The Potential Role of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Beta-Blockers in Reducing Pneumonia Severity in Older Adults.

Background Understanding the impact of pharmacological therapy on pneumonia severity is crucial for effective clinical management. The impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and beta-blockers (BBs) on pneumonia severity remains unknown, warranting further investigation. Methodology This retrospective study examined the hospital records of inpatients (≥75 years) admitted with community-acquired pneumonia in 2021. Pneumonia severity associated with the use of pre-established ACEi and BB therapy was documented using CURB-65 (confusion, uraemia, respiratory rate, blood pressure, age ≥65 years) and pneumonia severity index (PSI) scores. Descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression were used to analyse differences across BB therapy, ACEi therapy, their combination, or neither (control group). Results A total of 803 patient records were examined, of whom 382 (47.6%) were male and 421 (52.4%) were female. Sample sizes for each group were as follows: control (n = 492), BB only (n = 185), ACEi only (n = 68), and BB + ACEi (n = 58). Distribution of aspiration pneumonia (AP) versus non-AP for each group, respectively, was control (21.1% vs. 78.9%), BB only (9.7% vs. 90.3%), ACEi only (7.3% vs. 92.7%), and ACEi + BB (12.1% vs. 87.9%). No significant differences in PSI and CURB-65 scores were found between intervention groups even after controlling for patient characteristics and irrespective of AP or non-AP aetiology. Patients with AP had significantly higher CURB-65 (p = 0.026) and PSI scores (p = 0.044) compared to those with non-AP. Conclusions Pre-prescribed ACEi or BB therapy did not appear to be associated with differences in pneumonia severity. There were no differences in pneumonia severity scores with ACEi and BB monotherapy or combined ACEi and BB therapy.

Prognostic factors of poor outcomes in pneumonia in older adults: aspiration or frailty?

PURPOSE: Little is known about the long-term and functional prognoses of older adults with pneumonia, which complicates their management. There is a common belief that aspiration is a poor prognostic factor; however, the diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia (AP) lacks consensus criteria and is mainly based on clinical characteristics typical of the frailty syndrome. Therefore, the poor prognosis of AP may also be a result of frailty rather than aspiration. This study investigated the impact of AP and other prognostic factors in older patients with pneumonia. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 75 years and older, admitted with pneumonia in 2021. We divided patients according to their initial diagnosis (AP or non-AP), compared outcomes using Kaplan-Meier curves, and used logistic regression to identify independent prognostic factors. RESULTS: 803 patients were included, with a median age of 84 years and 52.7% were male. 17.3% were initially diagnosed with AP. Mortality was significantly higher in those diagnosed with AP than non-AP during admission (27.6% vs 19.0%, p = 0.024) and at 1 year (64.2% vs 53.1%, p = 0.018), with survival analysis showing a median survival time of 62 days and 274 days in AP and non-AP, respectively (χ2 = 9.2, p = 0.002). However, the initial diagnosis of AP was not an independent risk factor for poor prognosis in multivariable analysis. Old age, frailty and cardio-respiratory comorbidities were the main factors associated with death. CONCLUSION: The greater mortality in AP may be a result of increased frailty rather than the diagnosis of aspiration itself. This supports our proposal for a paradigm shift from making predictions based on the potentially futile labelling of AP or non-AP, to considering frailty and overall condition of the patient.

Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England from April to November, 2020: results from the ONS Coronavirus Infection Survey.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about the continued need for control measures to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rely on accurate and up-to-date information about the number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and risk factors for testing positive. Existing surveillance systems are generally not based on population samples and are not longitudinal in design. METHODS: Samples were collected from individuals aged 2 years and older living in private households in England that were randomly selected from address lists and previous Office for National Statistics surveys in repeated cross-sectional household surveys with additional serial sampling and longitudinal follow-up. Participants completed a questionnaire and did nose and throat self-swabs. The percentage of individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was estimated over time by use of dynamic multilevel regression and poststratification, to account for potential residual non-representativeness. Potential changes in risk factors for testing positive over time were also assessed. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21086382. FINDINGS: Between April 26 and Nov 1, 2020, results were available from 1 191 170 samples from 280 327 individuals; 5231 samples were positive overall, from 3923 individuals. The percentage of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 changed substantially over time, with an initial decrease between April 26 and June 28, 2020, from 0·40% (95% credible interval 0·29-0·54) to 0·06% (0·04-0·07), followed by low levels during July and August, 2020, before substantial increases at the end of August, 2020, with percentages testing positive above 1% from the end of October, 2020. Having a patient-facing role and working outside your home were important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the end of the first wave (April 26 to June 28, 2020), but not in the second wave (from the end of August to Nov 1, 2020). Age (young adults, particularly those aged 17-24 years) was an important initial driver of increased positivity rates in the second wave. For example, the estimated percentage of individuals testing positive was more than six times higher in those aged 17-24 years than in those aged 70 years or older at the end of September, 2020. A substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms around their positive test (45-68%, dependent on calendar time. INTERPRETATION: Important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 varied substantially between the part of the first wave that was captured by the study (April to June, 2020) and the first part of the second wave of increased positivity rates (end of August to Nov 1, 2020), and a substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms, indicating that continued monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in the community will be important for managing the COVID-19 pandemic moving forwards. FUNDING: Department of Health and Social Care.