Evidence Hub

327. Comparison of Clinical Outcome, Causative Serotypes, and Antimicrobial Susceptibilities Between Pneumococcal Meningitis and Pneumococcal Bacteremic Pneumonia in Adult Patients in the Republic of Korea

Jeong Yeon Kim, Jong Hun Kim, Dong-Min Kim, I. Bae, Yeon-Sook Kim, Hyo Youl Kim, S. Baik, Y. Choi et al.

Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 2018

Abstract

Abstract Background Pneumococcal meningitis (PM) is one of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and is considered as a medical emergency with notable morbidity and mortality. This study was designed to characterize differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes, pneumococcal serotypes, and antimicrobial susceptibilities between PM and pneumococcal bacteremic pneumonia (PBP) in adult patients in the Republic of Korea (ROK) from a prospective observational cohort. Methods Adult IPD cases (≥18 years) were prospectively collected from 20 hospitals participated in the pneumococcal surveillance program in the ROK from 2013 through 2015. Serotyping and antimicrobial susceptibility testing were performed by a multiplexed serotyping assay and Microscan system, respectively. Results During the study period, 30 cases of PM and 205 cases of PBP were compared. Serotypes 19A, 15B/15C, and 35B were the most prevalent among PM cases, whereas serotypes 3, 11A/D/F, and 19A were the most common serotypes in PBP. There were significant female predominance (46.7% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.022), younger age (56.7% vs. 36.1%, P = 0.031), less immunocompromised states (3.3% vs. 28.8%, P = 0.005), less underlying chronic lung diseases (3.3% vs. 16.6%, P = 0.04), and lower mortality rate (16.7% vs. 44.4%, P = 0.004) in PM, compared with PBP. However, PM cases showed higher penicillin resistance (76.7% vs. 19.2%, P < 0.001), and ceftriaxone resistance (53.3% vs. 13.4%, P < 0.001), consistent with higher…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free