Search

It is unclear whether in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) beta-lactam plus macrolide antibiotics lead to better survival than beta-lactam alone. We report a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trials and observational studies published in English were included, if they provided sufficient data on odds ratio for all-cause mortality for a beta-lactam plus macrolide regimen compared with beta-lactam alone. Two investigators independently searched for eligible articles. Of 514 articles screened, 14 were included: two open-label randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising 1975 patients, one non-RCT interventional study comprising 1011 patients and 11 observational studies comprising 33 332 patients. Random-model meta-analysis yielded an odds ratio for all-cause death for beta-lactam plus macrolide compared with beta-lactam alone of 0.80 (95% CI 0.69-0.92, P = 0.002) with substantial heterogeneity ( I2 = 59%, P for heterogeneity = 0.002). Severity-based subgroup analysis and meta-regression revealed that adding macrolide had a favourable effect on mortality only for severe CAP. Of the two RCTs, one suggested that macrolide plus beta-lactam lead to better outcome compared with beta-lactam alone, while the other did not. Subgrouping based on study design, that is, RCT versus non-RCT, which was almost identical to subgrouping based on severity, revealed substantial inter-subgroup heterogeneity. Compared with beta-lactam alone, beta-lactam plus macrolide may decrease all-cause death only for severe CAP. However, this conclusion is tentative because this was based mainly on observational studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Here we report six cases of daptomycin (DAP)-induced eosinophilic pneumonia (DIEP) encountered at two medical centers and present a review of 43 DIEP patients from 26 studies to compare the clinical characteristics and radiographic findings of acute and chronic eosinophilic pneumonia (AEP; CEP). Four of the six patients did not exhibit respiratory symptoms, and one patient with only fever was misdiagnosed with DAP-induced fever. According to our literature review and the present findings, male sex and old age were dominant risk factors for DIEP. Fever and fine crackles were the most common clinical manifestations. The DAP dose and duration of administration were not significant risk factors for DIEP, and we also could not find any association between allergic predisposition and DIEP. Among the reviewed patients, 51.8% did not show more than 25% eosinophils in bronchoalveolar lavage, which is a criterion for the diagnosis of drug-induced eosinophilic pneumonia. Chest images of all patients showed CEP patterns such as multiple reticulonodular infiltrates in the subpleural region and diffuse bilateral pulmonary infiltrates with ground-glass opacities. However, 66.7% of patients also exhibited pleural effusion, a feature specific to AEP. All patients showed prompt recovery after DAP withdrawal. Our results suggest that clinicians should consider DIEP as a differential diagnosis when patients receiving DAP therapy, particularly men and elderly patients, present with fever, even in the absence of respiratory symptoms. Furthermore, they should be aware that the occurrence of DIEP is independent of the DAP dose and administration duration, and allergic reaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neisseria meningitidis often causes meningitis and meningococcemia; however, meningococcal pneumonia is quite rare. Herein, we report a case of non-invasive meningococcal pneumonia initially misdiagnosed as pneumonia due to Moraxella catarrhalis on the basis of a Gram stain in a 43-year-old woman with asthma, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and schizophrenia. She visited our hospital following a 3-day history of fever, productive cough, and shortness of breath. Since her sputum smear revealed Gram-negative diplococcus and the chest radiograph showed infiltration in the lower right lung field, her initial diagnosis was pneumonia caused by M. catarrhalis . However, the next day, the sputum culture colonies were unlike those of M. catarrhalis , and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight mass spectrometry analysis revealed the pathogen to be N. meningitidis . As a result, we administered the appropriate treatment and ensured adequate infection prevention and control measures including, droplet precautions and prophylaxis provided to close contacts. Secondary infection did not occur. Although meningococcal pneumonia is not common, physicians should consider N. meningitidis when Gram-negative diplococci are observed in respiratory specimens, as N. meningitidis cannot be distinguished from M. catarrhalis with Gram staining alone. Moreover, it is also important to monitor the appearance of the pathogenic colonies and to closely coordinate with laboratory technicians to determine appropriate treatments. In this article, we review the previous case reports of meningococcal pneumonia reported in 1984–2015 in Japan, summarizing the clinical characteristics and comparing previous reviews of the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]