Evidence Hub

Comparison of clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 community-acquired pneumonia in a prospective observational cohort study

H. Meyer, L. Mödl, O. Unruh, Weiwei Xiang, Sarah Berger, M. Müller-Plathe, G. Rohde, M. Pletz et al.

Infection, 2024

1,368 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and non-COVID-19 community-acquired pneumonia (NC-CAP) often result in hospitalization with considerable risks of mortality, ICU treatment, and long-term morbidity. A comparative analysis of clinical outcomes in COVID-19 CAP (C-CAP) and NC-CAP may improve clinical management. Using prospectively collected CAPNETZ study data (January 2017 to June 2021, 35 study centers), we conducted a comprehensive analysis of clinical outcomes including in-hospital death, ICU treatment, length of hospital stay (LOHS), 180-day survival, and post-discharge re-hospitalization rate. Logistic regression models were used to examine group differences between C-CAP and NC-CAP patients and associations with patient demography, recruitment period, comorbidity, and treatment. Among 1368 patients (C-CAP: n = 344; NC-CAP: n = 1024), C-CAP showed elevated adjusted probabilities for in-hospital death (aOR 4.48 [95% CI 2.38–8.53]) and ICU treatment (aOR 8.08 [95% CI 5.31–12.52]) compared to NC-CAP. C-CAP patients were at increased risk of LOHS over seven days (aOR 1.88 [95% CI 1.47–2.42]). Although ICU patients had similar in-hospital mortality risk, C-CAP was associated with length of ICU stay over seven days (aOR 3.59 [95% CI 1.65–8.38]). Recruitment period influenced outcomes in C-CAP but not in NC-CAP. During follow-up, C-CAP was linked to a reduced risk of re-hospitalization and mortality post-discharge (aOR 0.43 [95% CI 0.27–0.70]). Distinct clinical trajectories…

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: 1,368 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