4.7 Article

Analysis of antibiotic usage for viral community-acquired pneumonia in adults

期刊

FRONTIERS OF MEDICINE
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 139-143

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11684-019-0736-2

关键词

adult; antibiotic; viral pneumonia

资金

  1. Key Medical Specialty Program of Sailing Plans [ZYLX201602]
  2. study on new treatment methods for non-influenza virus pneumonia [D151100002115002]
  3. National Science and Technology Major Project
  4. New Technology and Project on Intervention and Elimination of Cytokine Storm and Secondary Infection in Acute Severe Respiratory Infectious Diseases [2017ZX10204401002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rationale for antibiotic treatment of viral community-acquired pneumonia in adults was analyzed, revealing a high rate of unreasonable antibiotic use, highlighting the need for clinicians to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.
The rationale for the antibiotic treatment of viral community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adults was analyzed to develop a clinical reference standard for this condition. Clinical data from 166 patients diagnosed with viral pneumonia across 14 hospitals in Beijing from November 2010 to December 2017 were collected. The indications for medications were evaluated, and the rationale for the use of antibiotics was analyzed. A total of 163 (98.3%) patients with viral pneumonia were treated with antibiotics. A combination of C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) was used as markers to analyze the possible indications for antibiotic use. With threshold levels set at 0.25 mu g/L for PCT and 20 mg/L for CRP, the rate of unreasonable use of antibiotics was 55.2%. By contrast, at a CRP level threshold of 60 mg/L, the rate of antibiotic misuse was 77.3%. A total of 39 of the 163 (23.9%) patients did not meet the guidelines for drug selection for viral CAP in adults. The unreasonable use of antibacterial drugs for the treatment of viral CAP in adults is a serious concern. Clinicians must reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics.

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

4.7
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