Evidence Hub

Association of time-to-treatment with prognosis in pneumocystis pneumonia among immunocompromised patients without HIV infection: a multi-center, retrospective observational cohort study

H. Fujioka, H. Matsui, Y. Homma, T. Nagai, A. Otsuki, H. Ito, S. Ohmura, T. Miyamoto et al.

BMC Infectious Diseases, 2025

3 citations

Abstract

Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) in non-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Although prior studies have linked delayed treatment to worse outcomes, they are often limited by small sample sizes and inadequate adjustment for confounders. Therefore, we evaluated whether early treatment after hospital admission improves mortality in non-HIV PCP, adjusting for patient characteristics. This multi-center, retrospective, observational cohort study included non-HIV PCP patients treated between January 2006 and March 2021 at three institutions. Participants were divided into the early treatment (initiated within 2 days) and late treatment (initiated between days 3 and 7) groups. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, and the secondary endpoints were 180-day mortality. Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for patient background. Ninety-four patients in the early treatment group and 43 in the late treatment group were evaluated. The average time-to-treatment for the early and late treatment groups was 0.13 days and 3.63 days, respectively. After adjusting for patient characteristics, there were no significant differences in 30-day mortality (14.0% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.307) or 180-day mortality (21.5% vs. 17.7%, p = 0.600) between the early and late treatment groups. In a subgroup analysis of cases requiring oxygen supplementation, 30-day and 180-day mortality also showed no significant differences between the two…

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