Aspiration pneumonia is thought to be associated with a poor outcome in patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, there has been no systematic review regarding the impact of aspiration pneumonia on the outcomes in patients with CAP. This review was conducted using the MOOSE guidelines: Patients: patients defined CAP. Exposure: aspiration pneumonia defined as pneumonia in patients who have aspiration risk. Comparison: confirmed pneumonia in patients who were not considered to be at high risk for oral aspiration. Outcomes: mortality, hospital readmission or recurrent pneumonia. Three investigators independently identified published cohort studies from PubMed, CENTRAL database, and EMBASE. Nineteen studies were included for this systematic review. Aspiration pneumonia increased in-hospital mortality (relative risk, 3.62; 95% CI, 2.65–4.96; P < 0.001, seven studies) and 30-day mortality (3.57; 2.18–5.86; P < 0.001, five studies). In contrast, aspiration pneumonia was associated with decreased ICU mortality (relative risk, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26–0.60; P < 0.00001, four studies). Although there are insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis on long-term mortality, recurrent pneumonia, and hospital readmission, the few reported studies suggest that aspiration pneumonia is also associated with these poor outcomes. In conclusion, aspiration pneumonia was associated with both higher in-hospital and 30-day mortality in patients with CAP outside ICU settings.

Healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) is a new concept of pneumonia proposed by the American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America in 2005. This category is located between community-acquired pneumonia and hospital-acquired pneumonia with respect to the characteristics of the causative pathogens and mortality, and primarily targets elderly patients in healthcare facilities. Aspiration among such patients is recognized to be a primary mechanism for the development of pneumonia, particularly since the HCAP guidelines were published. However, it is difficult to manage patients with aspiration pneumonia because the definition of the condition is unclear, and the treatment is associated with ethical aspects. This review focused on the definition, prevalence and role of aspiration pneumonia as a prognostic factor in published studies of HCAP and attempted to identify problems associated with the concept of aspiration pneumonia.

Which factors are related to false negative results of the interferon-γ release assay (IGRA) is unclear. This systematic review described the risk factors associated with false negative IGRA results. Two authors independently identified studies designed to evaluate risk factors for false negative IGRA results from PubMed, the Cochrane Register of Control Trial database, and EMBASE, accessed on October 22, 2018. Meta-analyses were conducted with random-effect models, and heterogeneity was calculated with the I² method. Of 1,377 titles and abstracts screened, 47 full texts were selected for review, and we finally included 17 studies in this systematic review. The most commonly studied risk factor (14 studies) was advanced age, followed by low peripheral lymphocyte counts (7 studies), and these factors were associated with false negative results even with different tuberculosis incidences (pooled odds ratio 2.06; 95% CI, 1.68–2.52 in advanced age and 2.68; 95% CI, 2.00–3.61 in low peripheral lymphocyte counts). Advanced age and low peripheral lymphocyte counts may be common risk factors for false negative IGRA results, suggesting that people with these factors need to be carefully followed, even if they have negative IGRA results.

Discriminating acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) is often challenging. This systematic review examines studies using biomarkers or images to distinguish ALI/ARDS from CPE. Three investigators independently identified studies designed to distinguish ALI/ARDS from CPE in adults. Studies were identified from PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database until July 3, 2017. Of 475 titles and abstracts screened, 38 full texts were selected for review, and we finally included 24 studies in this systematic review: 21 prospective observational studies, two retrospective observational studies, and one retrospective combined with prospective study. These studies compared various biomarkers to differentiate subjects with ALI/ARDS and in those with CPE, and 13 calculated the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). The most commonly studied biomarker (four studies) was brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and the discriminatory ability ranged from AUC 0.67–0.87 but the timing of measurement varied. Other potential biomarkers or tools have been reported, but only as single studies. There were no identified biomarkers or tools with high-quality evidence for differentiating ALI/ARDS from CPE. Combining clinical criteria with validated biomarkers may improve the predictive accuracy.