Epidemiology and risk factors of community-acquired pneumonia in patients with different causes of immunosuppression.

Immunosuppression constitutes a significant risk for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Nevertheless, specific causes of immunosuppression and their relevance for incidence, etiology and prognosis of CAP are insufficiently investigated.We conducted a population-based cohort study within a statutory health insurance in Germany from 2015 to 2018. CAP was retrieved by ICD-10-GM codes. Episodes of immunosuppression were identified by coded conditions (hematologic neoplasms, stem cell or organ transplantation, neutropenia, HIV, primary immunosuppressive syndromes) or treatments (immunosuppressants, antineoplastic drugs, systemic steroids). Endpoints were defined as occurrence of CAP (primary), hospitalization, 30-day mortality and CAP associated with rare pathogens. Our analysis utilized the Andersen-Gill model adjusted for sex, age, level of long-term care, vaccination status, community type and comorbidities.942,008 individuals with 54,781 CAPs were included (hospitalization 55%, 30-day mortality 14.5%). 6% of individuals showed at least one episode of immunosuppression during the study period with systemic steroids (39.8%) and hematologic neoplasms (26.7%) being most common. Immunosuppression was recorded in 7.7% of CAPs. Besides classical risk factors such as age and level of long-term care, immunosuppressed patients were most prone to CAP (HR 2.4[2.3-2.5]) and consecutive death (HR 1.9[1.8-2.1]). Organ and stem cell transplantation (HR 3.2[2.6-4.0] and 2.8[2.1-3.7], respectively), HIV (HR 3.2[1.9-5.4]) and systemic steroids (> 20 mg prednisone daily dose equivalent (HR 2.7[2.4-3.1])) showed the highest risk for contracting CAP. CAP by rare pathogens was strongly associated with immunosuppression (HR 17.1[12.0-24.5]), especially HIV (HR 34.1[7.6-153]) and systemic steroids (HR 8.2[4.6-14.8]).Our study elucidates the relevance of particular immunosuppressive conditions including systemic steroids for occurrence and prognosis of CAP.

Association of Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitors with Incident Dementia: Analysis Based on Population-Based Cohort Studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Preliminary evidence suggests a possible preventive effect of tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNFi) on incident dementia. The objective of the analysis was to investigate the association between TNFi and the risk of incident dementia in a population undergoing treatment for rheumatological disorders. METHODS: We followed patients aged ≥ 65 years with dementia and rheumatological conditions in two cohort studies, DANBIO (N = 21,538), a Danish clinical database, and AOK PLUS (N = 7112), a German health insurance database. We defined incident dementia using diagnostic codes and/or medication use and used Cox regression to compare the associations of TNFi with other rheumatological therapies on the risk of dementia. To ensure that the patients were receiving long-term medication, we included patients with rheumatic diseases and systemic therapies. RESULTS: We observed similar trends towards a lower risk of dementia associated with TNFi versus other anti-inflammatory agents in both cohorts (hazard ratios were 0.92 [95% confidence interval 0.76, 1.10] in DANBIO and 0.89 [95% confidence interval 0.63, 1.24] in AOK PLUS, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors may decrease the risk of incident dementia although the association did not reach statistical significance in this analysis. Further research, ideally with randomization, is needed to gauge the potential of repurposing TNFi for dementia prevention and/or treatment.

[Scoring tool to identify patients at increased risk for drug-related problems: results of a point prevalence study at hospital admission]. / Scoring-Tool zu Identifizierung von Patienten mit erhöhtem Risiko für Arzneimittel-bezogene Probleme- Bericht einer Punkt-Prävalenzuntersuchung bei Aufnahme im Krankenhaus.

INTRODUCTION: Drug therapy is a high-risk process and requires special attention, especially at sectoral borders. Pharmaceutical services such as medication review are appropriate measures to identify drug-related problems and thus improve the safety of drug therapy. Risk-scoring tools have been described in the literature as helpful for prioritizing medication reviews for patients at high risk for drug-related problems. METHODS: In a multi-centre point prevalence study, we identified patients at increased risk for medication-related problems at hospital admission using the medication risk tool. In addition, the current level of implementation of pharmacy services was surveyed. RESULTS: A total of 11 (58%; 11/19) hospital pharmacies in Saxony participated in the point prevalence survey. The scoring tool identified 32% (279/875) of patients at increased risk for medication-related problems (Meris score >12 group) at admission. Thereby, the number of drugs in the Meris score >12 group was 10.6 (average; standard deviation 3.5; n=279), while in the Meris score ≤12 group it was only five drugs per patient (average 4.6; standard deviation 2.8; n=596). The age of patients in the Meris score >12 group averaged 75.9 ± 11 years, while the age of patients in the Meris score ≤12 group averaged 60.6 ± 17.9 years. DISCUSSION: Prioritization with the help of a risk-scoring tool is essential as pharmacy services in Saxon hospitals still need to be regularly established and in order to identify patients with an increased risk for drug-related problems at an early stage.