Diagnostic Performance of Plasma SP-D, KL-6, and CC16 in Acutely Hospitalised Patients Suspected of Having Community-Acquired Pneumonia-A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

Community-acquired pneumonia is a common cause of acute hospitalisation. Identifying patients with community-acquired pneumonia among patients suspected of having the disease can be a challenge, which causes unnecessary antibiotic treatment. We investigated whether the circulatory pulmonary injury markers surfactant protein D (SP-D), Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6), and Club cell protein 16 (CC16) could help identify patients with community-acquired pneumonia upon acute admission. In this multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study, SP-D, KL-6, and CC16 were quantified in plasma samples from acutely hospitalised patients with provisional diagnoses of community-acquired pneumonia. The area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC) was calculated for each marker against the following outcomes: patients' final diagnoses regarding community-acquired pneumonia assigned by an expert panel, and pneumonic findings on chest CTs. Plasma samples from 339 patients were analysed. The prevalence of community-acquired pneumonia was 63%. AUCs for each marker against both final diagnoses and chest CT diagnoses ranged between 0.50 and 0.56. Thus, SP-D, KL-6, and CC16 demonstrated poor diagnostic performance for community-acquired pneumonia in acutely hospitalised patients. Our findings indicate that the markers cannot readily assist physicians in confirming or ruling out community-acquired pneumonia.

Community-acquired pneumonia: use of clinical characteristics of acutely admitted patients for the development of a diagnostic model - a cross-sectional multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the clinical characteristics of adults with suspected acute community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) on hospitalisation, evaluate their prediction performance for CAP and compare the performance of the model to the initial assessment of the physician. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, multicentre study. SETTING: The data originated from the INfectious DisEases in Emergency Departments study and were collected prospectively from patient interviews and medical records. The study included four Danish medical emergency departments (EDs) and was conducted between 1 March 2021 and 28 February 2022. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 954 patients admitted with suspected infection were included in the study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome was CAP diagnosis assessed by an expert panel. RESULTS: According to expert evaluation, CAP had a 28% prevalence. 13 diagnostic predictors were identified using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression to build the prediction model: dyspnoea, expectoration, cough, common cold, malaise, chest pain, respiratory rate (>20 breaths/min), oxygen saturation (<96%), abnormal chest auscultation, leucocytes (<3.5×109/L or >8.8×109/L) and neutrophils (>7.5×109/L). C reactive protein (<20 mg/L) and having no previous event of CAP contributed negatively to the final model. The predictors yielded good prediction performance for CAP with an area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.85 (CI 0.77 to 0.92). However, the initial diagnosis made by the ED physician performed better, with an AUC of 0.86 (CI 84% to 89%). CONCLUSION: Typical respiratory symptoms combined with abnormal vital signs and elevated infection biomarkers were predictors for CAP on admission to an ED. The clinical value of the prediction model is questionable in our setting as it does not outperform the clinician's assessment. Further studies that add novel diagnostic tools and use imaging or serological markers are needed to improve a model that would help diagnose CAP in an ED setting more accurately. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04681963.

Antibiotic Guideline Adherence at the Emergency Department: A Descriptive Study from a Country with a Restrictive Antibiotic Policy.

BACKGROUND: Denmark has a low level of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Patients hospitalized with suspected infection often present with unspecific symptoms. This challenges the physician between using narrow-spectrum antibiotics in accordance with guidelines or broad-spectrum antibiotics to compensate for diagnostic uncertainty. The aim of this study was to investigate adherence to a restrictive antibiotic guideline for the most common infection in emergency departments (EDs), namely community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHOD: This multicenter descriptive cross-sectional study included adults admitted to Danish EDs with a suspected infection. Data were collected prospectively from medical records. RESULTS: We included 954 patients in the analysis. The most prescribed antibiotics were penicillin with beta-lactamase inhibitor at 4 h (307 (32.2%)), 48 h (289 (30.3%)), and day 5 after admission (218 (22.9%)). The empirical antibiotic treatment guidelines for CAP were followed for 126 (31.3%) of the CAP patients. At 4 h, antibiotics were administered intravenously to 244 (60.7%) of the CAP patients. At day 5, 218 (54.4%) received oral antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Adherence to CAP guidelines was poor. In a country with a restrictive antibiotic policy, infections are commonly treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics against recommendations.

Gram Stain and Culture of Sputum Samples Detect Only Few Pathogens in Community-Acquired Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Identification of the bacterial etiology of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) is crucial to ensure a narrow-spectrum, targeted antibiotic treatment. However, Gram stain and culture results are often difficult to interpret as they depend strongly on sputum sample quality. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic yield of Gram stain and culture from respiratory samples collected by tracheal suction and expiratory technique from adults admitted with suspected community-acquired LRTI (CA-LRTI). In this secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, 177 (62%) samples were collected by tracheal suction, and 108 (38%) by expiratory technique. We detected few pathogenic microorganisms, and regardless of sputum quality, there were no significant differences between the sample types. Common pathogens of CA-LRTI were identified by culture in 19 (7%) samples, with a significant difference between patients with or without prior antibiotic treatment (p = 0.007). The clinical value of sputum Gram stain and culture in CA-LRTI is therefore questionable, especially in patients treated with antibiotics.

Expiratory Technique versus Tracheal Suction to Obtain Good-Quality Sputum from Patients with Suspected Lower Respiratory Tract Infection: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Microbiological diagnostics of good-quality sputum samples are fundamental for infection control and targeted treatment of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). This study aims to compare the expiratory technique and tracheal suction on the quality of sputa from adults acutely hospitalized with suspected LRTI. We performed an open-label, randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized to sputum sampling by tracheal suction (standard care) or the expiratory technique. The primary outcome was quality of sputum evaluated by microscopy and was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The secondary outcomes were adverse events and patients experience. In total, 280 patients were assigned to tracheal suction (n = 141, 50.4%) or the expiratory technique (n = 139, 49.6%). Sputum samples were collected from 122 (86.5%) patients with tracheal suction and 67 (48.2%) patients with expiratory technique. Good-quality sputa were obtained more often with tracheal suction than with expiratory technique (odds ratio 1.83 [95% CI 1.05 to 3.19]; p = 0.035). There was no statistical difference in adverse events (IRR 1.21 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.66]; p = 0.136), but patient experience was better in the expiratory technique group (p < 0.0001). In conclusion, tracheal suction should be considered a routine procedure in emergency departments for patients with suspected LRTI.