Abstract

BackgroundEmpirical antibiotic coverage for atypical pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has long been debated, mainly because of a lack of epidemiological data. We aimed to assess both testing for atypical pathogens and their prevalence in hospitalized patients with CAP worldwide, especially in relation with disease severity.MethodsA secondary analysis of the GLIMP database, an international, multicentre, point-prevalence study of adult patients admitted for CAP in 222 hospitals across 6 continents in 2015, was performed. The study evaluated frequency of testing for atypical pathogens, including L. pneumophila, M. pneumoniae, C. pneumoniae, and their prevalence. Risk factors for testing and prevalence for atypical pathogens were assessed through univariate analysis.ResultsAmong 3702 CAP patients 1250 (33.8%) underwent at least one test for atypical pathogens. Testing varies greatly among countries and its frequency was higher in Europe than elsewhere (46.0% vs. 12.7%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Detection of L. pneumophila urinary antigen was the most common test performed worldwide (32.0%). Patients with severe CAP were less likely to be tested for both atypical pathogens considered together (30.5% vs. 35.0%, p = 0.009) and specifically for legionellosis (28.3% vs. 33.5%, p = 0.003) than the rest of the population. Similarly, L. pneumophila testing was lower in ICU patients. At least one atypical pathogen was isolated in 62 patients (4.7%), including M. pneumoniae (26/251 patients, 10.3%), L. pneumophila (30/1186 patients, 2.5%), and C. pneumoniae (8/228 patients, 3.5%). Patients with CAP due to atypical pathogens were significantly younger, showed less cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic comorbidities in comparison to adult patients hospitalized due to non-atypical pathogen CAP.ConclusionsTesting for atypical pathogens in patients admitted for CAP in poorly standardized in real life and does not mirror atypical prevalence in different settings. Further evidence on the impact of atypical pathogens, expecially in the low-income countries, is needed to guidelines implementation.

Highlights

  • Empirical antibiotic coverage for atypical pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has long been debated, mainly because of a lack of epidemiological data

  • Testing for atypical pathogens in patients admitted for CAP in poorly standardized in real life and does not mirror atypical prevalence in different settings

  • 1250 (33.8%) patients were tested for atypical pathogens: 1186 (32.0%) for L. pneumophila, 251 (6.8%) for M. pneumoniae, and 228 (6.1%) for C. pneumoniae

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Empirical antibiotic coverage for atypical pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has long been debated, mainly because of a lack of epidemiological data. We aimed to assess both testing for atypical pathogens and their prevalence in hospitalized patients with CAP worldwide, especially in relation with disease severity. Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of hospitalization and death worldwide [1]. The assessment of the epidemiology of CAP-related pathogens is crucial to target appropriate empiric therapy in order to improve patients’ outcomes. Several Authors reported on an increased trend of atypical pathogens over the last 15 years, with prevalences ranging from 6 to 40% in both Europe and USA [4]. One study performed in China showed atypical pathogens as the most frequent cause of CAP with incidence rates far exceeding Streptococcus pneumoniae [5]. Other studies described similar prevalences of atypical pathogens [6]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.