Similar Outcomes of<i>Legionella</i>Pneumonia in Treated Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To the Editor—We read with interest the article by Cillóniz et al [1] on the first retrospective case-control series of Legionella pneumonia among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals from 3 Spanish hospitals. The report significantly adds to the literature by comparing HIV-infected to HIV-uninfected individuals in terms of Legionella pneumonia disease severity, treatment, and outcomes. Essentially, the pneumonia severity scores, antimicrobial regimens, and need for intensive care admission were not different between cases and controls. The study findings are in keeping with the report on the South Bronx Legionella outbreak, in which 24 of 138 individuals had an underlying diagnosis of HIV, suggesting overrepresentation of HIV among those who became clinically ill with Legionella [2]. The mortality of HIV-infected individuals did not differ from that of non-HIV–infected individuals. In contrast, in a 2016 publication by Wolter et al [3] who looked at Legionella-infected patients with known HIV status (n = 20) from 2 sites in South Africa, HIV-infected individuals had higher case-fatality rates than HIV-uninfected individuals (20% vs 0%) and, unlike in Cillóniz et al, only 24% of Legionella patients were administered appropriate anti-Legionella antibiotic therapy. Although we recognize that this article is a stepping-stone to better understanding Legionella infection in HIV, the series has several limitations that must be acknowledged. As Cillóniz et al stated, HIV infection was well controlled in the majority of their cases, with patients having a median CD4+ T-cell count of 335/μL (interquartile range, 215–500/μL), representing individuals with a relatively conserved immune state. Consequently, due to their intact immune status, as is stipulated by the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and the Infectious Disease Society of America treatment guidelines [4, 5], cases and controls were administered a similar treatment regimen that included appropriate empirical coverage for Legionella, which may explain the low rates of intensive care unit admission and the favorable outcomes seen in these patients. The results may not be applicable to HIV-infected individuals with advanced disease and low CD4 counts. Individuals with CD4+ T-cell counts <200/μL, in whom opportunistic infections such as Pneumocystis jirovecii, Mycobacterium Tuberculosis, or avium complex are of high concern, atypical bacterial pneumonia agents such as Legionella spp. are often not targeted by empirical antimicrobial therapy [6]. Therefore, the findings by Cillóniz et al may be relevant for treated HIV-infected individuals with preserved CD4 T-cell counts but may not hold true for patients who are profoundly immunocompromised but should not be generalized to conclude that the clinical presentation and outcomes do not differ between HIV-infected and non-HIV–uninfected individuals. Potential conflicts of interest. Both authors: No reported conflicts. Both authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».