BackgroundThe 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) was licensed based on the results of immunogenicity studies and correlates of protection derived from randomized clinical trials of the 7-valent conjugate pneumococcal vaccine. We assessed the vaccination effectiveness (VE) of the PCV13 in preventing invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) in children aged 7–59 months in a population with suboptimal vaccination coverage of 55%.MethodsThe study was carried out in children with IPD admitted to three hospitals in Barcelona (Spain) and controls matched by hospital, age, sex, date of hospitalization and underlying disease. Information on the vaccination status was obtained from written medical records. Conditional logistic regression was made to estimate the adjusted VE and 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results169 cases and 645 controls were included. The overall VE of ≥1 doses of PCV13 in preventing IPD due to vaccine serotypes was 75.8% (95% CI, 54.1–87.2) and 90% (95% CI, 63.9–97.2) when ≥2 doses before 12 months, two doses on or after 12 months or one dose on or after 24 months, were administered. The VE of ≥1 doses was 89% (95% CI, 42.7–97.9) against serotype 1 and 86.0% (95% CI, 51.2–99.7) against serotype 19A. Serotype 3 showed a non-statistically significant effectiveness (25.9%; 95% CI, -65.3 to 66.8).ConclusionsThe effectiveness of ≥1 doses of PCV13 in preventing IPD caused by all PCV13 serotypes in children aged 7–59 months was good and, except for serotype 3, the effectiveness of ≥1 doses against the most frequent PCV13 serotypes causing IPD was high when considered individually.
Vaccine failures occurring with 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in 3 pediatric hospitals in Barcelona (2012-2013) are described. PCV13 vaccine failure was defined as the occurrence of an invasive pneumococcal infection in children properly vaccinated by PCV13. Among 84 patients with invasive pneumococcal infection, 32 had received at least one dose of PCV13. Seventeen of them had invasive pneumococcal infection produced by a PCV13 serotype. Among those, 9 patients were considered to have a PCV13 vaccine failure. Serotype 3 was isolated in 6 patients, serotype 19A in 2 and serotype 6B in 1.
Aim: The aim was to analyze the epidemiological, microbiological and clinical characteristics of patients with complicated pneumococcal pneumonia with pleural effusion (PE) or empyema. Method: Prospective study in three Catalan hospitals in persons aged <18 years diagnosed with complicated pneumonia with PE or empyema with isolation of Streptococcus pneumoniae in blood or pleural fluid by culture or real-time PCR between January 2012 and June 2016. Patients were divided into <2 years and 2-17 years age groups. Epidemiological, microbiological, and clinical data of patients were compared annually in both groups. PCV13 vaccination coverage increased from 48.2% in 2012 to 74.5% in 2015.
Results:We included 143 patients. The incidence of pneumococcal pneumonia was 6.83 cases × 10 −5 persons/year in cases with PE or empyema and 2.09 cases × 10 −5 person-years in cases without (rate ratio [RR]: 3.27; 2.25-4.86; P < 0.001). Empyema was more frequent than PE (79.7% vs 20.3%, P < 0.005). Of 143 cases studied, 93 (65.0%, P < 0.001) were diagnosed by real-time-PCR, 43 (30.1%) by culture and RT-PCR and 7 (4.9%) by culture only. PCV13 serotypes were more frequent in complicated than in uncomplicated pneumonia (116/142, 81.7% vs 27/45, 60.0%; P = 0.003), especially serotype 1 (41/142, 28.9% vs 6/45, 13.3%, P : 0.036). From 2012 to 2015 there was a significant reduction in serotype 1 (16/43, 37.2% vs 3/27, 11.1%, P = 0.026), and a trend to an increase in non-PCV13 serotypes (6/43, 14% vs 9/27, 33.3%, P = 0.054).
Conclusions:A directly proportional relationship was observed between the reduction in pneumonia complicated with PE or empyema and a significant
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.