Background: The correct management of immunocompromised patients with pneumonia is debated. We evaluated the prevalence, risk factors, and characteristics of immunocompromised patients coming from the community with pneumonia. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of an international, multicenter study enrolling adult patients coming from the community with pneumonia and hospitalized in 222 hospitals in 54 countries worldwide. Risk factors for immunocompromise included AIDS, aplastic anemia, asplenia, hematological cancer, chemotherapy, neutropenia, biological drug use, lung transplantation, chronic steroid use, and solid tumor. Results: At least 1 risk factor for immunocompromise was recorded in 18% of the 3702 patients enrolled. The prevalences of risk factors significantly differed across continents and countries, with chronic steroid use (45%), hematological cancer (25%), and chemotherapy (22%) the most common. Among immunocompromised patients, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) pathogens were the most frequently identified, and prevalences did not differ from those in immunocompetent patients. Risk factors for immunocompromise were independently associated with neither Pseudomonas aeruginosa nor non–community-acquired bacteria. Specific risk factors were independently associated with fungal infections (odds ratio for AIDS and hematological cancer, 15.10 and 4.65, respectively; both P = .001), mycobacterial infections (AIDS; P = .006), and viral infections other than influenza (hematological cancer, 5.49; P < .001). Conclusions: Our findings could be considered by clinicians in prescribing empiric antibiotic therapy for CAP in immunocompromised patients. Patients with AIDS and hematological cancer admitted with CAP may have higher prevalences of fungi, mycobacteria, and noninfluenza viruses.

Streptococcus pneumoniae related diseases are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in children and in the elderly population. It is transmitted to other individuals through droplets and it can spread to other parts of the human host, causing a wide spectrum of clinical syndromes, affecting between 10 and 100 cases per 100,000 people in Europe and the USA. In order to reduce morbidity and mortality caused by this agent, pneumococcal vaccines have been developed over the years and have shown incredible effectiveness in reducing the spread of this bacterium and the development of related diseases, obtaining a significant reduction in mortality, especially in developing countries. However, considerable problems are emerging mainly due to the replacement phenomenon, multi-drug resistance, and the high production costs of conjugated vaccines. There is still a debate about the indications given by various countries to different age groups; this is one of the reasons for the diffusion of different serotypes. To cope with these problems, significant efforts have been made in the research field to further improve vaccination serotypes coverage. On the other hand, an equally important commitment by health care systems to all age group populations is needed to improve vaccination coverage.

Introduction: During this long COVID‐19 pandemic outbreak, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are being widely used to treat patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory failure (ARF). As for now, data on the efficacy of NIV in COVID‐19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are lacking, and for this reason it is extremely important to accurately determine the outcomes of this strategy. This study aimed to evaluate clinical data and outcomes of NIV in patients with COVID‐19 ARDS.Matherials and methods: Seventy‐nine consecutive patients with sudden worsening of respiratory failure were evaluated. All patients (71% male) had a confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and signs, symptoms and radiological findings compatible with COVID‐19 pneumonia and all of them underwent a trial of NIV. Primary outcomes were NIV success and failure defined by intubation and mortality rate. Secondary outcome was the duration of NIV.Results: NIV was successful in 38 (48.1%) patients (Table 1). EOT was necessary in 21 patients (26.6%). Death occurred in 20 patients (25.3%). In the group of patients having failed a trial with NIV and then being intubated, compared to those who continued NIV, there was no higher mortality rate. By evaluating the ICU survival outcome of the subgroup of patients intubated after NIV, 57% of the patients were discharged and 43% died.Conclusion: Previous studies conducted on patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation showed higher mortality rate than the present study. Our data showed that NIV can avoid intubation in almost half of the patients. Therefore, this data could reassure clinicians who would consider using NIV in COVID‐19 ARDS‐related treatment.