Healthcare-associated pneumonia: is there any reason to continue to utilize this label in 2019?


Journal

Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
ISSN: 1469-0691
Titre abrégé: Clin Microbiol Infect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9516420

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Historique:
received: 04 11 2018
revised: 14 02 2019
accepted: 18 02 2019
pubmed: 3 3 2019
medline: 9 1 2020
entrez: 3 3 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

There is an ongoing controversy on the role of the healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) label in the treatment of patients with pneumonia. To provide an update of the literature on patients meeting criteria for HCAP between 2014 and 2018. The review is based on a systematic literature search using PubMed-Central full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM). Studies compared clinical characteristics of patients with HCAP and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). HCAP patients were older and had a higher comorbidity. Mortality rates in HCAP varied from 5% to 33%, but seemed lower than those cited in the initial reports. Criteria behind the HCAP classification differed considerably within populations. Microbial patterns differed in that there was a higher incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and, to a lesser extent, enterobacteriaceae. Definitions and rates of multidrug-resistant (MDR) pneumonia also varied considerably. Broad-spectrum guideline-concordant treatment did not reduce mortality in four observational studies. The HCAP criteria performed poorly as a predictive tool to identify MDR pneumonia or pathogens not covered by treatment for CAP. A new score (Drug Resistance in Pneumonia, DRIP) outperformed HCAP in the prediction of MDR pathogens. Comorbidity and functional status, but not different microbial patterns, seem to account for increased mortality. HCAP should no longer be used to identify patients at risk of MDR pathogens. The use of validated predictive scores along with implementation of de-escalation strategies and careful individual assessment of comorbidity and functional status seem superior strategies for clinical management.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
There is an ongoing controversy on the role of the healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) label in the treatment of patients with pneumonia.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To provide an update of the literature on patients meeting criteria for HCAP between 2014 and 2018.
SOURCES METHODS
The review is based on a systematic literature search using PubMed-Central full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM).
CONTENT BACKGROUND
Studies compared clinical characteristics of patients with HCAP and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). HCAP patients were older and had a higher comorbidity. Mortality rates in HCAP varied from 5% to 33%, but seemed lower than those cited in the initial reports. Criteria behind the HCAP classification differed considerably within populations. Microbial patterns differed in that there was a higher incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and, to a lesser extent, enterobacteriaceae. Definitions and rates of multidrug-resistant (MDR) pneumonia also varied considerably. Broad-spectrum guideline-concordant treatment did not reduce mortality in four observational studies. The HCAP criteria performed poorly as a predictive tool to identify MDR pneumonia or pathogens not covered by treatment for CAP. A new score (Drug Resistance in Pneumonia, DRIP) outperformed HCAP in the prediction of MDR pathogens. Comorbidity and functional status, but not different microbial patterns, seem to account for increased mortality.
IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSIONS
HCAP should no longer be used to identify patients at risk of MDR pathogens. The use of validated predictive scores along with implementation of de-escalation strategies and careful individual assessment of comorbidity and functional status seem superior strategies for clinical management.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30825674
pii: S1198-743X(19)30090-4
doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.02.022
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1173-1179

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Auteurs

S Ewig (S)

Thoraxzentrum Ruhrgebiet, Kliniken für Pneumologie und Infektiologie, Herne und Bochum, Germany. Electronic address: ewig@augusta-bochum.de.

M Kolditz (M)

Division of Pulmonology, Medical Department I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany.

M W Pletz (MW)

Institute for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.

J Chalmers (J)

Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH