4.1 Article

Bacterial pneumonia in HIV-infected patients:: use of the pneumonia severity index and impact of current management on incidence, aetiology and outcome

期刊

HIV MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 609-615

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-1293.2008.00603.x

关键词

bacterial pneumonia; HAART; HIV infection; pneumococcal vaccine; pneumonia severity index

资金

  1. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III
  3. Red de SIDA (RIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Despite a recent decrease, bacterial pneumonia (BP) is still the most common admission diagnosis in HIV patients. We analyse BP incidence, characteristics and prevention measures. Methods Observational study of all patients hospitalized for BP in a tertiary hospital in Barcelona, Spain, from January 2000 to December 2005. Demographic and HIV-related data, BP risk factors, characteristics of BP and outcomes are analysed. Results One hundred and eighty-six BP episodes in 161 patients were included; patients were mainly male (73.7%) and intravenous drug users (73.7%). A decrease in BP incidence was seen during the study period, especially in vaccinated patients. The most commonly isolated microorganism was Streptococcus pneumoniae (31.7%), followed by Legionella pneumophila (5.9%). Legionella pneumophila was more likely in patients with undetectable viral load, higher CD4 cell counts or prior vaccination. Highly active antiretroviral therapy, cotrimoxazole prophylaxis and pneumococcal vaccination did not have a significant influence on bacteraemia rate, in-hospital complications or BP mortality. High Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) predicted mortality accurately [relative risk 15.2, 95% confidence interval 3.2-71.7; P = 0.001]. Mortality was 9.1%, but was significantly higher in patients with CD4 counts under 200 cells/mu L (P = 0.022). Conclusions A decline in BP incidence was seen during the study period. Combining CD4 cell count and PSI score could become a good strategy in deciding which patients have to be hospitalized.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据