Resource use by patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia in Europe: analysis of the REACH study

BMC Pulmonary Medicine

Francesco Blasi⁴  Kyle McBride²  Esther Pascual¹  Jesús Medina⁵  Javier Garau⁶  Helmut Ostermann³ 

[1] Medical Department, Clinical Research Unit, AstraZeneca, Parque Norte, Edificio Roble, Serrano Galvache 56, 28033 Madrid, Spain;Instat Services, Inc., 1 Wilson Street, Chatham, NJ 07928, USA;Department of Internal Medicine III, Haematology and Oncology, University Hospital Munich, Munich, Germany;Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, IRCCS Fondazione Ca’ Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy;Medical Evidence Centre, Global Medical Affairs, AstraZeneca, Parque Norte, Edificio Roble, Serrano Galvache 56, 28033 Madrid, Spain;Department of Medicine, Hospital Universitari Mutua de Terrassa, Plaza Doctor Robert 5, 08221 Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain

关键词: Retrospective studies;    Medical;    Economics;    Community-acquired pneumonia;    Anti-bacterial agents;   

Others  :  866502
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2466-14-36

 received in 2013-06-14, accepted in 2014-02-25,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Management of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) places a considerable burden on hospital resources. REACH was a retrospective, observational study (NCT01293435) involving adults ≥18 years old hospitalized with CAP and requiring in-hospital treatment with intravenous antibiotics conducted to collect data on current clinical management patterns and resource use for CAP in hospitals in ten European countries.

Methods

Data were collected via electronic Case Report Forms detailing patient and disease characteristics, microbiological diagnosis, treatments before and during hospitalization, clinical outcomes and health resource consumption.

Results

Patients with initial antibiotic treatment modification (n = 589; 28.9%) had a longer mean hospital stay than those without (16.1 [SD: 13.1; median 12.0] versus 11.1 [SD: 8.9; median: 9.0] days) and higher ICU admission rate (18.0% versus 11.9%). Septic shock (6.8% versus 3.0%), mechanical ventilation (22.2% versus 9.7%), blood pressure support (fluid resuscitation: 19.4% versus 11.4%), parenteral nutrition (6.5% versus 3.9%) and renal replacement therapy (4.2% versus 1.4%) were all more common in patients with treatment modification than in those without. Hospital stay was longer in patients with comorbidities than in those without (mean 13.3 [SD: 11.1; median: 10.0] versus 10.0 [SD: 7.5; median: 8.0] days).

Conclusions

Initial antibiotic treatment modification in patients with CAP is common and is associated with considerable additional resource use. Reassessment of optimal management paradigms for patients hospitalized with CAP may be warranted.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Ostermann et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Welte T, Torres A, Nathwani D: Clinical and economic burden of community-acquired pneumonia among adults in Europe. Thorax 2012, 67:71-79.
• [2]Bauer TT, Welte T, Ernen C, Schlosser BM, Thate-Waschke I, de Zeeuw J, Schultze-Werninghaus G: Cost analyses of community-acquired pneumonia from the hospital perspective. Chest 2005, 128:2238-2246.
• [3]Monge V, San Martin VM, Gonzalez A: The burden of community-acquired pneumonia in Spain. Eur J Public Health 2001, 11:362-364.
• [4]Niederman MS, McCombs JS, Unger AN, Kumar A, Popovian R: The cost of treating community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Ther 1998, 20:820-837.
• [5]Fine MJ, Pratt HM, Obrosky DS, Lave JR, McIntosh LJ, Singer DE, Coley CM, Kapoor WN: Relation between length of hospital stay and costs of care for patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Med 2000, 109:378-385.
• [6]Nicolau DP: Containing costs and containing bugs: are they mutually exclusive? J Manag Care Pharm 2009, 15:S12-S17.
• [7]Blasi F, Garau J, Medina J, Ávila M, McBride K, Ostermann H: Current management of patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia across Europe: outcomes from REACH. Respir Res 2013, 14:44. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]CHOosing Interventions that are cost effective (WHO-CHOICE). Country-specific unit costs [http://www.who.int/choice/country/country_specific/en/index.html webcite] accessed April 2013
• [9]Reyes S, Martinez R, Valles JM, Cases E, Menendez R: Determinants of hospital costs in community-acquired pneumonia. Eur Respir J 2008, 31:1061-1067.
• [10]Wunsch H, Angus DC, Harrison DA, Collange O, Fowler R, Hoste EA, de Keizer NF, Kersten A, Linde-Zwirble WT, Sandiumenge A, Rowan KM: Variation in critical care services across North America and Western Europe. Crit Care Med 2008, 36:2787-2789.
• [11]Moerer O, Plock E, Mgbor U, Schmid A, Schneider H, Wischnewsky MB, Burchardi H: A German national prevalence study on the cost of intensive care: an evaluation from 51 intensive care units. Crit Care 2007, 11:R69. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Dasta JF, McLaughlin TP, Mody SH, Piech CT: Daily cost of an intensive care unit day: the contribution of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 2005, 33:1266-1271.
• [13]Kollef MH, Shorr A, Tabak YP, Gupta V, Liu LZ, Johannes RS: Epidemiology and outcomes of health-care-associated pneumonia: results from a large US database of culture-positive pneumonia. Chest 2005, 128:3854-3862.