Wesley H Self1, Richard G Wunderink2, Derek J Williams3, Tyler W Barrett1, Adrienne H Baughman1, Carlos G Grijalva4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. 4. Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Six recently published algorithms classify pneumonia patients presenting from the community into high- and low-risk groups for resistant bacteria. Our objective was to compare performance of these algorithms for identifying patients infected with bacteria resistant to traditional community-acquired pneumonia antibiotics. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of consecutive adult patients diagnosed with pneumonia in an emergency department and subsequently hospitalized. Each patient was classified as high or low risk for resistant bacteria according to the following algorithms: original health care-associated pneumonia (HCAP) criteria, Summit criteria, Brito and Niederman strategy, Shorr model, Aliberti model, and Shindo model. The reference for comparison was detection of resistant bacteria, defined as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Gram-negative bacteria resistant to ceftriaxone or levofloxacin. RESULTS: A total of 614 patients were studied, including 36 (5.9%) with resistant bacteria. The HCAP criteria classified 304 (49.5%) patients as high risk, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54 to 0.72), sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI = 0.52 to 0.83), and specificity of 0.52 (95% CI = 0.48 to 0.56). None of the other algorithms improved both sensitivity and specificity or significantly improved the AUC. Compared to the HCAP criteria, the Shorr and Aliberti models classified more patients as high risk, resulting in higher sensitivity and lower specificity. The Shindo model classified fewer patients as high risk, with lower sensitivity and higher specificity. CONCLUSIONS: All algorithms for identification of resistant bacteria included in this study had suboptimal performance to guide antibiotic selection. New strategies for selecting empirical antibiotics for community-onset pneumonia are necessary.
OBJECTIVES: Six recently published algorithms classify pneumoniapatients presenting from the community into high- and low-risk groups for resistant bacteria. Our objective was to compare performance of these algorithms for identifying patients infected with bacteria resistant to traditional community-acquired pneumonia antibiotics. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of consecutive adult patients diagnosed with pneumonia in an emergency department and subsequently hospitalized. Each patient was classified as high or low risk for resistant bacteria according to the following algorithms: original health care-associated pneumonia (HCAP) criteria, Summit criteria, Brito and Niederman strategy, Shorr model, Aliberti model, and Shindo model. The reference for comparison was detection of resistant bacteria, defined as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Gram-negative bacteria resistant to ceftriaxone or levofloxacin. RESULTS: A total of 614 patients were studied, including 36 (5.9%) with resistant bacteria. The HCAP criteria classified 304 (49.5%) patients as high risk, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54 to 0.72), sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI = 0.52 to 0.83), and specificity of 0.52 (95% CI = 0.48 to 0.56). None of the other algorithms improved both sensitivity and specificity or significantly improved the AUC. Compared to the HCAP criteria, the Shorr and Aliberti models classified more patients as high risk, resulting in higher sensitivity and lower specificity. The Shindo model classified fewer patients as high risk, with lower sensitivity and higher specificity. CONCLUSIONS: All algorithms for identification of resistant bacteria included in this study had suboptimal performance to guide antibiotic selection. New strategies for selecting empirical antibiotics for community-onset pneumonia are necessary.
Authors: Angela M Caliendo; David N Gilbert; Christine C Ginocchio; Kimberly E Hanson; Larissa May; Thomas C Quinn; Fred C Tenover; David Alland; Anne J Blaschke; Robert A Bonomo; Karen C Carroll; Mary Jane Ferraro; Lisa R Hirschhorn; W Patrick Joseph; Tobi Karchmer; Ann T MacIntyre; L Barth Reller; Audrey F Jackson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: N Deborah Friedman; Keith S Kaye; Jason E Stout; Sarah A McGarry; Sharon L Trivette; Jane P Briggs; Wanda Lamm; Connie Clark; Jennifer MacFarquhar; Aaron L Walton; L Barth Reller; Daniel J Sexton Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-11-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Wesley H Self; Carlos G Grijalva; Yuwei Zhu; Candace D McNaughton; Tyler W Barrett; Sean P Collins; Alan B Storrow; Marie R Griffin Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2013-08-27 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Rebekah W Moehring; Richard Sloane; Luke F Chen; Emily C Smathers; Kenneth E Schmader; Vance G Fowler; David J Weber; Daniel J Sexton; Deverick J Anderson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christopher R Frei; Sylvie Rehani; Grace C Lee; Natalie K Boyd; Erene Attia; Ashley Pechal; Rachel S Britt; Eric M Mortensen Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Wesley H Self; Richard G Wunderink; Derek J Williams; Yuwei Zhu; Evan J Anderson; Robert A Balk; Sherene S Fakhran; James D Chappell; Geoffrey Casimir; D Mark Courtney; Christopher Trabue; Grant W Waterer; Anna Bramley; Shelley Magill; Seema Jain; Kathryn M Edwards; Carlos G Grijalva Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-05-08 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Cristina Vazquez Guillamet; Rodrigo Vazquez; Jonas Noe; Scott T Micek; Marin H Kollef Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.889