4.6 Article

Impact of Preceding Flu-Like Illness on the Serotype Distribution of Pneumococcal Pneumonia

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093477

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [AI-30021]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Even though the pathogenicity and invasiveness of pneumococcus largely depend on capsular types, the impact of serotypes on post-viral pneumococcal pneumonia is unknown. Methods and Findings: This study was performed to evaluate the impact of capsular serotypes on the development of pneumococcal pneumonia after preceding respiratory viral infections. Patients with a diagnosis of pneumococcal pneumonia were identified. Pneumonia patients were divided into two groups (post-viral pneumococcal pneumonia versus primary pneumococcal pneumonia), and then their pneumococcal serotypes were compared. Nine hundred and nineteen patients with pneumococcal pneumonia were identified during the study period, including 327 (35.6%) cases with post-viral pneumococcal pneumonia and 592 (64.4%) cases with primary pneumococcal pneumonia. Overall, serotypes 3 and 19A were the most prevalent, followed by serotypes 19F, 6A, and 11A/11E. Although relatively uncommon (33 cases, 3.6%), infrequently colonizing invasive serotypes (4, 5, 7F/7A, 8, 9V/9A, 12F, and 18C) were significantly associated with preceding respiratory viral infections (69.7%, P<0.01). Multivariate analysis revealed several statistically significant risk factors for post-viral pneumococcal pneumonia: immunodeficiency (OR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.10-2.53), chronic lung diseases (OR 1.43; 95% CI, 1.09-1.93) and ICI serotypes (OR 4.66; 95% CI, 2.07-10.47). Conclusions: Infrequently colonizing invasive serotypes would be more likely to cause pneumococcal pneumonia after preceding respiratory viral illness, particularly in patients with immunodeficiency or chronic lung diseases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available