Assessing the burden of pneumonia using administrative data from Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines
Assessing the burden of pneumonia using administrative data from Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ijid.2016.05.021
复制
发表时间：
2016-08-01
影响因子：
8.4
通讯作者：
Roberts, Craig
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Azmi, Soraya;Aljunid, Syed Mohamed;Roberts, Craig
目的：描述马来西亚、印度尼西亚和菲律宾三个东南亚国家社区获得性肺炎（CAP）和医院获得性肺炎（HAP）的发病率、死亡率、费用和住院时间（LOS）。使用来自贡献医院的Casemix系统数据，使用逻辑算法将具有识别肺炎的国际疾病分类第10修订版（ICD-10）代码的患者分类为CAP或HAP。计算住院患者的发病率、病死率（CFR）、平均LOS和住院费用。结果：菲律宾每10万出院患者中CAP和HAP的发病率分别为14245和5615例，马来西亚分别为4205和2187例，印度尼西亚分别为988和538例。对年轻人和老年人的影响最大。CAP的CFR为1.4%~ 4.2%，HAP为9.1%~ 25.5%。CAP的平均LOS为6.1-8.6天，HAP为6.9-10.2天。住院费用CAP为254 ~ 1208美元，HAP为275 ~ 1482美元。这三个国家的结果各不相同，可能是由于社会经济条件、卫生系统差异和ICD编码实践的差异。(C)2016作者由Elsevier Ltd代表国际传染病学会出版。
Objectives: To describe the incidence, mortality, cost, and length of stay (LOS) of hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) in three Southeast Asian countries: Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines.Methods: Using Casemix system data from contributing hospitals, patients with International Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10) codes identifying pneumonia were categorized into CAP or HAP using a logical algorithm. The incidence among hospitalized patients, case fatality rates (CFR), mean LOS, and cost of admission were calculated. The population incidence was calculated based on Malaysian data.Results: For every 100 000 discharges, CAP and HAP incidences were 14 245 and 5615 cases, respectively, in the Philippines, 4205 and 2187, respectively, in Malaysia, and 988 and 538, respectively, in Indonesia. The impact was greatest in the young and the elderly. The CFR varied from 1.4% to 4.2% for CAP and from 9.1% and 25.5% for HAP. The mean LOS was 6.1-8.6 days for CAP and 6.9-10.2 days for HAP. The cost of hospitalization was between USD 254 and USD 1208 for CAP and between USD 275 and USD 1482 for HAP.Conclusions: The burden of CAP and HAP is high. Results varied between the three countries, likely due to differences in socio-economic conditions, health system differences, and ICD-coding practices. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.