Effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy for community-acquired pneumonia in real clinical practice
https://doi.org/10.20538/1682-0363-2021-4-79-85
Abstract
Background. Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains one of the most common infectious diseases, occupying an important place in the structure of mortality worldwide.
Aim. To evaluate the effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy for community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients in real clinical practice.
Materials and methods. A retrospective, observational study was conducted, which included 236 patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia at the Regional Clinical Hospital in Ryazan in 2019. Based on these case histories, an analysis of the effectiveness of the initial empiric antimicrobial therapy was performed.
Results. The initial empiric antimicrobial therapy in 73% of cases included administration of ceftriaxone, in 45% of cases – levofloxacin, in 14% of cases – azithromycin. It was found that initial antimicrobial therapy was effective in 58% of patients who did not require replacement for the antibiotic. A need for a change in the treatment regimen was significantly associated with an increase in the length of hospitalization (p < 0.001), heart rate upon admission (p = 0.032), myelocyte count in the complete blood count (p < 0.001), and urea and blood creatinine levels (p = 0.004 and p = 0.044, respectively). The selected antimicrobial therapy regimen was significantly associated with the expected treatment effectiveness (p = 0.039). The choice of levofloxacin in monotherapy or in combination with ceftriaxone was accompanied by a decrease in the relative risk of replacing the antimicrobial, compared with other treatment regimens (odds ratio (OR) = 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55–1.34) and OR = 0.57 (95% CI: 0.37–0.87), respectively).
Conclusion. Empiric antimicrobial therapy for community-acquired pneumonia in real clinical practice complies with current recommendations, however, at the same time, its ineffectiveness persists. Respiratory fluoroquinolones are most effective in treating pneumonia in hospitalized patients.
About the Authors
O. M. Uryasev
Ryazan State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
9, Vysokovoltnaya Str., Ryazan, 390026
A. V. Shakhanov
Ryazan State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
9, Vysokovoltnaya Str., Ryazan, 390026
L. V. Korshunova
Ryazan State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
9, Vysokovoltnaya Str., Ryazan, 390026
References
1. Rozenbaum M.H., Pechlivanoglou P., Werf T.S. et al. The role of Streptococcus pneumoniae in community-acquired pneumonia among adults in Europe: a meta-analysis. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2013; 32 (3): 305–316. DOI: 10.1007/s10096-012-1778-4.
2. Чучалин А.Г. Пневмония: актуальная проблема медицины ХХΙ века. Терапевтический архив. 2016; 88 (3): 4–12. DOI: 10.17116/terarkh20168834-12.
3. Белых Н.А., Фокичева Н.Н., Пискунова М.А. и др. Клинико-эпидемиологические особенности микоплазменной инфекции у детей Рязанской области. Российский медико-биологический вестник им. академика И.П. Павлова. 2018; 26 (2): 258–267. DOI: 10.23888/PAVLOVJ2018262258-267.
4. Бородулин Б.Е., Черногаева Г.Ю., Бородулина Е.А. и др. Летальность от внебольничной пневмонии в условиях многопрофильной больницы за 10 лет. Медицинский альманах. 2012; 2 (21): 34–36.
5. Миронова А.А., Наркевич А.Н., Курбанисмаилов Р.Б. Смертность населения красноярского края в 2016 году. Наука молодых – Eruditio juvenium. 2019; 7 (2): 223–231. DOI: 10.23088/HMJ201972223-231.
6. Синопальников А.И., Астафьев А.В., Стырт Е.А. Антибактериальная терапия внебольничной пневмонии в стационаре: реальная клиническая практика. Клиническая медицина. 2012; 90 (12): 21–26.
7. Чучалин А.Г., Синопальников А.И., Козлов Р.С. и др. Клинические рекомендации по диагностике, лечению и профилактике тяжелой внебольничной пневмонии у взрослых. Пульмонология. 2014; (4): 13–48.
8. Жукова О.В., Руина О.В., Кононова С.В., Конышкина Т.М. Анализ эффективности антимикробной терапии внебольничной пневмонии в клинической практике. Терапевтический архив. 2017; 89 (8): 17–21. DOI: 10.17116/terarkh201789817-21.
9. Eljaaly K., Alshehri S., Aljabri A. et al. Clinical failure with and without empiric atypical bacteria coverage in hospitalized adults with community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect. Dis. 2017; 17 (1): 385. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-017-2495-5.
10. Nie W., Li B., Xiu Q. β-Lactam/macrolide dual therapy versus β-lactam monotherapy for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2014; 69 (6): 1441– 1446. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dku033.
11. Raz-Pasteur A., Shasha D., Paul M. Fluoroquinolones or macrolides alone versus combined with β-lactams for adults with community-acquired pneumonia: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2015; 46 (3): 242–248. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2015.04.010.
12. Skalsky K., Yahav D., Lador A. et al. Macrolides vs. quinolones for community-acquired pneumonia: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2013; 19 (4): 370–378. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03838.x.
13. Izadi M., Dadsetan B., Najafi Z. et al. Levofloxacin versus ceftriaxone and azithromycin combination in the treatment of community acquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients. Recent. Pat. Antiinfect. Drug Discov. 2018; 13 (3): 228–239. DOI: 10.2174/1574891X13666181024154526.
14. Lee J.H., Kim H.J., Kim Y.H. Is β-lactam plus macrolide more effective than β-lactam plus fluoroquinolone among patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia?: a systemic review and meta-Analysis. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2017; 32 (1): 77–84. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.1.77.
Review
For citations:
Uryasev O.M., Shakhanov A.V., Korshunova L.V. Effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy for community-acquired pneumonia in real clinical practice. Bulletin of Siberian Medicine. 2021;20(4):79-85. https://doi.org/10.20538/1682-0363-2021-4-79-85
Views:
1488
Email this article 