Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Nov 18;115:39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.11.023

Bacteraemic pneumococcal pneumonia and SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: differences and similarities

Leyre Serrano Fernández a,b,⁎, Luis Alberto Ruiz Iturriaga a,b, Pedro Pablo España Yandiola c, Raúl Méndez Ocaña d,e, Silvia Pérez Fernández f, Eva Tabernero Huget a, Ane Uranga Echeverria c, Paula Gonzalez Jimenez d,e, Patricia García Hontoria c, Antoni Torres Martí g, Rosario Menendez Villanueva d,e,†, Rafael Zalacain Jorge a,†
PMCID: PMC8598257  PMID: 34800689

Abstract

Objective

To analyse differences in clinical presentation and outcome between bacteraemic pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia (B-PCAP) and sSvere Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia.

Methods

This observational multi-centre study was conducted on patients hospitalized with B-PCAP between 2000 and 2020 and SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in 2020. Thirty-day survival, predictors of mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission were compared.

Results

In total, 663 patients with B-PCAP and 1561 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were included in this study. Patients with B-PCAP had more severe disease, a higher ICU admission rate and more complications. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia had higher in-hospital mortality (10.8% vs 6.8%; P=0.004). Among patients admitted to the ICU, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (69.7% vs 36.2%; P<0.001) and mortality were higher in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. In patients with B-PCAP, the predictive model found associations between mortality and systemic complications (hyponatraemia, septic shock and neurological complications), lower respiratory reserve and tachypnoea; chest pain and purulent sputum were protective factors in these patients. In patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, mortality was associated with previous liver and cardiac disease, advanced age, altered mental status, tachypnoea, hypoxaemia, bilateral involvement, pleural effusion, septic shock, neutrophilia and high blood urea nitrogen; in contrast, ≥7 days of symptoms was a protective factor in these patients. In-hospital mortality occurred earlier in patients with B-PCAP.

Conclusions

Although B-PCAP was associated with more severe disease and a higher ICU admission rate, the mortality rate was higher for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and deaths occurred later. New prognostic scales and more effective treatments are needed for patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

Abbreviations: AEMPS, Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products; B-PCAP, bacteraemic pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia; CAP, community-acquired pneumonia; CI, confidence interval; COPD, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CURB-65, Confusion, Urea nitrogen, Respiratory rate, Blood pressure, age ≥65 years; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; CRP, C-reactive protein; ICU, intensive care unit; IMV, invasive mechanical ventilation; OR, Odds Ratio; PSI, Pneumonia Severity Index; RT-PCR, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction; SEPAR, Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery

Keywords: Community-acquired pneumonia, Bacteraemic pneumococcal pneumonia, SARS-CoV-2, Process of care, Mortality, Survival

Graphical Abstract

Image, graphical abstract

Open in a new tab

Background

Streptococcus pneumoniae remains the most common cause of community-acquired pneumonia (Van der Poll and Opal, 2009; Johansson et al., 2010). Among pneumonia pathogens, it is the leading cause of hospitalization and death in adults (Roson et al., 2001; Shariatzadeh et al., 2005). Approximately 15–25% of cases of pneumococcal pneumonia are bacteraemic (Said et al., 2013), and bacteraemic pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia (B-PCAP) has traditionally been considered an invasive form of infection related to higher inflammatory status, worse in-hospital course and shorter long-term survival (Capelastegui et al., 2014; Ishiguro et al., 2016; Ruiz et al., 2019).

At the end of 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in China and rapidly developed into a global pandemic (Dhama et al., 2020; (Zhou et al., 2020a)., ). SARS-CoV-2 causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The COVID-19 pandemic is a public health emergency, with more than 243 million confirmed cases and more than 4.9 million deaths.

Over recent months, numerous publications have sought to describe the stages of COVID-19; the clinical course, process of care, and predictive factors for poor outcome in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. However, few studies have compared the clinical features of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with other types of pneumonia (Tian et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2020;(Zhou et al., 2020b) ; Shi et al., 2021).

The aim of the present study was to analyse the differences and similarities in clinical presentation, host inflammatory response and outcome between B-PCAP (which was previously the most common and invasive pneumonia) and SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Factors associated with intensive care unit (ICU) admission and in-hospital mortality were compared, and survival after hospitalization was assessed for both types of pneumonia.

Methods

Study design and population

This observational multi-centre study was based on the analysis of a prospective registry of consecutive immunocompetent adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalized with B-PCAP between January 2000 and May 2020, and consecutive immunocompetent patients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia between March and December 2020 (first and second waves of COVID-19 pandemic) to one of three tertiary medical centres (Cruces University Hospital, La Fe Hospital and Galdakao-Usansolo Hospital) in Spain. This study was approved by the corresponding ethics committee (Code PI2020083), and conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki on research in humans.

The bacteriological diagnosis of B-PCAP was based on a positive blood culture for S. pneumoniae taken within 24 h of presentation at hospital. Cases of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were confirmed by positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for the virus in nasopharyngeal swabs. Patients were excluded if they were known to be positive for human immunodeficiency virus or chronically immunosuppressed, or had been hospitalized for 14 days preceding the diagnosis of pneumonia.

Study variables

Patients’ clinical and demographic characteristics were recorded, as well as physical examination, laboratory and radiological findings on admission. CURB-65 (confusion, urea nitrogen, respiratory rate, blood pressure, age ≥65 years) (Lim et al., 2003) and Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) (Fine et al., 1999) scores were used to assess the severity of pneumonia. Measures of in-hospital clinical course and outcome included: development of in-hospital complications; ICU admission; use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV); septic shock; in-hospital mortality; and length of hospital stay. Treatment of patients with COVID-19 was based on the recommendations issued by the Spanish Ministry of Health and the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products (AEMPS) at the time of diagnosis (Documento técnico 19 March 2020)(http://www.aeemt.com/web/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/4_6026300193912129107.pdf, accessed April 2020;(AEMPS1) https://www.aemps.gob.es/laAEMPS/docs/medicamentos-disponibles-SARS-CoV-2-19-3-2020.pdf, accessed May 2020;(AEMPS2) https://www.aemps.gob.es/la-aemps/ultima-informacion-de-la-aemps-acerca-del-covid%e2%80%9119/tratamientos-disponibles-para-el-manejo-de-la-infeccion-respiratoria-por-sars-cov-2/?lang=en, accessed September 2020;(COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel 2020) https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/, accessed September 2020). Patients with B-PCAP were treated based on the guidelines of the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery (Menéndez et al., 2010). In-hospital care and medical care following discharge were determined by patients' healthcare providers.

Definitions

Pneumonia was defined as the presence of new pulmonary infiltrates on chest X-ray, together with acute signs and symptoms suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection. The disease was classified as B-PCAP when the blood culture was positive for S. pneumoniae, and SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia when RT-PCR was positive for SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs.

Patients were considered active smokers if they smoked at least 10 cigarettes per day, and heavy alcohol users if they reported a daily alcohol intake of at least 80 g for men or 60 g for women during the previous year (Grau et al., 2014). Septic shock was defined as systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg and the need for vasopressors for ≥4 h after fluid replacement therapy on admission ((Levy et al., 2003).

Statistical analysis

Bivariate tables were constructed for patients with B-PCAP and SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages, and continuous variables were expressed as means (standard deviations) or medians (interquartile ranges) depending on whether or not data were normally distributed. For continuous variables, comparisons were performed using Student's t-test if the data followed a normal distribution, and using the Mann–Whitney U-test if the data did not follow a normal distribution. Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test were used to compare qualitative variables.

Logistic regression models were performed to assess which variables were associated with ICU admission and use of IMV. Cox regression models were built to analyse in-hospital mortality. All variables with P<0.100 on bivariate analysis were included in logistic regression models. In the multi-variate logistic regression model, the variables with the highest P-values were eliminated one-by-one until all the variables entered were significant (P<0.05). The results have been expressed as odd ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). In the case of patients with COVID-19, multiple imputations were used to impute any missing respiratory rate values.

Thirty-day survival was analysed using the Kaplan–Meier method. The log-rank test was used to compare survival between groups.

All analyses were performed using R Version 4.0.1.

Results

Six hundred and sixty-three patients hospitalized with B-PCAP and 1561 patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were recruited into this study. Table 1 summarizes the patient baseline characteristics and in-hospital course overall and stratified by pneumonia aetiology. Patients with B-PCAP were older and more likely to have comorbidities. Focusing on clinical presentation, patients with B-PCAP were likely to have more severe disease, but the median duration of symptoms was shorter (3 vs 7 days; P<0.001). In addition, patients with B-PCAP had worse laboratory findings, including higher C-reactive protein level and lower lymphocyte count (median 710 vs 990; P<0.001), but were less likely to have bilateral lung involvement on chest X-ray (16.9% vs 71.8%; P<0.001). Further, patients with B-PCAP were more frequently classified in the higher risk classes according to CURB-65 (2 to 5) and PSI (4 and 5) scores (P<0.001). Patients with B-PCAP were more frequently admitted to the ICU (27.9% vs 12.9%; P<0.001). In contrast, the IMV rate was similar in the two groups (10.1% vs 9.1%; P=0.505). A higher percentage of patients with B-PCAP had complications during hospitalization. In contrast, patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia had a higher in-hospital mortality rate (10.8% vs 6.8%; P=0.004) and longer in-hospital stay.

Table 1.

General characteristics and in-hospital course overall and stratified by pneumonia aetiology.

All patients(n=2224) B-PCAP (n=663) SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (n=1561) P-value
Demographic characteristics
Sex (male) 1367 (61.5%) 427 (64.4%) 940 (60.2%) 0.071
Age ≥65 years 1005 (45.1%) 338 (51%) 667 (42.7%) 0.010
Active smoker 293 (13.3%) 220 (33.2%) 73 (4.8%) <0.001
Alcoholism 218 (11.3%) 115 (17.6%) 103 (8.1%) <0.001
Nursing home resident 89 (4%) 18 (2.7%) 71 (4.6%) 0.057
Comorbid conditions
Comorbidities, yes 1332 (59.9%) 394 (59.4%) 938 (60.1%) 0.807
Hypertension 914 (41.2%) 280 (42.5%) 634 (40.6%) 0.440
Diabetes mellitus 400 (18%) 109 (16.4%) 291 (18.6%) 0.240
Dyslipidaemia 694 (31.3%) 156 (23.7%) 538 (34.5%) <0.001
Heart disease 412 (18.6%) 173 (26.3%) 239 (15.3%) <0.001
Cerebrovascular disease 92 (4.8%) 42 (6.3%) 50 (3.9%) 0.025
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 218 (9.8%) 120 (18.1%) 98 (6.3%) <0.001
Liver disease 90 (4.1%) 42 (6.3%) 48 (3.1%) 0.001
Chronic severe renal disease 164 (7.3%) 45 (6.8%) 119 (7.6%) 0.548
Neoplastic disease 143 (6.4%) 52 (7.8%) 91 (5.8%) 0.094
Clinical characteristics
Duration of symptoms (days), median (IQR) 6 (3–8) 3 (2–5) 7 (5–10) <0.001
Altered mental status 153 (6.9%) 70 (10.6%) 83 (5.3%) <0.001
Fever 1649 (74.5%) 539 (82.7%) 1110 (71.1%) <0.001
Cough 1627 (73.6%) 502 (77%) 1125 (72.2%) 0.022
Purulent sputum production 361 (16.3%) 300 (46%) 61 (3.9%) <0.001
Dyspnoea 1196 (54%) 384 (58.9%) 812 (52%) 0.004
Chest pain 544 (24.6%) 338 (51.8%) 206 (13.2%) <0.001
Physical examination
Temperature >39°C 126 (5.7%) 83 (12.5%) 43 (2.8%) <0.001
Respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min 299 (15.4%) 172 (26.4%) 127 (9.9%) <0.001
Heart rate >125 beats/min 161 (7.3%) 115 (17.3%) 46 (3%) <0.001
Systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg 83 (3.8%) 59 (8.9%) 24 (1.6%) <0.001
Oxygen saturation <90% 412 (18.6%) 216 (33%) 196 (12.6%) <0.001
Laboratory and radiological findings
Glucose, median (IQR), mg/dL 114 (100–142) 129 (107–166) 110 (99–130) <0.001
Blood urea nitrogen ≥30 mg/dl 492 (22.2%) 303 (45.8%) 189 (12.1%) <0.001
Sodium <130 mmol/L 83 (3.7%) 63 (9.5%) 20 (1.3%) <0.001
Haematocrit <30% 52 (2.3%) 19 (2.9%) 33 (2.1%) 0.361
C-reactive protein ≥150 mg/L 449 (22.7%) 171 (40.1%) 279 (17.9%) <0.001
Platelet count x103/µL, median (IQR) 194 (150–246) 197 (159–246) 192 (148–246) 0.193
White blood cell count/µL, median (IQR) 7090 (5115–11408) 14,170 (9600–20,100) 6170 (4730–8070) <0.001
Neutrophils/µL, median (IQR) 5400 (3590–9514) 12,558 (7900–17,676) 4500 (3250–6240) <0.001
Lymphocytes/µL, median (IQR) 920 (640–1299) 710 (417–1170) 990 (715–1330) <0.001
Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, median (IQR) 5.94 (3.4–12.1) 15.5 (9.33–26.6) 4.37 (2.93–7.42) <0.001
Lymphocyte/C-reactive protein ratio, median (IQR) 14.4 (5.82–36.2) 8.05 (2.43–24.6) 15.9 (7.08–42.5) <0.001
Lung involvement on X-ray
Single lobe 783 (35.4%) 424 (64.7%) 359 (23.1%) <0.001
Unilateral multi-lobe 215 (9.7%) 120 (18.3%) 95 (6.1%) <0.001
Bilateral 1228 (55.5%) 111 (16.9%) 1117 (71.8%) <0.001
Pleural effusion 154 (6.9%) 119 (17.9%) 35 (2.2%) <0.001
Severity
Pneumonia Severity Index IV–V 695 (31.3%) 364 (55.5%) 331 (21.2%) <0.001
CURB-65 ≥2 774 (35.2%) 409 (64.2%) 365 (23.4%) <0.001
In-hospital course
Admission to ICU
Length of ICU stay (days), median (IQR)		 386 (17.4%)
13 (6–21)		 185 (27.9%)
5 (3–11)		 201 (12.9%)
14 (7–24)		 <0.001
<0.001
Need for mechanical ventilation
Length of IMV (days), median (IQR)		 209 (9.4%)
14 (8–22)		 67 (10.1%)
10 (4–18)		 142 (9.1%)
13 (8–21)		 0.505
0.563
Neurological complications 94 (4.2%) 59 (8.9%) 35 (2.2%) <0.001
Renal complications 259 (11.7%) 148 (22.4%) 111 (7.1%) <0.001
Cardiac complications 212 (9.7%) 106 (16.1%) 106 (6.9%) <0.001
Thromboembolic complications 55 (2.8%) 5 (0.8%) 50 (3.9%) <0.001
Haematological complications 80 (3.9%) 58 (10.1%) 22 (1.5%) <0.001
Septic shock 150 (6.8%) 116 (17.7%) 34 (2.1%) <0.001
Outcomes
In-hospital mortality 214 (9.6%) 45 (6.8%) 169 (10.8%) 0.004
30-day re-admission 93 (5.3%) 18 (2.7%) 75 (6.9%) <0.001
Length of hospital stay (days), median (IQR) 8 (5–13) 7 (4–10) 9 (5–14) <0.001
Open in a new tab

B-PCAP, bacteraemic pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia; SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2; ICU, intensive care unit; IMV, invasive mechanical ventilation; IQR, interquartile range.

Table 2 shows differences between patients admitted to the ICU with B-PCAP (n=185) vs SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (n=201). The clinical presentation showed greater severity in patients with B-PCAP, and these patients were in a higher risk class according to PSI and CURB-65 scores. In contrast, patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were more likely to have bilateral lung involvement (83.6% vs 34.6%; P<0.001) and receive IMV (69.7% vs 36.2%; P<0.001). Thromboembolic complications, unlike all other complications, were more common in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (12.9% vs 2.2%). Patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia admitted to the ICU, like the overall sample of patients with this type of pneumonia, had a higher in-hospital mortality rate (23.9% vs 13%; P=0.009) and longer in-hospital stay.

Table 2.

Differences between patients admitted to the intensive care unit with bacteraemic pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia (B-PCAP) vs Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia.

All patients(n=386) B-PCAP (n=185) SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (n=201) P-value
Demographic characteristics
Sex (male) 272 (72.5%) 131 (70.8%) 141 (70.1%) 0.976
Age ≥65 years 124 (32.1%) 68 (36.8%) 56 (27.9%) 0.854
Active smoker 95 (24.8%) 87 (47%) 8 (4%) <0.001
Alcoholism 69 (20.1%) 51 (27.9%) 18 (11.2%) <0.001
Nursing home resident 6 (1.5%) 4 (2.2%) 2 (1%) 0.432
Comorbid conditions
Comorbidities, yes 243 (63%) 101 (54.6%) 142 (70.6%) 0.002
Hypertension 159 (41.3%) 64 (34.8%) 95 (47.3%) 0.017
Diabetes mellitus 70 (18.1%) 22 (11.9%) 48 (23.9%) 0.003
Dyslipidaemia 115 (29.9%) 42 (22.8%) 73 (36.3%) 0.005
Heart disease 54 (14%) 27 (14.7%) 27 (13.4%) 0.839
Cerebrovascular disease 10 (2.9%) 7 (3.8%) 3 (1.9%) 0350
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 54 (14%) 39 (21.1%) 15 (7.5%) <0.001
Liver disease 24 (6.2%) 20 (10.8%) 4(2%) 0.001
Chronic severe renal disease 21 (5.4%) 9 (4.9%) 12 (5.9%) 0.800
Neoplastic disease 21 (5.4%) 10 (5.4%) 11 (5.5%) 1
Clinical characteristics
Duration of symptoms (days), median (IQR) 5 (3–7) 3 (2–5) 7 (5–9) <0.001
Altered mental status 38 (9.8%) 25 (13.5%) 13 (6.5%) 0.032
Fever 292 (76.2%) 143 (78.6%) 149 (74.1%) 0.368
Cough 293 (76.5%) 139 (76.4%) 154 (76.6%) 1
Purulent sputum production 88 (23%) 82 (45.1%) 6 (3%) <0.001
Dyspnoea 255 (66.6%) 124 (68.1%) 131 (65.2%) 0.614
Chest pain 109 (28.5%) 92 (50.5%) 17 (8.5%) <0.001
Physical examination
Temperature >39°C 34 (9.04%) 24 (13%) 10 (5.2%) 0.015
Respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min 143 (40.6%) 87 (47.8%) 56 (32.9%) 0.006
Heart rate >125 beats/min 63 (16.3%) 53 (28.6%) 10 (5%) <0.001
Systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg 47 (12.1%) 44 (23.8%) 3 (1.4%) <0.001
Oxygen saturation <90% 155 (40.2%) 93 (50.8%) 62 (30.8%) 0.180
Laboratory and radiological findings
Glucose (mg/dL), median (IQR) 120 (102–150) 120 (99–153) 121 (106–147) 0.363
Blood urea nitrogen ≥30 mg/dL 139 (36%) 119 (64.3%) 20 (9.9%) <0.001
Sodium <130 mmol/L 34 (8.8%) 28 (15.1%) 6 (2.9%) 0.001
Haematocrit <30% 11 (2.8%) 5 (2.7%) 6 (2.9%) 0.544
C-reactive protein ≥150 mg/L 108 (33.5%) 54 (44.3%) 54 (27%) 0.002
Platelet count x103/µL, median (IQR) 187 (143–236) 182 (141–227) 191 (143–239) 0.405
White blood cell count/µL, median (IQR) 7750 (5200–12100) 11300 (6230–16300) 6595 (5032–8418) <0.001
Neutrophils/µL, median (IQR) 6420 (3892–10902) 10081 (5100–14626) 5105 (3678–7192) <0.001
Lymphocytes/µL, median (IQR) 735 (430–1082) 564 (300–1064) 805 (598–1090) <0.001
Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, median (IQR) 9.83 (5.33–18.6) 15.5 (7.89–26.9) 6.85 (4.27–10.5) <0.001
Lymphocyte/C-reactive protein ratio, median (IQR) 7.5 (2.9–17.4) 4.59 (1.62–15.7) 9.4 (4.36–17.6) <0.001
Lung involvement on X-ray
Single lobe
Unilateral multi-lobe
Bilateral
91 (23.8%)
63 (16.4%)
231 (60.3%)
63 (34.6%)
56 (30.8%)
63 (34.6%)
28 (13.9%)
7 (3.5%)
168 (83.6%)
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Pleural effusion 41 (10.6%) 38 (20.5%) 3 (1.5%) <0.001
Severity
Pneumonia Severity Index IV–V 186 (48.3%) 128 (69.6%) 58 (28.9%) <0.001
CURB-65 ≥2 197 (53.8%) 137 (75.7%) 60 (29.9%) <0.001
In-hospital course
Need for mechanical ventilation
Length of IMV (days), median (IQR)		 207 (53.6%)
13 (7.25–21)		 67 (36.2%)
10 (4–18)		 140 (69.7%)
13 (8–21)		 <0.001
0.563
Complications
Neurological complications
Stroke		 48 (12.5%)
1 (0.3%)		 29 (15.8%)
0		 19 (9.6%)
1 (0.7%)		 0.093
0.445
Renal complications 128 (33.4%) 89 (48.4%) 39 (19.6%) <0.001
Cardiac complications 90 (23.8%) 51 (27.9%) 39 (20%) 0.094
Thromboembolic complications 26 (7.3%) 4 (2.2%) 22 (12.9%) <0.001
Haematological complications 52 (14.6%) 46 (27.9%) 6 (3.1%) <0.001
Septic shock 130 (33.9%) 107 (57.8%) 23 (11.6%) <0.001
Outcomes
In-hospital mortality 72 (18.7%) 24 (13%) 48 (23.9%) 0.009
30-day re-admission 11 (3.79%) 5 (2.7%) 6 (5.7%) 0.218
Length of hospital stay, median (IQR) 18 (10–33) 12 (7–20) 25 (16–41) <0.001
Open in a new tab

IMV, invasive mechanical ventilation; IQR, interquartile range.

The results of multi-variate Cox regression of factors potentially associated with in-hospital mortality are listed in Table 3 . In the multi-variate Cox regression model, the following factors were independently associated with in-hospital mortality in patients with B-PCAP: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.19–4.78; P=0.015); respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.43–5.89; P=0.003); sodium <130 mmol/L (OR 3.26, 95% CI 1.37–7.81; P=0.008); neurological complications (OR 7.25, 95% CI 3.52–14.93; P<0.001); and septic shock (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.06-4.48; P=0.035). Purulent sputum production (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.79; P=0.009) and chest pain (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19–0.88; P=0.022) were protective factors. In patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, predictors of in-hospital mortality were: age ≥65 years (OR 4.777, 95% CI 2.814–8.111; P<0.001); heart disease (OR 1.587, 95% CI 1.007–2.341; P=0.02); liver disease (OR 2.365, 95% CI 1.199–4.662); altered mental status (OR 2.464, 95% CI 1.586–3.827; P<0.001); respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min (OR 2.117, 95% CI 1.362–3.289; P<0.001); hypoxaemia (OR 1.599, 95% CI 1.045–2.447; P=0.03); blood urea nitrogen ≥30 mg/dL (OR 1.864, 95% CI 1.236–2.81; P=0.003); neutrophilia (each 10,000-unit increase in neutrophil count/µL) (OR 1.052, 95% CI 1.018–1.086; P=0.002); bilateral lung involvement (OR 1.868, 95% CI 1.142–3.056; P=0.013); pleural effusion (OR 2.894, 95% CI 1.282–6.536; P=0.011); and septic shock (OR 2.781, 95% CI 1.703–4.542; P<0.001). Seven or more days of symptoms on admission was a protective factor against mortality (OR 0.464, 95% CI 0.314–0.685; P<0.001). The results of multi-variate logistic regression of factors associated with ICU admission and IMV in patients hospitalized with B-PCAP or SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia are reported in Table 4 and Table S1 (see online supplementary material), respectively.

Table 3.

Multi-variate Cox regression of factors associated with in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with bacteraemic pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia (B-PCAP) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia.

B-PCAP
 SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia
OR (95% CI) P-value OR (95% CI) P-value
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 2.38 (1.19–4.78) 0.015 Age ≥65 years 4.777 (2.814–8.111) <0.001
Purulent sputum production 0.4 (0.2–0.79) 0.009 Heart disease 1.587 (1.077–2.341) 0.02
Chest pain 0.41 (0.19–0.88) 0.022 Liver disease 2.365 (1.199–4.662) 0.013
Respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min 2.9 (1.43–5.89) 0.003 Altered mental status 2.464 (1.586–3.827) <0.001
Sodium <130 mmol/L 3.26 (1.37–7.81) 0.008 ≥7 days of symptoms 0.464 (0.314–0.685) <0.001
Neurological complicationsa 7.25 (3.52–14.93) <0.001 Respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min 2.117 (1.362–3.289) <0.001
Septic shock 2.18 (1.06–4.48) 0.035 Oxygen saturation <90% 1.599 (1.045–2.477) 0.03
Blood urea nitrogen ≥30 mg/dL 1.864 (1.236–2.81) 0.003
Neutrophil count/µL/10,000b 1.052 (1.018–1.086) 0.002
Bilateral lung involvement 1.868 (1.142–3.056) 0.013
Pleural effusion 2.894 (1.282–6.536) 0.011
Septic shock 2.781 (1.703–4.542) <0.001
Open in a new tab

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

a

Neurological complications: stroke, delirium and/or seizure.

b

Neutrophil count is presented for each 10,000-unit increase.

Table 4.

Multi-variate logistic regression of factors associated with intensive care unit (ICU) admission in patients hospitalized with bacteraemic pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia (B-PCAP) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia.

B-PCAP
 SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia
OR (95% CI) P-value OR (95% CI) P-value
Age ≥65 yearsa 0.28 (0.17–0.47) <0.001 Nursing home resident 0.132 (0.002–0.486) 0.009
Active smoker 2.09 (1.29–3.4) 0.003 Age ≥65 yearsa 0.563 (0.375–0.833) 0.005
Respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min 3.39 (2.11–5.46) <0.001 Respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min 3.09 (1.891–5) <0.001
Systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg 12.53 (6.09–27.2) <0.001 Oxygen saturation <90% 4.483(2.812–7.125) <0.001
Oxygen saturation <90% 2.39 (1.46–3.92) <0.001 Lymphocytes/µL/1000c 0.364 (0.231–0.557) <0.001
Blood urea nitrogen ≥30 mg/dL 3.45 (2.15–5.63) <0.001
White blood cell count/µL/1000b 0.95 (0.92–0.98) <0.001
Bilateral lung involvement 3.17 (1.84–5.48) <0.001
Open in a new tab

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

a

Indicates the negative influence of advanced age on eligibility for ICU admission.

b

White blood cell count is presented for each 1000-unit increase.

c

Lymphocytes are presented for each 1000-unit increase.

Figure 1 compares the 30-day Kaplan–Meier survival curves for patients with B-PCAP and SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The 30-day survival rate was significantly lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (90.2% vs 93.8%; log rank P≤0.009).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Thirty-day Kaplan–Meier survival curve for patients with bacteraemic pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia (B-PCAP) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia.

Discussion

This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of host-related factors, process of care and outcome in a consecutive series of patients diagnosed with B-PCAP and SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The main findings were as follows: (1) patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia had higher in-hospital mortality, although patients with B-PCAP had more comorbidities, more severe clinical presentation and laboratory findings, higher ICU admission rates and in-hospital complications; (2) in comparison with patients with B-PCAP, patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia requiring ICU admission were more likely to receive IMV and had poorer outcomes with a higher mortality rate; (3) factors and clinical scales (PSI and CURB-65) classically associated with severity and mortality on admission in patients with B-PCAP demonstrated lack of predictive value in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia; and (4) B-PCAP was characterized by early in-hospital mortality, whereas in-hospital mortality occurred later in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

The study sample is particularly interesting for several reasons: the types of pneumonia studied, the type of population studied, the size of the sample, and the multi-centre design of the study. The types of pneumonia that were compared were the pneumonia that has previously been the most common, invasive and virulent pneumonia, able to produce documented inflammatory status and systemic complications (B-PCAP, all cases diagnosed by positive blood culture), and the pneumonia caused by the current pandemic (SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, all cases diagnosed by positive RT-PCR), which has also been related to exaggerated systemic inflammation. In terms of the type of population studied, only immunocompetent patients were included for both types of pneumonia. This enabled the authors to avoid the confounding effect of immunosuppression. Regarding the size of the sample and the multi-centre design of the study, to the authors’ knowledge, this is among the largest series published on this topic including data for both types of pneumonia collected prospectively.

The results of this study illustrate that there are clear differences between the clinical presentation of B-PCAP and SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. B-PCAP can be considered a clear example of classic pneumonia, in which patients present with a history of a few days of typical symptoms, showing high severity on physical examination and laboratory parameters, and unilobar involvement on X-ray. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia was observed to have a more dormant clinical course, bilateral lung involvement and higher in-hospital mortality. Few studies have compared COVID-19 with other types of pneumonia, and all previous series have compared SARS-CoV-2-positive pneumonia with SARS-CoV-2-negative pneumonia, without specifying the aetiology in the latter case (Tian et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2020; (Zhou et al., 2020b)). Furthermore, previous studies included few cases, and just compared the groups in terms of general characteristics and in-hospital course. No previous studies performed and compared multi-variate analysis of severity or survival curves.

The present study confirmed the underestimation of the risk of death from viral pneumonia obtained with CURB-65 and PSI scores reported by previous studies (Guo et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2020). In the present series, these severity scales were not useful for identifying patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as among patients with this type of pneumonia, just 28.9% of those admitted to the ICU had high-risk PSI scores and 29.9% had high-risk CURB-65 scores, but 23.9% died during hospital admission. Moreover, in the entire sample of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, only 21.2% and 23.4% were identified as high risk by the PSI score and the CURB-65 score, respectively, and the in-hospital mortality rate was 10.8%. Wynants et al. (2020) published a systematic review of prediction models for COVID-19, and concluded that they were unable to recommend any of them for use in clinical practice.

The present study found that patients with B-PCAP had worse clinical presentation and laboratory findings, but in-hospital mortality was much higher in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The prognosis of B-PCAP has improved in recent years due to new vaccines (Whitney et al., 2003), early diagnosis and improvements in treatment (Gattarello et al., 2014). In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is a new illness and there is currently no specific antiviral treatment. Furthermore, although vaccines against COVID-19 are being administered in most countries, herd immunity has not yet been achieved. Moreover, the effectiveness of the vaccines is not the same in all patients, and the duration of immunity is not well known (Altawalah, 2021). The inflammatory response also plays an important role in COVID-19-related mortality. Previous research has suggested that excessive immune response triggers pathogenesis in other severe viral types of pneumonia, such as influenza and SARS (Van den Brand et al., 2014). It has also been documented that SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia triggers a strong innate inflammatory immune response which leads to a cytokine storm that causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (Xu et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2020).The present study did not find an association between in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 and lymphopenia, whereas Zheng et al. (2020) did find an association in a meta-analysis analysing risk factors of critical cases of COVID-19. This is despite the fact that the lymphocyte count on admission in the patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in the present study was low and similar to that documented by previous studies (Richardson et al., 2020), although curiously, the median lymphocyte count was lower among patients with B-PCAP than among patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in the present study. These results indicate that lymphopenia is associated with severity in any type of pneumonia, and is not specific for SARS-CoV-2 as has been reported previously (Méndez et al., 2019).

The present study found two distinct mortality mechanisms in the two types of pneumonia. In B-PCAP, the predictive model related mortality to systemic complications (hyponatraemia, septic shock and neurological complications), lower respiratory reserve (COPD) and high respiratory rate; these risk factors have been associated with mortality previously (Naucler et al., 2013) or are currently included in pneumonia severity scores (Fine et al., 1999; Lim et al., 2003). Chest pain and purulent sputum production were found to be protective factors against mortality in patients with B-PCAP, probably because they were alarm symptoms that prompted the patient to seek medical attention and start treatment earlier (Fine et al., 1996). In contrast, in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, mortality was more closely related to an exaggerated inflammatory response (blood urea nitrogen ≥30 mg/dL and neutrophilia) or respiratory failure (respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min, oxygen saturation <90% and bilateral lung involvement). As in previous studies (Berenguer et al., 2020; Gallo et al., 2021), advanced age, altered mental status, and heart and liver diseases were associated with in-hospital mortality, and indicated worse baseline status. Further, septic shock was predictive of mortality, likely because it was related to bacterial superinfection, although microbiological aetiology data were not available. Pleural effusion was also related to in-hospital mortality, as this indicates severe inflammation and could be associated with viral pleuritis, bacterial superinfection or congestive heart failure (Zhan et al., 2021). Seven or more days of symptoms at hospital admission was found to be a protective factor against mortality for patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as has been reported previously (Ciceri et al., 2020), probably because the patient is admitted at a later stage of the disease in which the risk of worsening is lower, or because the disease is milder and it takes longer to show severe symptoms.

Significant differences in the timing of in-hospital death were found between the groups. In patients with B-PCAP, in-hospital death occurred in the first few days after admission. As has been observed previously, pneumococcal mortality tends to be observed early, as prompt adequate targeted treatment improves outcomes in these patients (Garnacho-Montero et al., 2010). In contrast, in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, survival started to decrease from day 4–5 of admission, this corresponding to day 10–12 after symptom onset, when the exaggerated inflammatory phase started (Siddiqi and Mehra, 2020).

Finally, regarding patients admitted to the ICU, the admission rate was lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, but they had a longer ICU stay and greater need for IMV. These data reinforce the association of COVID-19 severity with respiratory failure, while the severity of B-PCAP was also associated with septic shock or other complications. All complications were observed more frequently in patients with B-PCAP, except for thromboembolic complications, which were more common in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Coagulopathy has been documented previously in patients with severe COVID-19, and this could lead to thromboembolic complications (Levi et al., 2020). Predictive factors associated with ICU admission in patients with B-PCAP were factors previously associated with severity (smoking, tachypnoea, hypotension, high blood urea nitrogen levels, respiratory failure or bilateral lung involvement). Older age had a negative association with ICU admission: as previous studies have documented, this indicates the negative influence of advanced age on eligibility for ICU admission (Boumendil et al., 2012; Ruiz et al., 2017). Leucocytosis was identified as protective against ICU admission, whereas leukopenia indicates abnormalities in the host's inflammatory response associated with increased susceptibility to severe disease and mortality (Hanada et al., 2016). Once again, in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, respiratory failure (tachypnoea and oxygen saturation <90%) and cytokine storm (lymphopenia) were related to severity and ICU admission. Old age and nursing home residence were negatively associated with ICU admission; as in patients with B-PCAP, such patients were likely not eligible for ICU admission because of their poor baseline status.

This study has some limitations. It was an observational study and data on the two types of pneumonia were collected prospectively in different time periods. B-PCAP cases registered over 20 years were compared with SARS-CoV-2 cases registered over 10 months (March–December 2020), and this could introduce differences related to external uncontrollable factors. On the other hand, only patients from the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic were included. This may be a limitation but also a strength, because it enabled the authors to eliminate the bias of the pandemic effect that would have had to analyse the first-wave patients alone, and avoided the effect of vaccination on subsequent waves (in Spain, vaccination started in January 2021). Further, in patients with B-PCAP, data were not gathered on factors that seem to be commonly altered in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (i.e. D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase or ferritin), so it was not possible to compare these laboratory data. Furthermore, some therapies such as high-flow oxygen therapy and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have started to be used in recent years, and it was not possible to compare their effect in the two groups. On the other hand, as there have been millions of cases of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in a short time, the authors consider that the approach followed is the only way to compare patients with this type of pneumonia with a similarly sized sample of patients with B-PCAP.

Conclusions

This study examined differences between general characteristics, clinical presentation and in-hospital course of patients with B-PCAP and SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, and analysed factors associated with in-hospital mortality and ICU admission in both groups. This study demonstrated differences in the behaviour of the two entities, which may facilitate differential diagnosis and enable the provision of differentiated treatment. Although patients with B-PCAP have more severe disease on admission and a higher ICU admission rate, in-hospital mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is higher and occurs later during hospital admission. These results reinforce the need for new prognostic scales and effective treatment for patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

Declaration of Competing Interest

None declared.

Acknowledgments

Funding

None.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the corresponding the ethics committee is COMITÉ DE ÉTICA DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN CON MEDICAMENTOS DE EUSKADI (CEIm-E) (Code PI2020083) and conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki on research in humans.

Author contributions

LSF and LAR take responsibility for the manuscript as a whole. LSF, LAR, RZJ, RMV, RMO and PPE conceived and designed the study. AUE, PGH, PGJ, ETH, RMO and LAR enrolled patients, and collected and compiled data. SPF performed the statistical analysis. LSF, RZJ, LAR, RMO, ATM, PPE and RMV analysed and interpreted the data. LSF, RZJ and LAR wrote the manuscript. RMV, RMO, ATM, AUE and PPE commented on and revised the report. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Footnotes

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.11.023.

Appendix. Supplementary materials

mmc1.docx (12.4KB, docx)

References

  1. Altawalah H. Antibody response to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection or after COVID-19 vaccination. Vacciones (Basael) 2021;9(8):910. doi: 10.3390/vacciones9080910. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Berenguer J, Ryan P, Rodríguez-Baño J, Jarrín I, Carratalà J, Pachón J, et al. COVID-19@Spain Study Group. Characteristics and predictors of death among 4035 consecutively hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Spain. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26(11):1525–1536. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Boumendil A, Angus DC, Guitonneau AL, Menn AM, Ginsburg C, Takun K, et al. ICE-CUB study group. Variability of intensive care admission decisions for the very elderly. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e34387. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Capelastegui A, Zalacain R, Bilbao A, Egurrola M, Ruiz LA, Quintana JM, et al. Pneumococcal pneumonia: differences according to blood culture results. BMC Pulm Med. 2014;14(1):128. doi: 10.1186/1471-2466-14-128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ciceri F, Castagna A, Rovere-Querini P, De Cobelli F, Ruggeri A, Galli L, et al. Early predictors of clinical outcomes of COVID-19 outbreak in Milan, Italy. Clin Immunol. 2020;217:108509. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2020.108509. 108509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel . National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, MD: 2020. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment guidelines.https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/ Available at. (accessed September 2020) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dhama K, Khan S, Tiwari R, Sircar S, Bhat S, Malik YS, et al. Coronavirus disease 2019–COVID-19. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2020;33(4):e00028–20. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00028-20. e00028–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Documento técnico . Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Government; 19 March 2020. Manejo clínico del COVID-19: tratamiento médico.http://www.aeemt.com/web/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/4_6026300193912129107.pdf Available at: [Google Scholar]
  9. Fine MJ, Smith MA, Carson CA, Mutha SS, Sankey SS, Weissfeld LA, et al. Prognosis and outcomes of patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 1996;275(2):134–141. doi: 10.1001/jama.1996.03530260048030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fine MJ, Stone RA, Singer DE, Coley CM, Marrie TJ, Lave JR, et al. Processes and outcomes of care for patients with community-acquired pneumonia: results from the Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) Cohort Study. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(9):970–980. doi: 10.1001/archinte.159.9.970. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gallo Marin B, Aghagoli G, Lavine K, Yang L, Siff EJ, Chiang SS, et al. Predictors of COVID-19 severity: a literature review. Rev Med Virol. 2021;31(1):1–10. doi: 10.1002/rmv.2146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Garnacho-Montero J, García-Cabrera E, Diaz-Martín A, Lepe-Jiménez JA, Iraurgi-Arcarazo P, Jiménez-Alvarez R. Determinants of outcome in patients with bacteraemic pneumococcal pneumonia: importance of early adequate treatment. Scand J Infect Dis. 2010;42(3):185–192. doi: 10.3109/00365540903418522. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gattarello S, Borgatta B, Solé-Violán J, Vallés J, Vidaur L, Zaragoza R, et al. Decrease in mortality in severe community-acquired pneumococcal pneumonia: impact of improving antibiotic strategies (2000–2013) Chest. 2014;146(1):22–31. doi: 10.1378/chest.13-1531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Grau I, Ardanuy C, Calatayud L, Schulze MH, Liñares J, Pallares R. Smoking and alcohol abuse are the most preventable risk factors for invasive pneumonia and other pneumococcal infections. Int J Infect Dis. 2014;25:59–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2013.12.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Guo L, Wei D, Zhang X, Wu Y, Li Q, Zhou M, et al. Clinical features predicting mortality risk in patients with viral pneumonia: the MuLBSTA score. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:2752. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hanada S, Iwata S, Kishi K, Morozumi M, Chiba N, Wajima T, et al. Host factors and biomarkers associated with poor outcomes in adults with invasive pneumococcal disease. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0147877. doi: 10.3109/00365540903418522. e0147877. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ishiguro T, Kagiyama N, Uozumi R, Odashima K, Kurashima K, Morita S, et al. Risk factors for the severity and mortality of pneumococcal pneumonia: importance of premorbid patients’ performance status. J Infect Chemother. 2016;22(10):685–691. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2016.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Johansson N, Kalin M, Tiveljung-Lindell A, Giske CG, Hedlund J. Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia: increased microbiological yield with new diagnostic methods. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(2):202–209. doi: 10.1086/648678. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Levi M, Thachil J, Iba T, Levy JH. Coagulation abnormalities and thrombosis in patients with COVID-19. Lancet Haematol. 2020;7(6):e438–e440. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30145-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, Abraham E, Angus D, Cook D, et al. SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS: SCCM/ESICM/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med 2003. 2003;29(4):530–538. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-1662-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lim WS, Van der Eerden MM, Laing R, Boersma WG, Karalus N, Town GI, et al. Defining community-acquired pneumonia severity on presentation to hospital: an international derivation and validation study. Thorax. 2003;58(5):377–382. doi: 10.1136/thorax.58.5.377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Méndez R, Menéndez R, Amara-Elori I, Feced L, Piró A, Ramírez P, et al. Lymphopenic community-acquired pneumonia is associated with a dysregulated immune response and increased severity and mortality. J Infect. 2019;78(6):423–431. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2019.04.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Menéndez R, Torres A, Aspa J, Capelastegui A, Prat C, Rodríguez de Castro F. Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica: Community-acquired pneumonia. New guidelines of the Spanish Society of Pulmonary and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) Arch Bronconeumol. 2010;46:543–558. doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2010.06.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Naucler P, Darenberg J, Morfeldt E, Ortqvist A. Henriques Normark B. Contribution of host, bacterial factors and antibiotic treatment to mortality in adult patients with bacteraemic pneumococcal pneumonia. Thorax. 2013;68:571–579. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2012-203106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Nguyen Y, Corre F, Honsel V, Curac S, Zarrouk V, Fantin B, et al. Applicability of the CURB-65 pneumonia severity score for outpatient treatment of COVID-19. J Infect. 2020;81(3):e96–e98. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Richardson S, Hirsch JS, Narasimhan M, Crawford JM, McGinn T, Davidson KW, et al. Presenting characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes among 5700 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the New York City Area. JAMA. 2020;323(20):2052–2059. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.6775. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Roson B, Carratala J, Dorca J, Casanova A, Manresa F, Gudiol F. Etiology, reasons for hospitalization, risk classes, and outcomes of community-acquired pneumonia in patients hospitalized on the basis of conventional admission criteria. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33(2):158–165. doi: 10.1086/321808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Ruiz LA, España PP, Gómez A, Bilbao A, Jaca C, Arámburu A, et al. Age-related differences in management and outcomes in hospitalized healthy and well-functioning bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia patients: a cohort study. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17(1):130. doi: 10.1186/s12877-017-0518-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ruiz LA, Serrano L, España PP, Martinez-Indart L, Gomez A, Uranga A, et al. Factors influencing long-term survival after hospitalization with pneumococcal pneumonia. J Infect. 2019;79(6):542–549. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2019.10.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Said MA, Johnson HL, Nonyane BA, Deloria-Knoll M, O’Brien KL, et al. Estimating the burden of pneumococcal pneumonia among adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic techniques. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e60273. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Shariatzadeh MR, Huang JQ, Tyrrell GJ, Johnson MM, Marrie TJ. Bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia: a prospective study in Edmonton and neighboring municipalities. Medicine. 2005;84(3):147–161. doi: 10.1097/01.md.0000164302.03972.d7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Shi F, Xia L, Shan F, Wu D, Wei Y, Yuan H, et al. Large-scale screening of COVID-19 from community-acquired pneumonia using infection size-aware classification. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(6):06503. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/abe838. 065031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Siddiqi HK, Mehra MR. COVID-19 illness in native and immunosuppressed states: a clinical–therapeutic staging proposal. J Heart Lung Transpl. 2020;39(5):405. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2020.03.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Tian J, Xu Q, Liu S, Mao L, Wang M, Hou X. Comparison of clinical characteristics between coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia and community-acquired pneumonia. Curr Med Res Opin. 2020;36(11):1747–1752. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2020.1830050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Tratamientos disponibles sujetos a condiciones especiales de acceso para el manejo de la infección respiratoria por SARS-CoV-2. June 2020. Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices, Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Government. Available at: https://www.aemps.gob.es/la-aemps/ultima-informacion-de-la-aemps-acerca-del-covid%e2%80%9119/tratamientos-disponibles-para-el-manejo-de-la-infeccion-respiratoria-por-sars-cov-2/?lang=en
  36. Tratamientos disponibles para el manejo de la infección respiratoria por SARS-CoV-2.18. March 2020. Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices, Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Government. Available at: https://www.aemps.gob.es/laAEMPS/docs/medicamentos-disponibles-SARS-CoV-2-19-3-2020.pdf
  37. Van den Brand JM, Haagmans BL, van Riel D, Osterhaus AD, Kuiken T. The pathology and pathogenesis of experimental severe acute respiratory syndrome and influenza in animal models. J Comp Pathol. 2014;151(1):83–112. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpa.2014.01.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Van der Poll T, Opal SM. Pathogenesis, treatment, and prevention of pneumococcal pneumonia. Lancet. 2009;374(9700):1543–1556. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61114-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Whitney CG, Farley MM, Hadler J, Harrison LH, Bennett NM, Lynfield R, et al. Active bacterial core surveillance of the Emerging Infections Program Network. Decline in invasive pneumococcal disease after the introduction of protein-polysaccharide conjugate vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(18):1737–1746. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022823. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Wynants L, Van Calster B, Collins GS, Riley RD, Heinze G, et al. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of COVID-19: systematic review ad critical appraisal. BMJ. 2020;369:m1328. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Xu Z, Shi L, Wang Y, Zhang J, Huang L, Zhang C, et al. Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(4):420–422. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30076-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Ye Q, Wang B, Mao J. The pathogenesis and treatment of the `cytokine storm’ in COVID-19. J Infect. 2020;80(6):607–613. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.03.037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhan N, Guo Y, Tian S, Huang B, Tian X, Zou J, et al. Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 complicated with pleural effusion. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21(1):176. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-05856-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhao D, Yao F, Wang L, Zheng L, Gao Y, Ye J, et al. A comparative study on the clinical features of COVID-19 pneumonia to other pneumonias. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(15):756–761. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Zheng Z, Peng F, Xu B, Zhao J, Liu H, Peng J, et al. Risk factors of critical & mortal COVID-19 cases: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Infect. 2020;81(2):e16–e25. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, Fan G, Liu Y, Liu Z, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult in patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395:1054–1062. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhou Y, Guo S, He Y, Zuo Q, Lui D, Xiao M, et al. COVID-19 is distinct from SARS-CoV-2-negative community-acquired pneumonia. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:332. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

mmc1.docx (12.4KB, docx)

Articles from International Journal of Infectious Diseases are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES