Lack of a gold standard for identifying bacterial and viral etiologies of pneumonia has limited evaluation of C-reactive protein (CRP) for identifying bacterial pneumonia. We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of CRP for identifying bacterial vs respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) pneumonia in the Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health (PERCH) multicenter case-control study. We measured serum CRP levels in cases with World Health Organization–defined severe or very severe pneumonia and a subset of community controls. We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of elevated CRP for “confirmed” bacterial pneumonia (positive blood culture or positive lung aspirate or pleural fluid culture or polymerase chain reaction [PCR]) compared to “RSV pneumonia” (nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal or induced sputum PCR-positive without confirmed/suspected bacterial pneumonia). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to assess the performance of elevated CRP in distinguishing these cases. Among 601 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–negative tested controls, 3% had CRP ≥40 mg/L. Among 119 HIV-negative cases with confirmed bacterial pneumonia, 77% had CRP ≥40 mg/L compared with 17% of 556 RSV pneumonia cases. The ROC analysis produced an area under the curve of 0.87, indicating very good discrimination; a cut-point of 37.1 mg/L best discriminated confirmed bacterial pneumonia (sensitivity 77%) from RSV pneumonia (specificity 82%). CRP ≥100 mg/L substantially improved specificity over CRP ≥40 mg/L, though at a loss to sensitivity. Elevated CRP was positively associated with confirmed bacterial pneumonia and negatively associated with RSV pneumonia in PERCH. CRP may be useful for distinguishing bacterial from RSV-associated pneumonia, although its role in discriminating against other respiratory viral-associated pneumonia needs further study.

Pneumonia is the leading cause of death for children under 5 years of age globally, making research on modifiable risk factors for childhood pneumonia important for reducing this disease burden. Millions of children globally are exposed to elevated levels of arsenic in drinking water. However, there is limited data on the association between arsenic exposure and respiratory infections, particularly among pediatric populations. This case control study of 153 pneumonia cases and 296 controls 28 days to 59 months of age in rural Bangladesh is the first to assess whether arsenic exposure is a risk factor for pneumonia in a pediatric population. Cases had physician diagnosed World Health Organization defined severe or very severe pneumonia. Urine collected during hospitalization (hospital admission time point) and 30 days later (convalescent time point) from cases and a single specimen from community controls was tested for urinary arsenic by graphite furnace atomic absorption. The odds for pneumonia was nearly double for children with urinary arsenic concentrations higher than the first quartile (≥6 μg/L) at the hospital admission time point (Odd Ratio (OR):1.88 (95 % Confidence Interval (CI): 1.01, 3.53)), after adjustment for urinary creatinine, weight for height, breastfeeding, paternal education, age, and number of people in the household. This was consistent with findings at the convalescent time point where the adjusted OR for children with urinary arsenic concentrations greater than the first quartile (≥6 μg/L) was 2.32 (95 % CI: 1.33, 4.02). We observed a nearly two times higher odds of pneumonia for children with creatinine adjusted urinary arsenic concentrations greater than the first quartile (≥6 μg/L) at the hospital admission time point. This novel finding suggests that low to moderate arsenic exposure may be a risk factor for pneumonia in children under 5 years of age.

Billions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered globally, dramatically reducing SARS-CoV-2 incidence and severity in some settings. Many studies suggest vaccines provide a high degree of protection against infection and disease, but precise estimates vary and studies differ in design, outcomes measured, dosing regime, location, and circulating virus strains. Here we conduct a systematic review of COVID-19 vaccines through February 2022. We included efficacy data from Phase 3 clinical trials for 15 vaccines undergoing WHO Emergency Use Listing evaluation and real-world effectiveness for 8 vaccines with observational studies meeting inclusion criteria. Vaccine metrics collected include protection against asymptomatic infection, any infection, symptomatic COVID-19, and severe outcomes including hospitalization and death, for partial or complete vaccination, and against variants of concern Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron. We additionally review the epidemiological principles behind the design and interpretation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness studies, including important sources of heterogeneity.

Mass COVID-19 vaccination and continued introduction of new SARS-CoV-2 variants increased prevalence of hybrid immunity at various stages of waning protection. We systematically reviewed waning of post-vaccination neutralizing antibody titers in different immunological settings to investigate differences. We searched published and pre-print studies providing post-vaccination neutralizing antibody responses against the Index strain or Omicron BA.1. We used random effects meta-regression to estimate fold-reduction from months 1 to 6 post last dose by primary vs booster regimen and infection-naïve vs hybrid-immune cohorts. Among 26 eligible studies, 65 cohorts (range 3–21 per stratum) were identified. Month-1 titers varied widely across studies within each cohort and by vaccine platform, number of doses and number of prior infections. In infection-naïve cohorts, the Index strain waned 5.1-fold (95%CI: 3.4–7.8; n = 19 cohorts) post-primary regimen and 3.8-fold (95%CI: 2.4–5.9; n = 21) post-booster from months 1 to 6, and against Omicron BA.1 waned 5.9-fold (95%CI: 3.8–9.0; n = 16) post-booster; Omicron BA.1 titers post-primary were too low to assess. In hybrid-immune, post-primary cohorts, titers waned 3.7-fold (95%CI: 1.7–7.9; n = 8) against the Index strain and 5.0-fold (95%CI: 1.1–21.8; n = 6) against Omicron BA.1; post-booster studies of hybrid-immune cohorts were too few (n = 3 cohorts each strain) to assess. Waning was similar across vaccination regimen and prior-infection status strata but was faster for Omicron BA.1 than Index strains, therefore, more recent sub-variants should be monitored. Wide differences in peak titers by vaccine platform and prior infection status mean titers drop to non-protective levels sooner in some instances, which may affect policy.

Many pneumonia etiology case-control studies exclude controls with respiratory illness from enrollment or analyses. Herein we argue that selecting controls regardless of respiratory symptoms provides the least biased estimates of pneumonia etiology. We review 3 reasons investigators may choose to exclude controls with respiratory symptoms in light of epidemiologic principles of control selection and present data from the Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health (PERCH) study where relevant to assess their validity. We conclude that exclusion of controls with respiratory symptoms will result in biased estimates of etiology. Randomly selected community controls, with or without respiratory symptoms, as long as they do not meet the criteria for case-defining pneumonia, are most representative of the general population from which cases arose and the least subject to selection bias.