BACKGROUNDPneumococcal polysaccharide conjugate vaccines prevent pneumococcal disease in infants, but their efficacy against pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia in adults 65 years of age or older is unknown. METHODSIn a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 84,496 adults 65 years of age or older, we evaluated the efficacy of 13-valent polysaccharide conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in preventing first episodes of vaccine-type strains of pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia, nonbacteremic and noninvasive pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia, and invasive pneumococcal disease. Standard laboratory methods and a serotype-specific urinary antigen detection assay were used to identify community-acquired pneumonia and invasive pneumococcal disease. RESULTSIn the per-protocol analysis of first episodes of infections due to vaccine-type strains, community-acquired pneumonia occurred in 49 persons in the PCV13 group and 90 persons in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy, 45.6%; 95.2% confidence interval [CI], 21.8 to 62.5), nonbacteremic and noninvasive community-acquired pneumonia occurred in 33 persons in the PCV13 group and 60 persons in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy, 45.0%; 95.2% CI, 14.2 to 65.3), and invasive pneumococcal disease occurred in 7 persons in the PCV13 group and 28 persons in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy, 75.0%; 95% CI, 41.4 to 90.8). Efficacy persisted throughout the trial (mean follow-up, 3.97 years). In the modified intention-totreat analysis, similar efficacy was observed (vaccine efficacy, 37.7%, 41.1%, and 75.8%, respectively), and community-acquired pneumonia occurred in 747 persons in the PCV13 group and 787 persons in placebo group (vaccine efficacy, 5.1%; 95% CI, −5.1 to 14.2). Numbers of serious adverse events and deaths were similar in the two groups, but there were more local reactions in the PCV13 group. CONCLUSIONSAmong older adults, PCV13 was effective in preventing vaccine-type pneumococcal, bacteremic, and nonbacteremic community-acquired pneumonia and vaccinetype invasive pneumococcal disease but not in preventing community-acquired pneumonia from any cause. (Funded by Pfizer; CAPITA ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00744263.)

This document is an update of Guidelines published in 2005 and now includes scientific publications through to May 2010. It provides evidence-based recommendations for the most common management questions occurring in routine clinical practice in the management of adult patients with LRTI. Topics include management outside hospital, management inside hospital (including community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), acute exacerbations of bronchiectasis) and prevention. Background sections and graded evidence tables are also included. The target audience for the Guideline is thus all those whose routine practice includes the management of adult LRTI.

SummaryBackgroundHigh-volume prescribing of antibiotics in primary care is a major driver of antibiotic resistance. Education of physicians and patients can lower prescribing levels, but it frequently relies on highly trained staff. We assessed whether internet-based training methods could alter prescribing practices in multiple health-care systems.MethodsAfter a baseline audit in October to December, 2010, primary-care practices in six European countries were cluster randomised to usual care, training in the use of a C-reactive protein (CRP) test at point of care, in enhanced communication skills, or in both CRP and enhanced communication. Patients were recruited from February to May, 2011. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN99871214.ResultsThe baseline audit, done in 259 practices, provided data for 6771 patients with lower-respiratory-tract infections (3742 [55·3%]) and upper-respiratory-tract infections (1416 [20·9%]), of whom 5355 (79·1%) were prescribed antibiotics. After randomisation, 246 practices were included and 4264 patients were recruited. The antibiotic prescribing rate was lower with CRP training than without (33% vs 48%, adjusted risk ratio 0·54, 95% CI 0·42–0·69) and with enhanced-communication training than without (36% vs 45%, 0·69, 0·54–0·87). The combined intervention was associated with the greatest reduction in prescribing rate (CRP risk ratio 0·53, 95% CI 0·36–0·74, p<0·0001; enhanced communication 0·68, 0·50–0·89, p=0·003; combined 0·38, 0·25–0·55, p<0·0001).InterpretationInternet training achieved important reductions in antibiotic prescribing for respiratory-tract infections across language and cultural boundaries.FundingEuropean Commission Framework Programme 6, National Institute for Health Research, Research Foundation Flanders.

No abstract

Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18 (Suppl. 1): 1–27 Abstract The European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases established the Sore Throat Guideline Group to write an updated guideline to diagnose and treat patients with acute sore throat. In diagnosis, Centor clinical scoring system or rapid antigen test can be helpful in targeting antibiotic use. The Centor scoring system can help to identify those patients who have higher likelihood of group A streptococcal infection. In patients with high likelihood of streptococcal infections (e.g. 3–4 Centor criteria) physicians can consider the use of rapid antigen test (RAT). If RAT is performed, throat culture is not necessary after a negative RAT for the diagnosis of group A streptococci. To treat sore throat, either ibuprofen or paracetamol are recommended for relief of acute sore throat symptoms. Zinc gluconate is not recommended to be used in sore throat. There is inconsistent evidence of herbal treatments and acupuncture as treatments for sore throat. Antibiotics should not be used in patients with less severe presentation of sore throat, e.g. 0–2 Centor criteria to relieve symptoms. Modest benefits of antibiotics, which have been observed in patients with 3–4 Centor criteria, have to be weighed against side effects, the effect of antibiotics on microbiota, increased antibacterial resistance, medicalisation and costs. The prevention of suppurative complications is not a specific indication for antibiotic therapy in sore throat. If antibiotics are indicated, penicillin V, twice or three times daily for 10 days is recommended. At the present, there is no evidence enough that indicates shorter treatment length.

Objective To describe variation in antibiotic prescribing for acute cough in contrasting European settings and the impact on recovery. Design Cross sectional observational study with clinicians from 14 primary care research networks in 13 European countries who recorded symptoms on presentation and management. Patients followed up for 28 days with patient diaries. Setting Primary care. Participants Adults with a new or worsening cough or clinical presentation suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection. Main outcome measures Prescribing of antibiotics by clinicians and total symptom severity scores over time. Results 3402 patients were recruited (clinicians completed a case report form for 99% (3368) of participants and 80% (2714) returned a symptom diary). Mean symptom severity scores at presentation ranged from 19 (scale range 0 to 100) in networks based in Spain and Italy to 38 in the network based in Sweden. Antibiotic prescribing by networks ranged from 20% to nearly 90% (53% overall), with wide variation in classes of antibiotics prescribed. Amoxicillin was overall the most common antibiotic prescribed, but this ranged from 3% of antibiotics prescribed in the Norwegian network to 83% in the English network. While fluoroquinolones were not prescribed at all in three networks, they were prescribed for 18% in the Milan network. After adjustment for clinical presentation and demographics, considerable differences remained in antibiotic prescribing, ranging from Norway (odds ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.30) to Slovakia (11.2, 6.20 to 20.27) compared with the overall mean (proportion prescribed: 0.53). The rate of recovery was similar for patients who were and were not prescribed antibiotics (coefficient −0.01, P<0.01) once clinical presentation was taken into account.

Objectives To quantify the diagnostic accuracy of selected inflammatory markers in addition to symptoms and signs for predicting pneumonia and to derive a diagnostic tool.Design Diagnostic study performed between 2007 and 2010. Participants had their history taken, underwent physical examination and measurement of C reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin in venous blood on the day they first consulted, and underwent chest radiography within seven days. Setting Primary care centres in 12 European countries.Participants Adults presenting with acute cough.Main outcome measures Pneumonia as determined by radiologists, who were blind to all other information when they judged chest radiographs. ResultsOf 3106 eligible patients, 286 were excluded because of missing or inadequate chest radiographs, leaving 2820 patients (mean age 50, 40% men) of whom 140 (5%) had pneumonia. Re-assessment of a subset of 1675 chest radiographs showed agreement in 94% (κ 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.54). Six published "symptoms and signs models" varied in their discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) ranged from 0.55 (95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.61) to 0.71 (0.66 to 0.76)). The optimal combination of clinical prediction items derived from our patients included absence of runny nose and presence of breathlessness, crackles and diminished breath sounds on auscultation, tachycardia, and fever, with an ROC area of 0.70 (0.65 to 0.75). Addition of CRP at the optimal cut off of >30 mg/L increased the ROC area to 0.77 (0.73 to 0.81) and improved the diagnostic classification (net reclassification improvement 28%). In the 1556 patients classified according to symptoms, signs, and CRP >30 mg/L as "low risk" (<2.5%) for pneumonia, the prevalence of pneumonia was 2%. In the 132 patients classified as "high risk" (>20%), the prevalence of pneumonia was 31%. The positive likelihood ratio of low, intermediate, and high risk for pneumonia was 0.4, 1.2, and 8.6 respectively. Measurement of procalcitonin added no relevant additional diagnostic information. A simplified diagnostic score based on symptoms, signs, and CRP >30 mg/L resulted in proportions of pneumonia of 0.7%, 3.8%, and 18.2% in the low, intermediate, and high risk group respectively.Conclusions A clinical rule based on symptoms and signs to predict pneumonia in patients presenting to primary care with acute cough performed best in patients with mild or severe clinical presentation. RESEARCHAddition of CRP concentration at the optimal cut off of >30 mg/L improved diagnostic information, but measurement of procalcitonin concentration did not add clinically relevant information in this group. IntroductionDiagnosis of pneumonia in adults presenting with signs of lower respiratory tract infection in primary care is important because pneumonia requires specific treatment and follow-up, whereas for acute bronchitis expectant management is usually appropriate.1 Nonetheless, accurate diagnosis of pneumonia in primary care is difficult as it...

Scope The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy constituted a multidisciplinary expert committee to provide evidence-based recommendation for the use of antibacterial therapy in hospitalized adults with a respiratory infection and suspected or proven 2019 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Methods We performed a literature search to answer four key questions. The committee graded the evidence and developed recommendations by using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Questions addressed by the guideline and Recommendations We assessed evidence on the risk of bacterial infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the associated bacterial pathogens, how to diagnose bacterial infections and how to treat bacterial infections. Bacterial co-infection upon admission was reported in 3.5% of COVID-19 patients, while bacterial secondary infections during hospitalization occurred up to 15%. No or very low quality evidence was found to answer the other key clinical questions. Although the evidence base on bacterial infections in COVID-19 is currently limited, available evidence supports restrictive antibiotic use from an antibiotic stewardship perspective, especially upon admission. To support restrictive antibiotic use, maximum efforts should be undertaken to obtain sputum and blood culture samples as well as pneumococcal urinary antigen testing. We suggest to stop antibiotics in patients who started antibiotic treatment upon admission when representative cultures as well as urinary antigen tests show no signs of involvement of bacterial pathogens after 48 hours. For patients with secondary bacterial respiratory infection we recommend to follow other guideline recommendations on antibacterial treatment for patients with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia. An antibiotic treatment duration of five days in patients with COVID-19 and suspected bacterial respiratory infection is recommended upon improvement of signs, symptoms and inflammatory markers. Larger, prospective studies about the epidemiology of bacterial infections in COVID-19 are urgently needed to confirm our conclusions and ultimately prevent unnecessary antibiotic use during the COVID-19 pandemic.