Evidence Hub

Prevalence and clinical impact of Streptococcus pneumoniae nasopharyngeal carriage in solid organ transplant recipients

Roca-Oporto C, Cebrero-Cangueiro T, Gil-Marqués ML, Labrador-Herrera G, Smani Y, González-Roncero FM, Marín LM, Pachón J et al.

BMC infectious diseases, 2019

500 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: S. pneumoniae is the leading cause of community-acquired pneumonia in the solid organ transplant recipient (SOTR); nevertheless, the prevalence of colonization and of the colonizing/infecting serotypes has not been studied in this population. In this context, the aim of the present study was to describe the rate, characteristics, and clinical impact of S. pneumoniae nasopharyngeal carriage.

METHODS: A prospective observational cohort of Solid Organ Transplant recipients (SOTR) was held at the University Hospital Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain with the aim to evaluate the S. pneumoniae colonization and the serotype prevalence in SOTR. Two different pharyngeal swabs samples from 500 patients were included in two different seasonal periods winter and spring/summer. Optochin and bile solubility tests were performed for the isolation of thew strains. Antimicrobial susceptibility studies (MICs, mg/l) of levofloxacin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, penicillin, amoxicillin, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, erythromycin, azithromycin and vancomycin for each isolate were determined by E-test strips. Capsular typing was done by sequential multiplex PCR reactions. A multivariate logistic regression analysis of factors potentially associated with pneumococcal nasopharyngeal carriage and disease was performed.

RESULTS: Twenty-six (5.6%) and fifteen (3.2%) patients were colonized in winter and spring/summer periods, respectively. Colonized SOT recipients compared to non-colonized…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 500 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free