Predictive accuracy of the pneumonia severity index vs CRB-65 for time to clinical stability: Results from the Community-Acquired Pneumonia Organization (CAPO) International Cohort Study

University of Louisville, School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Louisville, KY 40202, USA.
Respiratory medicine (Impact Factor: 2.92). 11/2010; 104(11):1736-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2010.05.022
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) and CRB-65 are scores used to predict mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). It is unknown how well either score predicts time to clinical stability in hospitalized patients with CAP. Thus, it is also not known which score predicts time to clinical stability better.
A secondary analysis of 3087 patients from the Community-Acquired Pneumonia Organization (CAPO) database was performed. Time-dependent receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves for time to clinical stability were calculated for the PSI and CRB-65 scores at day seven of hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were to assess the relationship of the PSI and CRB-65 to in-hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS). ROC curves for LOS and mortality were calculated.
The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for time to clinical stability by day seven was 0.638 (95% CI 0.613, 0.660) when using the PSI, and 0.647 (95% CI 0.619, 0.670) while using the CRB-65. The difference in AUC values was not statistically significant (95% CI for difference of -0.03 to 0.01). However, the difference in the AUC values for discharge within 14 days (0.651 for PSI vs 0.63 for CRB-65, 95% CI for difference 0.001-0.049), and 28-day in-hospital mortality (0.738 for PSI vs 0.69 for CRB-65, 95% CI for difference 0.02-0.082) were both statistically significant.
This study demonstrates a moderate ability of both the PSI and CRB-65 scores to predict time to clinical stability, and found that the predictive accuracy of the PSI was equivalent to that of the CRB-65 for this outcome.

Download full-text


Available from: Guy N Brock, Jun 19, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acute pneumonia is a serious problem in the elderly and various risk factors have already been reported, but the involvement of QTc interval prolongation remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to elucidate the prognostic factors for the development of pneumonia in elderly patients and to study the possible involvement of QTc interval prolongation. The subjects were 249 hospitalized pneumonia patients more than 65 years old in Aki-Ohta Hospital from January 2010 to December 2013. Community-acquired pneumonia patients and nursing care and healthcare-associated pneumonia patients were included in the study. The pneumonia severity index, vital signs, blood chemistry data and ECG findings were retrospectively compared using multiple logistic regression analysis. 39 patients died within 30 days from onset. The clinical features related to poor prognosis were: advanced age, past history of cerebral vascular disease and/or diabetes mellitus, decreased serum albumin level, higher CURB-65 or PORT index scores and QTc interval prolongation. Patients showing a prolonged QTc interval had a higher mortality than those with a normal QTc interval. A prolonged QTc interval was not related to serum calcium concentration and/or treatment with QTc prolongation drug, clarithromycin or azithromycin, but related to age, lower albumin concentration and past history of diabetes mellitus. These findings suggest potential prognostic factors for pneumonia in elderly patients, including a prolonged QTc interval (> 0.44 seconds).
    Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine 01/2014; 9(1):59. DOI:10.1186/2049-6958-9-59 · 0.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Switch therapy is a management approach combining early discontinuation of intravenous (IV) antibiotics, switch to oral antibiotics, and early hospital discharge. This analysis compares switch therapy using tigecycline versus levofloxacin in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 clinical trial; patients were randomized to IV tigecycline (100 mg, then 50 mg q12h) or IV levofloxacin (500 mg q24h). Objective criteria were used to define time to switch therapy; patients were switched to oral levofloxacin after ≥6 IV doses if criteria met. Switch therapy outcomes were assessed within the clinically evaluable (CE) population. RESULTS: In the CE population, 138 patients were treated with IV tigecycline and 156 were treated with IV levofloxacin. The proportion of the population that met switch therapy criteria was 67.4% (93/138) for tigecycline and 66.7% (104/156) for levofloxacin. The proportion that actually switched to oral therapy was 89.9% (124/138) for tigecycline and 87.8% (137/156) for levofloxacin. Median time to actual switch therapy was 5.0 days each for tigecycline and levofloxacin. Clinical cure rates for patients who switched were 96.8% for tigecycline and 95.6% for levofloxacin. Corresponding cure rates for those that met switch criteria were 95.7% for tigecycline and 92.3% for levofloxacin. CONCLUSIONS: Switch therapy outcomes in hospitalized patients with CAP receiving initial IV therapy with tigecycline are comparable to those of patients receiving initial IV therapy with levofloxacin. These data support the use of IV tigecycline in hospitalized patients with CAP when the switch therapy approach is considered. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00081575.
    BMC Infectious Diseases 07/2012; 12(1):159. DOI:10.1186/1471-2334-12-159 · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although most experts recommend empirical antibiotic treatment, covering also atypical bacteria, for patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU), the data are not clear for patients admitted to a general ward. European guidelines recommend starting empirical treatment with a beta-lactam antibiotic with or without a macrolide, but the with/without is not clarified. We investigated whether the use of antibiotic coverage for atypical pathogens was guided by clinical parameters. We retrospectively analysed 300 patients hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia. Four parameters for possible atypical pneumonia (age <55 years, abdominal symptoms, sodium <130 mmol/l, immunosuppression) and three for pneumonia severity (pneumonia severity index [PSI], ICU admission, pO2 <8 kPa (60 mm Hg) or O2 saturation <90%) were defined and correlated with the probability of coverage for atypical pathogens. Correlations were calculated using the chi-square test for 2 x 2 tables. Patients younger than 55 years significantly more likely to receive coverage for atypical pathogens than older patients (odds ratio [OR] 2.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-5.5, p = 0.009). In patients with a PSI >III the proportion receiving coverage for atypical bacteria was even smaller than in patients with less severe pneumonia (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.60-0.99, p = 0.03), but no difference was found for PSI >IV compared with PSI ≤IV (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.61-1.74, p = 0.9). The other clinical parameters had no effect on antibiotic coverage: ICU admission (OR =1.39; 95% CI 0.87-2.4, p = 0.15); pO2 >8 kPa or O2-Saturation >90% (OR 1.36; 95% CI 0.85-2.17, p = 0.19); abdominal symptoms (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.51-2.25, p = 0.88); sodium <130 mmol/l (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.29-1.36, p = 0.2) or immunosuppression (OR 1.007; 95% CI 0.462-44, p = 1). There was also no correlation between the number of clinical parameters present and the coverage of atypical pathogens (r = 0.48). Mortality was no different between patients in whom atypical pathogens were covered compared with those with beta-lactam therapy alone (OR 1.2; 95% CI 0.66-2.25, p = 0.43). Physicians have difficulties deciding when to cover atypical pathogens in hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Guidelines should clarify under what circumstances combination therapy is warranted.
    Schweizerische medizinische Wochenschrift 09/2013; 143:w13870. DOI:10.4414/smw.2013.13870 · 1.88 Impact Factor