Evidence Hub

Community-acquired pneumonia in diabetic patients is characterised by a distinct pathogen spectrum and enhanced inflammation: results from CAPNETZ, a prospective observational cohort study

Belén Millet Pascual-Leone, Facundo Fiocca Vernengo, D. Hillus, Charlotte Wernicke, G. Krishnamoorthy, J. Rupp, G. Rohde, M. Pletz et al.

Infection, 2025

13,611 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a relevant risk factor for enhanced susceptibility to and adverse outcomes in infections, including community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We aimed to characterise clinical outcomes, inflammatory and organ failure markers and microbial etiologies in diabetic (DM+) versus non-diabetic (DM−) patients in a European CAP cohort. Comparative analyses using data from the CAPNETZ multicenter, prospective, observational study including 13,611 patients with CAP enrolled between 2002–2022, with and without a history of DM, were conducted. Seventeen percent (2310/13,611) had a history of DM (DM+). Compared to DM− patients, DM+ patients had a higher 180 days mortality rate following CAP (13% (292/2310) vs. 7% (766/11,301), p < 0.0001) and higher C-reactive protein and leucocyte counts (median CRP 97 mg/L (IQR: 31–202) vs. 86 mg/L (IQR: 24–190), p < 0.0001; median leucocyte count 12/nl (IQR: 9–16)vs. 11/nl (IQR: 8–15), p < 0.0001). Pathogens were identified in 23.4% (540/2310) of the DM+ and 21.7% (2414/11,301) of the DM− patients (p = 0.03), respectively. Overall, pathogen distribution differed between the two groups, with higher frequencies of Enterobacteriaceae in the DM+ group (13.0% (70/539) vs. 8.0% (194/2414), padj < 0.01). CAP in DM+ is characterised by a distinct microbial spectrum and enhanced inflammation. While further studies are needed to elucidate the clinical impact of our findings, we recommend early and comprehensive CAP pathogen testing in DM+…

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. Reported size: 13,611 participants or records.

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