Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment of moderate-to-severe community-acquired pneumonia: a propensity score matched study.

Community-acquired Pneumonia (CAP) guidelines generally recommend to admit patients with moderate-to-severe CAP and start treatment with intravenous antibiotics. This study aims to explore the clinical outcomes of oral antibiotics in patients with moderate-to-severe CAP. We performed a nested cohort study of an observational study including all adult patients presenting to the emergency department of the Haga Teaching Hospital, the Netherlands, between April 2019 and May 2020, who had a blood culture drawn. We conducted propensity score matching with logistic and linear regression analysis to compare patients with moderate-to-severe CAP (Pneumonia Severity Index class III-V) treated with oral antibiotics to patients treated with intravenous antibiotics. Outcomes were 30-day mortality, intensive care unit admission, readmission, length of stay (LOS) and length of antibiotic treatment. Of the original 314 patients, 71 orally treated patients were matched with 102 intravenously treated patients. The mean age was 73 years and 58% were male. We found no significant differences in outcomes between the oral and intravenous group, except for an increased LOS of + 2.6 days (95% confidence interval 1.2-4.0, p value < 0.001) in those treated intravenously. We conclude that oral antibiotics might be a safe and effective treatment for moderate-to-severe CAP for selected patients based on the clinical judgement of the attending physician.

Outcomes of community-acquired pneumonia using the Pneumonia Severity Index versus the CURB-65 in routine practice of emergency departments.

Background: The Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) and the CURB-65 score assess disease severity in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We compared the clinical performance of both prognostic scores according to clinical outcomes and admission rates. Methods: A nationwide retrospective cohort study was conducted using claims data from adult CAP patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) in 2018 and 2019. Dutch hospitals were divided into three categories: "CURB-65 hospitals" (n=25), "PSI hospitals" (n=19) and hospitals using both ("no-consensus hospitals", n=15). Main outcomes were hospital admission rates, intensive care unit admissions, length of hospital stay, delayed admissions, readmissions and all-cause 30-day mortality. Multilevel logistic and Poisson regression analysis were used to adjust for potential confounders. Findings: Of 50 984 included CAP patients, 21 157 were treated in CURB-65 hospitals, 17 279 in PSI hospitals and 12 548 in no-consensus hospitals. The 30-day mortality was significantly lower in CURB-65 hospitals versus PSI hospitals (8.6% and 9.7%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83-0.96, p=0.003). Other clinical outcomes were similar between CURB-65 hospitals and PSI hospitals. No-consensus hospitals had higher admission rates compared to the CURB-65 and PSI hospitals combined (78.4% and 81.5%, aOR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.99). Interpretation: In this study, using the CURB-65 in CAP patients at the ED is associated with similar and possibly even better clinical outcomes compared to using the PSI. After confirmation in prospective studies, the CURB-65 may be recommended over the use of the PSI since it is associated with lower 30-day mortality and is more user-friendly.

Analysis of Variation Between Diagnosis at Admission vs Discharge and Clinical Outcomes Among Adults With Possible Bacteremia.

Importance: Misdiagnosis of infection is among the most commonly made diagnostic errors and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Little is known about how often misdiagnosed site of infection occurs and its association with clinical outcomes. Objectives: To evaluate the discrepancy between admission and discharge site of infection diagnoses among patients with suspected bacteremia, to explore factors associated with discrepant diagnoses, and to evaluate the association with clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used electronic records of 1477 adult patients who were admitted to the hospital for suspected bacteremia from April 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020, and who had blood cultures taken at the emergency department at Haga Teaching Hospital, The Hague, the Netherlands. Suspected infection sites were classified into 8 categories at admission and discharge. Misdiagnosed site was defined as a discrepancy between the suspected site of infection at admission and at discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical outcomes were 30-day mortality, intensive care unit admission, length of hospital stay, and antibiotic use, analyzed with logistic and linear regression. Risk factors for misdiagnosed site were determined using regression analysis. Results: A total of 1477 patients (820 [55.5%] male; median [IQR] age, 68 [56-78] years) were analyzed. The rate of misdiagnosed site of infection was 11.6% (171 of 1477); 3.1% of all patients (46 of 1477) ultimately had no infection. No association was found between misdiagnosis and 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-1.9; P = .60), intensive care unit admission (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.6-3.0; P = .54), and hospital length of stay (adjusted increase of stay, 15.5%; 95% CI, -3.1% to 37.7%; P = .11). Misdiagnosed site was associated with receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics (aOR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.8-8.8; P < .001). Older age, dementia, a positive urine sediment test result without urinary symptoms, and suspicion of an intravascular, central nervous system, or bone and joint infection were risk factors for misdiagnosed site of infection. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, misdiagnosed site of infection occurred in 1 of 9 patients and was not associated with worse short-term clinical outcomes. Clinicians should be aware of risk factors associated with misdiagnosed site of infection and potential inappropriate antibiotic use.

Diagnostic yield of bacteriological tests and predictors of severe outcome in adult patients with COVID-19 presenting to the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend maximal efforts to obtain blood and sputum cultures in patients with COVID-19, as bacterial coinfection is associated with worse outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of bacteriological tests, including blood and sputum cultures, and the association of multiple biomarkers and the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) with clinical and microbiological outcomes in patients with COVID-19 presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This is a substudy of a large observational cohort study (PredictED study). The PredictED included adult patients from whom a blood culture was drawn at the ED of Haga Teaching Hospital, The Netherlands. For this substudy, all patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR in March and April 2020 were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of bacterial coinfection. We used logistic regression analysis for associations of procalcitonin, C reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, lymphocyte count and PSI score with a severe disease course, defined as intensive care unit admission and/or 30-day mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) quantified the discriminatory performance. RESULTS: We included 142 SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. On presentation, the median duration of symptoms was 8 days. 41 (29%) patients had a severe disease course and 24 (17%) died within 30 days. The incidence of bacterial coinfection was 2/142 (1.4%). None of the blood cultures showed pathogen growth while 6.3% was contaminated. The AUCs for predicting severe disease were 0.76 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.84), 0.70 (0.61 to 0.79), 0.62 (0.51 to 0.74), 0.62 (0.51 to 0.72) and 0.72 (0.63 to 0.81) for procalcitonin, CRP, ferritin, lymphocyte count and PSI score, respectively. CONCLUSION: Blood cultures appear to have limited value while procalcitonin and the PSI appear to be promising tools in helping physicians identify patients at risk for severe disease course in COVID-19 at presentation to the ED.