4.6 Article

Impact of inhaled corticosteroid use on outcome in COPD patients admitted with pneumonia

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 36-41

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00077010

Keywords

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; community-acquired pneumonia; inhaled corticosteroids; outcome

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council (London, UK)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to investigate whether inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use affects outcome in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) admitted with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This was a prospective, observational study of patients with spirometry-confirmed COPD presenting with a primary diagnosis of CAP in Lothian, UK. Outcome measures were compared between ICS users and non-ICS users. Of 490 patients included in the study, 76.7% were classified as ICS users. ICS users had higher Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage compared with non-ICS users (mean +/- SD 3.2 +/- 0.8 versus 2.6 +/- 0.9; p<0.0001). There were no significant differences in pneumonia severity (mean +/- SD Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) 4.2 +/- 0.8 versus 4.3 +/- 0.8 (p=0.3); mean +/- SD CURB-65 score 2.1 +/- 1.3 versus 2.3 +/- 1.3 (p=0.07)) or markers of systemic inflammation (median C-reactive protein 148 (interquartile range 58-268) mg.L(-1) versus 183 (IQR 85-302) mg.L(-1); p=0.08) between ICS users and non-ICS users. On multivariable analysis, after adjustment for COPD severity and PSI, ICS use was not independently associated with 30-day mortality (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.75-3.90; p=0.2), 6-month mortality (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.82-3.16; p=0.2), requirement for mechanical ventilation and/or inotropic support (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.33-1.62; p=0.4) or development of complicated pneumonia (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.25-1.99; p=0.5). Prior ICS use had no impact on outcome in patients with COPD admitted with CAP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available