Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Original Article
A BS T R AC T
BACKGROUND
Community-acquired pneumonia is a leading infectious cause of hospitalization The authors full names, academic degrees,
and death among U.S. adults. Incidence estimates of pneumonia confirmed radio- and affiliations are listed in the Appen-
dix. Address reprint requests to Dr. Jain
graphically and with the use of current laboratory diagnostic tests are needed. at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE, MS A-32,
METHODS Atlanta, GA 30333, or at bwc8@cdc.gov.
We conducted active population-based surveillance for community-acquired pneu-
*A complete list of members of the Cen-
monia requiring hospitalization among adults 18 years of age or older in five ters for Disease Control and Prevention
hospitals in Chicago and Nashville. Patients with recent hospitalization or severe (CDC) Etiology of Pneumonia in the
immunosuppression were excluded. Blood, urine, and respiratory specimens were Community (EPIC) Study Team is pro-
vided in the Supplementary Appendix,
systematically collected for culture, serologic testing, antigen detection, and mo- available at NEJM.org.
lecular diagnostic testing. Study radiologists independently reviewed chest radio-
This article was published on July 14,
graphs. We calculated population-based incidence rates of community-acquired 2015, at NEJM.org.
pneumonia requiring hospitalization according to age and pathogen.
N Engl J Med 2015;373:415-27.
RESULTS DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1500245
From January 2010 through June 2012, we enrolled 2488 of 3634 eligible adults (68%). Copyright 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Among 2320 adults with radiographic evidence of pneumonia (93%), the median
age of the patients was 57 years (interquartile range, 46 to 71); 498 patients (21%)
required intensive care, and 52 (2%) died. Among 2259 patients who had radio-
graphic evidence of pneumonia and specimens available for both bacterial and viral
testing, a pathogen was detected in 853 (38%): one or more viruses in 530 (23%),
bacteria in 247 (11%), bacterial and viral pathogens in 59 (3%), and a fungal or
mycobacterial pathogen in 17 (1%). The most common pathogens were human
rhinovirus (in 9% of patients), influenza virus (in 6%), and Streptococcus pneumoniae
(in 5%). The annual incidence of pneumonia was 24.8 cases (95% confidence interval,
23.5 to 26.1) per 10,000 adults, with the highest rates among adults 65 to 79 years
of age (63.0 cases per 10,000 adults) and those 80 years of age or older (164.3 cases
per 10,000 adults). For each pathogen, the incidence increased with age.
CONCLUSIONS
The incidence of community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalization was high-
est among the oldest adults. Despite current diagnostic tests, no pathogen was de-
tected in the majority of patients. Respiratory viruses were detected more frequently
than bacteria. (Funded by the Influenza Division of the National Center for Immu-
nizations and Respiratory Diseases.)
P
neumonia is a leading infectious fidelity of the study to the protocol. All the au-
cause of hospitalization and death among thors made the decision to submit the manuscript
adults in the United States,1,2 with medical for publication.
costs exceeding $10 billion in 2011.3 Routine ad- Adults were eligible for enrollment if they
ministration of the pneumococcal conjugate vac- were admitted to a study hospital on the basis of
cine in children has resulted in an overall reduction a clinical assessment by the treating clinician;
in the rate of invasive disease and pneumonia resided in the study catchment area (see the Sup-
among adults, owing to herd immunity.4-8 The last plementary Appendix, available with the full text
U.S. populationbased incidence estimates of of this article at NEJM.org); had evidence of
hospitalization due to community-acquired pneu- acute infection, defined as reported fever or
monia were made in the 1990s,9 before the avail- chills, documented fever or hypothermia, leuko-
ability of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and cytosis or leukopenia, or new altered mental sta-
more sensitive molecular and antigen-based labo- tus; had evidence of an acute respiratory illness,
ratory diagnostic tests. Thus, contemporary pop- defined as new cough or sputum production,
ulation-based etiologic studies involving U.S. adults chest pain, dyspnea, tachypnea, abnormal lung
with pneumonia are needed.10-13 examination, or respiratory failure; and had evi-
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention dence consistent with pneumonia as assessed by
(CDC) Etiology of Pneumonia in the Community means of chest radiography by the clinical team
(EPIC) study was a prospective, multicenter, pop- within 48 hours before or after admission.
ulation-based, active surveillance study. Radio- Patients were excluded if they had been hos-
graphic confirmation and extensive diagnostic pitalized recently (<28 days for immunocompe-
methods were used to determine the incidence and tent patients and <90 days for immunosuppressed
microbiologic causes of community-acquired patients), had been enrolled in the EPIC study
pneumonia requiring hospitalization among U.S. within the previous 28 days, were functionally
adults. dependent nursing home residents,14 or had a
clear alternative diagnosis (see the Supplementary
Appendix). Patients were also excluded if they had
Me thods
undergone tracheotomy, if they had a percutane-
Active Population-Based Surveillance ous endoscopic gastrostomy tube, if they had
From January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2012, adults 18 cystic fibrosis, if they had cancer with neutrope-
years of age or older were enrolled at three hos- nia, if they had received a solid-organ or hema-
pitals in Chicago (John H. Stroger, Jr., Hospital topoietic stem-cell transplant within the previous
of Cook County, Northwestern Memorial Hospi- 90 days, if they had active graft-versus-host dis-
tal, and Rush University Medical Center) and at ease or bronchiolitis obliterans, or if they had
two in Nashville (University of Tennessee Health human immunodeficiency virus infection with a
Science CenterSaint Thomas Health and Vander- CD4 cell count of less than 200 per cubic milli-
bilt University Medical Center). We sought to meter.10
enroll all eligible adults; therefore, trained staff
screened adults for enrollment at least 18 hours Specimen Collection
per day, 7 days per week. Written informed con- Blood samples, acute-phase serum specimens,
sent was obtained from all the patients or their urine samples, and nasopharyngeal and oropha-
caregivers before enrollment. The study protocol ryngeal swabs were obtained from the patients
was approved by the institutional review board as soon as possible after presentation (see the
at each participating institution and at the CDC. Supplementary Appendix). In the case of patients
Weekly teleconferences, enrollment reports, data with a productive cough, sputum was obtained.
audits, and annual study-site visits were con- Pleural fluid, endotracheal aspirates, and broncho
ducted to ensure uniform procedures among the alveolar-lavage samples that had been obtained
study sites. Patients or their caregivers provided for clinical care were analyzed for the study.
demographic and epidemiologic data, and medi- Only specimens obtained within 72 hours before
cal charts were abstracted for clinical data. All the or after admission were included, except for
authors vouch for the accuracy and completeness pleural fluid, which was included if it was ob-
of the data and analyses reported and for the tained within 7 days after admission. Patients were
Radiographic Confirmation
Initial enrollment was based on the clinical inter-
pretation of chest radiographs that were ob- 3634 Were eligible
tained at admission. Inclusion in the final study
analyses required independent confirmation by 1146 (32%) Were not enrolled
a board-certified chest radiologist who reviewed 795 (69%) Declined to participate
all the chest radiographs and computed tomo- 152 (13%) Were not approached
108 (9%) Were not able to provide
graphic scans obtained within 48 hours before informed consent, and a
or after admission; these radiologists, who are surrogate was not available
91 (8%) Did not speak English, and
coauthors of the study, were unaware of the clini- an interpreter was not available
cal data. Radiographic evidence of pneumonia was
defined as the presence of consolidation (a dense
2488 (68%) Were enrolled
or fluffy opacity with or without air broncho-
grams), other infiltrate (linear and patchy alveolar
or interstitial densities), or pleural effusion.5,15,16 168 (7%) Were excluded from final
analysis
161 (96%) Did not have radiographic
Controls evidence of pneumonia
7 (4%) Withdrew consent
From November 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012, a con-
venience sample of asymptomatic adults from the
2320 (93%) Had radiographic evidence
Nashville study catchment area who presented of pneumonia
for nonacute care to a general medicine clinic at 2241 (97%) Had chest radiographs that
met final radiographic inclusion
Vanderbilt University Medical Center was enrolled criteria of consolidation, infiltrate,
weekly. Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs or effusion
71 (3%) Had a chest radiograph com-
were obtained to assess the prevalence of respi- pleted that did not meet the criteria
ratory pathogens among asymptomatic adults. for radiographic evidence of
pneumonia, but had CT scans that
Exclusion criteria were the same as those for the met the criteria
adults with pneumonia, except that controls were 8 (<1%) Had no chest radiograph
completed, but had CT scans avail-
also excluded if they had fever or respiratory able that met the criteria for radio-
symptoms within 14 days before or after enroll- graphic evidence of pneumonia
ment (on the basis of information obtained dur-
ing a telephone interview) or had received live
attenuated influenza vaccination within 7 days
before enrollment. 2259 (97%) Had radiographic 2061 (89%) Had radiographic
evidence of pneumonia, evidence of pneumonia,
Laboratory Testing completed testing for both bacteria were enrolled during
and viruses, and were included in July 2010June 2012,
Bacterial culture was performed, with the use of population considered for and were included in population
etiologic assessment considered for incidence calculation
standard techniques, on blood samples, pleural
fluid, high-quality sputum samples and endotra-
cheal aspirates, and quantified bronchoalveolar- Figure 1. Screening, Eligibility, and Enrollment of Patients with Pneumonia.
lavage specimens.17,18 A real-time polymerase- CT denotes computed tomography.
chain-reaction (PCR) assay for legionella was
performed on sputum regardless of the quality
of the sample.19,20 PCR assays targeting Entero- A PCR assay was performed on nasopharyn-
bacteriaceae, Haemophilus influenzae, pseudomonas, geal and oropharyngeal swabs with the use of
Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus anginosus, S. mitis, CDC-developed methods for the detection of ad-
S. pneumoniae, and S. pyogenes were also performed enovirus; Chlamydophila pneumoniae; coronaviruses
on pleural fluid.21-23 Urinary antigen testing was 229E, HKU1, NL63, and OC43; human metapneu-
performed for the detection of Legionella pneumophi- movirus (HMPV); human rhinovirus; influenza
la and S. pneumoniae (BinaxNOW, Alere).20,24 A and B viruses; Mycoplasma pneumoniae; parain-
fluenza virus types 1, 2, and 3; and respiratory for L. pneumophila) were detected in a blood sam-
syncytial virus (RSV).19,25,26 Serologic testing for
ple, sputum, endotracheal aspirate, bronchoalve-
adenovirus, HMPV, influenza A and B viruses, olar-lavage specimen, or pleural fluid by means
parainfluenza viruses, and RSV was performed of culture or in pleural fluid by means of PCR
on available paired acute-phase and convalescent- assay; if C. pneumoniae or M. pneumoniae was de-
phase serum specimens (see the Supplementary tected in a nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab
Appendix).27-32 The results of microbiologic test- by means of PCR assay; if L. pneumophila was
ing that was conducted for clinical care, includ- detected in sputum by means of PCR assay; or if
ing testing for fungi or mycobacteria, were also L. pneumophila or S. pneumoniae was detected in
obtained. urine by means of antigen detection. Selected bac-
teria were considered to be contaminants.
Pathogen Detection A viral pathogen was determined to be present
A bacterial pathogen was determined to be present if adenovirus, coronavirus, HMPV, human rhino-
if gram-positive or gram-negative bacteria (except virus, influenza virus, parainfluenza virus, or RSV
Table 1. (Continued.)
was detected in a nasopharyngeal or oropharyn- adjusted, according to age group, for the propor-
geal swab by means of PCR assay or if a patho- tion of eligible adults enrolled at each study site
gen-specific antibody titer was increased by a and for the estimated proportion of admissions
factor of 4 or more between the acute-phase se- of adults for pneumonia to study hospitals in the
rum specimen and the convalescent-phase serum catchment area (i.e., the market share, which was
specimen for all viruses except human rhinovi- based on discharge-diagnosis codes). The adjusted
rus and coronaviruses. Fungal or mycobacterial number was then divided by the U.S. Census popu-
detections were determined according to clinical lation estimates in the catchment area for the
guidelines (see the Supplementary Appendix). corresponding year (see the Supplementary Ap-
pendix).33
Statistical Analysis We calculated pathogen-specific incidence
Annual incidence rates were calculated from July rates by multiplying the total incidence of pneu-
1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, and from July 1, 2011, monia by the proportion of each pathogen de-
to June 30, 2012. The number of enrolled adults tected among adults with radiographic evidence
with radiographic evidence of pneumonia was of pneumonia who had samples available for the
0
s
us
us
la
ae
er
us
B
ia
ia
iru
iru
iru
iru
hi
th
re
or
ce
vir
vir
on
on
op
ov
ov
lv
au
O
ia
na
no
A
m
za
m
ia
in
um
er
S.
za
eu
eu
ro
e
yt
eu
en
rh
ct
Ad
en
pn
pn
Co
ne
nc
ba
pn
flu
an
flu
sy
ap
ro
S.
a
in
lla
um
sm
In
et
te
ry
ra
ne
m
to
En
la
H
Pa
gio
op
ira
an
yc
Le
sp
um
M
Re
H
Pathogen Detected
20 Human metapneumovirus
Respiratory syncytial virus
15
10
0
15
S. pneumoniae
S. aureus
10
0
n.
M b.
Se .
n.
M b.
Se .
n.
M b.
.
N .
.
.
N .
.
.
ne
ne
ne
ch
ch
ch
ay
ay
ay
g
g
ly
ly
pt
ct
ov
ec
pt
ct
ov
ec
ril
ril
ril
Au
Au
Fe
Fe
Fe
Ja
Ja
Ja
Ju
Ju
O
O
M
M
ar
ar
ar
Ju
Ju
Ju
D
D
Ap
Ap
Ap
Figure 3. Estimated Annual Pathogen-Specific Incidence Rates of Community-Acquired Pneumonia Requiring Hospitalization,
According to Age Group.
Circles indicate the annual number of hospitalizations for pneumonia per 10,000 adults, and the horizontal lines 95% confidence inter-
vals. Rates are based on 10,511,911 person-years of observation. Note the differences in the scale of the x axis for the groups of pa-
tients 65 to 79 years of age and 80 years of age or older, as compared with the groups of patients 18 to 49 years of age and 50 to 64
years of age.
the increased specificity of radiographic confir- nostic tests for known pathogens, a lack of test-
mation in our case definition.1,2,6 ing for other recognized pathogens (e.g., coxi-
Despite our efforts to use more sensitive and ella), unidentified pathogens, and possible
specific diagnostic methods than had been noninfectious causes (e.g., aspiration pneumoni-
available previously,11-13,19-29 pathogens were de- tis).10,13,35,36 We may also have missed preceding
tected in only 38% of adults. Possible reasons for microbiologic insults that triggered a subse-
such few detections include an inability to ob- quent hospitalization for pneumonia. Neverthe-
tain lower respiratory tract specimens, antibiotic less, our pathogen-detection yield is within the
use before specimen collection, insensitive diag- range (20 to 76%) of the yield in other etiologic
studies of pneumonia in adults, although it is high-quality sputum specimens for the detection
closer to the lower end of the range9,37-43 and of non-legionella bacteria, which probably im-
contrasts with the detection yield in the pediat- proved specificity but decreased sensitivity.17 Bac-
ric EPIC study, in which pathogens were detected terial cultures, especially in the context of antimi-
in 81% of children who had been hospitalized crobial use, are insensitive.13,52 Urinary antigen
with community-acquired pneumonia.44 The low tests for pneumococcus, which were not available
pathogen-detection yield among adults who were for the study by Marston et al., were responsible
hospitalized for pneumonia highlights the need for the majority (67%) of pneumococcal detec-
for more sensitive diagnostic methods and in- tions in our study. These tests are more sensitive
novative discovery of pathogens.45 than blood culture and improve the detection of
Viruses were detected in 27% of the patients. nonbacteremic pneumococcal pathogens with a
Human rhinovirus was the most commonly de- reported sensitivity of 70 to 80% and a specific-
tected virus in patients with pneumonia but was ity of more than 90%.9,13,24,52 Moreover, the indi-
rarely detected in asymptomatic controls, a find- rect protection of adults as a result of pediatric
ing similar to that in other studies.37,46 Although pneumococcal vaccination in the United States
our understanding of human rhinovirus remains probably contributed to the lower observed inci-
incomplete, these data suggest a role for human dence of pneumococcal infection in our study
rhinovirus in adult pneumonia.35,47 Influenza vi- than in the study by Marston et al.4-9 Our esti-
rus was the second most common pathogen mates provide an important benchmark to mon-
detected, despite mild influenza seasons during itor the effect of the 2014 vaccination recommen-
the study.48 The incidence of influenza virus was dations for the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate
almost twice that of any other pathogen (except vaccine in persons 65 years of age or older.53
for human rhinovirus) among adults 80 years of M. pneumoniae, L. pneumophila, and C. pneumoniae
age or older, which underscores the need for combined were detected in 4% of the adults. Mar-
improvements in influenza-vaccine uptake and ston et al. found that these pathogens were
effectiveness.49 identified in 10% of patients with definite
Together, HMPV, RSV, parainfluenza viruses, cases of pneumonia and in 44% of those with
coronaviruses, and adenovirus were detected in possible cases.9 Although both our study and
13% of the patients, a proportion similar to those that of Marston et al. used urinary antigen tests
found in other PCR-based etiologic studies of for L. pneumophila, the detections of M. pneumoniae
pneumonia in adults (11 to 28%).11,37-41 Among and C. pneumoniae in the study by Marston et al.
adults 80 years of age or older, the incidence of relied exclusively on serologic testing, which
RSV, parainfluenza virus, and coronavirus each has less specificity than the PCR assay used in
was similar to that of S. pneumoniae. Our study our study.9,19,20,54-56
adds to the growing evidence of the contribution Overall S. aureus was detected in 2% of adults
of viruses to hospitalizations of adults, high- a lower rate than that of S. pneumoniae or vi-
lighting the usefulness of molecular methods ruses. The low prevalences of Enterobacteriaceae
for the detection of respiratory pathogens.35,47,50,51 (1%) and other gram-negative bacteria were prob-
The lower circulation of respiratory viruses in the ably due to the exclusion of patients with known
20112012 season (Fig.2B), as compared with the risk factors for these bacteria (e.g., patients with
previous year, probably contributed to the lower recent hospitalization, patients with severe immu-
incidence of pneumonia in that year and is sup- nosuppression, and functionally dependent nurs-
ported by national surveillance data.48 ing home residents), which is consistent with the
Bacterial pathogens were detected in 14% of contemporary concept of community-acquired
the patients. S. pneumoniae was the most commonly pneumonia.10 S. pneumoniae, S. aureus, and Entero-
detected bacterium, with an incidence that was bacteriaceae were significantly more common
almost 5 times as high among adults 65 years of among severely ill patients, accounting for 16%
age or older as among younger adults. The of the detected pathogens among patients in the
prevalence of pneumococcal disease of 5% that ICU, as compared with 6% among patients not
was observed in our study was lower than the 13% in the ICU.
found by Marston et al.9 Although both studies This study has limitations. First, we were not
used sputum culture, our study included only able to enroll every eligible patient; patients who
were 65 years of age or older and those who were dromes, including chronic lung disease and con-
undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation were gestive heart failure, such that even strict defini-
less likely to be enrolled; a greater proportion of tions may not accurately distinguish among
nonenrolled patients than of enrolled patients these entities, resulting in potential misclassifi-
died during hospitalization. Although the inci- cation. However, this situation is consistent with
dence calculations were adjusted for the enroll- the real-world challenges of diagnosing pneu-
ment differences according to age, market share monia and of its subsequent management. Fi-
data on severity were not available and prevented nally, data from our five urban hospitals (three
the calculations of severity-related incidence. academic, one public, and one community), al-
Second, specimens were not obtained from though inclusive of diverse communities, may not
patients who were not enrolled, and among be representative of the entire U.S. adult popula-
those who were enrolled, not all specimen types tion or generalizable to other settings, since the
were available, which could have led to underes- circulation of respiratory pathogens varies ac-
timation or overestimation of the pathogen-spe- cording to geographic region, timing, and other
cific rates, including the rates associated with factors.
severe disease and older age. Owing to ethical In conclusion, the burden of community-
and feasibility considerations, invasive procedures acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalization
to obtain specimens directly from the lung were among adults is substantial and is markedly
not usually performed, which may have reduced higher among the oldest adults. Although patho-
the microbiologic yield.35 However, 97% of the gens were not detected in the majority of pa-
adults had at least one specimen type available tients, respiratory viruses were more frequently
for bacterial and viral detection. detected than bacteria, which probably reflects
Third, the sensitivities and specificities of the the direct and indirect benefit of bacterial vac-
available diagnostic tests were imperfect. Al- cines and relatively insensitive diagnostic tests.
though the majority of blood-culture samples These data suggest that improving the coverage
were collected before the administration of anti- and effectiveness of recommended influenza
biotics, the yield was lower in the samples col- and pneumococcal vaccines and developing ef-
lected after the administration of antibiotics. fective vaccines and treatments for HMPV, RSV,
Thus, despite extensive testing, pathogens may and parainfluenza virus infection could reduce
have been missed. Moreover, molecular detec- the burden of pneumonia among adults. Further
tion of viruses and atypical bacteria in the naso- development of new rapid diagnostic tests that
pharynx and oropharynx does not necessarily can accurately identify and distinguish among
indicate causation and could represent infection potential pneumonia pathogens is needed.45
that is limited to the upper respiratory tract or The views expressed in this article are those of the authors
convalescent-phase shedding. Similarly, urinary and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
pneumococcal antigen can be present for weeks Supported by the Influenza Division of the National Center
after the onset of pneumococcal pneumonia, for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC
and recent pneumococcal vaccination can lead through cooperative agreements with each study site. The study
was based on a competitive research funding opportunity.
to false positive results.52 Dr. Self reports receiving fees for serving on an advisory board
Fourth, we were not able to enroll asymptom- from BioFire Diagnostics, research supplies from CareFusion,
atic controls for the entire study period or in grant support through his institution from bioMrieux, Affinium
Pharmaceuticals, Astute Medical, Crucell Holland, Thermo Fisher
both Chicago and Nashville, so it is possible that Scientific, Pfizer, Rapid Pathogen Screening, Venaxis, and Cem-
we missed detecting pathogens that were more pra, and holding a pending patent (13/632,874) related to a sterile
commonly circulating at other times or in other blood-culture collection system; Dr. Wunderink, receiving con-
sulting fees from Roche, the Medicines Company, Vical, Cubist
places. However, as in other studies,37,40,46 patho- Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Cerexa, and Visterra; Dr. Grijalva, receiv-
gens were rarely detected among adult asymp- ing consulting fees from Pfizer; Dr. Anderson, receiving grant
tomatic controls, which suggests that the respi- support through his institution from MedImmune, editorial sup-
port for an unrelated study from Roche, and consulting fees from
ratory viruses and atypical bacteria that were AbbVie; Dr. Courtney, receiving fees through his institution from
identified in patients with pneumonia may have Thermo Fisher Scientific; Dr. Chappell, holding a patent (U.S.
contributed to disease. 8,293,498 B2) related to a system for generation of viable reovirus
from cloned complementary DNA and a pending patent
Fifth, the clinical and radiographic features (13/639,564) related to reovirus vaccines and methods of use
of pneumonia overlap with those of other syn- therefor; Dr. Arnold, receiving grant support from GlaxoSmith-
Kline; Dr. Ampofo, receiving fees through his institution from We thank the patients who consented to participate in this
GlaxoSmithKline and Cubist Pharmaceuticals for the enrollment study; Suzette Bartley, Bernie Beall, Nicole Burcher, Robert Da-
of patients in other studies, and collaborating with BioFire Diag- vidson, Michael Dillon, Barry Fields, Phalasy Juieng, and Shelley
nostics on grants funded by the National Institutes of Health; Dr. Magill of the CDC; Bharat Reddy Dhanireddy and Pinal Modi of
Katz, receiving grant support through her institution from Juvaris John H. Stroger, Jr., Hospital of Cook County; Alison Chevrier,
BioTherapeutics and GlaxoSmithKline; Dr. Pavia, receiving fees Ashraf Luqman, Cecilia Scholcoff, and Jill Sears of Northwest-
for serving on an advisory board from BioFire Diagnostics, fees ern Memorial Hospital; Alexander Baldridge, Kelly Harris, Rajiv
for the preparation of educational material from Medscape, and Midha, and Denetra Smith of University of Tennessee Health
royalties from Antimicrobial Therapy; and Dr. Edwards, serving Science CenterSaint Thomas Health; and Heather Diggs, Regi-
on a data and safety monitoring board for Novartis for which her na Ellis, Timothy Girard, Charity Graves, Angela Harbeson,
institution receives fees. No other potential conflict of interest Deborah Hunter, Donna Jones, Romina Libster, Karen Miller,
relevant to this article was reported. Kelly Moser, Deborah Myers, Rabon Lee Smalling, Tanya Stein-
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with back, Scott Taylor, and Sandy Yoder of the Vanderbilt University
the full text of this article at NEJM.org. Medical Center.
Appendix
The authors full names and academic degrees are as follows: Seema Jain, M.D., WesleyH. Self, M.D., M.P.H., RichardG. Wunderink,
M.D., Sherene Fakhran, M.D., M.P.H., Robert Balk, M.D., AnnaM. Bramley, M.P.H., Carrie Reed, Ph.D., CarlosG. Grijalva, M.D.,
M.P.H., EvanJ. Anderson, M.D., D.Mark Courtney, M.D., JamesD. Chappell, M.D., Ph.D., Chao Qi, Ph.D., EricM. Hart, M.D., Frank
Carroll, M.D., Christopher Trabue, M.D., HelenK. Donnelly, R.N., B.S.N., DerekJ. Williams, M.D., M.P.H., Yuwei Zhu, M.D., San-
draR. Arnold, M.D., Krow Ampofo, M.D., GrantW. Waterer, M.B., B.S., Ph.D., Min Levine, Ph.D., Stephen Lindstrom, Ph.D., JonasM.
Winchell, Ph.D., JacquelineM. Katz, Ph.D., Dean Erdman, Dr.P.H., Eileen Schneider, M.D., M.P.H., LauriA. Hicks, D.O., JonathanA.
McCullers, M.D., AndrewT. Pavia, M.D., KathrynM. Edwards, M.D., and Lyn Finelli, Dr.P.H., for the CDC EPIC Study Team
The authors affiliations are as follows: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta (S.J., A.M.B., C.R., M.L., S.L., J.M.W.,
J.M.K., D.E., E.S., L.A.H., L.F.); Vanderbilt University School of Medicine (W.H.S., C.G.G., J.D.C., F.C., D.J.W., Y.Z., K.M.E.) and
University of Tennessee Health Science CenterSaint Thomas Health (C.T.), Nashville, and Le Bonheur Childrens Hospital (S.R.A.,
J.A.M.), University of Tennessee Health Science Center (S.R.A., J.A.M.), and St. Jude Childrens Research Hospital (J.A.M.), Memphis
all in Tennessee; Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine (R.G.W., E.J.A., D.M.C., C.Q., E.M.H., H.K.D., G.W.W.),
John H. Stroger, Jr., Hospital of Cook County (S.F.), and Rush University Medical Center (R.B.) all in Chicago; University of Utah
Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City (K.A., A.T.P.); and University of Western Australia, Perth (G.W.W.).
References
1. Pfuntner A, Wier LM, Stocks C. Most pneumococcal vaccination. N Engl J Med nia. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52:Suppl 4:S296-
frequent conditions in U.S. hospitals, 2013;369:155-63. S304.
2011. HCUP statistical brief #162. Rock- 7. Lexau CA, Lynfield R, Danila R, et al. 14. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jack-
ville, MD:Agency for Healthcare Re- Changing epidemiology of invasive pneu- son BA, Jaffe MW. Studies in the aged: the
search and Quality, 2013 (http://www mococcal disease among older adults in index of ADL: a standardized measure of
.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/ the era of pediatric pneumococcal conju- biological and psychological function.
sb162.pdf). gate vaccine. JAMA 2005;294:2043-51. JAMA 1963;185:914-9.
2. Health, United States, 2012: with spe- 8. Pilishvili T, Lexau C, Farley MM, et al. 15. Cherian T, Mulholland EK, Carlin JB,
cial features on emergency care. Hyatts- Sustained reductions in invasive pneumo- et al. Standardized interpretation of pae-
ville, MD:National Center for Health Sta- coccal disease in the era of conjugate vac- diatric chest radiographs for the diagno-
tistics, 2013:297-9. cine. J Infect Dis 2010;201:32-41. sis of pneumonia in epidemiological
3. Pfuntner A, Wier LM, Steiner C. Costs 9. Marston BJ, Plouffe JF, File TM Jr, et studies. Bull World Health Organ 2005;
for hospital stays in the United States, al. Incidence of community-acquired 83:353-9.
2011. HCUP statistical brief #168. Rock- pneumonia requiring hospitalization: re- 16. Watt JP, Mosi JC, Donaldson RLA, et
ville, MD:Agency for Healthcare Re- sults of a population-based active surveil- al. Measuring the incidence of adult com-
search and Quality, 2013 (http://www lance study in Ohio. Arch Intern Med munity-acquired pneumonia in a Native
.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/ 1997;157:1709-18. American community. Epidemiol Infect
sb168-Hospital-Costs-United-States-2011 10. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto 2010;138:1146-54.
.pdf). A, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of 17. Bartlett RC. Medical microbiology:
4. Grijalva CG, Nuorti JP, Arbogast PG, America/American Thoracic Society con- quality, cost and clinical relevance. New
Martin SW, Edwards KM, Griffin MR. De- sensus guidelines on the management of York:John Wiley, 1974:24-31.
cline in pneumonia admissions after rou- community-acquired pneumonia in 18. Pollock HM, Hawkins EL, Bonner JR,
tine childhood immunisation with pneu- adults. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:Suppl 2: Sparkman T, Bass JB Jr. Diagnosis of bac-
mococcal conjugate vaccine in the USA: a S27-S72. terial pulmonary infections with quanti-
time-series analysis. Lancet 2007; 369: 11. Pavia AT. Viral infections of the lower tative protected catheter cultures ob-
1179-86. respiratory tract: old viruses, new viruses, tained during bronchoscopy. J Clin
5. Nelson JC, Jackson M, Yu O, et al. Im- and the role of diagnosis. Clin Infect Dis Microbiol 1983;17:255-9.
pact of the introduction of pneumococcal 2011;52:Suppl 4:S284-S289. 19. Thurman KA, Warner AK, Cowart KC,
conjugate vaccine on rates of community 12. Caliendo AM. Multiplex PCR and Benitez AJ, Winchell JM. Detection of My-
acquired pneumonia in children and emerging technologies for the detection coplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydia pneu-
adults. Vaccine 2008;26:4947-54. of respiratory pathogens. Clin Infect Dis moniae, and Legionella spp. in clinical
6. Griffin MR, Zhu Y, Moore MR, Whit- 2011;52:Suppl 4:S326-S330. specimens using a single-tube multiplex
ney CG, Grijalva CGUS. U.S. hospitaliza- 13. Bartlett JG. Diagnostic tests for real-time PCR assay. Diagn Microbiol In-
tions for pneumonia after a decade of agents of community-acquired pneumo- fect Dis 2011;70:1-9.
20. Murdoch DR. Diagnosis of Legionella 32. Fiore AE, Bridges CB, Katz JM, Cox Community-acquired pneumonia requir-
infection. Clin Infect Dis 2003;36:64-9. NJ. Inactivate influenza vaccines. In:Plot- ing hospitalization among U.S. children.
21. Carvalho MGS, Tondella ML, Mc- kin SA, Orenstein WA, Offit PA, eds. Vac- N Engl J Med 2015;372:835-45.
Caustland K, et al. Evaluation and im- cines. 6th ed. Philadelphia:Elsevier, 2012: 45. Caliendo AM, Gilbert DN, Ginocchio
provement of real-time PCR assays target- 257-93. CC, et al. Better tests, better care: im-
ing lytA, ply, and psaA genes for detection 33. Vintage 2012 postcensal estimates of proved diagnostics for infectious diseas-
of pneumococcal DNA. J Clin Microbiol the resident population of the United es. Clin Infect Dis 2013;57:Suppl 3:S139-
2007;45:2460-6. States by year, county, single-year of age, S170.
22. Blaschke AJ, Heyrend C, Byington CL, bridged race, Hispanic origin, and sex. 46. Fry AM, Lu X, Olsen SJ, et al. Human
et al. Molecular analysis improves patho- Atlanta:National Center for Health Sta- rhinovirus infections in rural Thailand:
gen identification and epidemiologic tistics, 2012 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ epidemiological evidence for rhinovirus
study of pediatric parapneumonic empy- nvss/bridged_race.htm). as both pathogen and bystander. PLoS
ema. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011;30:289-94. 34. Fine MJ, Auble TE, Yealy DM, et al. A One 2011;6(3):e17780.
23. Blaschke AJ, Heyrend C, Byington CL, prediction rule to identify low-risk pa- 47. Ruuskanen O, Jrvinen A. What is the
et al. Rapid identification of pathogens tients with community-acquired pneumo- real role of respiratory viruses in severe
from positive blood cultures by multiplex nia. N Engl J Med 1997;336:243-50. community-acquired pneumonia? Clin
polymerase chain reaction using the Fil- 35. Karhu J, Ala-Kokko TI, Vuorinen T, Infect Dis 2014;59:71-3.
mArray system. Diagn Microbiol Infect Ohtonen P, Syrjl H. Lower respiratory 48. FluView: a weekly influenza surveil-
Dis 2012;74:349-55. tract virus findings in mechanically venti- lance report prepared by the Influenza
24. Murdoch DR, Laing RTR, Mills GD, et lated patients with severe community- Division. Atlanta:Centers for Disease
al. Evaluation of a rapid immunochro- acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis Control and Prevention (http://www .cdc
matographic test for detection of Strepto- 2014;59:62-70. .gov/f lu/weekly).
coccus pneumoniae antigen in urine samples 36. Lanspa MJ, Peyrani P, Wiemken T, 49. Prevention and control of seasonal
from adults with community-acquired Wilson EL, Ramirez JA, Dean NC. Charac- influenza with vaccines: recommenda-
pneumonia. J Clin Microbiol 2001; 39: teristics associated with clinician diagno- tions of the Advisory Committee on Im-
3495-8. sis of aspiration pneumonia: a descriptive munization Practices (ACIP) United
25. Weinberg GA, Schnabel KC, Erdman study of afflicted patients and their out- States, 20142015. MMWR Morb Mortal
DD, et al. Field evaluation of TaqMan Ar- comes. J Hosp Med 2015;10:90-6. Wkly Rep 2014;63:691-7.
ray Card (TAC) for the simultaneous de- 37. Jennings LC, Anderson TP, Beynon 50. Falsey AR, Hennessey PA, Formica
tection of multiple respiratory viruses in KA, et al. Incidence and characteristics of MA, Cox C, Walsh EE. Respiratory syncy-
children with acute respiratory infection. viral community-acquired pneumonia in tial virus infection in elderly and high-
J Clin Virol 2013;57:254-60. adults. Thorax 2008;63:42-8. risk adults. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1749-
26. Dare RK, Fry AM, Chittaganpitch M, 38. Johansson N, Kalin M, Tiveljung-Lin- 59.
Sawanpanyalert P, Olsen SJ, Erdman DD. dell A, Giske CG, Hedlund J. Etiology of 51. Walsh EE, Peterson DR, Falsey AR.
Human coronavirus infections in rural community-acquired pneumonia: in- Human metapneumovirus infections in
Thailand: a comprehensive study using creased microbiological yield with new adults: another piece of the puzzle. Arch
real-time reverse-transcription poly- diagnostic methods. Clin Infect Dis 2010; Intern Med 2008;168:2489-96.
merase chain reaction assays. J Infect Dis 50:202-9. 52. Werno AM, Murdoch DR. Medical mi-
2007;196:1321-8. 39. Johnstone J, Majumdar SR, Fox JD, crobiology: laboratory diagnosis of inva-
27. Sawatwong P, Chittaganpitch M, Hall Marrie TJ. Viral infection in adults hospi- sive pneumococcal disease. Clin Infect
H, et al. Serology as an adjunct to poly- talized with community-acquired pneu- Dis 2008;46:926-32.
merase chain reaction assays for surveil- monia: prevalence, pathogens, and pre- 53. Use of 13-valent pneumococcal conju-
lance of acute respiratory virus infections. sentation. Chest 2008;134:1141-8. gate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal
Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:445-6. 40. Lieberman D, Shimoni A, Shemer- polysaccharide vaccine among adults
28. Feikin DR, Njenga MK, Bigogo G, et Avni Y, Keren-Naos A, Shtainberg R, Li- aged 65 years: recommendations of the
al. Additional diagnostic yield of adding eberman D. Respiratory viruses in adults Advisory Committee on Immunization
serology to PCR in diagnosing viral acute with community-acquired pneumonia. Practices (ACIP). MMWR Morb Mortal
respiratory infections in Kenyan patients Chest 2010;138:811-6. Wkly Rep 2014;63:822-5.
5 years of age and older. Clin Vaccine Im- 41. Templeton KE, Scheltinga SA, van den 54. Kumar S, Hammerschlag MR. Acute
munol 2013;20:113-4. Eeden WC, Graffelman AW, van den respiratory infection due to Chlamydia
29. Manual for the laboratory diagnosis Broek PJ, Claas EC. Improved diagnosis of pneumoniae: current status of diagnostic
and virological surveillance of influenza. the etiology of community-acquired methods. Clin Infect Dis 2007;4 4:568-
Geneva:World Health Organization, pneumonia with real-time polymerase 76.
2011:43-77 (http://www.who.int/influenza/ chain reaction. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41: 55. Nilsson AC, Bjrkman P, Persson K.
gisrs_laboratory/manual_diagnosis_ 345-51. Polymerase chain reaction is superior to
surveillance_influenza/en). 42. Charles PGP, Whitby M, Fuller AJ, et serology for the diagnosis of acute Myco-
30. Monto AS, Maassab HF. Ether treat- al. The etiology of community-acquired plasma pneumoniae infection and reveals a
ment of type B influenza virus antigen for pneumonia in Australia: why penicillin high rate of persistent infection. BMC Mi-
the hemagglutination inhibition test. plus doxycycline or a macrolide is the crobiol 2008;8:93.
J Clin Microbiol 1981;13:54-7. most appropriate therapy. Clin Infect Dis 56. Nir-Paz R, Michael-Gayego A, Ron M,
31. Kendal AP, Cate TR. Increased sensi- 2008;46:1513-21. Block C. Evaluation of eight commercial
tivity and reduced specificity of hemag- 43. Musher DM, Thorner AR. Communi- tests for Mycoplasma pneumoniae antibod-
glutination inhibition tests with ether- ty-acquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med ies in the absence of acute infection. Clin
treated influenza B/Singapore/222/79. 2014;371:1619-28. Microbiol Infect 2006;12:685-8.
J Clin Microbiol 1983;18:930-4. 44. Jain S, Williams DJ, Arnold SR, et al. Copyright 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society.