Guideline-Based Clinical Assessment Versus Procalcitonin-Guided Antibiotic Use in Pneumonia: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Efforts to reduce unnecessary and unnecessarily long antibiotic treatment for community-acquired pneumonia have been attempted through use of procalcitonin and through guidelines based on serial clinical assessment. Our aim is to compare guideline-based clinical assessment- and procalcitonin algorithm-guided antibiotic use among patients with community-acquired pneumonia. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, randomized, multicenter trial from November 2012 to April 2015 at 12 French hospitals. We included emergency department (ED) patients older than 18 years with community-acquired pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned to either the procalcitonin-guided or clinical assessment group. In accordance with past studies, we hypothesized that serial clinical assessment would be superior to procalcitonin-guided care. The primary outcome was antibiotic duration, and secondary outcomes included rates of antibiotic duration less than or equal to 5 days, and clinical success and combined serious adverse outcomes at 30 days in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Of 370 eligible patients, 285 (77%) were randomly assigned to either clinical assessment- (n=143) or procalcitonin-guided care (n=142). Median age was 67 years (range 18 to 93 years) and 40% of patients were deemed to have Pneumonia Severity Index class IV or V. Procalcitonin algorithm adherence was 76%. Antibiotic duration was not significantly different between clinical assessment- and procalcitonin-guided groups (median 9 versus 10 days, respectively). Clinical success rate was 92% in each group and serious adverse outcome rates were similar (15% versus 20%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Guideline-based serial clinical assessment did not reduce antibiotic exposure compared with procalcitonin-guided care among ED patients with community-acquired pneumonia. The strategies were similar in terms of duration of antibiotic use and clinical outcomes.

Hyponatremia is associated with poor outcome in COVID-19.

AIM: Our objective was to describe the impact of hyponatremia on the outcomes of COVID-19 patients [outcomes selected: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation or death]. METHODS: Two groups of COVID-19 patients were retrospectively screened on the basis of plasma sodium level at admission: hyponatremic (sodium < 135 mM, n = 92) or normonatremic (sodium ≥ 135 mM, n = 198) patients. Pearson's chi-2 (qualitative variables) and Student's T tests (quantitative variables) were used to compare the two groups. A multiple logistic regression model was used to explore the association between patients' clinical data and outcomes. RESULTS: Hyponatremia was frequent but generally mild. There were more male patients in the hyponatremic group (p = 0.014). Pulmonary lesions on the first thoracic CT-scan performed during hospitalization were significantly more extensive in the hyponatremic group (p = 0.010). ICU admission, mechanical ventilation or death were significantly more frequent in hyponatremic compared to normonatremic patients (37 versus 14%; p < 0.001; 17 versus 6%; p = 0.003; 18 versus 9%, p = 0.042, respectively). Hyponatremia was an independent predictor of adverse outcomes (adjusted Odds-ratio: 2.77 [1.26-6.15, p = 0.011]). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed an independent relationship between hyponatremia at admission and transfer to ICU, use of mechanical ventilation or death in COVID-19 patients. Hyponatremia may reflect the severity of underlying pulmonary lesions. Our results support the use of sodium levels as a simple bedside screening tool for the early identification of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients at high risk of poor outcome.