Clinical characteristics and outcomes of community-acquired pneumonia in solid organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is a frequent complication of solid organ transplantation that adversely impacts both graft and recipient survival. There is a paucity of data on community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in transplant recipients, particularly the long term outcomes. We conducted a study to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of pneumonia in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients to those in non-transplant (NT) recipients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Clinical characteristics were abstracted from electronic medical records. Outcomes included time to hospital discharge, short and long-term mortality. Inverse-propensity score weights were assigned to account for between-group differences. Adjusted analysis included a weighted logistic regression. Results were reported as odds ratios with a corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 7449 patients were admitted with CAP. Patients were divided into two groups: SOT recipients 42 (0.56 %) and NT recipients 7396 (99.2 %). SOT recipients were younger, more commonly males, with higher prevalence of comorbidities. After accounting for inverse-propensity score weighting, the odds of mortality were higher in SOT recipients in hospital, at 30 days and at 1 year. The magnitude of increase in mortality for SOT recipients was greatest at 1 year with 1.41 (95 % CI: 1.38-1.44) times higher odds. CONCLUSION: In patients with CAP, SOT recipients are younger, more commonly male and have more co-morbidities compared with NT recipients. They also have higher 1 year mortality after adjustment. Clinicians must be vigilant toward the pronounced long-term mortality risk among these patients and ensure continued follow-up care for them.

A case study on variations in network structure and cross-sector alignment in two local systems serving pregnant and parenting women in recovery.

OBJECTIVE: To describe network structure and alignment across organizations in healthcare, public health, and social services sectors that serve pregnant and parenting women with substance use disorder (SUD) in an urban and a rural community. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTINGS: Two community networks, one urban and one rural with each including a residential substance use treatment program, in Kentucky during 2021. STUDY DESIGN: Social network analysis measured system collaboration and cross-sector alignment between healthcare, public health, and social services organizations, applying the Framework for Aligning Sectors. To understand the alignment and structure of each network, we measured network density overall and between sectors, network centralization, and each organization's degree centrality and effective size. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Computer-assisted telephone interviews were conducted to document alignment around shared purpose, data, financing, and governance. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: On average, overall and cross-sector network densities in both communities were similar. However, alignment was highest for data sharing and financing in the urban community and for shared purpose and governance in the rural community. Cross-sector partnerships involving healthcare organizations were more prevalent in the rural county (44% vs. 38% for healthcare/public health, 44% vs. 29% for healthcare/social services), but more prevalent for those involving public health/social services organizations in the urban county (42% vs. 24%). A single healthcare organization had the highest degree centrality (Mdn [IQR] = 26 [26-9.5]) and effective size (Mdn [IQR] = 15.9 [20.6-8.7]) within the rural county. Social services organizations held more central positions in the urban county (degree centrality Mdn [IQR] = 13 [14.8-9.5]; effective size Mdn [IQR] = 10.4 [11.4-7.9]). CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sector alignment may strengthen local capacity for comprehensive SUD care for pregnant and parenting women. Healthcare organizations are key players in cross-sector partnerships in the rural community, where one healthcare facility holds the central brokerage role. In contrast, public health agencies are key to cross-sector collaboration with social services in the urban community.