BackgroundsAspiration pneumonia is a dominant form of community-acquired and healthcare-associated pneumonia, and a leading cause of death among ageing populations. However, the risk factors for developing aspiration pneumonia in older adults have not been fully evaluated. The purpose of the present study was to determine the risk factors for aspiration pneumonia among the elderly.Methodology and Principal FindingsWe conducted an observational study using data from a nationwide survey of geriatric medical and nursing center in Japan. The study subjects included 9930 patients (median age: 86 years, women: 76%) who were divided into two groups: those who had experienced an episode of aspiration pneumonia in the previous 3 months and those who had not. Data on demographics, clinical status, activities of daily living (ADL), and major illnesses were compared between subjects with and without aspiration pneumonia. Two hundred and fifty-nine subjects (2.6% of the total sample) were in the aspiration pneumonia group. In the univariate analysis, older age was not found to be a risk factor for aspiration pneumonia, but the following were: sputum suctioning (odds ratio [OR] = 17.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.16–22.62, p < 0.001), daily oxygen therapy (OR = 8.29, 95% CI: 4.39–15.65), feeding support dependency (OR = 8.10, 95% CI: 6.27–10.48, p < 0.001), and urinary catheterization (OR = 4.08, 95% CI: 2.81–5.91, p < 0.001). In the multiple logistic regression analysis, the risk factors associated with aspiration pneumonia after propensity-adjustment (258 subjects each) were sputum suctioning (OR = 3.276, 95% CI: 1.910–5.619), deterioration of swallowing function in the past 3 months (OR = 3.584, 95% CI: 1.948–6.952), dehydration (OR = 8.019, 95% CI: 2.720–23.643), and dementia (OR = 1.618, 95% CI: 1.031–2.539).ConclusionThe risk factors for aspiration pneumonia were sputum suctioning, deterioration of swallowing function, dehydration, and dementia. These results could help improve clinical management for preventing repetitive aspiration pneumonia.

Background Favipiravir possesses high utility for treating patients with COVID-19. However, research examining the efficacy and safety of favipiravir for patients with COVID-19 is limited. Methods We conducted a systematic review of published studies reporting the efficacy of favipiravir against COVID-19. Two investigators independently searched PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MedRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception to September 2020) to identify eligible studies. A meta-analysis was performed to measure viral clearance and clinical improvement as the primary outcomes. Results Among 11 eligible studies, 5 included a comparator group. Comparing to the comparator group, the favipiravir group exhibited significantly better viral clearance on day 7 after the initiation of treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 2.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19–5.22), whereas no difference was noted on day 14 (OR = 2.19, 95% CI = 0.69–6.95). Although clinical improvement was significantly better in the favipiravir group on both days 7 and 14, the improvement was better on day 14 (OR = 3.03, 95% CI = 1.17–7.80) than on day 7 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.03–2.49). The estimated proportions of patients with viral clearance in the favipiravir arm on days 7 and 14 were 65.42 and 88.9%, respectively, versus 43.42 and 78.79%, respectively, in the comparator group. The estimated proportions of patients with clinical improvement on days 7 and 14 in the favipiravir group were 54.33 and 84.63%, respectively, compared with 34.40 and 65.77%, respectively, in the comparator group. Conclusions Favipiravir induces viral clearance by 7 days and contributes to clinical improvement within 14 days. The results indicated that favipiravir has strong possibility for treating COVID-19, especially in patients with mild-to-moderate illness. Additional well-designed studies, including examinations of the dose and duration of treatment, are crucial for reaching definitive conclusions.

BackgroundPneumonia is a serious disease associated with mortality among patients with dementia. However, the reported frequency of pneumonia as a cause of death in patients with dementia varies, the reason for which has not been fully elucidated.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search in PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (inception to December 2016). Two authors independently determined the suitability of studies and potential bias and extracted the data. The primary outcome was frequency of pneumonia-associated death in patients with dementia. Stratified subgroup analysis was conducted among studies grouped according to type of mortality cause (immediate or underlying), information source of mortality cause (autopsy or death certificate), and study setting (clinic, hospital, or nursing home).ResultsWe included 7 studies reporting the cause of death among patients with dementia and 12 studies comparing the cause of death among patients with and without dementia. The frequency of pneumonia-associated death among 19 eligible studies was 29.69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.86–33.53). Those frequencies differed according to whether the source for information about cause of death was an autopsy confirmation (49.98%; 95% CI, 43.75–56.71) or death certificate (19.65%; 95% CI, 15.48–23.83) and according to whether the type of mortality cause was an indirect cause of death (13.96%; 95% CI, 9.42–18.51) or direct cause of death (44.45%; 95% CI, 29.81–50.10). The risk of pneumonia-associated death in patients with dementia was twice as high as among those without dementia (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.63–2.83; p < 0.001).ConclusionThe various frequencies of pneumonia-associated death in patients with dementia were associated with the information source, type of mortality cause, and study setting. Patients with dementia in the terminal stages urgently require careful clinical management of pneumonia, to maximize patient life expectancy and quality.

BackgroundThe impact of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) on influenza‐related pneumonia (IRP) is not established. Our objective was to investigate the association between NAI treatment and IRP incidence and outcomes in patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection.MethodsA worldwide meta‐analysis of individual participant data from 20 634 hospitalised patients with laboratory‐confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 (n = 20 021) or clinically diagnosed (n = 613) ‘pandemic influenza’. The primary outcome was radiologically confirmed IRP. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated using generalised linear mixed modelling, adjusting for NAI treatment propensity, antibiotics and corticosteroids.ResultsOf 20 634 included participants, 5978 (29·0%) had IRP; conversely, 3349 (16·2%) had confirmed the absence of radiographic pneumonia (the comparator). Early NAI treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) versus no NAI was not significantly associated with IRP [adj. OR 0·83 (95% CI 0·64–1·06; P = 0·136)]. Among the 5978 patients with IRP, early NAI treatment versus none did not impact on mortality [adj. OR = 0·72 (0·44–1·17; P = 0·180)] or likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 1·17 (0·71–1·92; P = 0·537)], but early treatment versus later significantly reduced mortality [adj. OR = 0·70 (0·55–0·88; P = 0·003)] and likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 0·68 (0·54–0·85; P = 0·001)].ConclusionsEarly NAI treatment of patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection versus no treatment did not reduce the likelihood of IRP. However, in patients who developed IRP, early NAI treatment versus later reduced the likelihood of mortality and needing ventilatory support.

BackgroundAwareness of individuals’ knowledge and predicting their behavior and emotional reactions is crucial when evaluating clinical preparedness for influenza pandemics with a highly pathogenic virus. Knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) relating to avian influenza (H5N1) virus infection among residents in communities where H5N1 patients occurred in Vietnam has not been reported.Methods and Principal FindingsFace-to-face interviews including KAP survey were conducted in Bac Kan province, located in the northeast mountainous region of Vietnam. Participants were residents who lived in a community where H5N1 cases have ever been reported (event group, n = 322) or one where cases have not been reported (non-event group, n = 221). Data on emotional reactions of participants and healthcare-seeking behavior after the event in neighboring areas were collected as well as information on demographics and environmental measures, information sources, and KAP regarding H5N1. These data were compared between two groups. Higher environmental risk of H5N1 and improper poultry-handling behaviors were identified in the event group. At the time of the event, over 50% of the event group sought healthcare for flu-like symptoms or because they were scared. Awareness of the event influenced KAP scores. Healthcare-seeking behavior and attention to H5N1 poultry outbreaks diminished in the event group as time passed after the outbreak compared with the non-event group. Factors that motivated participants to seek healthcare sooner were knowledge of early access to healthcare and the risk of eating sick/dead poultry, and perception of the threat of H5N1.ConclusionsAwareness of H5N1 patients in neighboring areas can provoke panic in residents and influence their healthcare-seeking behavior. Periodic education to share experiences on the occurrence of H5N1 patients and provide accurate information may help prevent panic and infection and reduce mortality. Local conditions should be taken into account when emphasizing the need for early access to healthcare.