Search

This section introduces a report on the problem of overseas migration and distribution of population within Europe.

Introduction: Despite improvements in medical science and public health, mortality of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has barely changed throughout the last 15 years. The current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has once again highlighted the central importance of acute respiratory infections to human health. The "network of excellence on Community Acquired Pneumonia" (CAPNETZ) hosts the most comprehensive CAP database worldwide including more than 12,000 patients. CAPNETZ connects physicians, microbiologists, virologists, epidemiologists, and computer scientists throughout Europe. Our aim was to summarize the current situation in CAP research and identify the most pressing unmet needs in CAP research., Methods: To identify areas of future CAP research, CAPNETZ followed a multiple-step procedure. First, research members of CAPNETZ were individually asked to identify unmet needs. Second, the top 100 experts in the field of CAP research were asked for their insights about the unmet needs in CAP (Delphi approach). Third, internal and external experts discussed unmet needs in CAP at a scientific retreat., Results: Eleven topics for future CAP research were identified: detection of causative pathogens, next generation sequencing for antimicrobial treatment guidance, imaging diagnostics, biomarkers, risk stratification, antiviral and antibiotic treatment, adjunctive therapy, vaccines and prevention, systemic and local immune response, comorbidities, and long-term cardio-vascular complications., Conclusion: Pneumonia is a complex disease where the interplay between pathogens, immune system and comorbidities not only impose an immediate risk of mortality but also affect the patients' risk of developing comorbidities as well as mortality for up to a decade after pneumonia has resolved. Our review of unmet needs in CAP research has shown that there are still major shortcomings in our knowledge of CAP., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are at increased risk for thromboembolic events. It is unclear whether the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is also increased., Methods: We considered 4128 COVID-19 patients enrolled in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 (LEOSS) registry. The association between occurrence of GI bleeding and comorbidities as well as medication were examined. In addition, 1216 patients from COKA registry were analyzed focusing on endoscopy diagnostic findings., Results: A cumulative number of 97 patients (1.8%) with GI bleeding were identified in the LEOSS registry and COKA registry. Of 4128 patients from the LEOSS registry, 66 patients (1.6%) had a GI bleeding. The rate of GI bleeding in patients with intensive care unit (ICU) admission was 4.5%. The use of therapeutic dose of anticoagulants showed a significant association with the increased incidence of bleeding in the critical phase of disease. The Charlson comorbidity index and the COVID-19 severity index were significantly higher in the group of patients with GI bleeding than in the group of patients without GI bleeding (5.83 (SD = 2.93) vs. 3.66 (SD = 3.06), p < 0.01 and 3.26 (SD = 1.69) vs. 2.33 (SD = 1.53), p < 0.01, respectively). In the COKA registry 31 patients (2.5%) developed a GI bleeding. Of these, the source of bleeding was identified in upper GI tract in 21 patients (67.7%) with ulcer as the most frequent bleeding source (25.8%, n = 8) followed by gastroesophageal reflux (16.1%, n = 5). In three patients (9.7%) GI bleeding source was located in lower GI tract caused mainly by diverticular bleeding (6.5%, n = 2). In seven patients (22.6%) the bleeding localization remained unknown., Conclusion: Consistent with previous research, comorbidities and disease severity correlate with the incidence of GI bleeding. Also, therapeutic anticoagulation seems to be associated with a higher risk of GI bleeding. Overall, the risk of GI bleeding seems not to be increased in COVID-19 patients., (© 2021 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

Background: The role of macrolide/β-lactam combination therapy in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) of moderate severity is a matter of debate. Macrolides expand the coverage to atypical pathogens and attenuate pulmonary inflammation, but have been associated with cardiovascular toxicity and drug interactions. We developed a decision tree based on aetiological and clinical parameters, which are available ex ante to support a personalised decision for or against macrolides for the best clinical outcome of the individual patient., Methods: We employed machine learning in a cross-validation scheme based on a well-balanced selection of 4898 patients after propensity score matching to data available on admission of 6440 hospitalised patients with moderate severity (non-intensive care unit patients) from the observational, prospective, multinational CAPNETZ study. We aimed to improve the primary outcome of 180-day survival., Results: We found a simple decision tree of patient characteristics comprising chronic cardiovascular and chronic respiratory comorbidities as well as leukocyte counts in the respiratory secretion at enrolment. Specifically, we found that patients without cardiovascular or patients with respiratory comorbidities and high leukocyte counts in the respiratory secretion benefit from macrolide treatment. Patients identified to be treated in compliance with our treatment suggestion had a lower mortality of 27% (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.48-2.27; p<0.001) compared to the observed standard of care., Conclusion: Stratifying macrolide treatment in patients following a simple treatment rule may lead to considerably reduced mortality in CAP. A future randomised controlled trial confirming our result is necessary before implementing this rule into the clinical routine., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None declared., (Copyright ©ERS 2019.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

This paper argues that the New Science, which was seen as essentially a public enterprise, was moreover a major constituent of the public sphere in early modern era. In seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Western Europe the sphere of public experimentation, testing, and discussion related to the new science, manifested itself as a highly diversified, contested, and complex social field. Two general problems arose in constructing this cultural public sphere: the selection of participants in the debate and the inclusion of a heterogenous public in the experimental scene. National authorities employed diverse policies but none denied the necessity of public debate for testing the validity of experimentations. The public sphere had to create its own conditions of existence by imposing manifold regulations in order to make these public meetings possible and enjoyable. The regulations emphasized common interest and the moral code as the most basic condition for the sustenance of the public sphere, thus enhancing self-restraint, tolerance, and politeness on the part of both discussants and participants. The more inclusive and heterogenous the public sphere, the more these norms were required. Thus the sphere of public debate constituted by early modern science implied a civilizing process, quite different from and more encompassing than the one analyzed by Norbert Elias.