Blog
About

13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Community-acquired pneumonia and survival of critically ill acute exacerbation of COPD patients in respiratory intensive care units

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          The aim of this study was to appraise the effect of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) on inhospital mortality in critically ill acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) patients admitted to a respiratory intensive care unit.

          Patients and methods

          A retrospective observational study was performed. Consecutive critically ill AECOPD patients receiving treatment in a respiratory intensive care unit were reviewed from September 1, 2012, to August 31, 2015. Categorical variables were analyzed using chi-square tests, and continuous variables were analyzed by Mann–Whitney U-test. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to assess the association of CAP with survival of critically ill AECOPD patients for univariate analysis. Cox’s proportional hazards regression model was performed to identify risk factors for multivariate analysis.

          Results

          A total of 80 consecutive eligible individuals were reviewed. These included 38 patients with CAP and 42 patients without CAP. Patients with CAP had a higher inhospital rate of mortality than patients without CAP (42% vs 33.3%, P<0.05). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed that patients with CAP had a worse survival rate than patients without CAP ( P<0.05). Clinical characteristics, including Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, C-reactive protein, and CAP, were found to be closely associated with survival of AECOPD individuals. Further multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed that CAP and APACHE II were independent risk factors for inhospital mortality in critically ill AECOPD patients (CAP: hazard ratio, 5.29; 95% CI, 1.50–18.47, P<0.01 and APACHE II: hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06–1.37, P<0.01).

          Conclusion

          CAP may be an independent risk factor for higher inhospital mortality in critically ill AECOPD patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          BTS guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults: update 2009.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Corticosteroid Therapy for Patients Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

            Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is common and often severe.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Inhaled steroids and risk of pneumonia for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

              Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are anti-inflammatory drugs that have proven benefits for people with worsening symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and repeated exacerbations. They are commonly used as combination inhalers with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) to reduce exacerbation rates and all-cause mortality, and to improve lung function and quality of life. The most common combinations of ICS and LABA used in combination inhalers are fluticasone and salmeterol, budesonide and formoterol and a new formulation of fluticasone in combination with vilanterol, which is now available. ICS have been associated with increased risk of pneumonia, but the magnitude of risk and how this compares with different ICS remain unclear. Recent reviews conducted to address their safety have not compared the relative safety of these two drugs when used alone or in combination with LABA. To assess the risk of pneumonia associated with the use of fluticasone and budesonide for COPD. We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), clinicaltrials.gov, reference lists of existing systematic reviews and manufacturer websites. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013. We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies were included if they compared the ICS budesonide or fluticasone versus placebo, or either ICS in combination with a LABA versus the same LABA as monotherapy for people with COPD. Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, numerical data and risk of bias information for each included study.We looked at direct comparisons of ICS versus placebo separately from comparisons of ICS/LABA versus LABA for all outcomes, and we combined these with subgroups when no important heterogeneity was noted. After assessing for transitivity, we conducted an indirect comparison to compare budesonide versus fluticasone monotherapy, but we could not do the same for the combination therapies because of systematic differences between the budesonide and fluticasone combination data sets.When appropriate, we explored the effects of ICS dose, duration of ICS therapy and baseline severity on the primary outcome. Findings of all outcomes are presented in 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADEPro. We found 43 studies that met the inclusion criteria, and more evidence was provided for fluticasone (26 studies; n = 21,247) than for budesonide (17 studies; n = 10,150). Evidence from the budesonide studies was more inconsistent and less precise, and the studies were shorter. The populations within studies were more often male with a mean age of around 63, mean pack-years smoked over 40 and mean predicted forced expiratory volume of one second (FEV1) less than 50%.High or uneven dropout was considered a high risk of bias in almost 40% of the trials, but conclusions for the primary outcome did not change when the trials at high risk of bias were removed in a sensitivity analysis.Fluticasone increased non-fatal serious adverse pneumonia events (requiring hospital admission) (odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50 to 2.12; 18 more per 1000 treated over 18 months; high quality), and no evidence suggested that this outcome was reduced by delivering it in combination with salmeterol or vilanterol (subgroup differences: I(2) = 0%, P value 0.51), or that different doses, trial duration or baseline severity significantly affected the estimate. Budesonide also increased non-fatal serious adverse pneumonia events compared with placebo, but the effect was less precise and was based on shorter trials (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.62; six more per 1000 treated over nine months; moderate quality). Some of the variation in the budesonide data could be explained by a significant difference between the two commonly used doses: 640 mcg was associated with a larger effect than 320 mcg relative to placebo (subgroup differences: I(2) = 74%, P value 0.05).An indirect comparison of budesonide versus fluticasone monotherapy revealed no significant differences with respect to serious adverse events (pneumonia-related or all-cause) or mortality. The risk of any pneumonia event (i.e. less serious cases treated in the community) was higher with fluticasone than with budesonide (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.34); this was the only significant difference reported between the two drugs. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution because of possible differences in the assignment of pneumonia diagnosis, and because no trials directly compared the two drugs.No significant difference in overall mortality rates was observed between either of the inhaled steroids and the control interventions (both high-quality evidence), and pneumonia-related deaths were too rare to permit conclusions to be drawn. Budesonide and fluticasone, delivered alone or in combination with a LABA, are associated with increased risk of serious adverse pneumonia events, but neither significantly affected mortality compared with controls. The safety concerns highlighted in this review should be balanced with recent cohort data and established randomised evidence of efficacy regarding exacerbations and quality of life. Comparison of the two drugs revealed no statistically significant difference in serious pneumonias, mortality or serious adverse events. Fluticasone was associated with higher risk of any pneumonia when compared with budesonide (i.e. less serious cases dealt with in the community), but variation in the definitions used by the respective manufacturers is a potential confounding factor in their comparison.Primary research should accurately measure pneumonia outcomes and should clarify both the definition and the method of diagnosis used, especially for new formulations such as fluticasone furoate, for which little evidence of the associated pneumonia risk is currently available. Similarly, systematic reviews and cohorts should address the reliability of assigning 'pneumonia' as an adverse event or cause of death and should determine how this affects the applicability of findings.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                International Journal of COPD
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                2016
                09 August 2016
                : 11
                : 1867-1872
                Affiliations
                Department of Respiratory Medicine, Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College, Wuhu, People’s Republic of China
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Yusheng Cheng, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College, 2 Zeshan West Road, 241001 Wuhu, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86 553 573 9006, Email chengys1222@ 123456126.com
                [*]

                These authors contributed equally to this work

                Article
                copd-11-1867
                10.2147/COPD.S113510
                4984991
                27563239
                © 2016 Lu et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article