Should management of pneumonia be an indicator of quality of care?

Many regulatory bodies and payers measure the quality of care provided to patients admitted to the hospital with pneumonia. Some pneumonia quality measures were not based on high-level evidence, and there is also concern that public reporting of performance could drive excessive use of diagnostic testing and antibiotic treatment. There have been significant increases in the performance rate of several process of care recommended for patients hospitalized with pneumonia, accompanied by a decrease in 30-day mortality. To maximize the potential for improved patient outcomes, physicians and regulators must remain vigilant to detect unintended negative consequences related to performance measurement.     

Is it possible to distinguish between atypical pneumonia and bacterial pneumonia?: evaluation of the guidelines for community-acquired pneumonia in Japan

The Japanese Respiratory Society (JRS) published the guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia in 2000. The guidelines set up nine parameters and criteria for the differential diagnosis of atypical pneumonia and bacterial pneumonia based on clinical symptoms, physical signs and laboratory data. To evaluate the performance of these guideline criteria, 91 cases of Chlamydia pneumoniae (53 cases were pure-C. pneumoniae and 38 cases were mixed-C. pneumoniae pneumonia), 103 cases of Mycoplasma pneumoniae (86 cases were pure-M. pneumoniae and 17 cases were mixed-M. pneumoniae pneumonia) and 144 cases of bacterial (Streptococcus pneumoniae and/or Haemophilus influenzae) pneumonia were analyzed. The accordance rate for a suspected atypical pneumonia with the guideline criteria was 84.8% for pure-M. pneumoniae pneumonia and 60.3% for pure-C. pneumoniae pneumonia, but only 9.0% for bacterial pneumonia, 12.1% for mixed-C. pneumoniae pneumonia and 16.6% for mixed-M. pneumoniae pneumonia. Overall, the sensitivity and specificity of the criteria in the JRS guidelines were 75.5% and 90.9%, respectively. Our results indicated that the differentiation of pneumonia in the JRS guidelines is useful for the diagnosis of M. pneumoniae pneumonia, but difficult to apply to the diagnosis of C. pneumoniae pneumonia.     

What is the natural history of resolution of nosocomial pneumonia?

Little is known about the natural history of resolution of nosocomial pneumonia, and thus it is likely that we are not always using the optimal duration of therapy in all patients. For some patients, with few risk factors for a poor outcome, and infection with easily treated pathogens, we can probably treat with a more abbreviated course of therapy than is commonly used. For other patients with risk factors for a poor outcome, and infection with ;;high risk' pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, we may need longer durations of therapy. We review the clinical and microbiological definitions of resolution, including improvement, delayed resolution, relapse, or recurrent infection. There are also microbiological end points for resoution including eradication, persistence, and superinfection. The clinical parameters that affect resolution are patient related, microbiological, and treatment related, and these factors are summarized here. Currently, the time course of resolution is being defined using clinical end points such as the clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) and microbiological end points such as quantitative cultures of respiratory secretions. The hope for the future is to be able to identify whether the clinical response is adequate, at the earliest posible time point. This may allow for interventions to help the nonresponding patient, or shorten the duration of therapy in the responding patient.     

Effect of COVID 19 pneumonia on hyperglycemia: Is it different from non COVID pneumonia?

Background and aimsGlycemic control in critical illness has been linked to outcomes. We sought to investigate if COVID pneumonia was causing disrupted glycemic control compared to historically similar diseases.MethodsAt Intermountain Healthcare, a 23-hospital healthcare system in the intermountain west, we performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort observational study. We compared 13,268 hospitalized patients with COVID pneumonia to 6673 patients with non -COVID-pneumonia.ResultsPatients with COVID-19 were younger had fewer comorbidities, had lower mortality and greater length of hospital stay. Our regression models demonstrated that daily insulin dose, indexed for weight, was associated with COVID-19, age, diabetic status, HgbA1c, admission SOFA, ICU length of stay and receipt of corticosteroids. There was significant interaction between a diagnosis of diabetes and having COVID-19. Time in range for our IV insulin protocol was not correlated with having COVID after adjustment. It was correlated with ICU length of stay, diabetic control (HgbA1C) and prior history of diabetes. Among patients with subcutaneous (SQ) insulin only percent of glucose checks in range was correlated with diabetic status, having Covid-19, HgbA1c, total steroids given and Elixhauser comorbidity score even when controlled for other factors.ConclusionsHospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who receive insulin for glycemic control require both more SQ and IV insulin than the non-COVID-19 pneumonia counterparts. Patients with COVID-19 who received SQ insulin only had a lower percent of glucose checks in range.     

Does atopy affect the course of viral pneumonia?

Background

The presence of atopy is considered as a risk factor for severe respiratory symptoms in children. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of atopy on the course of disease in children hospitalised with viral pneumonia.

Do guidelines guide pneumonia practice? A systematic review of interventions and barriers to best practice in the management of community-acquired pneumonia

Successful guideline implementation programs need to understand local barriers, incorporate multiple component interventions, and proceed within a framework of continuous quality improvement. We found few intervention studies to improve CAP guideline adherence and no controlled studies that used certain practice changes strategies that have proven effective for other conditions, such as face-to-face educational outreach, use of local opinion leaders, and individualized audit with peer-comparison feedback. Future studies in CAP management need to use rigorous study designs, use multiple evidence-based strategies to change practice, and convincingly demonstrate to front-line health care providers that the suggested interventions are safe and improve patient outcomes. Paper does not change practice, and the creation and mailing out of a practice guideline for the treatment of CAP is only the first necessary step in translating good evidence into everyday clinical practice.     

IL-1β and IL-6 in community-acquired pneumonia: Bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia versusMycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia

Summary Interleukin-1 (IL-1) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels in 20 patients with bacteremicStreptococcus pneumoniae community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) were compared with these cytokine levels in 20 patients withMycoplasma pneumoniae CAP. All 40 patients survived hospitalization and underwent a follow-up examination one month later. Serum IL-1 and IL-6 levels were determined by the enzyme immunoassay (EIA) method using commercial kits. In the acute phase of CAP, IL-6 levels were significantly higher in theS. pneumoniae group (p=0.014), while IL-1 levels were higher in theM. pneumoniae group (p=0.046). In the convalescence phase, the two cytokines were detected in a considerable number of patients in both groups. In this phase, only the level of IL-1 was significantly higher in theM. pneumoniae group than in theS. pneumoniae group (p=0.03). We conclude that the levels of IL-1 and IL-6 are different between patients withS. pneumoniae-CAP andM. pneumoniae-CAP during the acute phase. In the convalescence phase, cytokine levels remain high in some of the CAP patients, but a significant difference between the groups exists only for IL-1. Further studies are required.     

Where to manage community acquired pneumonia? The assessment of severity

The assessment of severity. Severity assessment is a key element in the management of community-acquired pneumonia. This assessment will determine the level of diagnostic workup and treatment, as well as the site of care. Several tools have been developed to help this assessment. The Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) or the CURB-65 can accurately identify patients with a low risk of death who might be considered for outpatient care while those with a high risk of death would be hospitalized. Nevertheless, PSI and CURB-65 are less accurate for identifying patients requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). Different scores, such the American Thoracic Society criteria or the SMART-COP score, were built to predict need for admission to ICU, vasopressors or mechanical ventilation. Each score has its own strengths and weaknesses and physicians must be aware of these limitations. Although, severity assessment tools are useful guides in the management of patients with community acquired pneumonia, clinical judgment must remain decisive.     

Empiric therapy of community-acquired pneumonia: guidelines for the perplexed?

This article discusses the key clinical aspects of empiric therapy of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Antibiotic selection, severity of CAP, single vs multiple pathogens, pharmacokinetic considerations, antibiotic resistance, i.v. vs oral antibiotic therapy for CAP, oral therapy for non-ICU hospitalized patients with CAP, beta-lactams, macrolides, ketolides, doxycycline, respiratory quinolones, and pharmacoeconomic implications are discussed.