Search

BACKGROUND: Patients with asthma and/or chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) experience recurrent respiratory tract infections. Dupilumab targets type 2 inflammation, a common underlying pathophysiology of both conditions, with proven efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To examine investigator-reported respiratory infection adverse events and anti-infective medication use with dupilumab versus placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma or severe CRSwNP. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the pivotal phase 3 trials LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST (NCT02414854) and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52 (NCT02898454) in moderate-to-severe asthma and severe CRSwNP, respectively. RESULTS: Investigator-reported respiratory infection events occurred at a significantly lower incidence in patients treated with dupilumab versus placebo, in both asthma (22% lower; P < .0001; 95% CI 0.71-0.85) and CRSwNP (38% lower; P

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) continue to be major concerns for morbidity and mortality, especially in patients treated in the intensive care unit. With the rise in multidrug-resistant organisms, HAP and VAP treatment is challenged by the need for early appropriate treatment, with broad-spectrum agents, while still being aware of the principles of antibiotic stewardship. The two major society guidelines proposed a series of risk factors in their most recent guidelines to help identify patients who can most benefit from narrow- or broad-spectrum initial empiric antibiotic therapy. The guidelines reveal differences in the proposed risk factors and treatment approaches, as well as major similarities.

Pneumonia causes a significant burden of disease worldwide. Although all populations are at risk of pneumonia, those at extremes of age and those with immunosuppressive disorders, underlying respiratory disease, and critical illness are particularly vulnerable. Although clinical practice guidelines addressing the management and treatment of pneumonia exist, few of the supporting studies focus on the crucial contributions of the host in pneumonia pathogenesis and recovery. Such essential considerations include the host risk factors that lead to susceptibility to lung infections; biomarkers reflecting the host response and the means to pursue host-directed pneumonia therapy; systemic effects of pneumonia on the host; and long-term health outcomes after pneumonia. To address these gaps, the Pneumonia Working Group of the Assembly on Pulmonary Infection and Tuberculosis led a workshop held at the American Thoracic Society meeting in May 2018 with overarching objectives to foster attention, stimulate research, and promote funding for short-term and long-term investigations into the host contributions to pneumonia. The workshop involved participants from various disciplines with expertise in lung infection, pneumonia, sepsis, immunocompromised patients, translational biology, data science, genomics, systems biology, and clinical trials. This workshop report summarizes the presentations and discussions and important recommendations for future clinical pneumonia studies. These recommendations include establishing consensus disease and outcome definitions, improved phenotyping, development of clinical study networks, standardized data and biospecimen collection and protocols, and development of innovative trial designs.

Rationale: In 2017, the International European Respiratory Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases/Latin American Thora...

Introduction: Immunogenicity studies evaluating sequential administration of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) followed by 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) or revaccination with PPSV23 have raised concerns that PPSV23 may not elicit higher antibody levels than those measured following PCV or first PPSV23 dose. Areas covered: Recent literature was evaluated for evidence of blunted immune response (hyporesponsiveness), focusing on studies using adequate intervals between doses in accordance with vaccination recommendations. In eight of nine studies that evaluated revaccination with PPSV23 at an interval of ≥5 years after the previous dose, immunoglobulin G geometric mean concentrations and/or opsonophagocytic assay geometric mean titers for most serotypes increased from pre- to post-repeat vaccination and were comparable between repeat and primary vaccination groups post-vaccination. In seven studies in which PPSV23 was administered after PCVs (8 weeks to 1 year apart), responses to PPSV23 were comparable to those seen after initial PCV dose for shared vaccine serotypes. Studies in which PCVs were administered after PPSV23 were not evaluated. Expert opinion: Published data suggest immune responses following repeat vaccination with PPSV23, or sequential PCV/PPSV23 vaccination, are robust, without evidence of hyporesponsiveness. PPSV23 vaccination of at-risk adults is essential to ensure broad protection against all 23 vaccine serotypes.

The growing population of older people worldwide represents a great challenge for health systems. The elderly are at increased risk of infectious diseases such as pneumonia, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality related mainly to age-related physiological changes in the immune system (immunosenescence), the presence of multiple chronic comorbidities, and frailty. In pneumonia, microaspiration is recognized as the main pathogenic mechanism; while macroaspiration which refers to the aspiration of a large amount of oropharyngeal or upper gastrointestinal content passing through the vocal cords and trachea into the lungs is identified as “aspiration pneumonia”. Although there are strategies for the prevention and management of patients with pneumonia that have been shown to be effective in older people with pneumonia, more research is needed on aspiration pneumonia, its risk factors and outcomes, especially since there are no specific criteria for its diagnosis and consequently, the studies on aspiration pneumonia include heterogeneous populations.

Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines have improved the treatment and outcomes of patients with CAP, primarily by standardization of initial empirical therapy. But current society-published guidelines exclude immunocompromised patients. Research Question There is no consensus regarding the initial treatment of immunocompromised patients with suspected CAP. Study Design and Methods This consensus document was created by a multidisciplinary panel of 45 physicians with experience in the treatment of CAP in immunocompromised patients. The Delphi survey methodology was used to reach consensus. Results The panel focused on 21 questions addressing initial management strategies. The panel achieved consensus in defining the population, site of care, likely pathogens, microbiologic workup, general principles of empirical therapy, and empirical therapy for specific pathogens. Interpretation This document offers general suggestions for the initial treatment of the immunocompromised patient who arrives at the hospital with pneumonia.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2. Consensus suggestions can standardise care, thereby improving outcomes and facilitating future research. Methods An International Task Force was composed and agreement regarding courses of action was measured using the Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence (CORE) process. 70% agreement was necessary to make a consensus suggestion. Results The Task Force made consensus suggestions to treat patients with acute COVID-19 pneumonia with remdesivir and dexamethasone but suggested against hydroxychloroquine except in the context of a clinical trial; these are revisions of prior suggestions resulting from the interim publication of several randomised trials. It also suggested that COVID-19 patients with a venous thromboembolic event be treated with therapeutic anticoagulant therapy for 3 months. The Task Force was unable to reach sufficient agreement to yield consensus suggestions for the post-hospital care of COVID-19 survivors. The Task Force fell one vote shy of suggesting routine screening for depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Conclusions The Task Force addressed questions related to pharmacotherapy in patients with COVID-19 and the post-hospital care of survivors, yielding several consensus suggestions. Management options for which there is insufficient agreement to formulate a suggestion represent research priorities., For patients with acute COVID-19 pneumonia who require oxygen support, the International Task Force made suggestions for remdesivir and dexamethasone, but against hydroxychloroquine. Post-discharge management of COVID-19 survivors is a research priority. https://bit.ly/32B96uI

Summary Background Treatment of ventilated pneumonia is often unsuccessful, even when patients are treated according to established guidelines. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of the combination drug device Amikacin Inhale as an adjunctive therapy to intravenous standard-of-care antibiotics for pneumonia caused by Gram-negative pathogens in intubated and mechanically ventilated patients. Methods INHALE was a prospective, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study comprising two trials (INHALE 1 and INHALE 2) done in 153 hospital intensive-care units in 25 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older; had pneumonia that had been diagnosed by chest radiography and that was documented as being caused by or showing two risk factors for a Gram-negative, multidrug-resistant pathogen; were intubated and mechanically ventilated; had impaired oxygenation within 48 h before screening; and had a modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score of at least 6. Patients were stratified by region and disease severity (according to their Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score) and randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-recognition system to receive 400 mg amikacin (Amikacin Inhale) or saline placebo, both of which were aerosolised, administered every 12 h for 10 days via the same synchronised inhalation system, and given alongside standard-of-care intravenous antibiotics. All patients and all staff involved in administering devices and monitoring outcomes were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint, survival at days 28–32, was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug, were infected with a Gram-negative pathogen, and had an APACHE II score of at least 10 at diagnosis. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , numbers NCT01799993 and NCT00805168 . Findings Between April 13, 2013, and April 7, 2017, 807 patients were assessed for eligibility and 725 were randomly assigned to Amikacin Inhale (362 patients) or aerosolised placebo (363 patients). 712 patients received at least one dose of study drug (354 in the Amikacin Inhale group and 358 in the placebo group), although one patient assigned to Amikacin Inhale received placebo in error and was included in the placebo group for safety analyses. 508 patients (255 in the Amikacin Inhale group and 253 in the placebo group) were assessed for the primary endpoint. We found no between-group difference in survival: 191 (75%) patients in the Amikacin Inhale group versus 196 (77%) patients in the placebo group survived until days 28–32 (odds ratio 0·841, 95% CI 0·554–1·277; p=0·43). Similar proportions of patients in the two treatment groups had a treatment-emergent adverse event (295 [84%] of 353 patients in the Amikacin Inhale group vs 303 [84%] of 359 patients in the placebo group) or a serious treatment-emergent adverse event (101 [29%] patients vs 97 [27%] patients). Interpretation Our findings do not support use of inhaled amikacin adjunctive to standard-of-care intravenous therapy in mechanically ventilated patients with Gram-negative pneumonia. Funding Bayer AG.

Objectives Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is an important complication in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to define incidence, and outcomes of COPD patients hospitalized with pneumonia in the city of Louisville, and to estimate the burden of disease in the US population. Methods This was a secondary analysis of a prospective population-based cohort study of residents in Louisville, Kentucky, 40 years old and older, from 1 June 2014 to 31 May 2016. All adults hospitalized with CAP were enrolled. The annual incidence of pneumonia in COPD patients in Louisville was calculated and the total number of adults with COPD hospitalized in the United States was estimated. Clinical outcomes included time to clinical stability (TCS), length of hospital stay (LOS) and mortality. Results From a Louisville population of 18 246 patients with COPD, 3419 pneumonia hospitalizations were documented during the 2-year study. The annual incidence was 9369 patients with pneumonia per 100 000 COPD population, corresponding to an estimated 506 953 adults with COPD hospitalized due to pneumonia in the United States. The incidence of CAP in patients without COPD was 509 (95% CI 485–533) per 100 000. COPD patients had a median (interquartile range) TCS and LOS of 2 (1–4) and 5 (3–9) days respectively. The mortality of COPD patients during hospitalization, at 30 days, 6 months and 1 year was 193 of 3419 (5.6%), 400 of 3374 (11.9%), 816 of 3363 (24.3%) and 1104 of 3349 (33.0%), respectively. Conclusions There was an annual incidence of 9369 cases of hospitalized CAP per 100 000 COPD patients in the city of Louisville. This was an approximately 18-fold greater incidence of CAP in COPD patients than in those without COPD.

Severe pneumonia is associated with high mortality (short and long term), as well as pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications. Appropriate diagnosis and early initiation of adequate antimicrobial treatment for severe pneumonia are crucial in improving survival among critically ill patients. Identifying the underlying causative pathogen is also critical for antimicrobial stewardship. However, establishing an etiological diagnosis is challenging in most patients, especially in those with chronic underlying disease; those who received previous antibiotic treatment; and those treated with mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, as antimicrobial therapy must be empiric, national and international guidelines recommend initial antimicrobial treatment according to the location’s epidemiology; for patients admitted to the intensive care unit, specific recommendations on disease management are available. Adherence to pneumonia guidelines is associated with better outcomes in severe pneumonia. Yet, the continuing and necessary research on severe pneumonia is expansive, inviting different perspectives on host immunological responses, assessment of illness severity, microbial causes, risk factors for multidrug resistant pathogens, diagnostic tests, and therapeutic options.

Pneumonia is a common acute respiratory infection that affects the alveoli and distal airways; it is a major health problem and associated with high morbidity and short-term and long-term mortality in all age groups worldwide. Pneumonia is broadly divided into community-acquired pneumonia or hospital-acquired pneumonia. A large variety of microorganisms can cause pneumonia, including bacteria, respiratory viruses and fungi, and there are great geographical variations in their prevalence. Pneumonia occurs more commonly in susceptible individuals, including children of

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.

Sepsis is a common consequence of infection, associated with a mortality rate > 25%. Although community-acquired sepsis is more common, hospital-acquired infection is more lethal. The most common site of infection is the lung, followed by abdominal infection, catheter-associated blood steam infection and urinary tract infection. Gram-negative sepsis is more common than gram-positive infection, but sepsis can also be due to fungal and viral pathogens. To reduce mortality, it is necessary to give immediate, empiric, broad-spectrum therapy to those with severe sepsis and/or shock, but this approach can drive antimicrobial overuse and resistance and should be accompanied by a commitment to de-escalation and antimicrobial stewardship. Biomarkers such a procalcitonin can provide decision support for antibiotic use, and may identify patients with a low likelihood of infection, and in some settings, can guide duration of antibiotic therapy. Sepsis can involve drug-resistant pathogens, and this often necessitates consideration of newer antimicrobial agents.

Introduction The efficacy and safety of telavancin versus vancomycin in microbiologically evaluable patients with hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP) caused by Staphylococcus aureus with vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ≥ 1.0 µg/mL was analyzed using data derived from previously reported Assessment of Telavancin for Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia (ATTAIN) trials. Methods This post hoc subgroup analysis of two randomized, double-blind, comparator-controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trials conducted at 274 sites in 38 countries included 194 microbiologically evaluable patients with HAP/VAP caused by monomicrobial S. aureus with vancomycin MIC ≥ 1.0 µg/mL. Patients received intravenous telavancin (10 mg/kg every 24 h) or intravenous vancomycin (1 g every 12 h with site-specific modifications) for 7–21 days. Efficacy was assessed by clinical cure, defined as improvement or non-progression of radiographic findings at end of treatment and resolution of pneumonia signs and symptoms at follow-up/test-of-cure visits, and survival 28 days post-randomization. Safety was assessed from categorical shifts in creatinine clearance during therapy and adverse events (AEs). Results Clinical cure rates were numerically greater following telavancin versus vancomycin treatment overall (85.4% vs. 74.3%; treatment difference [95% confidence interval (CI)], 11.1% [− 0.002%, 22.2%]) and in patients aged ≥ 65 years (81.6% vs. 66.2%; treatment difference [95% CI], 15.5% [− 0.9%, 30.2%]) patients with VAP (92.3% vs. 47.6%; treatment difference [95% CI], 44.7% [18.1%, 64.9%]), and patients with baseline Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥ 20 (71.4% vs. 55.6%; treatment difference [95% CI], 15.9% [− 11.7%, 40.5%]). Renal function declined in 7 (7.9%) patients receiving telavancin and 6 (5.7%) patients receiving vancomycin. Survival proportion was numerically higher (85.2% vs. 80.2%; treatment difference [95% CI], 5.0% [− 5.8%, 15.8%]) and AEs were comparable in patients treated with telavancin versus vancomycin. Conclusion Telavancin is an alternative to vancomycin for HAP/VAP caused by S. aureus with vancomycin MIC ≥ 1 µg/mL. Funding Theravance Biopharma R&D, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.

Introduction: Routine pneumococcal vaccination for adults aged ≥60 or ≥65 years and those with underlying at-risk and high-risk conditions is recommended in many countries. However, studies estimating the effectiveness of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) have revealed mixed results, explained, in part, by variability in study design and endpoints used to assess outcomes.Areas covered: The authors conducted a literature review of independently randomized trials and real-world studies published from 2010-2020 that assessed the effectiveness and efficacy of PPSV23 against vaccine-type or any-serotype invasive and non-invasive pneumococcal disease in adults aged ≥60 years. The authors also evaluated differences in study design that may contribute to the heterogeneity of available evidence.Expert opinion: Policy decisions regarding the inclusion of vaccines into national immunization plans should be made taking the quality and limitations of studies into account. This review shows that PPSV23 is effective against vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease and vaccine-type pneumococcal pneumonia. It can also lower the burden of vaccine-type pneumococcal pneumonia. PPSV23-conferred protection may be lower in adults aged ≥75 years, those with certain underlying conditions, and individuals who were vaccinated >5 years before disease onset. This is an important finding that supports the benefit of PPSV23 vaccination for older adults.

While the world is grappling with the consequences of a global pandemic related to SARS-CoV-2 causing severe pneumonia, available evidence points to bacterial infection with Streptococcus pneumoniae as the most common cause of severe community acquired pneumonia (SCAP). Rapid diagnostics and molecular testing have improved the identification of co-existent pathogens. However, mortality in patients admitted to ICU remains staggeringly high. The American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America have updated CAP guidelines to help streamline disease management. The common theme is use of timely, appropriate and adequate antibiotic coverage to decrease mortality and avoid drug resistance. Novel antibiotics have been studied for CAP and extend the choice of therapy, particularly for those who are intolerant of, or not responding to standard treatment, including those who harbor drug resistant pathogens. In this review, we focus on the risk factors, microbiology, site of care decisions and treatment of patients with SCAP.

Intensive care units (ICUs) are an appropriate focus of antibiotic stewardship program efforts because a large proportion of any hospital's use of parenteral antibiotics, especially broad-spectrum, occurs in the ICU. Given the importance of antibiotic stewardship for critically ill patients and the importance of critical care practitioners as the front line for antibiotic stewardship, a workshop was convened to specifically address barriers to antibiotic stewardship in the ICU and discuss tactics to overcome these. The working definition of antibiotic stewardship is "the right drug at the right time and the right dose for the right bug for the right duration." A major emphasis was that antibiotic stewardship should be a core competency of critical care clinicians. Fear of pathogens that are not covered by empirical antibiotics is a major driver of excessively broad-spectrum therapy in critically ill patients. Better diagnostics and outcome data can address this fear and expand efforts to narrow or shorten therapy. Greater awareness of the substantial adverse effects of antibiotics should be emphasized and is an important counterargument to broad-spectrum therapy in individual low-risk patients. Optimal antibiotic stewardship should not focus solely on reducing antibiotic use or ensuring compliance with guidelines. Instead, it should enhance care both for individual patients (by improving and individualizing their choice of antibiotic) and for the ICU population as a whole. Opportunities for antibiotic stewardship in common ICU infections, including community- and hospital-acquired pneumonia and sepsis, are discussed. Intensivists can partner with antibiotic stewardship programs to address barriers and improve patient care.

Background A paucity of studies have assessed the epidemiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) that require ICU admission. We conducted a study on this group of patients with the primary objective of defining the incidence, epidemiology, and mortality rate of CAP in the ICUs in Louisville, Kentucky. The secondary objective was to estimate the number of patients who were hospitalized and the number of deaths that were associated with CAP in ICU in the United States. Research Questions What is epidemiology of CAP in the ICU in Louisville, Kentucky, and the projected incidence in the United States? Study Design and Methods This was a secondary analysis of a prospective population-based cohort study. The setting was all nine adult hospitals in Louisville, Kentucky. The annual incidence of CAP in the ICU per 100,000 adults was calculated for the whole adult population of Louisville. The number of patients who were hospitalized because of CAP in ICU in the United States was estimated by multiplying the Louisville incidence rate of CAP in ICU by the 2014 US adult population. Results From a total of 7,449 unique patients who were hospitalized with CAP, 1,707 patients (23%) were admitted to the ICU. The incidence of CAP in the ICU was 145 cases per 100,000 population of adults. Cases of CAP in the ICU were clustered in patients from areas of the city with high poverty. The mortality rate of patients with CAP in ICU was 27% at 30 days and 47% at one year. In the United States, the estimated number of patients who were hospitalized with CAP requiring the ICU was 356,326 per year, and the estimated number of deaths at 30 days and one year were 96,206 and 167,474, respectively. Interpretation Almost one in five patients who are hospitalized with CAP requires intensive care. Poverty is associated with CAP in the ICU. Nearly one-half of patients with CAP in the ICU will die within one year. Because of its significant burden, CAP in the ICU should be a high priority in research agenda and health policy.

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is a form of nosocomial pneumonia, distinct from ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). This review compares HAP and VAP, highlighting differences in natural history, risk factors, and bacteriology that necessitate a different approach to the therapy of HAP, compared with VAP.HAP can arise out of the ICU, or in the ICU, and can lead to severe illness, including the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation. New American and European nosocomial pneumonia guidelines make therapy recommendations for HAP. The American guidelines recommend broader spectrum therapy than the European guidelines, but recent studies support the idea that not all HAP patients need antipseudomonal therapy. When the American guideline approach to HAP has been studied, it led to both overtreatment and inappropriate therapy for the identified pathogens. An algorithm, modified from the European guideline, proposes an approach to therapy that necessitates dual antipseudomonal therapy in less than 25% of all HAP patients.Although more prospective therapy trials of HAP are needed, based on currently available data, it is possible to use an approach that provides appropriate therapy without the overuse of broad-spectrum therapy.

Pneumonia is a leading cause of hospital-acquired infections, although reported rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) have been declining in recent years. A multifaceted infection prevention approach, using a “ventilator bundle,” has been shown to reduce the frequency of VAP, while improving other patient outcomes. Because of difficulties in defining VAP, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service introduced a new streamlined ventilator-associated event (VAE) definition in 2013 for the surveillance of complications in mechanically ventilated patients. VAE measures are increasingly being measured by institutions in the United States in place of VAP rates and as a potential measure of the quality of intensive care unit (ICU) care. However, there is increased recognition that the streamlined definitions identify a different subset of patients than those identified by traditional VAP surveillance and that VAP prevention strategies may not impact all the causes of VAE. Also, VAP and VAE rates may not always reflect the quality of care in a given ICU, especially since patient factors, beyond the control of the hospital, may impact the rates of VAP and VAE. In this review, we discuss the issues related to VAP as a quality measure and the areas of uncertainty related to the new VAE definitions.

Summary A subgroup of patients admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) have received antibiotic therapy prior to admission for the current episode of pneumonia. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical course of patients receiving antibiotics prior to admission, compared to patients not previously treated. An observational cohort of 3364 CAP patients consecutively admitted to our hospital, and prospectively included, were studied. We collected clinical, microbiological and biochemical parameters, focusing on recent antibiotics received prior to admission. 610 (18%) patients received antibiotics prior to hospital admission for the current CAP episode. Patients with previous antibiotic use developed septic shock less frequently (4% vs. 7%, p = 0.007) and required invasive ventilation less often (3% vs. 6%, p = 0.002). After adjustment by different covariate factors and propensity score, antibiotic therapy was still independently associated with a lower incidence of septic shock at admission (OR 0.54 [95% CI 0.31–0.95], p = 0.03) and less need for invasive ventilation (OR 0.38 [95% CI 0.16–0.91], p = 0.03). In this cohort, recent use of antibiotics before hospital admission in CAP seems to be associated with a lower incidence of septic shock on admission and a lower need for invasive ventilation.

BACKGROUND: The American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Community-acquired Pneumonia (CAP) guidelines were developed using systematic reviews to inform every recommendation, as suggested by the Institute of Medicine Standards for Trustworthy Guidelines. Recent studies suggest that an expert consensus-based approach, called the Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence (CORE) process, can produce recommendations that are concordant with recommendations informed by systematic reviews. PURPOSE: The goal of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of the CORE process had it been used to develop the ATS/IDSA CAP guidelines. METHODS: Experts in CAP who were not on the guideline panel and had no knowledge of the guideline’s systematic reviews or recommendations were recruited to participate in the CORE process, addressing the same questions asked by the guideline panel. Recommendations derived from the CORE process were compared to the guideline recommendations. Concordance of the course of action, strength of recommendation, and quality of evidence were determined. RESULTS: Using a threshold of 70% of experts selecting the same course of action to make a recommendation, the CORE process yielded a recommendation for 20 of 31 (65%) questions. Among the 20 CORE-derived recommendations, 19 (95%) were concordant with the guideline recommendations (kappa agreement 0.88, 95% CI .64–1.00). There was less agreement among the strength of recommendations (58%) and quality of evidence (42%). CONCLUSIONS: If the CORE process had been used, 11 systematic reviews would have been necessary rather than 31, with minimal impact on the recommended courses of action.