Background: Clinical end points that constitute successful treatment in severe pneumonia are difficult to ascertain and vulnerable to bias. The utility of a protocolized adjudication procedure to determine meaningful end points in severe pneumonia has not been well described.
Methods: This was a single-center prospective cohort study of patients with severe pneumonia admitted to the medical intensive care unit. The objective was to develop an adjudication protocol for severe bacterial and/or viral pneumonia. Each episode of pneumonia was independently reviewed by 2 pulmonary and critical care physicians. If a discrepancy occurred between the 2 adjudicators, a third adjudicator reviewed the case. If a discrepancy remained after all 3 adjudications, consensus was achieved through committee review.
Results: Evaluation of 784 pneumonia episodes during 593 hospitalizations achieved only 48.1% interobserver agreement between the first 2 adjudicators and 78.8% when agreement was defined as concordance between 2 of 3 adjudicators. Multiple episodes of pneumonia and presence of bacterial/viral coinfection in the initial pneumonia episode were associated with lower interobserver agreement. For an initial episode of bacterial pneumonia, patients with an adjudicated day 7-8 clinical impression of cure (compared with alternative impressions) were more likely to be discharged alive (odds ratio, 6.3; 95% CI, 3.5-11.6).
Conclusions: A comprehensive adjudication protocol to identify clinical end points in severe pneumonia resulted in only moderate interobserver agreement. An adjudicated end point of clinical cure by day 7-8 was associated with more favorable hospital discharge dispositions, suggesting that clinical cure by day 7-8 may be a valid end point to use in adjudication protocols.
Keywords: adjudication; clinical; end point; pneumonia; severe.
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.