Advances in the prevention, management, and treatment of community-acquired pneumonia

Mathias W. Pletz; Gernot G. Rohde; Tobias Welte; Martin Kolditz; Sebastian Ott

doi:10.12688/f1000research.7657.1

Home Browse Advances in the prevention, management, and treatment of community-acquired...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Review

Advances in the prevention, management, and treatment of community-acquired pneumonia

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Mathias W. Pletz¹, Gernot G. Rohde², Tobias Welte³, Martin Kolditz⁴, Sebastian Ott⁵

Mathias W. Pletz¹, Gernot G. Rohde², [...] Tobias Welte³, Martin Kolditz⁴, Sebastian Ott⁵

PUBLISHED 08 Mar 2016

Author details Author details

¹ Center for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany
² Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
³ Department of Respiratory Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
⁴ Division of Pulmonology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
⁵ Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Inselspital, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the infectious disease with the highest number of deaths worldwide. Nevertheless, its importance is often underestimated. Large cohorts of patients with CAP have been established worldwide and improved our knowledge about CAP by far. Therefore, current guidelines are much more evidence-based than ever before. This article discusses recent major studies and concepts on CAP such as the role of biomarkers, appropriate risk stratification to identify patients in need of hospitalisation or intensive care, appropriate empiric antibiotic therapy (including the impact of macrolide combination therapy and antibiotic stewardship), and CAP prevention with novel influenza and pneumococcal vaccines.

Keywords

community-acquired pneumonia, Streptococcus pneumoniae, pulmonary infection, CAP

Corresponding author: Mathias W. Pletz

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. All of the following reported fees and grants were received outside the submitted work: MWP and TW received fees for lectures/advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, GSK, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. TW received fees for research grants from Bayer, Novartis, and Pfizer. MWP received fees for research grants from Infectopharm, Biotest, and Pfizer. GR has received consulting/lecture fees/honoraria from Novartis, Takeda, Astra-Zeneca, Chiesi, Grünenthal, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. SO has received consulting/lecture fees/honoraria from Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. MK reports grants and lecture fees from Pfizer and lecture fees from Thermo-Fisher, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Böhringer-Ingelheim.

Grant information: MP was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research (grant number 01KI1204).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2016 Pletz MW et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Pletz MW, Rohde GG, Welte T et al. Advances in the prevention, management, and treatment of community-acquired pneumonia [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2016, 5(F1000 Faculty Rev):300 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7657.1) First published: 08 Mar 2016, 5(F1000 Faculty Rev):300 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7657.1) Latest published: 08 Mar 2016, 5(F1000 Faculty Rev):300 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7657.1)

Introduction and epidemiology

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a burden in the modern world. The annual incidence ranges from between 2.7 and 10 per 1000 persons and has not changed much during the last few decades¹. In Germany, around 250,000 patients are hospitalised because of CAP each year, and it is expected that twice as many patients with CAP are managed in primary care². The incidence shows a U-shaped distribution from very young to very old age³. CAP is still one of the most important reasons for premature death, particularly in developing countries and in children⁴.

CAP is an infectious disease of the lung parenchyma and adjacent organs. Respiratory bacteria constitute the major group of causative organisms. However, there must be some caution, as in most studies in more than 50% of the cases no pathogen could be identified⁵. Streptococcus pneumoniae is the pathogen most frequently identified throughout all studies and settings (outpatients, inpatients, and intensive care unit [ICU] patients with CAP)^5–7. Haemophilus influenzae (HI) is also frequently detected in outpatients (13%) but much less in hospitalised patients (6% to 7%)⁵. A possible reason is the high prevalence of HI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)⁸, patients who are at high risk of developing CAP⁹. Another important group of pathogens is respiratory viruses, particularly in outpatients but also inpatients, much less in ICU patients⁵. New detection techniques such as multiplex-polymerase chain reaction allow better insight into the relevant spectrum of viruses involved¹⁰. This fast-track diagnostic also allows us to put pandemic virus emergence into perspective, as shown during the H1N1 pandemic, in which respiratory syncytial virus and human metapneumovirus were the most prevalent viruses and only pandemic influenza virus A/H1N1 (2009), and not seasonal influenza virus, was detected¹¹. Outside pandemics, seasonal influenza viruses cause yearly increases in CAP incidence and lead to increased mortality in patients co-infected with bacterial pathogens^12,13. Another relevant group are the so-called “atypical” bacteria. Mycoplasma pneumonia is frequent in young patients with CAP (7% to 12%) and usually shows a benign course^14,15. Chlamydophila pneumoniae historically has been reported to be a frequent pathogen mainly on the basis of serological assays. However, more recent research using molecular techniques found significantly lower detections rates (21% versus 3%, respectively)¹⁵. Legionella pneumophila has been identified as a causative pathogen with different frequencies^5,16,17. It also occurs in outpatients, who commonly show a more favorable course of disease than inpatients¹⁶.

Biomarkers

Historically, pro-inflammatory biomarkers such as leucocyte count and C-reactive protein (CRP) are widely used in CAP. In most patients with CAP, these markers are elevated and show the highest levels in bacterial CAP, followed by atypical CAP and viral CAP¹⁸. In mixed (bacterial + viral) CAP, CRP levels seem to be highest but the predictive value is low¹⁹. However, an individual prediction of CAP aetiology is not possible¹⁸. Also, procalcitonin (PCT), which shows a very fast response during infections, is not able to predict aetiology of CAP¹⁸. However, PCT levels on admission can support the identification of severe outcomes of CAP and add to the prognostic properties of clinical risk score²⁰. It has a higher prognostic accuracy compared with CRP and leucocyte count²¹. This has been recently confirmed²². Interestingly, PCT levels can provide independent identification of patients at low risk of death within CRB-65 (confusion of new onset, respiratory rate of at least 30 breaths per minute, blood pressure of less than 90 mmHg systolic or diastolic blood pressure of 60 mmHg or less, and age of at least 65 years) classes²¹. Importantly, antibiotic pre-treatment has to be taken into account, as it influences the prognostic properties²³.

A very recent study showed that the diagnostic accuracies of CRP and PCT are insufficient to confirm CAP if the diagnosis is established by using a gold standard that includes thoracic computed tomography (CT) scan²⁴. However, in primary care, the addition of CRP (optimal cutoff of more than 30 mg/L) improved the diagnosis of CAP in patients with typical signs and symptoms, whereas PCT did not add clinically relevant information²⁵.

In the most comprehensive study on the prognostic properties of new CAP biomarkers (including mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin [MR-proADM], mid-regional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide [MR-proANP], pro-arginine-vasopressin [copeptin], proendothelin-1 [CT-proET-1], PCT, CRP, white blood cell count, and CRB-65 score), MR-proADM, a cardiovascular biomarker, showed the best individual and a combination of CRB-65 with MR-proADM showed the best overall prognostic performance^26,27.

Hyponatremia is common on admission among patients with CAP and was independently associated with mortality. The combination of sodium and pro-vasopressin and pro-ANP levels achieved the highest prediction of mortality in a recent analysis²⁸.

A very simple but powerful biomarker is admission blood glucose (Glc). Already mildly elevated Glc levels were significantly associated with an increased short-term mortality odds ratio (OR) of 1.56 with further increases at higher Glc levels. Therefore, acute hyperglycaemia may identify patients in need of intensified care to reduce the risk of death from CAP²⁹. Potentially along comparable mechanisms and independently of clinical scores and inflammatory biomarkers, increased serum cortisol levels have been associated with mortality in CAP³⁰. On the other hand, admission hypoglycaemia has also been associated with increased short- and long-term mortality³¹, underlining the value of Glc as a useful biomarker.

Risk stratification

Prognosis

CAP shows a highly variable disease course; published mortality rates vary between less than 1% and more than 40% according to treatment setting, disease severity, age, and comorbidities⁵. Whereas mortality and complication rates remain low in non-severe CAP managed in the community³², hospitalised CAP is associated with a high risk of respiratory failure or sepsis-related organ dysfunction. CAP mortality of hospitalised patients in Germany continues to be about 13%, rising to more than 35% in patients with need of mechanical ventilation². Although treatment restrictions and functional status of multi-morbid patients might influence such mortality figures³³, even after conservative estimates excluding all patients residing in nursing homes or being bedridden before the CAP event, mortality remains more than 7%, which matches mortality rates of other recognised medical emergency conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction³⁴. This tremendous prognostic spectrum requires timely and adequate risk stratification as a crucial first step in CAP management to determine level of care and treatment intensity. From a clinical perspective, risk stratification is divided into two major components: (1) identification of patients with a low complication risk in the outpatient setting suitable for ambulatory treatment and (2) identification of patients with high risk for acute organ failure necessitating early intensified management and monitoring interventions in the emergency department.

Predicting low risk of complications in the outpatient setting

To assist clinical risk assessment, different score systems have been recommended by guidelines. Most established are the pneumonia severity index (PSI) score³⁵, consisting of 20 clinical, laboratory, and radiographic variables, and the CRB-65 or CURB criteria, which include only four parameters^32,36. They proved to be comparable tools for mortality prediction^37,38, but the CRB-65 score is preferred in the outpatient setting, as it is easy to calculate and works without laboratory parameters. However, its sensitivity in elderly and multi-morbid patients is suboptimal, and poor functional status has been shown as a major independent mortality predictor for these patients in a recent analysis³³. Additionally, pre-existing chronic comorbidities have been independently associated with adverse prognosis in CAP^2,35,39–42. In particular, acute cardiac complications are of major prognostic impact^41,42. Therefore, the absence of (potentially) decompensating comorbidities is another precondition for ambulatory treatment. Recent studies identified poor oxygenation as an independent predictor for complications and mortality despite a low CRB-65 score^43–45. Accordingly, a score adding poor oxygenation (saturation of less than 90%) and potentially decompensating comorbidities to the CRB-65 criteria recently has been introduced and validated in a large study from the CAPNETZ cohort, showing superior low-risk prediction compared with the original criteria^39,40,46. The resulting risk evaluation to identify patients suitable for ambulatory treatment in the outpatient setting is depicted in Table 1.

Table 1. Low-risk identification in the outpatient setting.

Clinical assessment, supplemented by evaluation of the following criteria:
• Respiratory rate of less than 30 per min
• Diastolic/systolic blood pressure of at least 61 mm Hg/90 mm Hg
• No new-onset mental confusion
• Oxygen saturation of at least 90% on room air
• No (potentially) decompensating comorbidity
• No poor functional status (“chronically bedridden”)

Identifying high-risk patients in need of intensified management in the emergency department

Acute pulmonary or extra-pulmonary organ dysfunction due to sepsis or decompensating (especially cardiovascular) comorbidities determines early prognosis in CAP^41,47–49. Organ dysfunction risk is highest within the first 3 days after hospitalisation^{2,41,48,50,51}. Efforts have been made to characterise a subgroup with an “emergency presentation” of CAP defined by a high risk of early clinical deterioration in order to target intensified management interventions to patients with a high potential of prognosis improvement^47,52. A management-based risk stratification to allocate interventions like monitoring of organ functions, guideline-concordant management of severe sepsis, and early parenteral antimicrobial combination treatment has been suggested^45,53. Obviously, patients presenting with immediate need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressor treatment are identified as medical emergencies. However, a recent analysis from the CAPNETZ cohort showed that prognosis is poorest in patients not presenting with these “major criteria” but deteriorating in the short course of the disease⁴⁷. Independent predictors for early deterioration were vital sign abnormalities at presentation, highlighting the need for careful clinical patient evaluation. Recent studies have shown that the American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) minor criteria, which represent parameters of acute organ dysfunction, improve high-risk prediction^47,54–56. Their accuracy to predict organ replacement therapy (optimal cutoff > two criteria) has been confirmed in a meta-analysis⁵⁶, and outcome improvement after management intensification guided by these criteria in the emergency room has been demonstrated in an interventional trial⁵⁷. Therefore, clinical high-risk identification should focus on acute respiratory or extra-pulmonary sepsis- or comorbidity-associated organ dysfunction, and careful clinical evaluation should be complemented by regular assessment of vital sign abnormalities and the minor criteria as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. High-risk identification in the emergency department (including assessment of the ATS/IDSA minor criteria).

Clinical assessment, supplemented by evaluation of the following criteria:
• Presence of acute respiratory failure ○ Respiratory rate of 30/min or more ○ Arterial oxygen partial pressure/fractional inspired oxygen (paO₂/FiO₂) of 250 or less ○ Oxygen saturation of less than 90% ○ Multi-lobar infiltrate
• Presence of acute extra-pulmonary organ dysfunction ○ Systolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg/hypotension requiring aggressive fluid resuscitation ○ Elevated lactate ○ Temperature of less than 36°C ○ New-onset mental confusion ○ Acute renal failure/blood urea nitrogen of more than 20 mg/dL ○ Leucocytes of less than 4000/µL ○ Thrombocytes of less than 100,000/µL
• Presence of instable comorbidity ○ Especially acute cardiovascular complication

ATS/IDSA, American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Adjuvant treatment

Despite adequate antimicrobial therapy, approximately 10% of all patients with CAP will not survive their current pulmonary infection, and mortality rates for severe CAP levelled off at 20% to 30% for the last few decades, especially if treatment failure occurs⁵⁸. An overwhelming immunological response is assumed to be one of the key pathophysiological mechanisms behind the stagnating mortality rates. Keeping in mind the empty pipeline for new antimicrobial agents and the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance, adjuvant therapeutic strategies beyond just killing the causative microbes are urgently needed and are now the focus of research. Medicinal modulation or suppression of the immunologic host response (e.g. by the application of corticosteroids) might be a valid approach. This concept has been successfully implemented in the treatment of different infectious conditions such as bacterial meningitis and septic shock.

Following the first positive corticosteroid trial in CAP by Confalonieri et al.⁵⁹, conflicting results mainly from small clinical trials and meta-analysis questioned the potential benefit, and systematic reviews asked for larger randomised trials^60–62. In 2015, two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adequate sample size were published, readopting the concept of adjuvant corticosteroid treatment in CAP^63,64. Both studies appear to be supportive of corticosteroid administration, but before changing clinical practice, it is worth taking a closer look at their findings.

Blum et al. randomly assigned hospitalised patients with CAP (n = 785; 70% PSI III-V) to receive an adjuvant treatment with 50 mg prednisolone daily in addition to standard care⁶³. The primary endpoint of this study was time to clinical stability and it was reached 1.4 days earlier in the treatment group (3.0 versus 4.4 days, hazard ratio [HR] 1.33, P <0.001). Additionally, steroid administration facilitated an earlier switch to oral sequence therapy (4.0 versus 5.0 days, P = 0.011), shortened the length of hospitalisation (6.0 versus 7.0 days, HR 1.19, P = 0.012), and reduced the incidence of pneumonia-associated complications like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and empyema (OR 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22 to 0.98, P = 0.05). These effects were independent of PSI score at admission, initial levels of CRP, and underlying comorbidities such as COPD. Unfortunately, the study was not designed to address mortality, the most important clinical outcome, and the number of side effects (hyperglycemia) was significantly higher in the treatment group (19% versus 11%, OR 1.96, P = 0.001). Furthermore, overall mortality was comparably low (3.4%) and only few patients required ICU treatment (4.8%).

The second study, by Torres et al., included 120 CAP patients with high serum levels of inflammatory markers (CRP >150 mg/L)⁶⁴. The patients were randomly assigned to receive 0.5 mg/kg methylprednisolone given twice a day for 5 days or placebo. The primary endpoint was occurrence of treatment failure, a composite endpoint including early failure (progression to septic shock, the need for mechanical ventilation, or death within 72 hours after admission) and late failure (radiographic progression, persisting respiratory failure, progression to septic shock, the need for mechanical ventilation, or death within 72 to 120 hours after admission). The authors found significantly less treatment failure in the treatment group (13% versus 31%, P = 0.02) and by trend a lower mortality. Again, the incidence of hyperglycemia was higher, but not statistically significant (18% versus 12%, P = 0.34). Although the results were positive at first sight, a critical interpretation is recommended. The composite endpoint “treatment failure” allows for misinterpretations, especially when considering that the only significant differences between the groups were found in “late failure” due to “radiographic progression” and “late-onset septic shock”. “Radiographic progression” alone does not necessarily reflect clinical failure; it needs to be accompanied by clinical instability to be indicative of treatment failure, and “late-onset septic shock” is not always attributable to CAP.

In conclusion, there is growing evidence of some beneficial effects of steroid treatment in terms of faster resolution of clinical signs and symptoms and prevention of CAP-associated complications, but so far the impact on mortality cannot be judged sufficiently. This was confirmed by a recent meta-analysis indicating that steroids had no significant impact on mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.72, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.21), even in severe CAP (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.21), but may prevent the development of ARDS (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.59) and reduce the lengths of hospital and ICU stay and the time to clinical stability⁶⁵. Hopefully, the results of ongoing trials will help to elucidate the future role of adjuvant corticosteroid treatment in the management of CAP^66,67. Nevertheless, it is important to notice that supportive steroid treatment in patients with influenza CAP is associated with increased mortality⁶⁸. Therefore, steroids should not be administered to patients with proven influenza, except for asthmatics and COPD patients who may require systemic steroids for the treatment of bronchial obstruction, even in the context of influenza⁶⁹.

Recently, it has been reported that statins may have immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties and that their current intake may have favourable effects on the course of respiratory infections, including pneumonia^70,71. However, most of the knowledge is derived from retrospective case-control studies including patients with already-established statin intake, and only few prospective RCTs are available.

In one large, population-based, case-control study (n >100,000), the recent use of statins significantly reduced the risk of mortality from pneumonia (adjusted OR 0.47) but had an effect neither on the incidence of non-severe pneumonia in the study population nor on the need for hospitalisation due to pneumonia⁷². Two additional case-control studies found a 22% reduced risk of pneumonia in patients with current exposure to statins^73,74. However, the protective effect was not shown in other studies, possibly indicating a “healthy user” bias^75,76.

One recent randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial addressed the effects of de novo statin use on CAP outcome and blood levels of inflammatory cytokines⁷⁷. In this study, the use of 20 mg simvastatin once daily for 4 days since hospital admission did not reduce the time to clinical stability and the levels of inflammatory cytokines in patients hospitalised with CAP. However, it is worth mentioning that the authors failed to achieve their recruitment target for determining the effect of de novo statin use on their clinical endpoint (time to clinical stability). Another randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial focused on the effects of simvastatin (60 mg daily) on day 28 mortality in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia⁷⁸. This study was prematurely stopped for futility after interim analyses with 300 patients enrolled. There was no difference in the primary endpoint (day 28 mortality) between groups (statin group 21.2% versus placebo group 15.2%, P = 0.1).

In conclusion, there is some evidence indicating that an established statin exposure may reduce the risk of pneumonia and have beneficial effects on the clinical course, but the results are conflicting and the findings of first RCTs on de novo statin use are discouraging. Therefore, the use of statins for primary prophylaxis or as adjuvant pneumonia therapy may not be recommended at present.

Antibiotic treatment

Most major guidelines suggest an empiric treatment stratified according to severity of disease^79,80. Outpatients are treated orally with penicillins, macrolides, tetracyclines, or fluoroquinolones with anti-pneumococcal activity (i.e. moxifloxacin or levofloxacin). Oral cephalosporins have been linked to increased treatment failure (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.56 to 5.27), probably due to the unfavourable bioavailability plus—compared with intravenous administration—low licensed dosages⁸¹. Recent EUCAST (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing) guidelines state (e.g. for HI) that cefuroxime breakpoints apply only to high-dose treatment (i.e. 1.5 g three times daily).

As outlined above, the proportion of “atypical” pathogens has been probably overestimated in the past, particularly due to the low specificity of serology for detection of Chlamydophila pneumoniae⁸².

Since coverage of atypical bacteria by macrolides, fluoroquinolones, or tetracyclines seems to be expandable in mild cases treated as outpatients—most guidelines recommend oral penicillins or aminopenicillins (longer half life time, higher bioavailability, and better activity against HI than penicillin V) to cover pneumococci—empiric combination treatment of inpatients with beta-lactam plus macrolide remains an issue of debate^79,80.

Besides covering “atypical” pathogens, macrolides are supposed to attenuate the inflammatory response by decreasing expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and consecutive neutrophil recruitment to lung parenchyma. A retrospective study revealed a clinical advantage of macrolides even in patients with macrolide-resistant pneumococcal pneumonia. However, recently, the cardiotoxicity of macrolides has been linked to a slightly increased mortality. A meta-analysis found that erythromycin carries the greatest risk of QT prolongation and torsades de pointes from all macrolides, followed by clarithromycin and azithromycin⁸³. A large Danish cohort study estimated 37 cardiac deaths in 1 million treatments with clarithromycin⁸⁴, with an increased risk particularly in women. Whereas the Svanstrom study addressed younger adults and not patients with CAP, the study by Ray et al. showed a higher risk of sudden death with azithromycin compared with amoxicillin⁸⁵. The study by Schembri et al. is currently the only one that looked specifically at protocol-defined CAP and showed an increased risk of long-term cardiac events⁸⁶. However, Mortensen et al. showed that the benefit of azithromycin in reducing CAP mortality outweighed the risk of cardiotoxicity⁸⁷.

A 2014 meta-analysis comprising four prospective cohort studies and 12 retrospective cohort studies (n = 42,942) found a decreased mortality for macrolide/beta-lactams versus beta-lactam monotherapy⁸⁸. However, randomised studies were not available.

Finally, in 2015, two randomised studies addressing this question were published. A cluster-randomised non-inferiority study from The Netherlands compared beta-lactam monotherapy, beta-lactam/macrolide, and fluoroquinolone for empiric treatment of CAP⁸⁹. A Swiss open-label, multi-centre, non-inferiority, randomised trial compared cefuroxime or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid with or without clarithromycin⁹⁰. The Swiss study could not prove non-inferiority for beta-lactam monotherapy regarding the proportion of patients reaching clinical stability on day 7, even after exclusion of patients with a positive urine legionella antigen test result. In contrast, the Dutch study found that beta-lactam monotherapy was non-inferior to strategies with a beta-lactam-macrolide combination or fluoroquinolone monotherapy with regard to 90-day mortality. The macrolide used in the Dutch study was erythromycin⁹¹, which has a higher cardiotoxicity than azithromycin or clarithromycin⁸³. The Swiss study showed that, in particular, patients with atypical pathogens (mostly Mycoplasma pneumoniae) and patients with a higher severity profited from the macrolide combination. This supports the obligated empiric beta-lactam/macrolide combination treatment for at least all CAP patients admitted to the ICU, a strategy suggested by most major guidelines^80,81,91.

Antibiotic stewardship

Antibiotic stewardship has become an important strategy to fight the antibiotic resistance crisis. How is antibiotic stewardship implemented in CAP treatment? First of all, pneumonia has to be differentiated from non-pneumonia entities (e.g. bronchitis and acute exacerbation of COPD) in patients presenting with lower respiratory tract infections. This requires a standard chest X-ray, which is frequently not available in the outpatient setting. Several studies have shown that using a PCT is a useful biomarker to decide for or against empiric antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients presenting with lower respiratory tract infections. PCT-guided strategies have decreased (unnecessary) antibiotic prescriptions by 30% to 50% without impairing clinical outcome^92,93. Similar data are available in primary care for CRP, which—in contrast to PCT—is available as a point-of-care test⁹⁴.

Other approaches used a clinical score to predict CAP in outpatients presenting with acute respiratory tract infection in order to identify patients who should be prescribed antibiotics⁹⁵.

Another strategy to decrease antibiotic consumption without harming the patient is to shorten antibiotic treatment. A recent prospective before-and-after intervention study from Scotland describes the implementation of a simple CRB-65-based algorithm for duration of treatment (i.e. CAP: 5 days of antibiotics for mild and 7 for moderate/severe cases. Acute exacerbation of COPD: 5 days of antibiotics and no antibiotics at all in patients without an increase in sputum purulence)⁹⁶. This algorithm was enforced by automatic stop dates and pharmacist feedback to prescribers and resulted in significant reductions of antibiotic consumption and in antibiotic side effects without increasing mortality or length of stay.

Vaccination

Vaccines are available against pneumococci and influenza virus, the most frequent bacterial and viral causes of CAP, respectively. Bacterial-viral co-infections are associated with increased mortality, and synergistic effects have been shown for combined vaccination¹².

The standard influenza vaccine is the trivalent split vaccine, containing two influenza A and one influenza B strains, which are annually selected by the World Health Organization. Within the last few years, efforts have been made to improve acceptance, coverage of the vaccine, and particularly its efficacy in the elderly. A central problem of the influenza vaccine is that the elderly, who are at increased risk, exhibit an inferior response to the vaccine because of immunosenescence. Intradermal vaccination aims to stimulate more antigen-presenting cells, which are found in higher concentration in the dermis than in the subcutis or the muscle. Virions mimic natural viral cell entry, and adjuvants aim to recruit more antigen-presenting cells. High-dose vaccines use four times the amount of antigen. Whereas studies have shown that most of these approaches increase antibody titres, only high-dose vaccines were tested in a study with a clinically relevant endpoint and showed an increased prevention of laboratory-confirmed influenza cases⁹⁷. Other strategies try to improve the influenza vaccine coverage. In contrast to influenza A, influenza B does not undergo antigenic shift and therefore does not cause pandemics. However, as a result of accumulated point mutations, influenza B split into two lines (Yamagata and Victoria) about 30 to 40 years ago⁹⁸. Historically, only one influenza B line was included in the trivalent split vaccine. Therefore, the coverage of the trivalent split vaccine has depended on the accurate prediction of the dominating B line in the particular season. Recently, quadrivalent influenza vaccines that include both influenza B lines have been made available for clinical use⁹⁹.

Pneumococcal vaccination of adults is a current issue of debate, since both a 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine and a 13-valent conjugate vaccine are licensed for use in adults. Meta-analyses have shown that the polysaccharide vaccine prevents pneumococcal bacteraemia with an efficacy of about 75%. However, the majority of pneumococcal pneumonia is non-bacteraemic, and it remains controversial whether this vaccine is protective against non-invasive pneumococcal pneumonia¹⁰⁰. To date, only one RCT in Japanese nursing home residents showed a clear reduction of pneumococcal pneumonia¹⁰¹, whereas several other studies and a respective meta-analysis revealed no effect¹⁰⁰. In a recent meta-analysis comparing the four available RCTs on 23-valent polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine (PPV23) efficacy against CAP, the study by Maruyama et al.¹⁰¹ has been identified as an outlier, contributing statistically significant heterogeneity to this analysis¹⁰². Recently, a large Dutch placebo-controlled multi-centre study showed that the 13-valent conjugate vaccine prevented non-invasive pneumococcal pneumonia due to vaccine serotypes with an efficacy of 45%¹⁰³. The coverage of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in adults is supposed to decrease because of herd protection effects of the PCV13 infant vaccination program that has led to a substantial decrease of the 13 vaccine serotypes in countries with such a program. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether the herd protection effects on invasive pneumococcal disease seen after implementing PCV7 can be extrapolated to the additional six serotypes of PCV13 or non-invasive pneumococcal pneumonia or both. Recent data from Sweden, the US, and Germany suggest that there is only minor or no herd protection for serotype 3, one of the most frequent serotypes causing pneumonia in adults^104–106. Considering these data, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has suggested a sequential vaccination (PCV13 followed by PPV23 after 6 to 12 months) for all adults older than 65. Within the next few years, intensive surveillance on serotype distribution in pneumococcal pneumonia is needed in order to estimate the extension of herd protection and to evaluate the use of PCV13 vaccination in adults.

Implications for clinical practice

CAP is the infectious disease with the highest number of deaths worldwide. Nevertheless, the importance of this disease is often underestimated. It is diagnosed too late, severity scoring is not appropriate, so that patients are too seldom admitted to intermediate care or ICUs, and antibiotic therapy is often not in accordance with guidelines. Large cohorts of patients with CAP have been established worldwide and vastly improved our knowledge about CAP. Therefore, current guidelines are much more evidence based than ever before. The challenge for the future is to implement current knowledge into clinical practice to reduce the number of CAP cases (by vaccination) and the number of deaths (by adequate diagnostics and treatment). National and international societies should establish CAP audits to oversee the management of CAP and to give clinicians feedback about their daily clinical practice.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

All of the following reported fees and grants were received outside the submitted work: MWP and TW received fees for lectures/advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, GSK, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. TW received fees for research grants from Bayer, Novartis, and Pfizer. MWP received fees for research grants from Infectopharm, Biotest, and Pfizer. GR has received consulting/lecture fees/honoraria from Novartis, Takeda, Astra-Zeneca, Chiesi, Grünenthal, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. SO has received consulting/lecture fees/honoraria from Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. MK reports grants and lecture fees from Pfizer and lecture fees from Thermo-Fisher, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Böhringer-Ingelheim.

Grant information

MP was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research (grant number 01KI1204).

I confirm that the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

F1000 recommended

References

1. Schnoor M, Hedicke J, Dalhoff K, et al.: Approaches to estimate the population-based incidence of community acquired pneumonia. J Infect. 2007; 55(3): 233–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Ewig S, Birkner N, Strauss R, et al.: New perspectives on community-acquired pneumonia in 388 406 patients. Results from a nationwide mandatory performance measurement programme in healthcare quality. Thorax. 2009; 64(12): 1062–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Jansen AG, Rodenburg GD, de Greeff SC, et al.: Invasive pneumococcal disease in the Netherlands: Syndromes, outcome and potential vaccine benefits. Vaccine. 2009; 27(17): 2394–401. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators: Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015; 385(9963): 117–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Welte T, Torres A, Nathwani D: Clinical and economic burden of community-acquired pneumonia among adults in Europe. Thorax. 2012; 67(1): 71–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Drijkoningen JJ, Rohde GG: Pneumococcal infection in adults: burden of disease. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014; 20(Suppl 5): 45–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Pletz MW, von Baum H, van der Linden M, et al.: The burden of pneumococcal pneumonia - experience of the German competence network CAPNETZ. Pneumologie. 2012; 66(8): 470–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Bafadhel M, Haldar K, Barker B, et al.: Airway bacteria measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction and culture in patients with stable COPD: relationship with neutrophilic airway inflammation, exacerbation frequency, and lung function. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015; 10(1): 1075–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
9. Braeken D, Franssen F, Schütte H, et al.: Increased Severity and Mortality of CAP in COPD: Results from the German Competence Network, CAPNETZ. J COPD F. 2014; 2(2): 131–40. Publisher Full Text
10. Bierbaum S, Königsfeld N, Besazza N, et al.: Performance of a novel microarray multiplex PCR for the detection of 23 respiratory pathogens (SYMP-ARI study). Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012; 31(10): 2851–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Bierbaum S, Forster J, Berner R, et al.: Detection of respiratory viruses using a multiplex real-time PCR assay in Germany, 2009/10. Arch Virol. 2014; 159(4): 669–76. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. von Baum H, Schweiger B, Welte T, et al.: How deadly is seasonal influenza-associated pneumonia? The German Competence Network for Community-Acquired Pneumonia. Eur Respir J. 2011; 37(5): 1151–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Johansson N, Kalin M, Tiveljung-Lindell A, et al.: Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia: increased microbiological yield with new diagnostic methods. Clin Infect Dis. 2010; 50(2): 202–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. von Baum H, Welte T, Marre R, et al.: Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia revisited within the German Competence Network for Community-acquired pneumonia (CAPNETZ). BMC Infect Dis. 2009; 9: 62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Dumke R, Schnee C, Pletz MW, et al.: Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydia spp. infection in community-acquired pneumonia, Germany, 2011–2012. Emerging Infect Dis. 2015; 21(3): 426–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. von Baum H, Ewig S, Marre R, et al.: Community-acquired Legionella pneumonia: new insights from the German competence network for community acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2008; 46(9): 1356–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
17. Arancibia F, Cortes CP, Valdés M, et al.: Importance of Legionella pneumophila in the etiology of severe community-acquired pneumonia in Santiago, Chile. Chest. 2014; 145(2): 290–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Krüger S, Ewig S, Papassotiriou J, et al.: Inflammatory parameters predict etiologic patterns but do not allow for individual prediction of etiology in patients with CAP: results from the German competence network CAPNETZ. Respir Res. 2009; 10(1): 65. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
19. Bello S, Mincholé E, Fandos S, et al.: Inflammatory response in mixed viral-bacterial community-acquired pneumonia. BMC Pulm Med. 2014; 14: 123. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
20. Schuetz P, Suter-Widmer I, Chaudri A, et al.: Prognostic value of procalcitonin in community-acquired pneumonia. Eur Respir J. 2011; 37(2): 384–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
21. Krüger S, Ewig S, Marre R, et al.: Procalcitonin predicts patients at low risk of death from community-acquired pneumonia across all CRB-65 classes. Eur Respir J. 2008; 31(2): 349–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Zhydkov A, Christ-Crain M, Thomann R, et al.: Utility of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white blood cells alone and in combination for the prediction of clinical outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015; 53(4): 559–66. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
23. Krüger S, Ewig S, Kunde J, et al.: Assessment of inflammatory markers in patients with community-acquired pneumonia--influence of antimicrobial pre-treatment: results from the German competence network CAPNETZ. Clin Chim Acta. 2010; 411(23–24): 1929–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Le Bel J, Hausfater P, Chenevier-Gobeaux C, et al.: Diagnostic accuracy of C-reactive protein and procalcitonin in suspected community-acquired pneumonia adults visiting emergency department and having a systematic thoracic CT scan. Crit Care. 2015; 19: 366. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
25. van Vugt SF, Broekhuizen BD, Lammens C, et al.: Use of serum C reactive protein and procalcitonin concentrations in addition to symptoms and signs to predict pneumonia in patients presenting to primary care with acute cough: diagnostic study. BMJ. 2013; 346: f2450. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
26. Krüger S, Ewig S, Giersdorf S, et al.: Cardiovascular and inflammatory biomarkers to predict short- and long-term survival in community-acquired pneumonia: Results from the German Competence Network, CAPNETZ. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010; 182(11): 1426–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
27. España PP, Capelastegui A, Mar C, et al.: Performance of pro-adrenomedullin for identifying adverse outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia. J Infect. 2015; 70(5): 457–66. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
28. Krüger S, Ewig S, Giersdorf S, et al.: Dysnatremia, vasopressin, atrial natriuretic peptide and mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia: results from the german competence network CAPNETZ. Respir Med. 2014; 108(11): 1696–705. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Lepper PM, Ott S, Nüesch E, et al.: Serum glucose levels for predicting death in patients admitted to hospital for community acquired pneumonia: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2012; 344: e3397. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
30. Kolditz M, Höffken G, Martus P, et al.: Serum cortisol predicts death and critical disease independently of CRB-65 score in community-acquired pneumonia: a prospective observational cohort study. BMC Infect Dis. 2012; 12: 90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
31. Gamble JM, Eurich DT, Marrie TJ, et al.: Admission hypoglycemia and increased mortality in patients hospitalized with pneumonia. Am J Med. 2010; 123(6): 556.e11–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
32. Bauer TT, Ewig S, Marre R, et al.: CRB-65 predicts death from community-acquired pneumonia. J Intern Med. 2006; 260(1): 93–101. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Ewig S, Bauer T, Richter K, et al.: Prediction of in-hospital death from community-acquired pneumonia by varying CRB-age groups. Eur Respir J. 2013; 41(4): 917–22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
34. Bauer TT, Welte T, Strauss R, et al.: Why do nonsurvivors from community-acquired pneumonia not receive ventilatory support? Lung. 2013; 191(4): 417–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Fine MJ, Auble TE, Yealy DM, et al.: A prediction rule to identify low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336(4): 243–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
36. Lim WS, van der Eerden MM, Laing R, et al.: Defining community acquired pneumonia severity on presentation to hospital: an international derivation and validation study. Thorax. 2003; 58(5): 377–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
37. Loke YK, Kwok CS, Niruban A, et al.: Value of severity scales in predicting mortality from community-acquired pneumonia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax. 2010; 65(10): 884–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
38. Chalmers JD, Singanayagam A, Akram AR, et al.: Severity assessment tools for predicting mortality in hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax. 2010; 65(10): 878–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
39. Kolditz M, Ewig S, Schütte H, et al.: Assessment of oxygenation and comorbidities improves outcome prediction in patients with community-acquired pneumonia with a low CRB-65 score. J Intern Med. 2015; 278(2): 193–202. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
40. Dwyer R, Hedlund J, Henriques-Normark B, et al.: Improvement of CRB-65 as a prognostic tool in adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2014; 1(1): e000038. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
41. Corrales-Medina VF, Musher DM, Wells GA, et al.: Cardiac complications in patients with community-acquired pneumonia: incidence, timing, risk factors, and association with short-term mortality. Circulation. 2012; 125(6): 773–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
42. Aliberti S, Ramirez J, Cosentini R, et al.: Acute myocardial infarction versus other cardiovascular events in community-acquired pneumonia. ERJ Open Res. 2015; 1(1): 00020-2015-20-2015. Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
43. El-Solh AA, Alhajhusain A, Abou Jaoude P, et al.: Validity of severity scores in hospitalized patients with nursing home-acquired pneumonia. Chest. 2010; 138(6): 1371–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
44. Majumdar SR, Eurich DT, Gamble JM, et al.: Oxygen saturations less than 92% are associated with major adverse events in outpatients with pneumonia: a population-based cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2011; 52(3): 325–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
45. Choudhury G, Chalmers JD, Mandal P, et al.: Physician judgement is a crucial adjunct to pneumonia severity scores in low-risk patients. Eur Respir J. 2011; 38(3): 643–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
46. Dwyer R, Hedlund J, Darenberg J, et al.: Improvement of CRB-65 as a prognostic scoring system in adult patients with bacteraemic pneumococcal pneumonia. Scand J Infect Dis. 2011; 43(6–7): 448–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
47. Kolditz M, Ewig S, Klapdor B, et al.: Community-acquired pneumonia as medical emergency: predictors of early deterioration. Thorax. 2015; 70(6): 551–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
48. Aliberti S, Amir A, Peyrani P, et al.: Incidence, etiology, timing, and risk factors for clinical failure in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Chest. 2008; 134(5): 955–62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
49. Aliberti S, Brambilla AM, Chalmers JD, et al.: Phenotyping community-acquired pneumonia according to the presence of acute respiratory failure and severe sepsis. Respir Res. 2014; 15(1): 27. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
50. Dremsizov T, Clermont G, Kellum JA, et al.: Severe sepsis in community-acquired pneumonia: when does it happen, and do systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria help predict course? Chest. 2006; 129(4): 968–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
51. Phua J, Ngerng WJ, Lim TK: The impact of a delay in intensive care unit admission for community-acquired pneumonia. Eur Respir J. 2010; 36(4): 826–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
52. Ewig S, Torres A: Community-acquired pneumonia as an emergency: time for an aggressive intervention to lower mortality. Eur Respir J. 2011; 38(2): 253–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
53. Kolditz M, Ewig S, Höffken G: Management-based risk prediction in community-acquired pneumonia by scores and biomarkers. Eur Respir J. 2013; 41(4): 974–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
54. Chalmers JD, Mandal P, Singanayagam A, et al.: Severity assessment tools to guide ICU admission in community-acquired pneumonia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2011; 37(9): 1409–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
55. Chalmers JD, Taylor JK, Mandal P, et al.: Validation of the Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoratic Society minor criteria for intensive care unit admission in community-acquired pneumonia patients without major criteria or contraindications to intensive care unit care. Clin Infect Dis. 2011; 53(6): 503–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
56. Salih W, Schembri S, Chalmers JD: Simplification of the IDSA/ATS criteria for severe CAP using meta-analysis and observational data. Eur Respir J. 2014; 43(3): 842–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
57. Lim HF, Phua J, Mukhopadhyay A, et al.: IDSA/ATS minor criteria aid pre-intensive care unit resuscitation in severe community-acquired pneumonia. Eur Respir J. 2014; 43(3): 852–62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
58. Ott SR, Hauptmeier BM, Ernen C, et al.: Treatment failure in pneumonia: impact of antibiotic treatment and cost analysis. Eur Respir J. 2012; 39(3): 611–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
59. Confalonieri M, Urbino R, Potena A, et al.: Hydrocortisone infusion for severe community-acquired pneumonia: a preliminary randomized study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005; 171(3): 242–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
60. Snijders D, Daniels JM, de Graaff CS, et al.: Efficacy of corticosteroids in community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized double-blinded clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010; 181(9): 975–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
61. Fernández-Serrano S, Dorca J, Garcia-Vidal C, et al.: Effect of corticosteroids on the clinical course of community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2011; 15(2): R96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
62. Meijvis SC, Hardeman H, Remmelts HH, et al.: Dexamethasone and length of hospital stay in patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2011; 377(9782): 2023–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
63. Blum CA, Nigro N, Briel M, et al.: Adjunct prednisone therapy for patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 385(9977): 1511–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
64. Torres A, Sibila O, Ferrer M, et al.: Effect of corticosteroids on treatment failure among hospitalized patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia and high inflammatory response: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015; 313(7): 677–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
65. Wan YD, Sun TW, Liu ZQ, et al.: Efficacy and Safety of Corticosteroids for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Chest. 2016; 149(1): 209–19. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
66. ADRENAL trial. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT01448109. Reference Source
67. ESCAPe trial. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT01283009. Reference Source
68. Rodrigo C, Leonardi-Bee J, Nguyen-Van-Tam JS, et al.: Effect of corticosteroid therapy on influenza-related mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect Dis. 2015; 212(2): 183–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
69. Myles P, Nguyen-Van-Tam JS, Semple MG, et al.: Differences between asthmatics and nonasthmatics hospitalised with influenza A infection. Eur Respir J. 2013; 41(4): 824–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
70. Viasus D, Garcia-Vidal C, Gudiol F, et al.: Statins for community-acquired pneumonia: current state of the science. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2010; 29(2): 143–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
71. Chalmers JD, Short PM, Mandal P, et al.: Statins in community acquired pneumonia: Evidence from experimental and clinical studies. Respir Med. 2010; 104(8): 1081–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
72. Schlienger RG, Fedson DS, Jick SS, et al.: Statins and the risk of pneumonia: a population-based, nested case-control study. Pharmacotherapy. 2007; 27(3): 325–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
73. Myles PR, Hubbard RB, McKeever TM, et al.: Risk of community-acquired pneumonia and the use of statins, ace inhibitors and gastric acid suppressants: a population-based case-control study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009; 18(4): 269–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
74. Vinogradova Y, Coupland C, Hippisley-Cox J: Risk of pneumonia in patients taking statins: population-based nested case-control study. Br J Gen Pract. 2011; 61(592): e742–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
75. Dublin S, Jackson ML, Nelson JC, et al.: Statin use and risk of community acquired pneumonia in older people: population based case-control study. BMJ. 2009; 338: b2137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
76. Fleming DM, Verlander NQ, Elliot AJ, et al.: An assessment of the effect of statin use on the incidence of acute respiratory infections in England during winters 1998–1999 to 2005–2006. Epidemiol Infect. 2010; 138(9): 1281–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
77. Viasus D, Garcia-Vidal C, Simonetti AF, et al.: The effect of simvastatin on inflammatory cytokines in community-acquired pneumonia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(1): e006251. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
78. Papazian L, Roch A, Charles PE, et al.: Effect of statin therapy on mortality in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013; 310(16): 1692–700. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
79. Höffken G, Lorenz J, Kern W, et al.: Guidelines of the Paul-Ehrlich-Society of Chemotherapy, the German Respiratory Diseases Society, the German Infectious Diseases Society and of the Competence Network CAPNETZ for the Management of Lower Respiratory Tract Infections and Community-acquired Pneumonia. Pneumologie. 2010; 64(3): 149–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
80. Woodhead M, Blasi F, Ewig S, et al.: Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections--full version. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011; 17(Suppl 6): E1–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
81. Creutz P, Kothe H, Braun M, et al.: Failure of Ambulatory Treatment in Cap Patients Leading to Subsequent Hospitalization and its Association to Risk Factors. J Pulmon Resp Med. 2013; 03(1). Publisher Full Text
82. Wellinghausen N, Straube E, Freidank H, et al.: Low prevalence of Chlamydia pneumoniae in adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Int J Med Microbiol. 2006; 296(7): 485–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
83. Guo D, Cai Y, Chai D, et al.: The cardiotoxicity of macrolides: a systematic review. Pharmazie. 2010; 65(9): 631–40. PubMed Abstract
84. Svanström H, Pasternak B, Hviid A: Use of clarithromycin and roxithromycin and risk of cardiac death: cohort study. BMJ. 2014; 349: g4930. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
85. Ray WA, Murray KT, Hall K, et al.: Azithromycin and the risk of cardiovascular death. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(20): 1881–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
86. Schembri S, Williamson PA, Short PM, et al.: Cardiovascular events after clarithromycin use in lower respiratory tract infections: analysis of two prospective cohort studies. BMJ. 2013; 346: f1235. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
87. Mortensen EM, Halm EA, Pugh MJ, et al.: Association of azithromycin with mortality and cardiovascular events among older patients hospitalized with pneumonia. JAMA. 2014; 311(21): 2199–208. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
88. Nie W, Li B, Xiu Q: β-Lactam/macrolide dual therapy versus β-lactam monotherapy for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014; 69(6): 1441–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
89. Postma DF, van Werkhoven CH, van Elden LJ, et al.: Antibiotic treatment strategies for community-acquired pneumonia in adults. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(14): 1312–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
90. Garin N, Genné D, Carballo S, et al.: β-Lactam monotherapy vs β-lactam-macrolide combination treatment in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized noninferiority trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174(12): 1894–901. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
91. Schouten JA, Prins JM, Bonten MJ, et al.: Revised SWAB guidelines for antimicrobial therapy of community-acquired pneumonia. Neth J Med. 2005; 63(8): 323–35. PubMed Abstract
92. Burkhardt O, Ewig S, Haagen U, et al.: Procalcitonin guidance and reduction of antibiotic use in acute respiratory tract infection. Eur Respir J. 2010; 36(3): 601–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
93. Schuetz P, Briel M, Christ-Crain M, et al.: Procalcitonin to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment in acute respiratory infections: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2012; 55(5): 651–62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
94. Cooke J, Butler C, Hopstaken R, et al.: Narrative review of primary care point-of-care testing (POCT) and antibacterial use in respiratory tract infection (RTI). BMJ Open Respir Res. 2015; 2(1): e000086. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
95. Little P, Stuart B, Moore M, et al.: Amoxicillin for acute lower-respiratory-tract infection in primary care when pneumonia is not suspected: a 12-country, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013; 13(2): 123–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
96. Murray C, Shaw A, Lloyd M, et al.: A multidisciplinary intervention to reduce antibiotic duration in lower respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014; 69(2): 515–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
97. DiazGranados CA, Dunning AJ, Kimmel M, et al.: Efficacy of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccine in older adults. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(7): 635–45. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
98. Pletz MW, Welte T: Pneumococcal and influenza vaccination. In: Chalmers JD, Pletz MW, Aliberti S, editors. Community-Acquired Pneumonia. European Respiratory Society, 2014; 266–284. Reference Source
99. Crépey P, de Boer PT, Postma MJ, et al.: Retrospective public health impact of a quadrivalent influenza vaccine in the United States. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2015; 9(Suppl 1): 39–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
100. Moberley S, Holden J, Tatham DP, et al.: Vaccines for preventing pneumococcal infection in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 1: CD000422. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
101. Maruyama T, Taguchi O, Niederman MS, et al.: Efficacy of 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia and improving survival in nursing home residents: double blind, randomised and placebo controlled trial. BMJ. 2010; 340: c1004. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
102. Schiffner-Rohe J, Witt A, Hemmerling J, et al.: Efficacy of PPV23 in Preventing Pneumococcal Pneumonia in Adults at Increased Risk - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2016; 11(1): e0146338. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
103. Bonten MJ, Huijts SM, Bolkenbaas M, et al.: Polysaccharide conjugate vaccine against pneumococcal pneumonia in adults. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(12): 1114–25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
104. Galanis I, Lindstrand A, Darenberg J, et al.: Effects of PCV7 and PCV13 on invasive pneumococcal disease and carriage in Stockholm, Sweden. Eur Respir J. 2016; 47(3): pii: ERJ-01451-2015. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
105. Richter SS, Diekema DJ, Heilmann KP, et al.: Changes in pneumococcal serotypes and antimicrobial resistance after introduction of the 13-valent conjugate vaccine in the United States. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014; 58(11): 6484–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
106. van der Linden M, Falkenhorst G, Perniciaro S, et al.: Effects of Infant Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccination on Serotype Distribution in Invasive Pneumococcal Disease among Children and Adults in Germany. PLoS One. 2015; 10(7): e0131494. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 08 Mar 2016

Author details Author details

¹ Center for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany
² Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
³ Department of Respiratory Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
⁴ Division of Pulmonology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
⁵ Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Inselspital, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. All of the following reported fees and grants were received outside the submitted work: MWP and TW received fees for lectures/advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, GSK, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. TW received fees for research grants from Bayer, Novartis, and Pfizer. MWP received fees for research grants from Infectopharm, Biotest, and Pfizer. GR has received consulting/lecture fees/honoraria from Novartis, Takeda, Astra-Zeneca, Chiesi, Grünenthal, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. SO has received consulting/lecture fees/honoraria from Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. MK reports grants and lecture fees from Pfizer and lecture fees from Thermo-Fisher, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Böhringer-Ingelheim.

Grant information

MP was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research (grant number 01KI1204).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 08 Mar 2016, 5:300

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7657.1

Copyright

© 2016 Pletz MW et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Pletz MW, Rohde GG, Welte T et al. Advances in the prevention, management, and treatment of community-acquired pneumonia [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] F1000Research 2016, 5(F1000 Faculty Rev):300 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7657.1)

NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 08 Mar 2016

Views

13

Reviewer Report 09 Mar 2016

Mats Kalin, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.8246.r12810

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

17

Reviewer Report 09 Mar 2016

James D. Chalmers, Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.8246.r12809

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 08 Mar 2016

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 08 Mar 16	read	read

James D. Chalmers, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
Mats Kalin, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

13 Views

09 Mar 2016 | for Version 1

Mats Kalin, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

13 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

17 Views

09 Mar 2016 | for Version 1

James D. Chalmers, Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

17 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Schnoor M, Hedicke J, Dalhoff K, et al.: Approaches to estimate the population-based incidence of community acquired pneumonia. J Infect. 2007; 55(3): 233–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Ewig S, Birkner N, Strauss R, et al.: New perspectives on community-acquired pneumonia in 388 406 patients. Results from a nationwide mandatory performance measurement programme in healthcare quality. Thorax. 2009; 64(12): 1062–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. Jansen AG, Rodenburg GD, de Greeff SC, et al.: Invasive pneumococcal disease in the Netherlands: Syndromes, outcome and potential vaccine benefits. Vaccine. 2009; 27(17): 2394–401. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators: Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015; 385(9963): 117–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Welte T, Torres A, Nathwani D: Clinical and economic burden of community-acquired pneumonia among adults in Europe. Thorax. 2012; 67(1): 71–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Drijkoningen JJ, Rohde GG: Pneumococcal infection in adults: burden of disease. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014; 20(Suppl 5): 45–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Pletz MW, von Baum H, van der Linden M, et al.: The burden of pneumococcal pneumonia - experience of the German competence network CAPNETZ. Pneumologie. 2012; 66(8): 470–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Bafadhel M, Haldar K, Barker B, et al.: Airway bacteria measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction and culture in patients with stable COPD: relationship with neutrophilic airway inflammation, exacerbation frequency, and lung function. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015; 10(1): 1075–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] 9. Braeken D, Franssen F, Schütte H, et al.: Increased Severity and Mortality of CAP in COPD: Results from the German Competence Network, CAPNETZ. J COPD F. 2014; 2(2): 131–40. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Bierbaum S, Königsfeld N, Besazza N, et al.: Performance of a novel microarray multiplex PCR for the detection of 23 respiratory pathogens (SYMP-ARI study). Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012; 31(10): 2851–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Bierbaum S, Forster J, Berner R, et al.: Detection of respiratory viruses using a multiplex real-time PCR assay in Germany, 2009/10. Arch Virol. 2014; 159(4): 669–76. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. von Baum H, Schweiger B, Welte T, et al.: How deadly is seasonal influenza-associated pneumonia? The German Competence Network for Community-Acquired Pneumonia. Eur Respir J. 2011; 37(5): 1151–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Johansson N, Kalin M, Tiveljung-Lindell A, et al.: Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia: increased microbiological yield with new diagnostic methods. Clin Infect Dis. 2010; 50(2): 202–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. von Baum H, Welte T, Marre R, et al.: Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia revisited within the German Competence Network for Community-acquired pneumonia (CAPNETZ). BMC Infect Dis. 2009; 9: 62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[15] 15. Dumke R, Schnee C, Pletz MW, et al.: Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydia spp. infection in community-acquired pneumonia, Germany, 2011–2012. Emerging Infect Dis. 2015; 21(3): 426–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. von Baum H, Ewig S, Marre R, et al.: Community-acquired Legionella pneumonia: new insights from the German competence network for community acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2008; 46(9): 1356–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[17] 17. Arancibia F, Cortes CP, Valdés M, et al.: Importance of Legionella pneumophila in the etiology of severe community-acquired pneumonia in Santiago, Chile. Chest. 2014; 145(2): 290–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Krüger S, Ewig S, Papassotiriou J, et al.: Inflammatory parameters predict etiologic patterns but do not allow for individual prediction of etiology in patients with CAP: results from the German competence network CAPNETZ. Respir Res. 2009; 10(1): 65. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] 19. Bello S, Mincholé E, Fandos S, et al.: Inflammatory response in mixed viral-bacterial community-acquired pneumonia. BMC Pulm Med. 2014; 14: 123. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[20] 20. Schuetz P, Suter-Widmer I, Chaudri A, et al.: Prognostic value of procalcitonin in community-acquired pneumonia. Eur Respir J. 2011; 37(2): 384–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[21] 21. Krüger S, Ewig S, Marre R, et al.: Procalcitonin predicts patients at low risk of death from community-acquired pneumonia across all CRB-65 classes. Eur Respir J. 2008; 31(2): 349–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Zhydkov A, Christ-Crain M, Thomann R, et al.: Utility of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white blood cells alone and in combination for the prediction of clinical outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015; 53(4): 559–66. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[23] 23. Krüger S, Ewig S, Kunde J, et al.: Assessment of inflammatory markers in patients with community-acquired pneumonia--influence of antimicrobial pre-treatment: results from the German competence network CAPNETZ. Clin Chim Acta. 2010; 411(23–24): 1929–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Le Bel J, Hausfater P, Chenevier-Gobeaux C, et al.: Diagnostic accuracy of C-reactive protein and procalcitonin in suspected community-acquired pneumonia adults visiting emergency department and having a systematic thoracic CT scan. Crit Care. 2015; 19: 366. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[25] 25. van Vugt SF, Broekhuizen BD, Lammens C, et al.: Use of serum C reactive protein and procalcitonin concentrations in addition to symptoms and signs to predict pneumonia in patients presenting to primary care with acute cough: diagnostic study. BMJ. 2013; 346: f2450. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[26] 26. Krüger S, Ewig S, Giersdorf S, et al.: Cardiovascular and inflammatory biomarkers to predict short- and long-term survival in community-acquired pneumonia: Results from the German Competence Network, CAPNETZ. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010; 182(11): 1426–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[27] 27. España PP, Capelastegui A, Mar C, et al.: Performance of pro-adrenomedullin for identifying adverse outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia. J Infect. 2015; 70(5): 457–66. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[28] 28. Krüger S, Ewig S, Giersdorf S, et al.: Dysnatremia, vasopressin, atrial natriuretic peptide and mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia: results from the german competence network CAPNETZ. Respir Med. 2014; 108(11): 1696–705. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Lepper PM, Ott S, Nüesch E, et al.: Serum glucose levels for predicting death in patients admitted to hospital for community acquired pneumonia: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2012; 344: e3397. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[30] 30. Kolditz M, Höffken G, Martus P, et al.: Serum cortisol predicts death and critical disease independently of CRB-65 score in community-acquired pneumonia: a prospective observational cohort study. BMC Infect Dis. 2012; 12: 90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[31] 31. Gamble JM, Eurich DT, Marrie TJ, et al.: Admission hypoglycemia and increased mortality in patients hospitalized with pneumonia. Am J Med. 2010; 123(6): 556.e11–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[32] 32. Bauer TT, Ewig S, Marre R, et al.: CRB-65 predicts death from community-acquired pneumonia. J Intern Med. 2006; 260(1): 93–101. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Ewig S, Bauer T, Richter K, et al.: Prediction of in-hospital death from community-acquired pneumonia by varying CRB-age groups. Eur Respir J. 2013; 41(4): 917–22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[34] 34. Bauer TT, Welte T, Strauss R, et al.: Why do nonsurvivors from community-acquired pneumonia not receive ventilatory support? Lung. 2013; 191(4): 417–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Fine MJ, Auble TE, Yealy DM, et al.: A prediction rule to identify low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336(4): 243–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Lim WS, van der Eerden MM, Laing R, et al.: Defining community acquired pneumonia severity on presentation to hospital: an international derivation and validation study. Thorax. 2003; 58(5): 377–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[37] 37. Loke YK, Kwok CS, Niruban A, et al.: Value of severity scales in predicting mortality from community-acquired pneumonia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax. 2010; 65(10): 884–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Chalmers JD, Singanayagam A, Akram AR, et al.: Severity assessment tools for predicting mortality in hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax. 2010; 65(10): 878–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[39] 39. Kolditz M, Ewig S, Schütte H, et al.: Assessment of oxygenation and comorbidities improves outcome prediction in patients with community-acquired pneumonia with a low CRB-65 score. J Intern Med. 2015; 278(2): 193–202. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Dwyer R, Hedlund J, Henriques-Normark B, et al.: Improvement of CRB-65 as a prognostic tool in adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2014; 1(1): e000038. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[41] 41. Corrales-Medina VF, Musher DM, Wells GA, et al.: Cardiac complications in patients with community-acquired pneumonia: incidence, timing, risk factors, and association with short-term mortality. Circulation. 2012; 125(6): 773–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[42] 42. Aliberti S, Ramirez J, Cosentini R, et al.: Acute myocardial infarction versus other cardiovascular events in community-acquired pneumonia. ERJ Open Res. 2015; 1(1): 00020-2015-20-2015. Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[43] 43. El-Solh AA, Alhajhusain A, Abou Jaoude P, et al.: Validity of severity scores in hospitalized patients with nursing home-acquired pneumonia. Chest. 2010; 138(6): 1371–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[44] 44. Majumdar SR, Eurich DT, Gamble JM, et al.: Oxygen saturations less than 92% are associated with major adverse events in outpatients with pneumonia: a population-based cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2011; 52(3): 325–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[45] 45. Choudhury G, Chalmers JD, Mandal P, et al.: Physician judgement is a crucial adjunct to pneumonia severity scores in low-risk patients. Eur Respir J. 2011; 38(3): 643–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[46] 46. Dwyer R, Hedlund J, Darenberg J, et al.: Improvement of CRB-65 as a prognostic scoring system in adult patients with bacteraemic pneumococcal pneumonia. Scand J Infect Dis. 2011; 43(6–7): 448–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[47] 47. Kolditz M, Ewig S, Klapdor B, et al.: Community-acquired pneumonia as medical emergency: predictors of early deterioration. Thorax. 2015; 70(6): 551–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[48] 48. Aliberti S, Amir A, Peyrani P, et al.: Incidence, etiology, timing, and risk factors for clinical failure in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Chest. 2008; 134(5): 955–62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[49] 49. Aliberti S, Brambilla AM, Chalmers JD, et al.: Phenotyping community-acquired pneumonia according to the presence of acute respiratory failure and severe sepsis. Respir Res. 2014; 15(1): 27. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[50] 50. Dremsizov T, Clermont G, Kellum JA, et al.: Severe sepsis in community-acquired pneumonia: when does it happen, and do systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria help predict course? Chest. 2006; 129(4): 968–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[51] 51. Phua J, Ngerng WJ, Lim TK: The impact of a delay in intensive care unit admission for community-acquired pneumonia. Eur Respir J. 2010; 36(4): 826–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[52] 52. Ewig S, Torres A: Community-acquired pneumonia as an emergency: time for an aggressive intervention to lower mortality. Eur Respir J. 2011; 38(2): 253–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[53] 53. Kolditz M, Ewig S, Höffken G: Management-based risk prediction in community-acquired pneumonia by scores and biomarkers. Eur Respir J. 2013; 41(4): 974–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[54] 54. Chalmers JD, Mandal P, Singanayagam A, et al.: Severity assessment tools to guide ICU admission in community-acquired pneumonia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2011; 37(9): 1409–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[55] 55. Chalmers JD, Taylor JK, Mandal P, et al.: Validation of the Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoratic Society minor criteria for intensive care unit admission in community-acquired pneumonia patients without major criteria or contraindications to intensive care unit care. Clin Infect Dis. 2011; 53(6): 503–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[56] 56. Salih W, Schembri S, Chalmers JD: Simplification of the IDSA/ATS criteria for severe CAP using meta-analysis and observational data. Eur Respir J. 2014; 43(3): 842–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[57] 57. Lim HF, Phua J, Mukhopadhyay A, et al.: IDSA/ATS minor criteria aid pre-intensive care unit resuscitation in severe community-acquired pneumonia. Eur Respir J. 2014; 43(3): 852–62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[58] 58. Ott SR, Hauptmeier BM, Ernen C, et al.: Treatment failure in pneumonia: impact of antibiotic treatment and cost analysis. Eur Respir J. 2012; 39(3): 611–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[59] 59. Confalonieri M, Urbino R, Potena A, et al.: Hydrocortisone infusion for severe community-acquired pneumonia: a preliminary randomized study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005; 171(3): 242–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[60] 60. Snijders D, Daniels JM, de Graaff CS, et al.: Efficacy of corticosteroids in community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized double-blinded clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010; 181(9): 975–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[61] 61. Fernández-Serrano S, Dorca J, Garcia-Vidal C, et al.: Effect of corticosteroids on the clinical course of community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2011; 15(2): R96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[62] 62. Meijvis SC, Hardeman H, Remmelts HH, et al.: Dexamethasone and length of hospital stay in patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2011; 377(9782): 2023–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[63] 63. Blum CA, Nigro N, Briel M, et al.: Adjunct prednisone therapy for patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 385(9977): 1511–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[64] 64. Torres A, Sibila O, Ferrer M, et al.: Effect of corticosteroids on treatment failure among hospitalized patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia and high inflammatory response: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015; 313(7): 677–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[65] 65. Wan YD, Sun TW, Liu ZQ, et al.: Efficacy and Safety of Corticosteroids for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Chest. 2016; 149(1): 209–19. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[66] 66. ADRENAL trial. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT01448109. Reference Source

[67] 67. ESCAPe trial. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT01283009. Reference Source

[68] 68. Rodrigo C, Leonardi-Bee J, Nguyen-Van-Tam JS, et al.: Effect of corticosteroid therapy on influenza-related mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect Dis. 2015; 212(2): 183–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[69] 69. Myles P, Nguyen-Van-Tam JS, Semple MG, et al.: Differences between asthmatics and nonasthmatics hospitalised with influenza A infection. Eur Respir J. 2013; 41(4): 824–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[70] 70. Viasus D, Garcia-Vidal C, Gudiol F, et al.: Statins for community-acquired pneumonia: current state of the science. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2010; 29(2): 143–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[71] 71. Chalmers JD, Short PM, Mandal P, et al.: Statins in community acquired pneumonia: Evidence from experimental and clinical studies. Respir Med. 2010; 104(8): 1081–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[72] 72. Schlienger RG, Fedson DS, Jick SS, et al.: Statins and the risk of pneumonia: a population-based, nested case-control study. Pharmacotherapy. 2007; 27(3): 325–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[73] 73. Myles PR, Hubbard RB, McKeever TM, et al.: Risk of community-acquired pneumonia and the use of statins, ace inhibitors and gastric acid suppressants: a population-based case-control study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009; 18(4): 269–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[74] 74. Vinogradova Y, Coupland C, Hippisley-Cox J: Risk of pneumonia in patients taking statins: population-based nested case-control study. Br J Gen Pract. 2011; 61(592): e742–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[75] 75. Dublin S, Jackson ML, Nelson JC, et al.: Statin use and risk of community acquired pneumonia in older people: population based case-control study. BMJ. 2009; 338: b2137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[76] 76. Fleming DM, Verlander NQ, Elliot AJ, et al.: An assessment of the effect of statin use on the incidence of acute respiratory infections in England during winters 1998–1999 to 2005–2006. Epidemiol Infect. 2010; 138(9): 1281–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[77] 77. Viasus D, Garcia-Vidal C, Simonetti AF, et al.: The effect of simvastatin on inflammatory cytokines in community-acquired pneumonia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(1): e006251. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[78] 78. Papazian L, Roch A, Charles PE, et al.: Effect of statin therapy on mortality in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013; 310(16): 1692–700. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[79] 79. Höffken G, Lorenz J, Kern W, et al.: Guidelines of the Paul-Ehrlich-Society of Chemotherapy, the German Respiratory Diseases Society, the German Infectious Diseases Society and of the Competence Network CAPNETZ for the Management of Lower Respiratory Tract Infections and Community-acquired Pneumonia. Pneumologie. 2010; 64(3): 149–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[80] 80. Woodhead M, Blasi F, Ewig S, et al.: Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections--full version. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011; 17(Suppl 6): E1–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[81] 81. Creutz P, Kothe H, Braun M, et al.: Failure of Ambulatory Treatment in Cap Patients Leading to Subsequent Hospitalization and its Association to Risk Factors. J Pulmon Resp Med. 2013; 03(1). Publisher Full Text

[82] 82. Wellinghausen N, Straube E, Freidank H, et al.: Low prevalence of Chlamydia pneumoniae in adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Int J Med Microbiol. 2006; 296(7): 485–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[83] 83. Guo D, Cai Y, Chai D, et al.: The cardiotoxicity of macrolides: a systematic review. Pharmazie. 2010; 65(9): 631–40. PubMed Abstract

[84] 84. Svanström H, Pasternak B, Hviid A: Use of clarithromycin and roxithromycin and risk of cardiac death: cohort study. BMJ. 2014; 349: g4930. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[85] 85. Ray WA, Murray KT, Hall K, et al.: Azithromycin and the risk of cardiovascular death. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(20): 1881–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[86] 86. Schembri S, Williamson PA, Short PM, et al.: Cardiovascular events after clarithromycin use in lower respiratory tract infections: analysis of two prospective cohort studies. BMJ. 2013; 346: f1235. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[87] 87. Mortensen EM, Halm EA, Pugh MJ, et al.: Association of azithromycin with mortality and cardiovascular events among older patients hospitalized with pneumonia. JAMA. 2014; 311(21): 2199–208. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[88] 88. Nie W, Li B, Xiu Q: β-Lactam/macrolide dual therapy versus β-lactam monotherapy for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014; 69(6): 1441–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[89] 89. Postma DF, van Werkhoven CH, van Elden LJ, et al.: Antibiotic treatment strategies for community-acquired pneumonia in adults. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(14): 1312–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[90] 90. Garin N, Genné D, Carballo S, et al.: β-Lactam monotherapy vs β-lactam-macrolide combination treatment in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized noninferiority trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174(12): 1894–901. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[91] 91. Schouten JA, Prins JM, Bonten MJ, et al.: Revised SWAB guidelines for antimicrobial therapy of community-acquired pneumonia. Neth J Med. 2005; 63(8): 323–35. PubMed Abstract

[92] 92. Burkhardt O, Ewig S, Haagen U, et al.: Procalcitonin guidance and reduction of antibiotic use in acute respiratory tract infection. Eur Respir J. 2010; 36(3): 601–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[93] 93. Schuetz P, Briel M, Christ-Crain M, et al.: Procalcitonin to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment in acute respiratory infections: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2012; 55(5): 651–62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[94] 94. Cooke J, Butler C, Hopstaken R, et al.: Narrative review of primary care point-of-care testing (POCT) and antibacterial use in respiratory tract infection (RTI). BMJ Open Respir Res. 2015; 2(1): e000086. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[95] 95. Little P, Stuart B, Moore M, et al.: Amoxicillin for acute lower-respiratory-tract infection in primary care when pneumonia is not suspected: a 12-country, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013; 13(2): 123–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[96] 96. Murray C, Shaw A, Lloyd M, et al.: A multidisciplinary intervention to reduce antibiotic duration in lower respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014; 69(2): 515–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[97] 97. DiazGranados CA, Dunning AJ, Kimmel M, et al.: Efficacy of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccine in older adults. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(7): 635–45. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[98] 98. Pletz MW, Welte T: Pneumococcal and influenza vaccination. In: Chalmers JD, Pletz MW, Aliberti S, editors. Community-Acquired Pneumonia. European Respiratory Society, 2014; 266–284. Reference Source

[99] 99. Crépey P, de Boer PT, Postma MJ, et al.: Retrospective public health impact of a quadrivalent influenza vaccine in the United States. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2015; 9(Suppl 1): 39–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[100] 100. Moberley S, Holden J, Tatham DP, et al.: Vaccines for preventing pneumococcal infection in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 1: CD000422. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[101] 101. Maruyama T, Taguchi O, Niederman MS, et al.: Efficacy of 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia and improving survival in nursing home residents: double blind, randomised and placebo controlled trial. BMJ. 2010; 340: c1004. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[102] 102. Schiffner-Rohe J, Witt A, Hemmerling J, et al.: Efficacy of PPV23 in Preventing Pneumococcal Pneumonia in Adults at Increased Risk - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2016; 11(1): e0146338. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[103] 103. Bonten MJ, Huijts SM, Bolkenbaas M, et al.: Polysaccharide conjugate vaccine against pneumococcal pneumonia in adults. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(12): 1114–25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[104] 104. Galanis I, Lindstrand A, Darenberg J, et al.: Effects of PCV7 and PCV13 on invasive pneumococcal disease and carriage in Stockholm, Sweden. Eur Respir J. 2016; 47(3): pii: ERJ-01451-2015. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[105] 105. Richter SS, Diekema DJ, Heilmann KP, et al.: Changes in pneumococcal serotypes and antimicrobial resistance after introduction of the 13-valent conjugate vaccine in the United States. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014; 58(11): 6484–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[106] 106. van der Linden M, Falkenhorst G, Perniciaro S, et al.: Effects of Infant Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccination on Serotype Distribution in Invasive Pneumococcal Disease among Children and Adults in Germany. PLoS One. 2015; 10(7): e0131494. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Advances in the prevention, management, and treatment of community-acquired pneumonia

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction and epidemiology

Biomarkers

Risk stratification

Prognosis

Predicting low risk of complications in the outpatient setting

Table 1. Low-risk identification in the outpatient setting.

Identifying high-risk patients in need of intensified management in the emergency department

Table 2. High-risk identification in the emergency department (including assessment of the ATS/IDSA minor criteria).

Adjuvant treatment

Antibiotic treatment

Antibiotic stewardship

Vaccination

Implications for clinical practice

Competing interests

Grant information

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated