22% of those admitted to hospital and ICU. About one third of cases are caused by a small group of microorganisms: Haemophilus influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydia pneumoniae, respiratory viruses, Staphylococcus aureus, gramnegative bacillus, Legionella sp; each one is isolated in less than 10% of cases. In general, microorganism distribution varies scarcely in the following attending settings: ambulatory patients, common wards and ICU. An exception is represented by a higher frequency of gram negative bacillus, S. aureus and Legionella sp in ICU, and of C. pneumoniae in the ambulatory setting. In Chile, CAP etiology in hospitalized adult patients is similar to foreign reports; no systematic information has been collected about the etiology in neither ambulatory patients nor in severe CAP.     

The etiology of community-acquired pneumonia at an urban public hospital: influence of human immunodeficiency virus infection and initial severity of illness.

In a prospective study, the etiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) was investigated among consecutive patients admitted to an academic, urban public hospital in Seattle. The study population was uniquely young, was predominantly male, and had high rates of homelessness, cigarette smoking, alcoholism, injection drug use, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Leading causes of CAP among HIV-negative patients were aspiration, followed by Streptococcus pneumoniae, Legionella species, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Among HIV-positive patients, Pneumocystis carinii, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, S. pneumoniae, and M. pneumoniae were the most common etiologic agents. Severe CAP was associated with typical bacterial infections and aspiration pneumonia but not Legionella infection among HIV-negative patients and with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections among HIV-positive patients. These findings emphasize the need to tailor empirical antibiotic therapy according to local patient populations and individual risk factors and highlight the importance of recognizing underlying HIV infection in patients who are hospitalized with CAP.     

Severe community-acquired pneumonia: what's in a name?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Formerly, patients with community-acquired pneumonia admitted to an intensive care unit were considered as having the severe form of the disease. Recently, guidelines have distinguished severe and non-severe community-acquired pneumonia based on clinical definitions. In this review, we describe the different definitions of severe community-acquired pneumonia, and whether a differentiation based on these definitions reflects variation in etiology, risk factors, diagnostic approaches and treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: New definitions do not seem to accurately identify patients with high risks of mortality; patients not admitted to an intensive care unit could also be diagnosed as having severe community-acquired pneumonia. Host-factors, such as genetic factors and underlying diseases, can influence severity of presentation of community-acquired pneumonia. Distribution of pathogens in severe and non-severe disease forms is comparable. Initial antibiotic therapy in patients with severe disease should provide coverage of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila, as delay is associated with worse outcomes. However, recent studies also suggested an additional benefit of atypical coverage in non-severe disease. As a result, initial therapy with a beta-lactam plus a macrolide or an anti-pneumococcal fluoroquinolone is recommended for all patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Furthermore, the value of vaccination against pneumococci to prevent episodes of severe disease is yet unknown. SUMMARY: As current guidelines do not adequately identify patients with high risk of mortality and intensive care unit admittance, clinical judgment remains important. Based on distribution of pathogens, investigational procedures and therapy recommended in recent guidelines, differentiation between severe and non-severe community-acquired pneumonia does not seem useful. Whether atypical coverage indeed has additional value in non-severe or pneumococcal CAP, however, remains to be determined. In addition, the preventive benefit of influenza and pneumococcal vaccination for development of SCAP awaits further evidence.     

The role of new therapies for severe community-acquired pneumonia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and is the most common cause of death from infectious diseases. CAP patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission carry the highest mortality rates. This paper aims to review the current literature regarding epidemiology, risk factors, severity criteria and reasons for admitting the hospitalized patient to the ICU, and the empiric and specific antibiotic therapeutic regimens employed. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple sets of clinical practice guidelines have been published in the past few years addressing the treatment of CAP. The guidelines all agree that CAP patients admitted to the hospital represent a major concern, and appropriate empiric therapy should be instituted to improve clinical outcomes. SUMMARY: The cost, morbidity and mortality of CAP patients requiring ICU admission remain unacceptably high. These are heterogeneous groups of patients, so it is important to use risk-stratification based on clinical parameters and prediction tools. Appropriate antibiotic therapy is an important component in the management of both groups of patients. In particular, it is essential to administer an appropriate antimicrobial agent from the initiation of therapy, so that the risks of treatment failure and the morbidity of CAP may be minimized.     

冬季社区获得性肺炎的病原菌及耐药性分析

目的：了解2013年冬季该院社区获得性肺炎（ community acquired pneumonia ,CAP）住院患者中致病菌的构成比、常见致病菌的耐药情况,为CAP的诊断及经验治疗提供依据。方法回顾性分析2013－10-2014－03该院收治所有确诊为CAP患者108例的临床资料及病原学检查资料。结果108例患者送检痰标本128例,检出致病菌64株,检出率为50．0％,肺炎克雷伯杆菌、白色念珠菌为前两位菌种。肺炎克雷伯杆菌对碳青霉烯类、第三代头孢菌素、喹诺酮类药物敏感性较高,对第一代、二代头孢菌素及大环内酯类药物耐药性较高。结论冬季获得性肺炎致病菌以革兰阴性菌为主,最常见为肺炎克雷伯杆菌。对于老年患者,合并慢性阻塞性肺疾病、支气管扩张等基础病的患者应重视抗革兰阴性菌治疗。     

Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients in chile: the increasing prevalence of respiratory viruses among classic pathogens

BACKGROUND AND STUDY OBJECTIVES: The range and relative impact of microbial pathogens, particularly viral pathogens, as a cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in hospitalized adults has not received much attention. The aim of this study was to determine the microbial etiology of CAP in adults and to identify the risk factors for various specific pathogens. METHODS: We prospectively studied 176 patients (mean [+/- SD] age, 65.8 +/- 18.5 years) who had hospitalized for CAP to identify the microbial etiology. For each patient, sputum and blood cultures were obtained as well as serology testing for Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydophila pneumoniae, urinary antigen testing for Legionella pneumophila and Streptococcus pneumoniae, and a nasopharyngeal swab for seven respiratory viruses. RESULTS: Microbial etiology was determined in 98 patients (55%). S pneumoniae (49 of 98 patients; 50%) and respiratory viruses (32%) were the most frequently isolated pathogen groups. Pneumococcal pneumonia was associated with tobacco smoking of > 10 pack-years (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 5.4; p = 0.01). Respiratory viruses were isolated more often in fall or winter (28%; p = 0.011), and as an exclusive etiology tended to be isolated in patients >/= 65 years of age (20%; p = 0.07). Viral CAP was associated with antimicrobial therapy prior to hospital admission (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.4 to 14.6). CONCLUSIONS: S pneumoniae remains the most frequent pathogen in adults with CAP and should be covered with empirical antimicrobial treatment. Viruses were the second most common etiologic agent and should be tested for, especially in fall or winter, both in young and elderly patients who are hospitalized with CAP.     

Antimicrobial treatment of community-acquired pneumonia

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a clinical diagnosis that has a significant impact on health care management around the world. Early clinical suspicion and prompt empiric antimicrobial therapies are mandatory in patients with CAP. This article provides a review of recent studies and guidelines addressing antimicrobial therapy for hospitalized patients with CAP.     

Dual infection with Streptococcus pneumoniae and Mycobacterium tuberculosis in HIV-seropositive patients with community acquired pneumonia.

Pulmonary infections with more than one organism are common in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) seropositive patients. We describe nine cases of dual infection with Streptococcus pneumoniae and Mycobacterium tuberculosis in HIV-seropositive patients presenting with community acquired pneumonia (CAP). It is important to exclude pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV-seropositive patients with CAP who fail to respond appropriately to initial antibiotic therapy, even if another etiological pathogen has been found.     

Recent advances in community-acquired pneumonia: inpatient and outpatient

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common illness, with the majority of patients treated out of the hospital, yet the greatest burden of the cost of care comes from inpatient management. In the past several years, the management of these patients has advanced, with new information about the natural history and prognosis of illness, the utility of serum markers to guide management, the use of appropriate clinical tools to guide the site-of-care decision, and the finding that guidelines can be developed in a way that improves patient outcome. The challenges to patient management include the emergence of new pathogens and the progression of antibiotic resistance in some of the common pathogens such as Streptococcus pneumoniae. Few new antimicrobial treatment options are available, and the utility of some new therapies has been limited by drug-related toxicity. Ancillary care for severe pneumonia with activated protein C and corticosteroids is being studied, but recently, inpatient care has been most affected by the development of evidence-based "core measures" for management that have been promoted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which form the basis for the public reporting of hospital performance in CAP care.     

Can guidelines for the treatment of respiratory infections lead to reduced rates of antibiotic resistance?

Guidelines have been developed for the therapy of both community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), and, potentially, if applied appropriately, could lead to a containment or reduction in the frequency of antibiotic resistance. In the therapy of CAP, guidelines could minimize the use of excessive antibiotic therapy, and if they also improve the accuracy of therapy, they could minimize the emergence of resistant organisms in the community. However, the impact of such guidelines on resistance remains to be shown. In the near future, CAP guidelines could help contain the growing problem of quinolone-resistant pneumococci by advocating the use of the most effective of the new agents, administered at the optimal dosages. When managing HAP, the use of guidelines could improve outcome by leading to a greater percentage of patients receiving adequate empiric antibiotic therapy. It remains uncertain whether such an approach can minimize the emergence of antibiotic resistance, particularly in the intensive care unit (ICU), but it is clear that if guidelines are to be accurate, they must account for the resistance patterns that are unique to each individual hospital setting. To date, the use of computer-assisted guidelines for the therapy of nosocomial infections has been successful in minimizing the frequency of inadequate therapy, with no negative impact on antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic restriction policies have been proposed as a way to have an impact on resistance, with variable effects. In the future, antibiotic rotation is likely to be studied as a way to reduce resistance, particularly in the ICU, but a number of practical issues may limit the efficacy of such an approach.     

Healthcare‐associated pneumonia: A US disease or relevant to the Asia Pacific,too?

The term ‘health care‐associated pneumonia’ (HCAP) was introduced by the American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America in 2005 to describe a distinct entity of pneumonia that resembles hospital‐acquired pneumonia rather than community‐acquired pneumonia (CAP) in terms of occurrence of drug‐resistant pathogens and mortality in patients that—while not hospitalized in the traditional sense—have been in recent contact with the health‐care system. It was proposed that HCAP should be treated empirically with therapy for drug‐resistant pathogens. Over the last few years, there has been increasing controversy over whether HCAP is a helpful definition, or leads to unnecessary and potentially problematic overtreatment. The term HCAP has been extensively criticized in Europe. While most studies have shown that HCAP is associated with more frequent drug‐resistant pathogens and higher mortality than CAP, there is no clear evidence that this is due to inappropriate antibiotic therapy. Therapy consistent with HCAP treatment guidelines has also not been found to improve mortality. Based on current evidence, we suggest broad‐spectrum antibiotic therapy to treat possible pathogens not usually covered in CAP be based on assessment of individual risk factors rather than applying a HCAP classification system in the Asia‐Pacific Region.