-
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aug 2023International guidelines provide heterogenous guidance on use of corticosteroids for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
International guidelines provide heterogenous guidance on use of corticosteroids for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials examining corticosteroids in hospitalized adult patients with suspected or probable CAP. We performed a pairwise and dose-response meta-analysis using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) heterogeneity estimator. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology and the credibility of subgroups using the ICEMAN tool.
RESULTS
We identified 18 eligible studies that included 4661 patients. Corticosteroids probably reduce mortality in more severe CAP (RR 0.62 [95% CI 0.45 to 0.85]; moderate certainty) with possibly no effect in less severe CAP (RR 1.08 [95% CI 0.83 to 1.42]; low certainty). We found a non-linear dose-response relationship between corticosteroids and mortality, suggesting an optimal dose of approximately 6 mg of dexamethasone (or equivalent) for a duration of therapy of 7 days (RR 0.44 [95% 0.30 to 0.66]). Corticosteroids probably reduce the risk of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.56 [95% CI 0.42 to 74] and probably reduce intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.43 to 0.97]) (both moderate certainty). Corticosteroids may reduce the duration of hospitalization and ICU stay (both low certainty). Corticosteroids may increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR 1.76 [95% CI 1.46 to 2.14]) (low certainty).
CONCLUSION
Moderate certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids reduce mortality in patients with more severe CAP, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and ICU admission.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Hospitalization; Respiration, Artificial; Intensive Care Units; Pneumonia, Bacterial
PubMed: 37076606
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-023-08203-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Pneumonia is a common and potentially serious illness. Corticosteroids have been suggested for the treatment of different types of infection, however their role in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pneumonia is a common and potentially serious illness. Corticosteroids have been suggested for the treatment of different types of infection, however their role in the treatment of pneumonia remains unclear. This is an update of a review published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in the treatment of pneumonia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS on 3 March 2017, together with relevant conference proceedings and references of identified trials. We also searched three trials registers for ongoing and unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed systemic corticosteroid therapy, given as adjunct to antibiotic treatment, versus placebo or no corticosteroids for adults and children with pneumonia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We estimated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled data using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model when possible.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 RCTs comprising a total of 2264 participants; 13 RCTs included 1954 adult participants, and four RCTs included 310 children. This update included 12 new studies, excluded one previously included study, and excluded five new trials. One trial awaits classification.All trials limited inclusion to inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), with or without healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP). We assessed the risk of selection bias and attrition bias as low or unclear overall. We assessed performance bias risk as low for nine trials, unclear for one trial, and high for seven trials. We assessed reporting bias risk as low for three trials and high for the remaining 14 trials.Corticosteroids significantly reduced mortality in adults with severe pneumonia (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.84; moderate-quality evidence), but not in adults with non-severe pneumonia (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.00). Early clinical failure rates (defined as death from any cause, radiographic progression, or clinical instability at day 5 to 8) were significantly reduced with corticosteroids in people with severe and non-severe pneumonia (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.7; and RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83, respectively; high-quality evidence). Corstocosteroids reduced time to clinical cure, length of hospital and intensive care unit stays, development of respiratory failure or shock not present at pneumonia onset, and rates of pneumonia complications.Among children with bacterial pneumonia, corticosteroids reduced early clinical failure rates (defined as for adults, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.70; high-quality evidence) based on two small, clinically heterogeneous trials, and reduced time to clinical cure.Hyperglycaemia was significantly more common in adults treated with corticosteroids (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.14). There were no significant differences between corticosteroid-treated people and controls for other adverse events or secondary infections (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.93).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroid therapy reduced mortality and morbidity in adults with severe CAP; the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was 18 patients (95% CI 12 to 49) to prevent one death. Corticosteroid therapy reduced morbidity, but not mortality, for adults and children with non-severe CAP. Corticosteroid therapy was associated with more adverse events, especially hyperglycaemia, but the harms did not seem to outweigh the benefits.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Budesonide; Dexamethasone; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Pneumonia; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29236286
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007720.pub3 -
International Journal of Environmental... Sep 2022One of the public health issues faced worldwide is antibiotic resistance (AR). During the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, AR has increased. Since some studies... (Review)
Review
One of the public health issues faced worldwide is antibiotic resistance (AR). During the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, AR has increased. Since some studies have stated AR has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and others have stated otherwise, this study aimed to explore this impact. Seven databases-PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL-were searched using related keywords to identify studies relevant to AR during COVID-19 published from December 2019 to May 2022, according to PRISMA guidelines. Twenty-three studies were included in this review, and the evidence showed that AR has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The most commonly reported resistant Gram-negative bacteria was , followed by , , and . and were highly resistant to tested antibiotics compared with and . Moreover, showed high resistance to colistin. Commonly reported Gram-positive bacteria were and . The resistance of to ampicillin, erythromycin, and Ciprofloxacin was high. Self-antibiotic medication, empirical antibiotic administration, and antibiotics prescribed by general practitioners were the risk factors of high levels of AR during COVID-19. Antibiotics' prescription should be strictly implemented, relying on the Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) and guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) or Ministry of Health (MOH).
Topics: Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ciprofloxacin; Colistin; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Erythromycin; Escherichia coli; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Pandemics; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36231256
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191911931 -
Chest Mar 2023Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Corticosteroids may be a beneficial adjunct in the treatment of bacterial pneumonia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effect of Corticosteroids on Mortality and Clinical Cure in Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression of Randomized Control Trials.
BACKGROUND
Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Corticosteroids may be a beneficial adjunct in the treatment of bacterial pneumonia.
RESEARCH QUESTION
Is there any benefit of corticosteroid therapy in the management of bacterial CAP among patients requiring hospitalization?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched to identify randomized controlled trials assessing the use of systemic corticosteroids compared with standard care in the management of CAP. A systematic review, meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) were performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, treatment failure, readmission, and adverse events. Data are presented as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI, P value, heterogeneity (I), and TSA-adjusted CIs.
RESULTS
Sixteen trials met the eligibility criteria. All-cause mortality (16 studies [3,842 patients]; RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.67-1.07]; P = .17; I = 14%; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.61-1.09), ICU admission (six studies [2,619 patients]; RR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.45-0.97]; P = .04; I = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.37-1.12), treatment failure (six studies [2,093 patients]; RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.37-1.67]; P = .52; I = 68%; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.02-25.5), and the incidence of adverse events (six studies [2,487 patients]; RR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.97-1.25]; P = .14; I = 53%; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.82-2.41) were similar between patients receiving corticosteroids and patients assigned to the control group. The need for mechanical ventilation (eight studies [1,457 patients]; RR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.33-0.77]; P = .001; I = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.20-0.85) was lower among patients receiving corticosteroids compared with those receiving standard care. However, corticosteroid use may be associated with higher rates of hospital readmission (five studies [2,853 patients]; RR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.05-1.38]; P = .008; I = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.89-1.98).
INTERPRETATION
Corticosteroid therapy is associated with a lower incidence of progression to requiring mechanical ventilation among patients hospitalized with CAP. No association was found between corticosteroid therapy and mortality, treatment failure, or adverse events.
TRIAL REGISTRY
PROSPERO; No.: CRD42021279359; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.
Topics: Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Pneumonia; Hospitalization
PubMed: 36087797
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.08.2229 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Despite conflicting evidence, chest physiotherapy has been widely used as an adjunctive treatment for adults with pneumonia. This is an update of a review first... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite conflicting evidence, chest physiotherapy has been widely used as an adjunctive treatment for adults with pneumonia. This is an update of a review first published in 2010 and updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches in the following databases to May 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via OvidSP, MEDLINE via OvidSP (from 1966), Embase via embase.com (from 1974), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (from 1929), CINAHL via EBSCO (from 2009), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (from 1978).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the efficacy of chest physiotherapy for treating pneumonia in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two new trials in this update (540 participants), for a total of eight RCTs (974 participants). Four RCTs were conducted in the United States, two in Sweden, one in China, and one in the United Kingdom. The studies looked at five types of chest physiotherapy: conventional chest physiotherapy; osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT, which includes paraspinal inhibition, rib raising, and myofascial release); active cycle of breathing techniques (which includes active breathing control, thoracic expansion exercises, and forced expiration techniques); positive expiratory pressure; and high-frequency chest wall oscillation. We assessed four trials as at unclear risk of bias and four trials as at high risk of bias. Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy) may have little to no effect on improving mortality, but the certainty of evidence is very low (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 7.13; 2 trials, 225 participants; I² = 0%). OMT (versus placebo) may have little to no effect on improving mortality, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.50; 3 trials, 327 participants; I² = 0%). Similarly, high-frequency chest wall oscillation (versus no physiotherapy) may also have little to no effect on improving mortality, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.29; 1 trial, 286 participants). Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy) may have little to no effect on improving cure rate, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.55; 2 trials, 225 participants; I² = 85%). Active cycle of breathing techniques (versus no physiotherapy) may have little to no effect on improving cure rate, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.23; 1 trial, 32 participants). OMT (versus placebo) may improve cure rate, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.51; 2 trials, 79 participants; I² = 0%). OMT (versus placebo) may have little to no effect on mean duration of hospital stay, but the certainty of evidence is very low (mean difference (MD) -1.08 days, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.23; 3 trials, 333 participants; I² = 50%). Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy, MD 0.7 days, 95% CI -1.39 to 2.79; 1 trial, 54 participants) and active cycle of breathing techniques (versus no physiotherapy, MD 1.4 days, 95% CI -0.69 to 3.49; 1 trial, 32 participants) may also have little to no effect on duration of hospital stay, but the certainty of evidence is very low. Positive expiratory pressure (versus no physiotherapy) may reduce the mean duration of hospital stay by 1.4 days, but the certainty of evidence is very low (MD -1.4 days, 95% CI -2.77 to -0.03; 1 trial, 98 participants). Positive expiratory pressure (versus no physiotherapy) may reduce the duration of fever by 0.7 days, but the certainty of evidence is very low (MD -0.7 days, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.04; 1 trial, 98 participants). Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy, MD 0.4 days, 95% CI -1.01 to 1.81; 1 trial, 54 participants) and OMT (versus placebo, MD 0.6 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 2.80; 1 trial, 21 participants) may have little to no effect on duration of fever, but the certainty of evidence is very low. OMT (versus placebo) may have little to no effect on the mean duration of total antibiotic therapy, but the certainty of evidence is very low (MD -1.07 days, 95% CI -2.37 to 0.23; 3 trials, 333 participants; I² = 61%). Active cycle of breathing techniques (versus no physiotherapy) may have little to no effect on duration of total antibiotic therapy, but the certainty of evidence is very low (MD 0.2 days, 95% CI -4.39 to 4.69; 1 trial, 32 participants). High-frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage (versus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone) may reduce the MD of intensive care unit (ICU) stay by 3.8 days (MD -3.8 days, 95% CI -5.00 to -2.60; 1 trial, 286 participants) and the MD of mechanical ventilation by three days (MD -3 days, 95% CI -3.68 to -2.32; 1 trial, 286 participants), but the certainty of evidence is very low. One trial reported transient muscle tenderness emerging after OMT in two participants. In another trial, three serious adverse events led to early withdrawal after OMT. One trial reported no adverse events after positive expiratory pressure treatment. Limitations of this review were the small sample size and unclear or high risk of bias of the included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The inclusion of two new trials in this update did not change the main conclusions of the original review. The current evidence is very uncertain about the effect of chest physiotherapy on improving mortality and cure rate in adults with pneumonia. Some physiotherapies may slightly shorten hospital stays, fever duration, and ICU stays, as well as mechanical ventilation. However, all of these findings are based on very low certainty evidence and need to be further validated.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Physical Therapy Modalities; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Therapy
PubMed: 36066373
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006338.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Hospital-acquired pneumonia is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections in children worldwide. Most of our understanding of hospital-acquired pneumonia in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hospital-acquired pneumonia is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections in children worldwide. Most of our understanding of hospital-acquired pneumonia in children is derived from adult studies. To our knowledge, no systematic review with meta-analysis has assessed the benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens in neonates and children with hospital-acquired pneumonia.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registers to February 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials comparing one antibiotic regimen with any other antibiotic regimen for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events; our secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, pneumonia-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and treatment failure. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four randomised clinical trials (84 participants). We assessed all trials as having high risk of bias. We did not conduct any meta-analyses, as the included trials did not compare similar antibiotic regimens. Each of the four trials assessed a different comparison, as follows: cefepime versus ceftazidime; linezolid versus vancomycin; meropenem versus cefotaxime; and ceftobiprole versus cephalosporin. Only one trial reported our primary outcomes of all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Three trials reported our secondary outcome of treatment failure. Two trials primarily included community-acquired pneumonia and hospitalised children with bacterial infections, hence the children with hospital-acquired pneumonia constituted subgroups of the total sample sizes. Where outcomes were reported, the certainty of the evidence was very low for each of the comparisons. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. None of the included trials assessed health-related quality of life, pneumonia-related mortality, or non-serious adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The relative beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the very low certainty of the available evidence. The current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. Randomised clinical trials assessing different antibiotic regimens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in children and neonates are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Hospitals; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pneumonia; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 34727368
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013864.pub2 -
Clinical Journal of the American... Dec 2016Vancomycin has been in use for more than half a century, but whether it is truly nephrotoxic and to what extent are still highly controversial. The objective of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Vancomycin has been in use for more than half a century, but whether it is truly nephrotoxic and to what extent are still highly controversial. The objective of this study was to determine the risk of AKI attributable to intravenous vancomycin.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS
We conducted a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials and cohort studies that compared patients treated with intravenous vancomycin with a control group of patients given a comparator nonglycopeptide antibiotic and in which kidney function or kidney injury outcomes were reported. PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched from 1990 to September of 2015. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed study risk of bias, and one reviewer adjudicated the assessments. A meta-analysis was conducted on seven randomized, controlled trials (total of 4033 patients).
RESULTS
Moderate quality evidence suggested that vancomycin treatment is associated with a higher risk of AKI, with a relative risk of 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.69 to 3.55). The risk of kidney injury was similar in patients treated for skin and soft tissue infections compared with those treated for nosocomial pneumonia and other complicated infections. There was an uncertain risk of reporting bias, because kidney function was not a prespecified outcome in any of the trials. The preponderance of evidence was judged to be indirect, because the majority of studies compared vancomycin specifically with linezolid.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that there is a measurable risk of AKI associated with vancomycin, but the strength of the evidence is moderate. A randomized, controlled trial designed to study kidney function as an outcome would be needed to draw unequivocal conclusions.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Administration, Intravenous; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Linezolid; Risk Factors; Vancomycin
PubMed: 27895134
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.05920616 -
JAMA Pediatrics Dec 2022Short-course antibiotic therapy could enhance adherence and reduce adverse drug effects and costs. However, based on sparse evidence, most guidelines recommend a longer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Short-course antibiotic therapy could enhance adherence and reduce adverse drug effects and costs. However, based on sparse evidence, most guidelines recommend a longer course of antibiotics for nonsevere childhood community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether a shorter course of antibiotics was noninferior to a longer course for childhood nonsevere CAP.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and 3 Chinese databases from inception to March 31, 2022, as well as clinical trial registries and Google.com.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials comparing a shorter- vs longer-course therapy using the same oral antibiotic for children with nonsevere CAP were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Random-effects models were used to pool the data, which were analyzed from April 15, 2022, to May 15, 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of the evidence.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Treatment failure, defined by persistence of pneumonia or the new appearance of any general danger signs of CAP (eg, lethargy, unconsciousness, seizures, or inability to drink), elevated temperature (>38 °C) after completion of treatment, change of antibiotic, hospitalization, death, missing more than 3 study drug doses, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of informed consent.
RESULTS
Nine randomized clinical trials including 11 143 participants were included in this meta-analysis. A total of 98% of the participants were aged 2 to 59 months, and 58% were male. Eight studies with 10 662 patients reported treatment failure. Treatment failure occurred in 12.8% vs 12.6% of participants randomized to a shorter vs a longer course of antibiotics. High-quality evidence showed that a shorter course of oral antibiotic was noninferior to a longer course with respect to treatment failure for children with nonsevere CAP (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92-1.11; risk difference, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 0%). A 3-day course of antibiotic treatment was noninferior to a 5-day course for the outcome of treatment failure (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.12; I2 = 0%), and a 5-day course was noninferior to a 10-day course (risk ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.50-1.53; I2 = 0%). A shorter course of antibiotics was associated with fewer reports of gastroenteritis (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95) and lower caregiver absenteeism (incident rate ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.84).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Results of this meta-analysis suggest that a shorter course of antibiotics was noninferior to a longer course in children aged 2 to 59 months with nonsevere CAP. Clinicians should consider prescribing a shorter course of antibiotics for the management of pediatric nonsevere CAP.
Topics: Humans; Male; Child; Female; Community-Acquired Infections; Pneumonia; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Fever; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36374480
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4123 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jan 2022Point-of-care tests could be essential in differentiating bacterial and viral acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections and driving antibiotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Point-of-care tests could be essential in differentiating bacterial and viral acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections and driving antibiotic stewardship in the community.
OBJECTIVES
To assess diagnostic test accuracy of point-of-care tests in community settings for acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections.
DATA SOURCES
Multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Open Gray) from inception to 31 May 2021, without language restrictions.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Diagnostic test accuracy studies involving patients at primary care, outpatient clinic, emergency department and long-term care facilities with a clinical suspicion of acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. The comparator was any test used as a comparison to the index test. In order not to limit the study inclusion, the comparator was not defined a priori.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS
Four investigators independently extracted data, rated risk of bias, and assessed the quality using QUADAS-2.
METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS
The measures of diagnostic test accuracy were calculated with 95% CI.
RESULTS
A total of 421 studies addressed at least one point-of-care test. The diagnostic performance of molecular tests was higher compared with that of rapid diagnostic tests for all the pathogens studied. The accuracy of stand-alone signs and symptoms or biomarkers was poor. Lung ultrasound showed high sensitivity and specificity (90% for both) for the diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia. Rapid antigen-based diagnostic tests for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, and Streptococcus pneumoniae had sub-optimal sensitivity (range 49%-84%) but high specificity (>80%).
DISCUSSION
Physical examination and host biomarkers are not sufficiently reliable as stand-alone tests to differentiate between bacterial and viral pneumonia. Lung ultrasound shows higher accuracy than chest X-ray for bacterial pneumonia at emergency department. Rapid antigen-based diagnostic tests cannot be considered fully reliable because of high false-negative rates. Overall, molecular tests for all the pathogens considered were found to be the most accurate.
Topics: Bias; Biomarkers; Diagnosis, Differential; Humans; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Pneumonia, Viral; Point-of-Care Testing; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 34601148
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.09.025 -
Respiratory Investigation Jul 2022The joint committee of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Japanese Respiratory Society/Japanese Society of Respiratory Care Medicine on ARDS Clinical...
BACKGROUND
The joint committee of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Japanese Respiratory Society/Japanese Society of Respiratory Care Medicine on ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline has created and released the ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline 2021.
METHODS
The 2016 edition of the Clinical Practice Guideline covered clinical questions (CQs) that targeted only adults, but the present guideline includes 15 CQs for children in addition to 46 CQs for adults. As with the previous edition, we used a systematic review method with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system as well as a degree of recommendation determination method. We also conducted systematic reviews that used meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy and network meta-analyses as a new method.
RESULTS
Recommendations for adult patients with ARDS are described: we suggest against using serum C-reactive protein and procalcitonin levels to identify bacterial pneumonia as the underlying disease (GRADE 2D); we recommend limiting tidal volume to 4-8 mL/kg for mechanical ventilation (GRADE 1D); we recommend against managements targeting an excessively low SpO (PaO) (GRADE 2D); we suggest against using transpulmonary pressure as a routine basis in positive end-expiratory pressure settings (GRADE 2B); we suggest implementing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for those with severe ARDS (GRADE 2B); we suggest against using high-dose steroids (GRADE 2C); and we recommend using low-dose steroids (GRADE 1B). The recommendations for pediatric patients with ARDS are as follows: we suggest against using non-invasive respiratory support (non-invasive positive pressure ventilation/high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy) (GRADE 2D); we suggest placing pediatric patients with moderate ARDS in the prone position (GRADE 2D); we suggest against routinely implementing NO inhalation therapy (GRADE 2C); and we suggest against implementing daily sedation interruption for pediatric patients with respiratory failure (GRADE 2D).
CONCLUSIONS
This article is a translated summary of the full version of the ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline 2021 published in Japanese (URL: https://www.jrs.or.jp/publication/jrs_guidelines/). The original text, which was written for Japanese healthcare professionals, may include different perspectives from healthcare professionals of other countries.
Topics: Adult; Child; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Humans; Prone Position; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Tidal Volume
PubMed: 35753956
DOI: 10.1016/j.resinv.2022.05.003