4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Discordant diagnostic criteria for pneumonia in COPD trials: a review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have a class effect of increasing pneumonia risk in patients with COPD. However, pneumonia incidence varies widely across clinical trials of ICS use in COPD. This review clarifies methodological differences in defining and recording pneumonia events in these trials and discusses factors that could contribute to the varying pneumonia incidence. Literature searches and screening yielded 40 relevant references for inclusion. Methods used to capture pneumonia events in these studies included investigator-reported pneumonia adverse events, standardised list of signs or symptoms, radiographic confirmation of suspected cases and/or confirmation by an independent clinical end-point committee. In general, more stringent pneumonia diagnosis criteria led to lower reported pneumonia incidence rates. In addition, studies varied in design and population characteristics, including exacerbation history and lung function, factors that probably contribute to the varying pneumonia incidence. As such, cross-trial comparisons are problematic. A minimal set of standardised criteria for diagnosis and reporting of pneumonia should be used in COPD studies, as well as reporting of patients’ pneumonia history at baseline, to allow comparison of pneumonia rates between trials. Currently, within-trial comparison of ICS-containing versus non-ICS-containing treatments is the appropriate method to assess the influence of ICS on pneumonia incidence.

          Abstract

          Trials of ICS in COPD use varying methods of reporting pneumonia incidence, which influence the interpretation of results. A minimal set of standardised criteria for pneumonia diagnosis would allow comparison of pneumonia incidence between trials. https://bit.ly/3nbkdoL

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Diagnosis and Treatment of Adults with Community-acquired Pneumonia. An Official Clinical Practice Guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America

          Background: This document provides evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the management of adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel conducted pragmatic systematic reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations. Results: The panel addressed 16 specific areas for recommendations spanning questions of diagnostic testing, determination of site of care, selection of initial empiric antibiotic therapy, and subsequent management decisions. Although some recommendations remain unchanged from the 2007 guideline, the availability of results from new therapeutic trials and epidemiological investigations led to revised recommendations for empiric treatment strategies and additional management decisions. Conclusions: The panel formulated and provided the rationale for recommendations on selected diagnostic and treatment strategies for adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            BTS guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults: update 2009.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple versus Dual Therapy in Patients with COPD

              The benefits of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), as compared with dual therapy (either inhaled glucocorticoid-LABA or LAMA-LABA), are uncertain.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur Respir Rev
                Eur Respir Rev
                ERR
                errev
                European Respiratory Review
                European Respiratory Society
                0905-9180
                1600-0617
                31 December 2021
                17 November 2021
                : 30
                : 162
                : 210124
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
                [2 ]Nuffield Dept of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [3 ]Clinical Sciences – Respiratory, GSK, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
                [4 ]Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
                [5 ]GlaxoSmithKline, GSK House, Brentford, UK
                [6 ]University of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
                [7 ]University of Michigan, Pulmonary & Critical Care, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
                [8 ]Section of Epidemiology, Dept of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [9 ]Medical Dept, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
                [10 ]Clinical Sciences, GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA
                [11 ]Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Division, Dept of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
                [12 ]New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
                [13 ]Dept of Medicine, University of Texas Health at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA
                [14 ]Centre for Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Institute of Inflammation and Repair, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Hospital Trust, Manchester, UK
                [15 ]Service des Maladies Respiratoires, CHU Bordeaux, Pessac, France
                [16 ]Univ-Bordeaux, Centre de Recherche cardio-thoracique de Bordeaux, U1045, CIC 1401, Pessac, France
                [17 ]Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Lung Health Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
                [18 ]Affiliation at the time of writing
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Richard Russell ( richard.russell@ 123456ndm.ox.ac.uk )
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8353-2349
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9993-2478
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6732-4593
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8010-0260
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2434-1152
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3890-7201
                Article
                ERR-0124-2021
                10.1183/16000617.0124-2021
                9488621
                34789465
                6254fce0-abd1-4d8f-ae11-5b59fbea6f65
                Copyright ©The authors 2021

                This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0.

                History
                : 24 May 2021
                : 28 August 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: GlaxoSmithKline, doi 10.13039/100004330;
                Award ID: Pharmaceutical company funded
                Categories
                Reviews
                1

                Comments

                Comment on this article