Esin Şenol1, Aykut Çilli2, Hakan Günen3, Alper Şener4, Rıdvan Dumlu4, Ayşe Ödemiş2, Ayşe Füsun Topçu5, Yeşim Yıldız6, Rahmet Güner7, Ayhan Özhasenekler8, Birsen Mutlu9, Nurdan Köktürk10, Nurgül Sevimli10, Nurcan Baykam11, Derya Yapar11, Selami Ekin12, Mehmet Polatlı13, Şebnem Eren Gök14, Oğuz Kılınç15, Abdullah Sayıner16, Ömer Karaşahin17, Çağlar Çuhadaroğlu18, Ayşe Sesin Kocagöz19, Turhan Togan20, Hüseyin Arpağ21, Hakan Katı1, İftihar Köksal22, Firdevs Aksoy22, Canan Hasanoğlu23. 1. Department of Infectious Diseases, Gazi University, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. 2. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Akdeniz University, Faculty of Medicine, Antalya, Turkey. 3. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Süreyyapaşa Chest Diseases and Thoracic Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 4. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, 18 Mart University, Faculty of Medicine, Çanakkale, Turkey. 5. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Dicle University, Faculty of Medicine, Diyarbakır, Turkey. 6. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Mardin State Hospital, Mardin, Turkey. 7. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ankara Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 8. Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 9. Department of Infectious Diseases, Kocaeli University, Faculty of Medicine, Kocaeli, Turkey. 10. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Gazi University, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. 11. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Hitit University, Faculty of Medicine, Çorum, Turkey. 12. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Yüzüncü Yıl University, Faculty of Medicine, Van, Turkey. 13. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Adnan Menderes University, Faculty of Medicine, Aydın, Turkey. 14. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Bozok University, Faculty of Medicine, Yozgat, Turkey. 15. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey. 16. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Ege University, Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey. 17. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Erzurum Regional Training and Research Hospital, Erzurum, Turkey. 18. Department of Pulmonary Diseases and Sleep Disorder, Acıbadem Health Group Maslak Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 19. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Acıbadem Health Group Maslak Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 20. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Başkent University Konya Hospital, Konya, Turkey. 21. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Sutcu Imam University, Faculty of Medicine, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey. 22. Department of Infectious Diseases, Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey. 23. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Ankara Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of pneumococcal pneumonia (PP) among patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in Turkey and to investigate and compare features of PP and non-PP CAP patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This multicenter, non-interventional, prospective, observational study included adult CAP patients (age ≥ 18 years). Diagnosis of PP was based on the presence of at least 1 positive laboratory test result for Streptococcus pneumoniae (blood culture or sputum culture or urinary antigen test [UAT]) in patients with radiographic findings of pneumonia. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-five patients were diagnosed with CAP, of whom 59 (12.7%) had PP. The most common comorbidity was chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (30.1%). The mean age, smoking history, presence of chronic neurological disease, and CURB-65 score were significantly higher in PP patients, when compared to non-PP patients. In PP patients, 84.8% were diagnosed based ony on the UAT. The overall rate of PP patients among CAP was calculated as 22.8% considering the UAT sensitivity ratio of 63% (95% confidence interval: 45-81). The rate of intensive care treatment was higher in PP patients (P = .007). While no PP patients were vaccinated for pneumococcus, 3.8% of the non-PP patients were vaccinated (P = .235). Antibiotic use in the preceding 48 hours was higher in the non-PP group than in the PP group (31.8% vs. 11.1%, P = .002). The CURB-65 score and the rate of patients requiring inpatient treatment according to this score were higher in the PP group. CONCLUSION: The facts that PP patients were older and required intensive care treatment more frequently as compared to non-PP patients underline the burden of PP.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of pneumococcal pneumonia (PP) among patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in Turkey and to investigate and compare features of PP and non-PP CAP patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This multicenter, non-interventional, prospective, observational study included adult CAP patients (age ≥ 18 years). Diagnosis of PP was based on the presence of at least 1 positive laboratory test result for Streptococcus pneumoniae (blood culture or sputum culture or urinary antigen test [UAT]) in patients with radiographic findings of pneumonia. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-five patients were diagnosed with CAP, of whom 59 (12.7%) had PP. The most common comorbidity was chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (30.1%). The mean age, smoking history, presence of chronic neurological disease, and CURB-65 score were significantly higher in PP patients, when compared to non-PP patients. In PP patients, 84.8% were diagnosed based ony on the UAT. The overall rate of PP patients among CAP was calculated as 22.8% considering the UAT sensitivity ratio of 63% (95% confidence interval: 45-81). The rate of intensive care treatment was higher in PP patients (P = .007). While no PP patients were vaccinated for pneumococcus, 3.8% of the non-PP patients were vaccinated (P = .235). Antibiotic use in the preceding 48 hours was higher in the non-PP group than in the PP group (31.8% vs. 11.1%, P = .002). The CURB-65 score and the rate of patients requiring inpatient treatment according to this score were higher in the PP group. CONCLUSION: The facts that PP patients were older and required intensive care treatment more frequently as compared to non-PP patients underline the burden of PP.
Authors: J Almirall; I Bolíbar; J Vidal; G Sauca; P Coll; B Niklasson; M Bartolomé; X Balanzó Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: W S Lim; M M van der Eerden; R Laing; W G Boersma; N Karalus; G I Town; S A Lewis; J T Macfarlane Journal: Thorax Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Seema Jain; Wesley H Self; Richard G Wunderink; Sherene Fakhran; Robert Balk; Anna M Bramley; Carrie Reed; Carlos G Grijalva; Evan J Anderson; D Mark Courtney; James D Chappell; Chao Qi; Eric M Hart; Frank Carroll; Christopher Trabue; Helen K Donnelly; Derek J Williams; Yuwei Zhu; Sandra R Arnold; Krow Ampofo; Grant W Waterer; Min Levine; Stephen Lindstrom; Jonas M Winchell; Jacqueline M Katz; Dean Erdman; Eileen Schneider; Lauri A Hicks; Jonathan A McCullers; Andrew T Pavia; Kathryn M Edwards; Lyn Finelli Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Simone M C Spoorenberg; Willem Jan W Bos; Rik Heijligenberg; Paul G P Voorn; Jan C Grutters; Ger T Rijkers; Ewoudt M W van de Garde Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Antonios Bertsias; Ioanna G Tsiligianni; George Duijker; Nikolaos Siafakas; Christos Lionis Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 2.871