Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. METHODS: In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment. RESULTS: A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.).

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P = 0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936.).

Readmission following hospital admission for community-acquired pneumonia in England.

INTRODUCTION: Readmission rates following hospital admission with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) have increased in the UK over the past decade. The aim of this work was to describe the cohort of patients with emergency 30-day readmission following hospitalisation for CAP in England and explore the reasons for this. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of cases from the British Thoracic Society national adult CAP audit admitted to hospitals in England with CAP between 1 December 2018 and 31 January 2019 was performed. Cases were linked with corresponding patient level data from Hospital Episode statistics, providing data on the primary diagnosis treated during readmission and mortality. Analyses were performed describing the cohort of patients readmitted within 30 days, reasons for readmission and comparing those readmitted and primarily treated for pneumonia with other diagnoses. RESULTS: Of 8136 cases who survived an index admission with CAP, 1304 (15.7%) were readmitted as an emergency within 30 days of discharge. The main problems treated on readmission were pneumonia in 516 (39.6%) patients and other respiratory disorders in 284 (21.8%). Readmission with pneumonia compared with all other diagnoses was associated with significant inpatient mortality (15.9% vs 6.5%; aOR 2.76, 95% CI 1.86 to 4.09, p<0.001). A diagnosis of hospital-acquired infection was more frequent in readmissions treated for pneumonia than other diagnoses (22.1% vs 3.9%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Pneumonia is the most common condition treated on readmission following hospitalisation with CAP and carries a higher mortality than both the index admission or readmission due to other diagnoses. Strategies to reduce readmissions due to pneumonia are required.

Effects of tobacco smoking on recurrent hospitalisation with pneumonia: a population-based cohort study.

The incidence of and risk factors for recurrent hospitalisation for pneumonia were investigated using data from Hospital Episode Statistics, linked to a UK primary care database. Within 90 days and 1 year of follow-up, 1733 (3.1%) and 5064 (9.0%), developed recurrent pneumonia respectively. Smoking status at the time of hospitalisation with index pneumonia was associated with the risk of readmission with recurrent pneumonia within a year of discharge: current versus never smokers: adjusted subhazard ratio (sHR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.53, p<0.001, and ex smokers versus never smokers: adjusted sHR 1.24, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.34, p<0.001. Other independent risk factors associated with recurrent pneumonia were age, gender, deprivation and underlying comorbidities.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to invest in care home research infrastructure.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in catastrophic levels of morbidity and mortality for care home residents. Despite this, research platforms for COVID-19 in care homes arrived late in the pandemic compared with other care settings. The Prophylactic Therapy in Care Homes Trial (PROTECT-CH) was established to provide a platform to deliver multi-centre cluster-randomized clinical trials of investigational medicinal products for COVID-19 prophylaxis in UK care homes. Commencing set-up in January 2021, this involved the design and development of novel infrastructure for contracting and recruitment, remote consent, staff training, research insurance, eligibility screening, prescribing, dispensing and adverse event reporting; such infrastructure being previously absent. By the time this infrastructure was in place, the widespread uptake of vaccination in care homes had changed the epidemiology of COVID-19 rendering the trial unfeasible. While some of the resources developed through PROTECT-CH will enable the future establishment of care home platform research, the near absence of care home trial infrastructure and nationally linked databases involving the care home sector will continue to significantly hamper progress. These issues are replicated in most other countries. Beyond COVID-19, there are many other research questions that require addressing to provide better care to people living in care homes. PROTECT-CH has exposed a clear need for research funders to invest in, and legislate for, an effective care home research infrastructure as part of national pandemic preparedness planning. Doing so would also invigorate care home research in the interim, leading to improved healthcare delivery specific to those living in this sector.

Effectiveness of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine against vaccine serotype pneumococcal pneumonia in adults: A case-control test-negative design study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination with the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) is available in the United Kingdom to adults aged 65 years or older and those in defined clinical risk groups. We evaluated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of PPV23 against vaccine-type pneumococcal pneumonia in a cohort of adults hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a case-control test-negative design, a secondary analysis of data was conducted from a prospective cohort study of adults (aged ≥16 years) with CAP hospitalised at 2 university teaching hospitals in Nottingham, England, from September 2013 to August 2018. The exposure of interest was PPV23 vaccination at any time point prior to the index admission. A case was defined as PPV23 serotype-specific pneumococcal pneumonia and a control as non-PPV23 serotype pneumococcal pneumonia or nonpneumococcal pneumonia. Pneumococcal serotypes were identified from urine samples using a multiplex immunoassay or from positive blood cultures. Multivariable logistic regression was used to derive adjusted odds of case status between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals; VE estimates were calculated as (1 - odds ratio) × 100%. Of 2,357 patients, there were 717 PPV23 cases (48% vaccinated) and 1,640 controls (54.5% vaccinated). The adjusted VE (aVE) estimate against PPV23 serotype disease was 24% (95% CI 5%-40%, p = 0.02). Estimates were similar in analyses restricted to vaccine-eligible patients (n = 1,768, aVE 23%, 95% CI 1%-40%) and patients aged ≥65 years (n = 1,407, aVE 20%, 95% CI -5% to 40%), but not in patients aged ≥75 years (n = 905, aVE 5%, 95% CI -37% to 35%). The aVE estimate in relation to PPV23/non-13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) serotype pneumonia (n = 417 cases, 43.7% vaccinated) was 29% (95% CI 6%-46%). Key limitations of this study are that, due to high vaccination rates, there was a lack of power to reject the null hypothesis of no vaccine effect, and that the study was not large enough to allow robust subgroup analysis in the older age groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of an established national childhood PCV13 vaccination programme, PPV23 vaccination of clinical at-risk patient groups and adults aged ≥65 years provided moderate long-term protection against hospitalisation with PPV23 serotype pneumonia. These findings suggest that PPV23 vaccination may continue to have an important role in adult pneumococcal vaccine policy, including the possibility of revaccination of older adults.

Admission to hospital in the UK at a weekend does not influence the prognosis of adults with community-acquired pneumonia.

Outcomes for adults with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) admitted to hospital at the weekend were compared with those admitted during weekdays using data from the British Thoracic Society national CAP audits. Of 31 400 cases, 40.7% were weekend admissions; these patients were older (mean age 72 vs 71.3 years, p=0.001) and more likely to have high severity CAP (28.9% vs 27.1%, p trend 0.003) but had slightly lower adjusted 30-day inpatient mortality (aOR 0.94 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01) compared with those admitted during weekdays. More patients in the weekend group received antibiotics within 4 hours of admission (70.3% vs 68.7%, aOR 1.07 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12). We did not observe increased mortality for adults admitted at the weekend with CAP.

Pneumococcal serotype trends, surveillance and risk factors in UK adult pneumonia, 2013-18.

BACKGROUND: Changes over the last 5 years (2013-18) in the serotypes implicated in adult pneumococcal pneumonia and the patient groups associated with vaccine-type disease are largely unknown. METHODS: We conducted a population-based prospective cohort study of adults admitted to two large university hospitals with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) between September 2013 and August 2018. Pneumococcal serotypes were identified using a novel 24-valent urinary monoclonal antibody assay and from blood cultures. Trends in incidence rates were compared against national invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) data. Persons at risk of vaccine-type pneumonia (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV)13 and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV)23) were determined from multivariate analyses. FINDINGS: Of 2934 adults hospitalised with CAP, 1075 (36.6%) had pneumococcal pneumonia. The annual incidence of pneumococcal pneumonia increased from 32.2 to 48.2 per 100 000 population (2013-18), predominantly due to increases in PCV13non7-serotype and non-vaccine type (NVT)-serotype pneumonia (annual incidence rate ratio 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21 and 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.28, respectively). Incidence trends were broadly similar to IPD data. PCV13non7 (56.9% serotype 3) and PPV23non13 (44.1% serotype 8) serotypes were identified in 349 (32.5%) and 431 (40.1%) patients with pneumococcal pneumonia, respectively. PCV13-serotype pneumonia (dominated by serotype 3) was more likely in patients in the UK pneumococcal vaccination clinical risk group (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.73, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.28) while PPV23-serotype pneumonia was more likely in patients outside the clinical risk group (aOR 1.54, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.10). INTERPRETATION: The incidence of pneumococcal CAP is increasing, predominantly due to NVT serotypes and serotype 3. PPV23-serotype pneumonia is more likely in adults outside currently identified clinical risk groups.

Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Effective therapies for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed, and clinical trial data have demonstrated that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required respiratory support. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19. The trials were conducted in 12 countries from February 26, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and the date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. Pooled data were aggregated from the individual trials, overall, and in predefined subgroups. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of overall mortality, with the association between the intervention and mortality quantified using odds ratios (ORs). Random-effects meta-analyses also were conducted (with the Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment) and an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect analysis using risk ratios. Exposures: Patients had been randomized to receive systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone (678 patients) or to receive usual care or placebo (1025 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. A secondary outcome was investigator-defined serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1703 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 52-68 years]; 488 [29%] women) were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as "low" for 6 of the 7 mortality results and as "some concerns" in 1 trial because of the randomization method. Five trials reported mortality at 28 days, 1 trial at 21 days, and 1 trial at 30 days. There were 222 deaths among the 678 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 425 deaths among the 1025 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.82]; P < .001 based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis). There was little inconsistency between the trial results (I2 = 15.6%; P = .31 for heterogeneity) and the summary OR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = .053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis. The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < .001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths), the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = .13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths), and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = .87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Among the 6 trials that reported serious adverse events, 64 events occurred among 354 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 80 events occurred among 342 patients randomized to usual care or placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of critically ill patients with COVID-19, administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.

Effect of Thoracoscopic Talc Poudrage vs Talc Slurry via Chest Tube on Pleurodesis Failure Rate Among Patients With Malignant Pleural Effusions: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is challenging to manage. Talc pleurodesis is a common and effective treatment. There are no reliable data, however, regarding the optimal method for talc delivery, leading to differences in practice and recommendations. Objective: To test the hypothesis that administration of talc poudrage during thoracoscopy with local anesthesia is more effective than talc slurry delivered via chest tube in successfully inducing pleurodesis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted at 17 UK hospitals. A total of 330 participants were enrolled from August 2012 to April 2018 and followed up until October 2018. Patients were eligible if they were older than 18 years, had a confirmed diagnosis of MPE, and could undergo thoracoscopy with local anesthesia. Patients were excluded if they required a thoracoscopy for diagnostic purposes or had evidence of nonexpandable lung. Interventions: Patients randomized to the talc poudrage group (n = 166) received 4 g of talc poudrage during thoracoscopy while under moderate sedation, while patients randomized to the control group (n = 164) underwent bedside chest tube insertion with local anesthesia followed by administration of 4 g of sterile talc slurry. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pleurodesis failure up to 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included pleurodesis failure at 30 and 180 days; time to pleurodesis failure; number of nights spent in the hospital over 90 days; patient-reported thoracic pain and dyspnea at 7, 30, 90, and 180 days; health-related quality of life at 30, 90, and 180 days; all-cause mortality; and percentage of opacification on chest radiograph at drain removal and at 30, 90, and 180 days. Results: Among 330 patients who were randomized (mean age, 68 years; 181 [55%] women), 320 (97%) were included in the primary outcome analysis. At 90 days, the pleurodesis failure rate was 36 of 161 patients (22%) in the talc poudrage group and 38 of 159 (24%) in the talc slurry group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.54-1.55]; P = .74; difference, -1.8% [95% CI, -10.7% to 7.2%]). No statistically significant differences were noted in any of the 24 prespecified secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with malignant pleural effusion, thoracoscopic talc poudrage, compared with talc slurry delivered via chest tube, resulted in no significant difference in the rate of pleurodesis failure at 90 days. However, the study may have been underpowered to detect small but potentially important differences. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN47845793.

Patient-reported outcome measures in the recovery of adults hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review.

Symptomatic and functional recovery are important patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) that are increasingly used as trial end-points. This systematic review summarises the literature on PROMs in CAP.Comprehensive searches in accordance with the PRISMA statement were conducted to March 2017. Eligible studies included adults discharged from hospital following confirmed CAP and reporting PROMs.15 studies (n=5644 patients) were included; most were of moderate quality. Studies used a wide range of PROMs and assessment tools. At 4-6 weeks post-discharge, the commonest symptom reported was fatigue (45.0-72.6% of patients, three studies), followed by cough (35.3-69.7%) and dyspnoea (34.2-67.1%); corresponding values from studies restricted by age <65 years (two studies) were lower: fatigue 12.1-25.7%, cough 19.9-31.9% and dyspnoea 16.8-27.5%. Functional impairment 4 weeks post-discharge was reported in 18-51% of patients (two studies), while median time to return to normal activities was between 15 and 28 days (three studies).Substantial morbidity is reported by patients up to 6 weeks post-discharge. There is weak methodological consistency across existing studies. A core set of PROMs for use in future studies is suggested.

Corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of influenza.

BACKGROUND: Specific treatments for influenza are limited to neuraminidase inhibitors and adamantanes. Corticosteroids show evidence of benefit in sepsis and related conditions, most likely due to their anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties. Although commonly prescribed for severe influenza, there is uncertainty over their potential benefits or harms. This is an update of a review first published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of influenza, taking into account differences in timing and doses of corticosteroids. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 9), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to October week 1, 2018), Embase (1980 to 3 October 2018), CINAHL (1981 to 3 October 2018), LILACS (1982 to 3 October 2018), Web of Science (1985 to 3 October 2018), abstracts from the last three years of major infectious disease and microbiology conferences, and references of included articles. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry on 3 October 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and observational studies that compared corticosteroid treatment with no corticosteroid treatment for influenza or influenza-like illness. We did not restrict studies by language of publication, influenza subtypes, clinical setting, or age of participants. We selected eligible studies in two stages: sequential examination of title and abstract, followed by full text. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We pooled estimates of effect using a random-effects model, where appropriate. We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 30 studies (one RCT with two arms and 29 observational studies) with a total of 99,224 participants. We included 19 studies in the original review (n = 3459), all of which were observational, with 13 studies included in the meta-analysis for mortality. We included 12 new studies in this update (one RCT and 11 observational studies), and excluded one study in the original review as it has been superceded by a more recent analysis. Twenty-one studies were included in the meta-analysis (9536 individuals), of which 15 studied people infected with 2009 influenza A H1N1 virus (H1N1pdm09). Data specific to mortality were of very low quality, based predominantly on observational studies, with inconsistent reporting of variables potentially associated with the outcomes of interest, differences between studies in the way in which they were conducted, and with the likelihood of potential confounding by indication. Reported doses of corticosteroids used were high, and indications for their use were not well reported. On meta-analysis, corticosteroid therapy was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio (OR) 3.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.31 to 6.60; I2 = 68%; 15 studies). A similar increase in risk of mortality was seen in a stratified analysis of studies reporting adjusted estimates (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; 5 studies). An association between corticosteroid therapy and increased mortality was also seen on pooled analysis of six studies which reported adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.02; I2 = 69%). Increased odds of hospital-acquired infection related to corticosteroid therapy were found on pooled analysis of seven studies (pooled OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.95; I2 = 90%); all were unadjusted estimates, and we graded the data as of very low certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found one RCT of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy for treating people with community-acquired pneumonia, but the number of people with laboratory-confirmed influenza in the treatment and placebo arms was too small to draw conclusions regarding the effect of corticosteroids in this group, and we did not include it in our meta-analyses of observational studies. The certainty of the available evidence from observational studies was very low, with confounding by indication a major potential concern. Although we found that adjunctive corticosteroid therapy is associated with increased mortality, this result should be interpreted with caution. In the context of clinical trials of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy in sepsis and pneumonia that report improved outcomes, including decreased mortality, more high-quality research is needed (both RCTs and observational studies that adjust for confounding by indication). The currently available evidence is insufficient to determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids for people with influenza.

Clinicians' attitude towards a placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial investigating the effect of neuraminidase inhibitors in adults hospitalised with influenza.

BACKGROUND: The value of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) in reducing severe clinical outcomes from influenza is debated. A clinical trial to generate better evidence is desirable. However, it is unknown whether UK clinicians would support a placebo-controlled trial. A survey was conducted to determine the attitude of clinicians towards a clinical trial and their current practice in managing adults admitted to hospital with suspected influenza. METHODS: Senior clinicians (n = 50) across the UK actively involved in the care of patients hospitalised with severe respiratory infections and/or respiratory infection research were invited to participate in an on-line survey. Participants were asked their opinion on the evidence for benefit of NAIs in influenza, their current practice in relation to: a) testing for influenza; b) treating empirically with NAIs; and c) when influenza infection is virolologically confirmed, prescribing NAIs. RESULTS: Thirty-five (70%) of 50 clinicians completed the survey. Respondents were drawn mainly from infectious diseases, intensive care and respiratory medicine. Only 11 (31%) of 35 respondents agreed that NAIs are effective at reducing influenza mortality; 14 (40%) disagreed, 10 (28.6%) neither agreed nor disagreed. When managing adults admitted to non-ICU wards with a respiratory infection during an influenza season, 15 (51.7%) clinicians indicated they would usually perform a test for influenza in greater than 60% of patients but only 9 (31%) would treat empirically with NAIs in greater than 60% of patients. Few clinicians would either test or empirically treat patients presenting with other (non-respiratory infection related) diagnoses. If influenza infection is confirmed, 17 (64.5%) clinicians would prescribe NAIs in greater than 80% of patients with a respiratory infection treated on non-ICU wards Thirty-one (89%) clinicians agreed that a placebo-controlled clinical trial should be conducted and 29 (85%) would participate in such a trial. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong support from UK clinicians for a placebo-controlled trial of NAI treatment in adults hospitalised with suspected influenza. Current variation in medical opinion and clinical practice demonstrates collective equipoise, supporting ethical justification for a trial. Low use of NAIs in the UK suggests randomisation of treatment would not substantially divert patients towards placebo.

Adults miscoded and misdiagnosed as having pneumonia: results from the British Thoracic Society pneumonia audit.

A key objective of the British Thoracic Society national community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) audit was to determine the clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospitalised adults given a primary discharge code of pneumonia but who did not fulfil accepted diagnostic criteria for pneumonia. Adults miscoded as having pneumonia (n=1251) were older compared with adults with CAP (n=6660) (median 80 vs 78 years, p<0.001) and had more comorbid disease, significantly fewer respiratory symptoms (fever, cough, dyspnoea, pleuritic pain), more constitutional symptoms (general deterioration, falls) and significantly lower 30-day inpatient mortality (14.3% vs 17.0%, adjusted OR 0.75, p=0.003).

Time to first antibiotic and mortality in adults hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia: a matched-propensity analysis.

A matched-propensity analysis of national data from the British Thoracic Society community-acquired pneumonia audit was conducted (n=13 725). Overall, time to first antibiotic (TFA) was ≤4 h in 63%. Adjusted 30-day inpatient (IP) mortality was lower for adults with TFA ≤4 h compared with TFA >4 h (adjusted OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94; p=0.003). Increasing TFA was associated with greater OR of 30-day IP mortality (p value for trend=0.001), but no TFA threshold was evident. Although we found an association between TFA and mortality, we cannot say whether this is causal or whether TFA might just be a quality measure for overall or other processes of care.

British Thoracic Society community-acquired pneumonia care bundle: results of a national implementation project.

In 2013, 16 U.K. hospital trusts participated in a quality improvement programme involving implementation of a community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) care bundle. High-level data were collected on 14,962 patients admitted with CAP; bundle implementation increased from 1% in October 2012 to 20% by September 2013. Analysis of patient-level data on 2118 adults (median age 75.3 years) found that in the bundle-implementation group, significantly more patients received antibiotics within 4 h of admission (adjusted OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.14, p=0.016) and 30-day inpatient mortality was lower (8.8% vs. 13.6%; adjusted OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95, p=0.03).

Mortality reduction in adult community-acquired pneumonia in the UK (2009-2014): results from the British Thoracic Society audit programme.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of death in the UK. In this analysis of 23 315 cases from the British Thoracic Society national CAP audit, an overall reduction in 30-day inpatient mortality over 6 years was observed-2014 compared with 2009 adjusted OR 0.86 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.08, p for trend 0.004). Significant increases in the proportions of patients who had (a) a chest X-ray and (b) the first antibiotic dose within 4 hours of admission were also observed (3.7% and 11.5% increases respectively). Further reductions in mortality may follow the 2016 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Pneumonia Quality Standard.

Corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of influenza.

BACKGROUND: Specific treatments for influenza are limited to neuraminidase inhibitors and adamantanes. Corticosteroids show evidence of benefit in sepsis and related conditions, most likely due to their anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties. Although commonly prescribed for severe influenza, there is uncertainty over their potential benefit or harm. OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of influenza, taking into account differences in timing and doses of corticosteroids. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to June week 1, 2015), EMBASE (1974 to June 2015), CINAHL (1981 to June 2015), LILACS (1982 to June 2015), Web of Science (1985 to June 2015), abstracts from the last three years of major infectious disease and microbiology conferences, and references of included articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and observational studies that compared corticosteroid treatment with no corticosteroid treatment for influenza or influenza-like illness. We did not restrict studies by language of publication, influenza subtypes, clinical setting or age of participants. We selected eligible studies in two stages: sequential examination of title and abstract, followed by full text. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We pooled estimates of effect using random-effects meta-analysis models, where appropriate. We assessed heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic and assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 19 eligible studies (3459 individuals), all observational; 13 studies (1917 individuals) were suitable for inclusion in the meta-analysis of mortality. Of these, 12 studied patients infected with 2009 influenza A H1N1 virus (H1N1pdm09). Risk of bias was greatest in the 'comparability domain' of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, consistent with potential confounding by indication. Data specific to mortality were of very low quality. Reported doses of corticosteroids used were high and indications for their use were not well reported. On meta-analysis, corticosteroid therapy was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio (OR) 3.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 5.92). Pooled subgroup analysis of adjusted estimates of mortality from four studies found a similar association (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.92). Three studies reported greater odds of hospital-acquired infection related to corticosteroid therapy; all were unadjusted estimates and we graded the data as very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify any completed RCTs of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy for treating influenza. The available evidence from observational studies is of very low quality with confounding by indication a major potential concern. Although we found that adjunctive corticosteroid therapy was associated with increased mortality, this result should be interpreted with caution. In the context of clinical trials of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy in sepsis and pneumonia that report improved outcomes, including decreased mortality, more high-quality research is needed (both RCTs and observational studies). Currently, we do not have sufficient evidence in this review to determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids for patients with influenza.

Effect of corticosteroid therapy on influenza-related mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most studies have reported that corticosteroid therapy adversely influences influenza-related outcomes. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2013 for experimental and observational studies investigating systemic corticosteroid therapy for presumed influenza-associated complications. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were adopted. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effects models, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. RESULTS: We identified 16 eligible studies (3039 individuals), all of which were observational; 10 (1497 individuals) were included in the meta-analysis of mortality, of which 9 studied patients with 2009 pandemic influenza A virus subtype H1N1. Risk of bias was greatest in the comparability domain of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, consistent with potential confounding by indication, and data specific to mortality were of low quality. Meta-analysis found an increased odds of mortality (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.36-3.29) associated with corticosteroid therapy. Subgroup analysis of adjusted estimates from 4 studies with very low statistical heterogeneity found a similar association (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.39-4.79). CONCLUSIONS: No completed clinical trials were identified. Evidence from observational studies, with important limitations, suggests that corticosteroid therapy for presumed influenza-associated complications is associated with increased mortality.