ABSTRACT

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Despite the vast diversity of respiratory microbiota, Streptococcus pneumoniae remains the most prevalent pathogen among etiologic agents. Despite the significant decrease in the mortality rates for lower respiratory tract infections in recent decades, CAP ranks third as a cause of death in Brazil. Since the latest Guidelines on CAP from the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (SBPT, Brazilian Thoracic Association) were published (2009), there have been major advances in the application of imaging tests, in etiologic investigation, in risk stratification at admission and prognostic score stratification, in the use of biomarkers, and in the recommendations for antibiotic therapy (and its duration) and prevention through vaccination. To review these topics, the SBPT Committee on Respiratory Infections summoned 13 members with recognized experience in CAP in Brazil who identified issues relevant to clinical practice that require updates given the publication of new epidemiological and scientific evidence. Twelve topics concerning diagnostic, prognostic, therapeutic, and preventive issues were developed. The topics were divided among the authors, who conducted a nonsystematic review of the literature, but giving priority to major publications in the specific areas, including original articles, review articles, and systematic reviews. All authors had the opportunity to review and comment on all questions, producing a single final document that was approved by consensus.

Keywords: Pneumonia/diagnosis; Pneumonia/prevention & control; Pneumonia/therapy; Pneumonia/drug therapy.

RESUMO

A pneumonia adquirida na comunidade (PAC) constitui a principal causa de morte no mundo. Apesar da vasta microbiota respiratória, o Streptococcus pneumoniae permanece como a bactéria de maior prevalência dentre os agentes etiológicos. Apesar da redução significativa das taxas de mortalidade por infecções do trato respiratório inferior nas últimas décadas, a PAC ocupa o terceiro lugar como causa de mortalidade em nosso meio. Desde a última publicação das Diretrizes Brasileiras sobre PAC da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (2009), houve importantes avanços na aplicação dos exames de imagem, na investigação etiológica, na estratificação de risco à admissão e de escores prognósticos evolutivos, no uso de biomarcadores e nas recomendações de antibioticoterapia (e sua duração) e da prevenção por vacinas. Para revisar esses tópicos, a Comissão de Infecções Respiratórias da SBPT reuniu 13 membros com reconhecida experiência em PAC no Brasil que identificaram aspectos relevantes à prática clínica que demandam atualizações frente às novas evidências epidemiológicas e científicas publicadas. Foram determinados doze tópicos envolvendo questões diagnósticas, prognósticas, terapêuticas e preventivas. Os tópicos foram divididos entre os autores, que realizaram uma revisão de forma não sistemática da literatura, porém priorizando as principais publicações nas áreas específicas, incluindo artigos originais, artigos de revisão e revisões sistemáticas. Todos os autores tiveram a oportunidade de revisar e opinar sobre todas as questões, criando um documento único final que foi aprovado por consenso.

Palavras-chave: Pneumonia/diagnóstico; Pneumonia/prevenção & controle; Pneumonia/terapia; Pneumonia/tratamento farmacológico.

INTRODUCTION

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the leading cause of death worldwide, with a significant impact on morbidity rates.(1) Despite the vast diversity of respiratory microbiota, the widespread dissemination of potentially pathogenic agents, the phenomenon of globalization, and the occurrence of viral epidemics, Streptococcus pneumoniae remains the most prevalent pathogen among the etiologic agents of CAP.(2)

In Brazil, as well as in other countries, there has been a significant decrease in the mortality rates for respiratory tract infections, although the magnitude of this decrease has lessened in recent decades. Among pneumonias, CAP remains the one with the greatest impact and is the third leading cause of mortality in Brazil. Although the absolute number of deaths in Brazil has increased because of population growth and aging, when the mortality rate for CAP is standardized by age, a 25.5% decrease is observed between 1990 and 2015.(3) An improved socioeconomic situation, greater access to health care, national availability of antibiotics, and vaccination policies partially explain the decrease in mortality rates in Brazil.(4)

Since the latest Guidelines on CAP from the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (SBPT, Brazilian Thoracic Association) were published,(5) several topics have been reviewed, such as advances in the application of imaging tests; advances in and impact of etiologic investigation, particularly investigation of viral etiology and atypical pathogens in subgroups of patients; risk stratification at admission; prognostic score stratification; the role of biomarkers in therapeutic management; recommendations for antibiotic therapy and its duration; and recommendations regarding influenza and pneumococcal vaccination.

METHODS

The authors consensually determined specific topics to be addressed, on the basis of relevant publications in the literature on CAP with regard to imaging tests, etiologic investigation, risk stratification at admission and prognostic score stratification, use of biomarkers, recommendations for antibiotic therapy and its duration, and prevention through vaccination. To review these topics, the SBPT Committee on Respiratory Infections summoned 13 members with recognized experience in CAP in Brazil who developed 12 questions concerning the previously determined topics. The questions were divided among the authors, who conducted a nonsystematic review of the literature, but giving priority to major publications in the specific areas, including original articles, review articles, and systematic reviews. All participants had the opportunity to review and comment on all questions, producing a document that was approved by consensus at the end of the process.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMAGING METHODS IN CAP

Chest X-ray

Chest X-ray, in combination with anamnesis and physical examination, is part of the classic diagnostic triad for CAP; it is recommended that, when available, posteroanterior and lateral chest X-rays should be routinely performed. In addition to contributing to diagnosis, chest X-ray allows us to assess the extent of the lesions and detect complications, as well as facilitating differential diagnosis.(6)

Despite the existence of numerous guidelines, there is no consensus regarding recommendations for the management of CAP in primary care, especially in terms of ancillary tests, which are often not readily available. At this level of care, when the clinician is sure of the diagnosis, chest X-ray is not required for treatment initiation, and antimicrobials can be prescribed appropriately. However, fewer than 40% of physicians are able to diagnose pneumonias solely on the basis of physical examination. In this context, chest X-ray should be mandatory for patients with suspected CAP.(7) Chest X-ray is also recommended if there is doubt about the diagnosis or differential diagnosis from lung cancer is required and if, during treatment follow-up, clinical response is unsatisfactory. Chest X-ray is recommended for all patients admitted to the hospital.(8,9)

Chest ultrasound

Chest ultrasound (CUS) has greater sensitivity and accuracy in detecting parenchymal changes than does chest X-ray. Major ultrasound findings in CAP include consolidations, a focal interstitial pattern, subpleural lesions, and pleural line abnormalities. The specificity of CUS for consolidations is 100%, whereas chest X-ray reaches a sensitivity of only 94% for this type of change.(10)

Bedside ultrasound performed by clinicians in the emergency department has a sensitivity of 95% and a negative predictive value of 67% in the diagnosis of CAP, compared with 60% and 25%, respectively, for chest X-ray. Specificity is similar for both diagnostic methods.(11,12)

When conducted by ultrasound specialists, ultrasound reaches a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 96%. However, the yield of ultrasound conducted by clinicians in the emergency department has yet to be further evaluated, and more robust evidence is needed. It is important to bear in mind the usefulness of U/S in pregnant women and bedridden individuals, in whom X-ray quality is lower than desired. In addition, CUS has a high yield in detecting complications such as pleural effusion, as well as permitting visualization of loculations in the cavity. Referral for aspiration of pleural effusion (whether loculated or not) is one of the indications for CUS.(13-16) Therefore, the need for specific training in ultrasound and the unavailability of the method in primary care and in many health care facilities in Brazil currently restrict the use of ultrasound to advanced care centers.

Chest CT

Chest CT is the most sensitive method for identifying infectious involvement of the lung parenchyma, despite its high cost and the high level of radiation exposure.(17)

Chest CT is especially useful in cases in which the accuracy of chest X-ray and chest U/S is low, such as in obese patients, immunosuppressed patients, and individuals with previous abnormal radiological findings. In addition, chest CT is indicated in suspected fungal infections and for assisting the exclusion of other diagnoses in selected cases. In one study, the use of chest CT in patients with suspected CAP in the emergency department resulted in 16% of the patients having alternative diagnoses or findings, such as pulmonary thromboembolism and neoplasia, and, of those, 8% were diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis.(18) More recently, other authors have demonstrated that the use of chest CT increases the rate of diagnosis in patients with CAP and normal chest X-rays, but it may also not confirm the disease in patients with opacities on chest X-rays, which would allow the discontinuation of antibiotics in a significant proportion of cases.(19,20)

Because of the high radiation exposure from CT, some authors have suggested the use of chest U/S as an intermediate ancillary test before the use of CT in the diagnosis of difficult-to-diagnose cases.(21)

In addition, the importance of chest CT in the assessment of CAP-related complications, such as lung abscess and loculated pleural effusion, and in the investigation of reasons for the lack of clinical response to treatment has been emphasized.(22,23)

ETIOLOGIC INVESTIGATION OF OUTPATIENT AND INPATIENT CAP: WHAT ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS?

Although there may be inadequate response to empiric treatment, etiologic testing is not necessary in patients with non-severe CAP receiving outpatient treatment. Therefore, the recommendations that etiologic testing be performed only in patients with severe CAP or CAP unresponsive to the initial empiric treatment regimen, as well as in ICU patients, remain valid.

In selecting tests to be performed, one should take into account patient age, presence of comorbidities, disease severity, and prior anti-infective therapy.(24)

The development of new methods for microbiological identification in general, and for microbiological identification of CAP in particular, has increased the chances of adequately choosing the spectrum of the antibiotic to be used in the treatment of pneumonia. Of note are radiological methods, such as chest U/S, and microbiological methods, namely Multiplex PCR(25) and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry, a promising method for rapid identification of pathogens,(26)

With regard to microbiological studies, direct examination and culture of sputum samples (or of nasotracheal aspirates for patients who cannot expectorate) should meet sample quality criteria, that is, fewer than 10 epithelial cells and more than 25 leukocytes per field examined. In addition, technical norms for collection, transport, and analysis of biological samples should be adhered to.(27)

In an observational study of 670 hospitalized patients with CAP, 478 good quality sputum samples were obtained of a total of 591 samples. Specificity was much higher than sensitivity (S. pneumoniae: 91.5% vs. 62.5%), very similar to those of other bacterial agents identified. It is of note that the treatment of the cases in which the pathogen was identified was similar to the treatment started empirically.(28)

Molecular tests have been shown to be more effective in detecting atypical agents. Film array respiratory panel is a rapid (1 hour), multiplex molecular test that detects 20 respiratory pathogens (17 viruses and three bacteria: Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Bordetella pertussis). Another test (Nxtag respiratory pathogen panel) can identify 18 viruses, M. pneumoniae, and C. pneumoniae.(29) The current recommendations for the use of molecular tests include: (1) highly accurate rapid testing for influenza; (2) rapid molecular testing for M. tuberculosis (feasible in a few hours); (3) rapid testing for respiratory viruses that can cause CAP or lower respiratory tract infection; and (4) rapid testing for detecting atypical pathogens (M. pneumoniae, C. pneumoniae, Legionella sp., and B. Pertussis).(30)

Patients with severe CAP should be etiologically investigated with the basic tests available: sputum smear microscopy and sputum culture; blood culture; urinary antigen testing for S. pneumoniae and Legionella sp.; serological tests; and, eventually, culture for atypical pathogens. In selected cases and in an appropriate clinical context, special cultures and galactomannan and (1-3)-β-D-glucan tests for fungi, as well as the latest antigen or molecular biology tests for viruses and atypical pathogens, may be performed, but are not indicated in the routine management of CAP.

In patients on mechanical ventilation, in nonresponders to the initial empiric therapy, and in those in whom less common etiologic agents are suspected, as well as in cases in which differential diagnosis from noninfectious lung diseases, such as tumors, vasculitis, or interstitial lung disease, is required, it may be necessary to collect samples invasively via bronchoscopy, endotracheal aspiration, bronchoalveolar lavage, or thoracentesis, in cases of ipsilateral pleural effusion.(5)

ROLE OF VIRUSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THEIR INVESTIGATION IN CAP

The advent of the use of molecular tests in clinical practice has signaled that viruses play a more relevant role as possible etiologic agents of CAP. Studies including PCR as a diagnostic tool in their scope have detected viruses in approximately one third of CAP cases in adults,(20,21) with influenza being the most commonly isolated virus. In addition of influenza, other viral agents, such as rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza virus, adenovirus, and metapneumovirus, are considered possible etiologic agents of CAP.(31) Musher et al. evaluated 259 patients hospitalized for CAP, in order to identify the etiologic agents. Forty-four viruses were identified in 42 patients: rhinovirus, in 26; coronavirus, in 7; parainfluenza, in 4; respiratory syncytial virus, in 3; metapneumovirus, in 1; and influenza, in 1. Viruses were the only pathogens detected in 30 of the patients. The authors found strong evidence of the activity of viruses as causative agents of pneumonia in 28 of the 42 patients.(32)

However, uncertainty remains as to the true role of viruses in CAP because of the difficulty in determining whether viruses act as co-pathogens or as colonizers. One example of this is in a study by Jartti et al., which showed the presence of viruses in nasopharyngeal swabs in approximately 30% of healthy adults. However, isolation of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and metapneumovirus is rare in asymptomatic adults.(33)

Another possible activity of viruses in CAP would be impairment of the defense mechanisms of the upper airways, facilitating the establishment of another microorganism in the lower airways; this seems to be the role of rhinovirus and coronavirus.(34,35) Interaction between viruses and bacteria seems to be associated with a more severe clinical profile of CAP. Johansson et al. demonstrated that viral-bacterial coinfection occurred in 20% of the cases, being responsible for more severe pneumonia requiring longer hospitalization than does CAP caused by a bacterial agent alone.(34)

The evidence from those studies support that ancillary tests, particularly molecular tests, such as PCR, are indicated for the diagnosis of viruses especially in cases of severe CAP.(36)

CURRENT STATUS OF SCORING SYSTEMS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CAP SEVERITY AT ADMISSION AND SCORING SYSTEMS FOR EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF RISK FOR THE NEED VENTILATORY AND/OR VASOPRESSOR SUPPORT TO PREVENT THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEVERE SEPSIS OR TREATMENT FAILURE. WHAT ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS?

Patients with a diagnosis of CAP should always be assessed for disease severity, a precaution that has a direct positive impact on mortality.(37-40) Currently available prognostic scoring systems measure severity and help predict prognosis in CAP, informing the decision regarding site of care (outpatient, inpatient, or ICU), the need for etiologic investigation, and the choice of antibiotics and their route of administration.(5,37)

Validated instruments include the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI); mental Confusion, Urea, Respiratory rate, Blood pressure, and age ≥ 65 years (CURB-65); CRB-65 (no measurement of urea); the 2007 American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines; Systolic blood pressure, Multilobar involvement, Albumin, Respiratory rate, Tachycardia, Confusion, Oxygenation, and pH (SMART-COP); and Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia (SCAP)-the last three being related to severe pneumonia and ICU admission.(41-46)

It is important to stress that disease severity as determined by scoring systems is a major factor in the decision regarding hospital admission; however, other factors, such as the possibility of using oral drugs, comorbidities, psychosocial factors and socioeconomic characteristics that indicate vulnerability of the individual, should be taken into account.(5,22,44) Ideally, SpO2 should always be monitored: SpO2 values below 92% should be an indication for hospital admission.(22,47)

PSI

The PSI comprises 20 items including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, abnormal laboratory test results, abnormal radiological findings, and physical examination findings.(41) The PSI classifies patients into five categories, estimating 30-day mortality and suggesting the site of care (Charts 1 and 2). However, the PSI may underestimate CAP severity in young patients without concomitant diseases because its scoring system gives too much weight to age and presence of comorbidities.(22,39)
 

 




Another negative point is the use of many variables, which makes calculation complex; however, this calculation can be facilitated by using calculators available online, such as the PSI/Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) Score: PSI for CAP and PSI Calculator.

CURB-65 and CRB-65

CURB-65 is an acronym for the variables it assesses: mental Confusion (an Abbreviated Mental Test score ≤ 8)(48); Urea > 50 mg/dL; Respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min; Blood pressure (systolic < 90 mmHg or diastolic < 60 mmHg; and age ≥ 65 years (Figure 1).(42) CRB-65 (no measurement of urea), which is a simplified version of CURB-65, is useful in settings in which laboratory tests are not available, such as in primary care (Figure 2).(43)
 

 




The major limitation of CURB-65 and CRB-65 is the exclusion of comorbidities that may increase the risk of complications in CAP, such as alcoholism, heart or liver failure, and neoplasia, which results in their negative predictive value for mortality being slightly lower than that of the PSI.(5,40) However, CURB-65 and CRB-65 are qualified by their simplicity, immediate applicability, and ease of use, whether in the hospital setting or elsewhere.

2007 ATS/IDSA guidelines

The severity criteria proposed in the ATS/IDSA consensus guidelines(44) and their simplified version(49) are classified as major or minor (Chart 3). The presence of one of the major criteria (septic shock or need for mechanical ventilation) is an indication for ICU admission. The presence of three or more minor criteria is also an indication for intensive care. These criteria, however, do not lend themselves to the assessment of outpatients, which is why the guidelines themselves recommend the use of the PSI or CURB-65 to inform decision-making about outpatients.
 



SCAP and SMART COP

Other tools for predicting the occurrence of severe CAP have been developed to assess outcomes other than the generic risk of death or ICU admission. These outcomes include, in addition to the need for ICU admission, the development of severe sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation, and the risk of treatment failure, for SCAP, and outcomes more specifically associated with the need for the use of invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilatory support or the use of vasopressors for circulatory support, for SMART-COP.(45,46)

These outcomes have been considered more objective markers of CAP severity, given the heterogeneity of indications and protocols for ICU admission across different institutions and health care systems.

SCAP

The major criteria are pH < 7.30 (13 points) and systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg (11 points). The minor criteria are RR > 30 breaths/min (9 points); PaO2/FiO2 < 250 (6 points); urea > 30 mg/dL (5 points); altered level of consciousness (5 points); age ≥ 80 years (5 points); and radiological findings of multilobar or bilateral infiltrate (5 points).(46)

A score ≥ 10 predicts an increased risk for the use of mechanical ventilation and the need for vasoactive drugs.(46)

SMART-COP

The SMART-COP scoring system is as follows: systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg (2 points); multilobar involvement (1 point); albumin < 3.5 g/dL (1 point); RR ≥ 25 breaths/min (1 point); HR > 125 bpm (1 point); mental confusion (1 point); SpO2 < 93% or PaO2 < 70 mmHg (2 points); and pH < 7.30 (2 points).(45) A score greater than 3 identified 92% of the patients who required mechanical ventilation or vasoactive drugs during the course of CAP.
 



Therefore, it is recommended that patients with CAP should be objectively evaluated in the emergency room for initial disease severity and for early identification of risk of developing severe outcomes, such as the need for ICU admission, the development of severe sepsis, the need for invasive or noninvasive ventilatory support, the need for inotropic support, or the risk of treatment failure (SCAP, SMART-COP, or the simplified version of the ATS/ISDA criteria, although further external validation is still required). In the absence of severe CAP, socioeconomic indications for hospital admission, concomitant decompensated diseases, and hypoxemia, and when oral intake of medications is possible and there is a score of 0-1 on CURB-65 (or a score of 0 on CRB-65 or a score of 70 or less on the PSI), the attending physician should consider outpatient treatment for patients with CAP.


RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE OF BIOMARKERS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF CAP

A biomarker is defined as any measurable molecule that can help diagnose or estimate prognosis of patients with a clinical condition. Since CAP is a condition with intense inflammatory activity, several studies have evaluated various biomarkers (C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, proadrenomedullin, lactate, natriuretic atrial peptide, D-dimers, cortisol, etc.) in recent years, with C-reactive protein and procalcitonin being the most commonly studied. Procalcitonin is produced in large quantities by parenchymal cells in response to bacterial toxins and proinflammatory cytokines, but its production is minimized in the presence of viral infections. Procalcitonin levels increase within 2 h after bacterial stimulation, more rapidly than do C-reactive protein levels, and are even more specific for bacterial infections, given that C-reactive protein levels increase in any inflammatory process.(50,51)

C-reactive protein is secreted by hepatic cells in response to an increase in interleukin-6, interleukin-1β, and TNF-α levels. Other recognized sources of C-reactive protein are lymphocytes, monocytes, neurons, and atherosclerotic plaques. C-reactive protein levels peak approximately 48 h after an injurious stimulus, and the plasma half-life of C-reactive protein is approximately 19 h both in health and in disease. Müller et al.(52) demonstrated a significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy when they combined the determination of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein levels with clinical signs and symptoms in patients with suspected CAP who were treated in primary care and emergency settings. These biomarkers outperformed increased leukocyte counts and body temperature, and helped differentiate between patients with bacteria and those without. The area under the curve for clinical signs and symptoms alone was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75-0.83), whereas, for clinical signs and symptoms combined with procalcitonin and ultra-sensitive C-reactive protein levels, it was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94; p < 0.001). A recent study investigated the value of four biomarkers and three severity scales in predicting 28-day mortality in patients with CAP who were treated in emergency settings.(53) The results showed that procalcitonin was the best single biomarker for predicting mortality. The models combining procalcitonin and/or C-reactive protein with the PSI showed better results than did the PSI alone.(53) A recent study demonstrated that, if C-reactive protein levels do not decrease by 50% within 3 days of treatment and remains above 75 mg/L, the risk of 30-day mortality is increased.(54) A study of 191 patients with CAP admitted to the ICU showed that mortality was 4.8% among those in whom C-reactive protein levels decreased rapidly (n = 66), 17.3% among those in whom C-reactive protein levels decreased slowly (n = 81), and 36.4% among those in whom C-reactive protein levels did not decrease (n = 44).(55) Therefore, on the basis of the findings of those studies, procalcitonin can be used as an aid in the diagnosis of CAP, and procalcitonin and/or C-reactive protein can be used in the assessment of treatment response. It is important to emphasize that biomarkers should be used in complement to clinical evaluation rather than as a single criterion to determine or change the therapeutic approach (Chart 4 and Figure 3).
 

 




A recently updated meta-analysis of 50 clinical trials, including data from 12 countries, demonstrated that the use of procalcitonin as a guide for initiation and duration of antibiotic therapy resulted in a reduced risk of mortality, reduced antibiotic use, and a reduced risk of antibiotic-related side effects.(56) The results were similar for any type of lower respiratory tract infection. It is important to emphasize that treatment failure was similar between cases in which antibiotic discontinuation was guided by a decrease in procalcitonin levels and those cases in which procalcitonin was not used to guide antibiotic discontinuation.(56,57)

ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY IN CAP: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE OF MONOTHERAPY AND COMBINATION THERAPY

Treatment of outpatients

The initial antibiotic regimen is determined empirically because it is impossible to obtain microbiological results, which would enable the choice of antibiotics directed at specific agents, immediately after the diagnosis of CAP. The choice of an antibiotic should take the following into account: 1) the most likely pathogen in the site of disease acquisition; 2) individual risk factors; 3) presence of concomitant diseases; and 4) epidemiologic factors, such as recent trips, allergies, and cost-effectiveness ratio.

Antibiotic coverage for atypical pathogens in cases of less severe CAP remains controversial, and several studies have shown no advantages with the use of this approach. A crossover study comparing β-lactams vs. β-lactams plus macrolides vs. new fluoroquinolones against respiratory pathogens (levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, or gemifloxacin) demonstrated that β-lactams alone were not inferior to the other antibiotic regimens in non-severe CAP in terms of 90-day mortality.(58)

American, European, British, and Latin-American guidelines differ with regard to the treatment of outpatients. British and European guidelines, as well guidelines by the Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax, place less importance on atypical pathogens for less severe cases and do not recommend initial coverage for these pathogens. British and European guidelines recommend amoxicillin as the treatment of choice, reserving macrolides as alternatives.(59-62)

The 2007 ATS/IDSA guidelines advocate treatment of atypical pathogens and pneumococci and suggest macrolides or doxycycline if no antibiotic resistance is suspected.(44) A retrospective cohort study of outpatients with CAP who received monotherapy, conducted between 2011 and 2015, showed that 22.1% of the patients required additional treatment.(63) This occurred in older patients, women, and patients with comorbidities. The drugs most associated with treatment failure were β-lactams (in 25.7%), followed by macrolides (in 22.9%), tetracyclines (in 22.5%), and new fluoroquinolones (in 20.8%).(63) In Brazil, the most recent data indicate that pneumococcal resistance to penicillin should not be a concern for less severe cases of CAP.(64)
 



The proposal by the executive group responsible for the present recommendations is the use of monotherapy with a β-lactam or macrolides for outpatients with no comorbidities, no recent use of antibiotics, no risk factors for resistance, and no contraindication or history of allergy to these drugs (Chart 5).

 



For such cases, it is suggested that fluoroquinolone use be avoided because of the recent warning from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding the potential risk of severe side effects.(65) Fluoroquinolones should be reserved for patients with risk factors and more severe disease or if there is no other treatment option, situations in which the benefits would outweigh the potential risks. Regarding macrolides, azithromycin is more effective in vitro against most strains of Haemophilus influenzae than is clarithromycin and should therefore be preferred in patients with COPD.(44,66)

The risk of infection with resistant pathogens and the risk of treatment failure are higher when patients have used an antibiotic within the previous three months, when patients come from regions where the local rate of resistance to macrolides is greater than 25%-which occurs, for instance, in the United States and some other countries-and when patients have concomitant diseases (COPD, liver or kidney disease, cancer, diabetes, congestive heart failure, alcoholism, or immunosuppression). For these specific cases, combination therapy with a macrolide and a β-lactam or monotherapy with a respiratory fluoroquinolone for at least 5 days is recommended for the outpatient treatment of CAP.

Treatment of ward patients

Monotherapy with a respiratory fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, or gemifloxacin) or combination therapy with a β-lactam and a macrolide has been guideline recommended for the treatment of ward patients with CAP because these regimens provide good coverage and produce good results in infections caused by S. pneumoniae, M. pneumoniae, C. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, or Legionella sp.(29,51,54) Respiratory fluoroquinolones provide wide microbiological coverage, have a convenient dosing schedule, and have the ability to switch from parenteral to oral therapy. However, excessive use of respiratory fluoroquinolones can induce subsequent emergence of multidrug-resistant organisms among treated patients, as has also been observed with β-lactams.(67) It is of note that ciprofloxacin, despite being a second-generation fluoroquinolone, is not recommended for the treatment of CAP caused by community pathogens because it lacks activity against the pneumococcus and other gram-positive organisms. Monotherapy with a macrolide is not indicated in Brazil for use in such cases because of the high prevalence of S. pneumoniae resistance to this class of antibiotics. According to data from a 2014 survey, in the 5-49-year age group, pneumococcal resistance to erythromycin was found in 16.9% of a total of 425 samples and sensitive strains were found in 83.1%. Among patients over 50 years of age, resistance was found in 13.6% of a total of 418 samples. For the total of 986 samples, including all age groups (from under 12 months to over 60 years of age), the rate of S. pneumoniae resistance to erythromycin was 17.2%.(64)

The actual need for specific coverage for atypical pathogens has been debated in the current literature. Studies investigating this issue have demonstrated that, because the incidence of Legionella sp. was low in non-severe CAP, monotherapy with a β-lactam was not inferior to combination therapy with a β-lactam and a macrolide or monotherapy with a fluoroquinolone. (68,69) The result of the investigation was that dose adjustment occurred only if Legionella sp. was found.(68,69) Studies comparing combination therapy with a β-lactam and a macrolide with monotherapy with a fluoroquinolone have shown no differences in 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, or prescription of an oral antibiotic.(67,69,70)
 



The current recommendation is to use a β-lactam plus a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone alone. A β-lactam alone can be used if Legionella sp. is positively excluded (Chart 5).


Treatment of ICU patients

In severe CAP, studies evaluating combination therapy have shown favorable results regarding various clinical outcomes. A large observational study of patients with severe CAP (N = 956) compared monotherapy with combination therapy (two antibiotics) in terms of early mortality (60 days). In multivariate analysis, 60-day mortality was not significantly different between dual therapy and monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.86-1.50; p = 0.37).(71) In contrast, combination therapy increased the likelihood of adequate initial therapy, defined as one or more antibiotics with in vitro activity against the microorganisms identified or, in the absence of such identification, treatment started at ICU admission and requiring no adjustment 48 h later. Adequate initial therapy was independently associated with better survival in the general cohort (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.42-0.94; p = 0.02).(71) An observational study(72) compared the impact on mortality of combination therapy with at least two antimicrobials with different mechanisms of action with that of monotherapy and other antimicrobial combinations in ICU patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Among 1,022 patients with community-acquired infection, 362 had CAP. The mortality rate was significantly lower in patients receiving combination therapy with different classes of antibiotics than in those receiving monotherapy or other antimicrobial combinations (34% vs. 40%; p = 0.042).(72) In a case-control study, a change in antibiotic therapy prescription and administration practices in favor of combination therapy (a macrolide plus a β-lactam) and, at the same time, early administration, was associated with a 15% reduction in mortality from pneumococcal pneumonia in ICU patients.(73) A similar result was observed in a study using a similar methodology and involving ICU patients with CAP caused by various etiologic agents, excluding pneumococci.(74)

A prospective observational study(75) including 218 intubated patients with CAP (75.7% of whom were in septic shock or had severe sepsis) found, after a severity-adjusted statistical analysis, that macrolide use was associated with lower ICU mortality (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.23-0.97; p = 0.04) when compared with fluoroquinolone use. A separate analysis of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock (n = 92) revealed similar results (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.20-0.95; p = 0.03).(75) In a systematic review with meta-analysis involving almost 10,000 patients with severe CAP, macrolide use was associated with an 18% relative reduction and a 3% absolute reduction in mortality compared with nonmacrolide therapies.(76) Dual antibiotic therapy with a β-lactam and a macrolide was superior to combination therapy with a β-lactam and a quinolone in a systematic review with meta-analysis, but randomized studies are needed to confirm these results because of the high risk of methodological bias across the studies analyzed.(77)

Therefore, combination therapy should be recommended for patients with severe CAP and an indication for ICU admission, because it reduces mortality. Antibiotics should be administered as early as possible, and antibiotic regimens should preferably include a macrolide and a β-lactam, both administered intravenously.
 



Except for clinical settings in which there is a great likelihood that specific pathogens are the causal agents (see Antibiotic therapy in CAP: recommendations for the use of monotherapy and combination therapy), the suggestions for initial antibiotic therapy in severe CAP are described in Charts 5 and 6.
 



RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PATHOGEN-SPECIFIC, TARGETED THERAPY IN PATIENTS AT RISK FOR INFECTION WITH GRAM-NEGATIVE ROD BACTERIA, STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS, AND OTHER POTENTIALLY DRUG-RESISTANT PATHOGENS IN THE COMMUNITY

The recognition of risk factors for the leading etiologic agents of CAP helps determine optimal therapy, especially in an age of dissemination of drug-resistant bacteria in the community. Currently, we can classify bacterial etiologic agents into standard pathogens-S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, S. aureus, M. pneumoniae, group A Streptococcus sp., Legionella sp., Chlamydophila sp., and Moraxella catarrhalis(78,79)-and multidrug-resistant pathogens-community-acquired methicillin-resistant S. aureus (CA-MRSA) and penicillin-resistant pneumococcus.(80,81)

Pneumonias caused by standard pathogens have age, occupational exposure, and presence of comorbidities as risk factors, as occurs in invasive pneumococcal disease of the lung, common in patients with chronic respiratory disease, diabetes, heart disease, or immunosuppression.(82) Pneumonias caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens are mainly dependent on local epidemiology. In addition, rapidly progressive necrotizing pneumonia is a typical presentation of CA-MRSA, which can be associated with skin lesions or with group sports participation in healthy individuals.(81)

Recently, a new group of multidrug-resistant bacteria has been associated with CAP in patients with previous contact with a health care service, such as home care services, dialysis services, outpatient services for chronic wound care, and nursing homes. In these patients, MRSA, extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas sp. have been common agents of pneumonia, even without recent hospitalization, simply because patients remain colonized.(83) The following are risk factors for infection with these bacteria: hospitalization within 90 days before the episode of pneumonia; antibiotic use within the previous 90 days; immunosuppression; use of gastric acid-suppressive agents; enteral feeding; hemodialysis; and previous intestinal colonization by multidrug-resistant bacteria or nasal MRSA.(84)

Unlike in first-line therapy for CAP, which is based on regional factors, such as the local incidence of standard pathogens and a patient's severity factors,(69,85) in specific targeted therapy, the risk factors for and the local prevalence of drug-resistant microorganisms are assessed with a view to guiding therapy. In Brazil, there have been few publications on the epidemiology of multidrug-resistant bacteria in the respiratory tract. Data from a regional report revealed a mean penicillin sensitivity of 93% for respiratory isolates, with an observed increase in the circulation of serotype 19A in adults, which had a penicillin sensitivity of only 50%.(64) The same report described a mean ceftriaxone sensitivity of 95%, a mean erythromycin sensitivity of 83%, a mean trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole sensitivity of 66%, and a mean chloramphenicol sensitivity of 99%.(64)

For CA-MRSA, national data are scarce, and risk factors should be taken into account, as occurs for multidrug-resistant pathogens associated with health care services. The drugs of choice for the treatment of CA-MRSA infection are those that inhibit toxin production: clindamycin, linezolid, or vancomycin, which can be used as monotherapy, as combination therapy with each other (linezolid plus clindamycin or vancomycin plus clindamycin), or as combination therapy with rifampin in cases of drug-resistant strains or difficulty in penetrating necrotic tissue.(86,87)

Penicillin-resistant pneumococcal infection is treated with cephalosporins, including ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, and cefepime.(63) Recently, a study of a new cephalosporin, ceftaroline, demonstrated the superiority of ceftriaxone over ceftriaxone for the treatment of pneumococcal pneumonia.(88) In cases of non-severe infection, in which oral monotherapy is a choice, cefuroxime and ampicillin-sulbactam have been safe options in regions with low resistance to β-lactams, as have fluoroquinolones, since pneumococci are rarely resistant.(89) In cases of CA-MRSA infection, the objective is to suppress toxin production, and the treatment of choice is clindamycin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, or linezolid. The potential for inducible clindamycin resistance in high-inoculum infections via efflux or ribosomal alterations should be taken into account.(90) An antibiotic disc diffusion assay (D-test) identified inducible clindamycin resistance in erythromycin-resistant, clindamycin-susceptible S. aureus isolates.(91) Linezolid has been shown to be superior to vancomycin in the treatment of severe MRSA infections, especially in ICU patients. Infection with extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae can be treated on an outpatient basis with ertapenem, because of its dosing schedule of a single intramuscular or intravenous daily dose, which allows it to be administered on a day-hospital basis. Infections with drug-resistant strains of Pseudomonas sp. have been treated with fluoroquinolones, piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem, or polymyxin B, as monotherapy or combination therapy (Chart 6).(92,93)

DURATION OF ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY FOR OUTPATIENTS AND INPATIENTS WITH CAP

The optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of CAP has yet to be definitively established. Short-term antibiotic therapy seems to be the most appropriate, given that it provides less patient exposure to the effects of antibiotics, reduces the occurrence of adverse effects, reduces the development of drug resistance by microorganisms, improves patient adherence, and can minimize length of hospital stay and financial costs.(94) In addition, very long-term treatments favor the development of bacterial resistance and the occurrence of potentially severe adverse effects, such as infections with Clostridium difficile.(95) However, short-term treatment should be as effective as longer-term treatments in terms of rates of mortality, complications, and disease recurrence.

Recommendations regarding the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy have changed over time, and there are discrepancies on this issue across guidelines (Table 1).
 



Treatment duration sufficient to ensure CAP treatment success (considering mortality as the primary outcome, but also considering adverse effects and treatment failure) may vary based on CAP severity as defined by currently available severity scores. Treatments lasting 5 to 7 days seem to be sufficient in most cases, especially in non-severe infections.


According to a meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of short-term (less than 7 days) regimens in adult patients with mild to moderate CAP and involving 2,796 patients in 15 selected studies, shorter-term treatments did not underperform relative to traditional regimens.(95) Another meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of short-term (equal to or less than 7 days) treatments vs. long-term (greater than or equal to 2 days' difference) treatments for CAP with the same antibiotics and the same dosing schedules.(94) Five randomized controlled trials involving adult patients of mild to moderate severity were included. No differences were found between short-term (3 to 7 days) treatments and long-term (7 to 10 days) treatments regarding clinical success (N = 1,095 patients; OR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.74-1.07), microbiological improvement, recurrence and mortality rates, or adverse effects.(94)

A document by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, published in 2014, recommends that the duration of treatment should be determined by the severity of pneumonia rather than by the etiologic agents or the antibiotic chosen.(60) Therefore, for mild CAP, monotherapy for 5 days seems to be sufficient; extending treatment should be considered if symptoms do not improve after 3 days. For moderate to severe CAP, the document recommends that treatment for 7 to 10 days should be sufficient, according to the working group's consensus opinion, given that the available evidence comes from the analysis of a subgroup of patients from only one study.(96)

Strategies and procedures aimed at shortening the duration of antibiotic therapy have been tested by comparing short- and long-term treatments in terms of efficacy. Murray et al.(97) evaluated the impact of a multidisciplinary intervention intended to reduce the duration of antibiotic therapy: stop dates of antibiotic therapy were determined on the basis of severity of disease as assessed by the CURB-65 score. On those dates, clinicians received a reminder from the clinical pharmacy department, after which the attending physicians decided, on the basis of data regarding the patient's clinical course, whether or not to continue treatment. The intervention resulted in an 18% reduction in the duration of antibiotic therapy and a 39% reduction in the rate of antibiotic-related adverse effects. There was no reduction in mortality or length of hospital stay. (97) Other authors evaluated the use of a three-step systematized pathway to transition from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy and thereby reduce length of hospital stay. Those authors demonstrated that using objective criteria for switching to oral antibiotic therapy and deciding on hospital discharge results in a reduction in length of hospital stay and duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy, without any adverse consequences.(98) In addition, biomarkers (especially C-reactive protein and procalcitonin) have been widely studied to help in the clinical monitoring of patients with CAP, as a method to help decide whether to change or discontinue treatment.
 



It is recommended that, for mild CAP treated on an outpatient basis, treatment should be 5-day monotherapy. Moderate to severe CAP should be treated with the antibiotic regimens discussed above, for periods of 7 to 10 days. Treatment can be extended up to 14 days at the discretion of the attending physicians.


RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORTICOSTEROID USE AS ADJUVANT TREATMENT IN CAP

During an infectious course, an adequate balance between activation of the immune response and control of inflammation is key to fighting the infection without adjacent tissue injury. Activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is responsible for the production of cortisol, an endogenous corticosteroid, which, during an pneumonic course, induces the expression of anti-inflammatory proteins and the inhibition of pro-inflammatory molecules.(101)

In recent years, randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses evaluating the role of corticosteroids in CAP have been published, but some gaps still have to be filled. Moderate- to high-quality evidence suggests that, when combined with antibiotics and usual therapy, corticosteroids improve the course of treated patients with CAP. The benefits include a reduction in length of hospital stay and time to clinical stability, as well as a reduction in the rate of mechanical ventilation and progression to acute ARDS.(102-106)

Most of those studies evaluated the role of corticosteroids in severe CAP requiring hospitalization. With regard to mortality, the role of corticosteroids in preventing CAP-related deaths has yet to be well defined,(103) although data regarding individuals with a severe presentation suggest benefits of this therapy in this subgroup.(102,104,107) Another important aspect to take into account is the fact that the treatment regimens used in clinical trials are not standardized. Table 2 shows the main corticosteroid treatment regimens used for the treatment of CAP.(107-113)

In 2015, two important randomized clinical trials were published. Blum et al.(108) evaluated the use of prednisone (50 mg/day for 7 days) in 785 patients. Patients in the corticosteroid-treated group had shorter time to clinical stability than did those in the control group (3.0 days vs. 4.4 days; p < 0.0001). Clinical stability was defined as a return to normal levels of temperature, HR, RR, SpO2, mental status, systolic blood pressure, and ability to tolerate oral food intake.(108) Torres et al.(109) tested the effects of the use of methylprednisolone (0.5 mg/kg every 12 h for 5 days) in individuals with severe CAP, as defined by ATS criteria or high PSI risk class, and with high inflammatory response, characterized as a serum C-reactive protein level > 150 mg/L. Patients who received methylprednisolone had a lower risk of treatment failure compared with those in the control group (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.14-0.87; p = 0.02). In addition, the study showed that the radiological course was better in the group of patients who received methylprednisolone. A distinguishing positive aspect of the study, compared with previous research, is that the sample was more homogeneous, including a phenotype of individuals with increased inflammatory expression (high C-reactive protein levels).(109)

With regard to safety outcomes, corticosteroid use resulted in good tolerance without increasing the incidence of adverse effects, except for hyperglycemia, which was more commonly reported in the group receiving corticosteroid therapy. However, the rates of other complications usually attributed to corticosteroid use, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, neuropsychiatric complications, and hospital readmission, were similar in the corticosteroid and control groups.(102-104)
 




In conclusion, corticosteroid use in severe CAP has proved to be both safe and beneficial in several important clinical outcomes. However, further studies are needed to confirm the impact of corticosteroid therapy on CAP-related mortality, although meta-analyses have suggested a reduction in this rate, especially in the subgroup of patients with a more severe presentation.


On the other hand, it should be emphasized how important it is to avoid the indiscriminate use of corticosteroid therapy, prioritizing its use in individuals who are most likely to benefit clinically from it, such as those with a higher level of systemic inflammation. In this context, C-reactive protein can be considered a useful biomarker, identifying patients who are at higher risk of CAP-related complications and who, consequently, may benefit from adjuvant corticosteroid therapy. These recommendations should not be extrapolated to patients with less severe CAP who are treated on an outpatient basis.

CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VACCINATION IN ADULTS: INFLUENZA AND PNEUMOCOCCAL VACCINES

Influenza vaccine

Influenza is a viral infection with systemic manifestations, caused by viruses of the family Orthomyxoviridae, which are classified as antigenic types A, B, or C. Influenza type A infection is associated with pandemics and with disease of greater severity; influenza type B infection is associated with regional epidemics; and influenza type C infection is associated with small isolated outbreaks, which have little clinical relevance in humans.

The flu, caused by influenza types A and B viruses, is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic diseases.(114,115) There is a strong relationship between influenza infections and secondary bacterial pneumonias following viral infections.(116) Vaccination reduces the intensity of symptoms, the need for hospitalization, and mortality.(117,118)

The influenza virus has high mutation rates, and annual (seasonal) epidemics are due to new subtypes arising from small antigenic drifts that occur during viral replication. The occurrence of these mutations in the viral structure contributes to an increase in the seasonal incidence of the disease and justifies the need for annual influenza vaccination, given that the vaccine's protection is temporary.(115) The composition of the influenza vaccine is determined by the World Health Organization on the basis of information from referral laboratories regarding the prevalence of circulating strains. The World Health Organization usually makes annual recommendations on the composition of the vaccine in the second semester so that the next year's vaccine can be developed to cover the
influenza strains most likely to be circulating that subsequent year.(119)

In Brazil, the available influenza vaccines are made up of inactivated fragmented viruses (therefore, carrying no risk of infecting patients), which are obtained from cultures derived from embryonated chicken eggs. Inactivated vaccines reduce the magnitude of the respiratory symptoms when the circulating virus strain is similar to the vaccine strains, leading to a greater than 60% decrease in the incidence of the disease. (120) There are two types of influenza vaccine that are approved by the Brazilian National Health Oversight Agency for use in the country:

 Trivalent influenza vaccine (influenza A/H1N1, influenza A/H3N2, and influenza B): available for specific indications, through the Brazilian Unified Health Care System, in primary health care clinics during vaccina-tion campaigns (and subsequently until there are no more doses available)
 Tetravalent-or quadrivalent-influenza vaccine (influenza A/H1N1, influenza A/H3N2, and two strains of in-fluenza B): available in private clinics and administered for the same indications

Although the influenza vaccine can be used from the age of 6 months onward, the vaccine has been prioritized for high-risk groups by the vaccination schedule of the Brazilian National Ministry of Health.(5,121-123)

Priority (non-exclusive) indications

 Adults aged 60 years or older
 Patients with chronic pulmonary, cardiovascular (except systemic arterial hypertension), renal, hepatic, hematologic, or metabolic disorders
 Adults who are immunosuppressed
 Individuals with neuromuscular disorders, pulmonary function impairment, and difficulty in clearing se-cretions
 Women who are, or are planning to become, pregnant and women who are breastfeeding
 Residents of nursing homes
 Potential transmitters of the virus to individuals at higher risk
 Health professionals
 Home caregivers of children (under 5 years of age) and of adults (over 50 years of age)
 Indigenous people and people deprived of their liberty

Individuals who should not be vaccinated

 People with severe allergy (anaphylaxis) to chicken eggs, to any component of the vaccine, or to a previ-ous dose of the vaccine
 Children under 6 months of age
 People with a history of Guillain-Barré syndrome, especially if the syndrome developed after influenza vaccination

Notes

 People with a history of severe allergy to chicken eggs, with signs of anaphylaxis, should receive the vac-cine in a setting in which anaphylactic reactions can be treated and should remain under observation for at least 30 minutes
 In cases of fever, vaccination should be postponed until remission occurs
 In cases of a history of Guillain-Barré syndrome occurring within 6 weeks after a previous dose of the vac-cine, careful medical evaluation of the risk-benefit ratio is recommended before administration of another dose
 Except for the aforementioned cases, no precautions are needed before vaccination
 Cold compresses can relieve reactions at the vaccine injection site, and, for more severe cases, medically prescribed pain medication can be used
 Any severe and/or unexpected symptom after vaccination should be reported to the facility where vaccina-tion was performed
 Persistent symptoms or adverse events lasting more than 72 h (depending on the symptom) should be in-vestigated for other causes

Pneumococcal vaccine

Two types of pneumococcal vaccine are currently available: a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), not conjugated to a carrier protein, containing the capsular polysaccharide antigens of 23 pneumococcal serotypes; and a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) composed of capsular polysaccharide antigens conjugated to a carrier protein. This latter formulation increases immunogenicity and, because it stimulates immune memory by T cells, provides longer-lasting protection. Two new conjugated vaccine formulations containing the capsular polysaccharide antigens of 10 (PCV10) and 13 (PCV13) pneumococcal serotypes are available in Brazil. PCV10 is approved for preventing invasive pneumococcal disease in children aged 2 years or younger, whereas PCV13 is approved for children aged 6 weeks or older and for adults. Pneumococcal serotypes are associated with disease severity, and, therefore, the clinical impact of vaccination is dependent on serotype coverage.(124)

PCV13 should be administered as a single dose to adults aged 50 years or older, including those previously vaccinated with the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. The need for revaccination with a subsequent dose of PCV13 has not been established.

Routine sequential administration of PCV13 and PPSV23 is recommended by the Brazilian Immunization Society for individuals aged 60 years or older.(125) For individuals with comorbidities, sequential administration of PCV13 and PPSV23 is recommended. A dose of PCV13 should be given first, followed by a dose of PPSV23 6-12 months later and a second dose of PPSV23 5 years after the first one. For people who have received a dose of PPSV23, a 1-year interval is recommended, that is, PCV13 should be given 1 year after PPSV23. The second dose of PPSV23 should be given 5 years after the first one and 6-12 months after PCV13. For those who have received two doses of PPSV23, it is recommended that a dose of PCV13 be given at least 1 year after the most recent dose of PPSV23. If the second dose of PPSV23 was given before age 65 years, it is recommended that a third dose be given after this age, at least 5 years after the most recent dose. According to this vaccination schedule, PCV13 can be administered to adults aged 50-59 years, at the discretion of the attending physician. Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines result in a reduction in the occurrence of invasive pneumococcal disease in the adult population and are less effective in preventing CAP in patients with reduced immunity. The pneumococcal conjugate vaccine results in a 45.6% reduction in cases of vaccine-serotype CAP, a 45% reduction in cases of bacterial pneumonia, and a 75% reduction in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease.(126) The vaccine is indicated for individuals at increased risk of CAP.(82,115,126-129)

Indications for the vaccine

 Adults aged 60 years or older
 Individuals between 2 and 59 years of age with chronic heart disease, chronic lung disease, sickle cell disease, diabetes, alcoholism, liver cirrhosis, cerebrospinal fluid fistulas, or cochlear implants
 Individuals between 2 and 59 years of age with an immunosuppressive disease or condition, such as Hodgkin disease, lymphoma, or leukemia; kidney failure; multiple myeloma; nephrotic syndrome; HIV infection or AIDS; damaged spleen or no spleen, or organ transplant
 Individuals between 2 and 59 years of age who are receiving immunosuppressive drugs, such as long-term corticosteroids or drugs used to treat cancer, or who have undergone radiotherapy
 Adults between 19 and 59 years of age who smoke or have asthma
 Residents of nursing homes or long-term care facilities


REFERENCES

1. Welte T, Torres A, Nathwani D. Clinical and economic burden of community-acquired pneumonia among adults in Europe. Thorax. 2012;67(1):71-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2009.129502
2. Rozenbaum MH, Pechlivanoglou P, van der Werf TS, Lo-Ten-Foe JR, Postma MJ, Hak E. The role of Streptococcus pneumoniae in community-acquired pneumonia among adults in Europe: a meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013;32(3):305-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-012-1778-4
3. Corrêa RA, José BPS, Malta DC, Passos VMA, França EB, Teixeira RA, et al. Burden of disease by lower respiratory tract infections in Brazil, 1990 to 2015: estimates of the Global Burden of Disease 2015 study. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2017; 20Suppl 01(Suppl 01):171-181.
4. Batista Filho M, Cruz RS. Child health around the world and in Brazil [Article in Portuguese]. Rev Bras Saude Mater Infant. 2015;15(4):451-4. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-38292015000400010
5. Corrêa Rde A, Lundgren FL, Pereira-Silva JL, Frare e Silva RL, Cardoso AP, Lemos AC, et al. Brazilian guidelines for community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent adults - 2009. J Bras Pneumol. 2009;35(6):574-601.
6. British Thoracic Society Bronchoscopy Guidelines Committee, a Subcommittee of Standards of Care Committee of British Thoracic Society. British Thoracic Society guidelines on diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy. Thorax. 2001;56 Suppl 1:i1-21. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.56.suppl_1.i1
7. Bantar C, Curcio D, Jasovich A, Bagnulo H, Arango Á, Bavestrello L, et al. Updated acute community-acquired pneumonia in adults: Guidelines for initial antimicrobial therapy based on local evidence from the South American Working Group (ConsenSur II)[Article in Spanish]. Rev Chil Infectol. 2010;27 Suppl 1:S9-S38.
8. Moberg AB, Taléus U, Garvin P, Fransson SG, Falk M. Community-acquired pneumonia in primary care: clinical assessment and the usability of chest radiography. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2016;34(1):21-7. https://doi.org/10.3109/02813432.2015.1132889
9. Lim W, Smith D, Wise M, Welham S. British Thoracic Society community acquired pneumonia guideline and the NICE pneumonia guideline: how they fit together. Thorax. 2015;70(7):698-700. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-206881
10. Liu X, Lian R, Tao Y, Gu C, Zhang G. Lung ultrasonography: an effective way to diagnose community-acquired pneumonia. Emerg Med J. 2015;32(6):433-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2013-203039
11. Llamas-Álvarez AM, Tenza-Lozano EM, Latour-Pérez J. Accuracy of Lung Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Pneumonia in Adults. Chest. 2017;151(2):374-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.039
12. Bourcier JE, Paquet J, Seinger M, Gallard E, Redonnet JP, Cheddadi F, et al. Performance comparison of lung ultrasound and chest x-ray for the diagnosis of pneumonia in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;32(2):115-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2013.10.003
13. Alzahrani SA, Al-Salamah MA, Al-Madani WH, Elbarbary MA. Systematic review and meta-analysis for the use of ultrasound versus radiology in diagnosing of pneumonia. Crit Ultrasound J. 2017;9(1):6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-017-0059-y
14. Long L, Zhao HT, Zhang ZY, Wang GY, Zhao HL. Lung ultrasound for the diagnosis of pneumonia in adults: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(3):e5713. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000005713
15. Nazerian P, Volpicelli G, Vanni S, Gigli C, Betti L, Bartolucci M, et al. Accuracy of lung ultrasound for the diagnosis of consolidations when compared to chest computed tomography. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;33(5):620-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2015.01.035
16. Ticinesi A, Lauretani F, Nouvenne A, Mori G, Chiussi G, Maggio M, et al. Lung ultrasound and chest x-ray for detecting pneumonia in an acute geriatric ward. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(27):e4153. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004153
17. Romano L, Pinto A, Merola S, Gagliardi N, Tortora G, Scaglione M. Intensive-care unit lung infections: The role of imaging with special emphasis on multi-detector row computed tomography. Eur J Radiol. 2008;65(3):333-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.09.018
18. , Banker PD, Jain VR, , , Haramati LB. Impact of chest CT on the clinical management of immunocompetent emergency department patients with chest radiographic findings of pneumonia. Emerg Radiol. 2007;14(6):383-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-007-0659-0
19. Claessens YE, Debray MP, Tubach F, Brun AL, Rammaert B, Hausfater P, et al. Early Chest Computed Tomography Scan to Assist Diagnosis and , , , , , , , , , Guide Treatment Decision for Suspected Community-acquired Pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192(8):974-82. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201501-0017OC
20. Upchurch CP, Grijalva CG, Wunderink RG, Williams DJ, Waterer GW, Anderson EJ, et al. Community-Acquired Pneumonia Visualized on CT Scans but Not Chest Radiographs: Pathogens, Severity, and Clinical Outcomes. Chest. 2018;153(3):601-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2017.07.035
21. Niederman MS. Imaging for the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: What to Do if the Chest Radiograph Is Clear. Chest. 2018;153(3):583-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2017.09.045
22. Prina E, Ranzani OT, Torres A. Community-acquired pneumonia. Lancet. 2017;386(9998):1097-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60733-4
23. Tanaka N, Emoto T, Suda H, Matsumoto T, Matsunaga N. Community-acquired pneumonia: a correlative study between chest radiographic and HRCT findings. Jpn J Radiol. 2015;33(6):317-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-015-0420-7
24. Cao B, Huang Y, She DY, Cheng QJ, Fan H, Tian XL, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: 2016 clinical practice guidelines by the Chinese Thoracic Society, Chinese Medical Association. Clin Respir J. 2018;12(4):1320-1360. https://doi.org/10.1111/crj.12674
25. Postma DF, van Werkhoven CH, Oosterheert JJ. Community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalization: rational decision making and interpretation of guidelines. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2017;23(3):204-210. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCP.0000000000000371
26. Singhal N, Kumar M, Kanaujia PK, Virdi JS. M, , , , , , ALDI-, TOF mass spectrometry: an emerging technology for microbial identification and diagnosis. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:791. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00791
27. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Biblioteca Virtual da Saúde [homepage on the Internet]. Brasília: o Ministério; c2018 [cited 2018 Jan 29] Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária; Gerência Geral de Serviços de Saúde; Gerência de Controle de Riscos à Saúde. Manual de Procedimentos Básicos em Microbiologia Clínica para o Controle de Infecção Hospitalar. Módulo I [Adobe Acrobat document, 51p.]. Available from: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/manual_procedimentos_microbiologiaclinica_controle_infechospitalar.pdf
28. Fukuyama H, Yamashiro S, Kinjo K, Tamaki H, Kishaba T. Validation of sputum Gram stain for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia and healthcare-associated pneumonia: a prospective observational study. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:534. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-14-534
29. Arnold FW, Summersgill JT, Ramirez JA. Role of Atypical Pathogens in the Etiology of Community-Acquired Pneumonia. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;37(6):819-828. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1592121
30. Gaydos CA. What is the role of newer molecular tests in the management of CAP? Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2013;27(1):49-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idc.2012.11.012
31. Ruuskanen O, Lahti E, Jennings LC, Murdoch DR. Viral pneumonia. Lancet. 2011;377(9773):1264-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61459-6
32. Musher DM, Roig IL, Cazares G, Stager CE, Logan N, Safar H. Can an etiologic agent be identified in adults who are hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia: results of a one-year study. J Infect. 2017;67(1):11-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2013.03.003
33. Jartti T, Jartti L, Peltola V, Waris M, Ruuskanen O. Identification of respiratory viruses in asymptomatic subjects: asymptomatic respiratory viral infections. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2008;27(12):1103-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0b013e31817e695d
34. Johansson N, Kalin M, Hedlund J. Clinical impact of combined viral and bacterial infection in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Scand J Infect Dis. 2011;43(8):609-15. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365548.2011.570785
35. Cawcutt K, Kalil AC. Pneumonia with bacterial and viral coinfection. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2017;23(5):385-390. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0000000000000435
36. Marrie TJ, File Jr. TM. Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and microbiology of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. In: UpToDate. Bond S, editor. Waltam MA; 2017 [cited 2017 Dec 1]. Available from: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/epidemiology-pathogenesis-and-microbiology-of-community-acquired-pneumonia-in-adults
37. Musher DM, Thorner AR. Community-Acquired Pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(17):1619-28. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1312885
38. Restrepo MI, Mortensen EM, Rello J, Brody J, Anzueto A. Late admission to the ICU in patients with community-acquired pneumonia is associated with higher mortality. Chest. 2010;137(3):552-7. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.09-1547
39. Marti C, Garin N, Grosgurin O, Poncet A, Combescure C, Carballo S, et al. Prediction of severe community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2012;16(4):R141. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc11447
40. Loke YK, Kwok CS, Niruban A, Myint PK. Value of severity scales in predicting mortality from community-acquired pneumonia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax. 2010;65(10):88490. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2009.134072
41. Fine MJ, Auble TE, Yealy DM, Hanusa BH, Weissfeld LA, Singer DE, et al. A prediction rule to identify low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(4):243-50. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199701233360402
42. Lim WS, Lewis S, Macfarlane JT. Severity prediction rules in community acquired pneumonia: a validation study. Thorax. 2000;55(3):219-23. https://doi.org/10.1136/thorax.55.3.219
43. Capelastegui A, España PP, Quintana JM, Areitio I, Gorordo I, Egurrola M, et al. Validation of a predictive rule for the management of community-acquired pneumonia. Eur Respir J. 2006;27(1):151-7. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.06.00062505
44. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A, Bartlett JG, Campbell GD, Dean NC, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44 Suppl 2:S27-72. https://doi.org/10.1086/511159
45. Charles PG, Wolfe R, Whitby M, Fine MJ, Fuller AJ, Stirling R, et al. SMART-COP: a tool for predicting the need for intensive respiratory or vasopressor support in community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47(3):375-84. https://doi.org/10.1086/589754
46. España PP, Capelastegui A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Diez R, Pascual S, et al. Validation and comparison of SCAP as a predictive score for identifying low-risk patients in community-acquired pneumonia. J Infect. 2010;60(2):106-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2009.11.013
47. Majumdar SR, Eurich DT, Gamble JM, Senthilselvan A, Marrie TJ. Oxygen saturations less than 92% are associated with major adverse events in outpatients with pneumonia: a population-based cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(3):325-31. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciq076
48. Hodkinson HM. Evaluation of a mental test score for assessment of mental impairment in the elderly. Age Ageing. 1972;1(4):233-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/1.4.233
49. Salih W, Schembri S, Chalmers JD. Simplification of the IDSA/ATS criteria for severe CAP using meta-analysis and observational data. Eur Respir J. 2014;43(3):842-51. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00089513
50. Christ-Crain M, Müller B. Biomarkers in respiratory tract infections: diagnostic guides to antibiotic prescription, prognostic markers and mediators. Eur Respir J. 2007;30(3):556-73. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00166106
51. Upadhyay S, Niederman MS. Biomarkers: what is their benefit in the identification of infection, severity assessment, and management of community-acquired pneumonia? Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2013;27(1):19-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idc.2012.11.003
52. Müller B, Harbarth S, Stolz D, Bingisser R, Mueller C, Leuppi J, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of clinical and laboratory parameters in community-acquired pneumonia. BMC Infect Dis. 2007;7:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-7-10
53. Kim MW, Lim JY, Oh SH. Mortality prediction using serum biomarkers and various clinical risk scales in community-acquired pneumonia. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2017;77(7):486-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2017.1344298
54. Andersen SB, Baunbæk Egelund G, Jensen AV, Petersen PT, Rohde G, Ravn P. Failure of CRP decline within three days of hospitalization is associated with poor prognosis of Community-acquired Pneumonia. Infect Dis (Lond). 2017;49(4):251-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744235.2016.1253860
55. Coelho LM, Salluh JIF, Soares M, Bozza FA, Verdeal JR, Castro-Faria-Neto HC, et al. Patterns of c-reactive protein RATIO response in severe community-acquired pneumonia: a cohort study. Crit Care. 2012;16(2):R53. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc11291
56. Schuetz P, Wirz Y, Sager R, Christ-Crain M, Stolz D, Tamm M, et al. Procalcitonin to initiate or discontinue antibiotics in acute respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;10:CD007498.
57. Julián-Jiménez A, González del Castillo J, Candel FJ. Usefulness and prognostic value of biomarkers in patients with community-acquired pneumonia in the emergency department. Med Clin (Barc). 2017;148(11):501-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2017.02.024
58. Mortensen EM, Halm EA, Pugh MJ, Copeland LA, Metersky M, Fine MJ, et al. Association of azithromycin with mortality and cardiovascular events among older patients hospitalized with pneumonia. JAMA. 2014;311(21):2199-208. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.4304
59. Lim WS, Baudouin SV, George RC, Hill AT, Jamieson C, Le Jeune I, et al. BTS guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults: update 2009. Thorax. 2009;64 Suppl 3:iii1-55. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2009.121434
60. Eccles S, Pincus C, Higgins B, Woodhead M; Guideline Development Group. Diagnosis and management of community and hospital acquired pneumonia in adults: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2014;349:g6722. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g6722
61. Woodhead M, Blasi F, Ewig S, Garau J, Huchon G, Ieven M, et al. Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections--full version. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011;17 Suppl 6:E1-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03672.x
62. Grupo de trabajo de la Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax (ALAT). Update to the Latin American Thoracic Society (ALAT) recommendations on community acquired pneumonia [Article in Spanish]. Arch Bronconeumol. 2004;40(8):364-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1579-2129(06)60322-4
63. McKinnell J, Classi P, Blumberg P, Murty S, Tillotson G. Clinical Predictors of Antibiotic Failure in Adult Outpatients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia. In: A95 Acute Pneumonia: Clinical studies. American Thoracic Society 2017 International Conference, 2017 May 19-24; Washington DC: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195:A2644. (Abstract Issue).
64. Organización Panamericana de la Salud [homepage on the Internet]. Washington DC: the organization [cited 2017 Oct 8]. Informe Regional de SIREVA II, 2014. Datos por país y por grupos de edad sobre las características de los aislamientos de Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae y Neisseria meningitidis, en procesos invasores. [Adobe Acrobat document, 358p.]. Available from: http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=22372&Itemid=270&lang=es
65. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; U.S, Food and Drug Administration. Silver Spring, MD: FDA [cited 2018 Jan 29]. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA advises restricting fluoroquinolone antibiotic use for certain uncomplicated infections; warns about disabling side effects that can occur together. [about 4 screens]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm500143.htm
66. Blasi F, Cazzola M, Tarsia P, Cosentini R, Aliberti S, Santus P, et al. Azithromycin and lower respiratory tract infections. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2005;6(13):2335-51. https://doi.org/10.1517/14656566.6.13.2335
67. Goldstein RC, Husk G, Jodlowski T, Mildvan D, Perlman DC, Ruhe JJ. Fluoroquinolone- and ceftriaxone-based therapy of community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients: the risk of subsequent isolation of multidrug-resistant organisms. Am J Infect Control. 2017;42(5):539-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2014.01.005
68. Simonetti AF, Garcia-Vidal C, Viasus D, García-Somoza D, Dorca J, Gudiol F, et al. Declining mortality among hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017;22(6):567.e1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2016.03.015
69. Postma DF, van Werkhoven CH, van Elden LJ, Thijsen SF, Hoepelman AI, Kluytmans JA, et al. Antibiotic treatment strategies for community-acquired pneumonia in adults. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1312-23. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1406330
70. Lee JS, Giesler DL, Gellad WF, Fine MJ. Antibiotic Therapy for Adults Hospitalized with Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review. JAMA. 2016;315(6):593-602. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0115
71. Adrie C, Schwebel C, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Vignoud L, Planquette B, Azoulay E, et al. Initial use of one or two antibiotics for critically ill patients with community-acquired pneumonia: impact on survival and bacterial resistance. Crit Care. 2013;17(6):R265. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc13095
72. Díaz-Martín A, Martínez-González ML, Ferrer R, Ortiz-Leyba C, Piacentini E, Lopez-Pueyo MJ, et al. Antibiotic prescription patterns in the empiric therapy of severe sepsis: combination of antimicrobials with different mechanisms of action reduces mortality. Crit Care. 2012;16(6):R223. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc11869
73. Gattarello S, Borgatta B, Solé-Violán J, Vallés J, Vidaur L, Zaragoza R, et al. Decrease in mortality in severe community-acquired pneumococcal pneumonia: impact of improving antibiotic strategies (2000-2013). Chest. 2014;146(1):22-31. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.13-1531
74. Gattarello S, Lagunes L, Vidaur L, Solé-Violán J, Zaragoza R, Vallés J, et al. Improvement of antibiotic therapy and ICU survival in severe non-pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia: a matched case-control study. Crit Care. 2015;19:335. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-1051-1
75. Martin-Loeches I, Lisboa T, Rodriguez A, Putensen C, Annane D, Garnacho-Montero J, et al. Combination antibiotic therapy with macrolides improves survival in intubated patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(4):612-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-009-1730-y
76. Sligl WI, Asadi L, Eurich DT, Tjosvold L, Marrie TJ, Majumdar SR. Macrolides and mortality in critically ill patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(2):420-32. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a66b9b
77. Lee JH, Kim HJ, Kim YH. Is β-Lactam Plus Macrolide More Effective than β-Lactam Plus Fluoroquinolone among Patients with Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia?: a Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Korean Med Sci. 2017;32(1):77-84. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.1.77
78. Wunderink RG, Waterer G. Advances in the causes and management of community acquired pneumonia in adults. BMJ. 2017;358:j2471. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j2471
79. Dickson RP, Erb-Downward JR, Huffnagle GB. Towards an ecology of the lung: new conceptual models of pulmonary microbiology and pneumonia pathogenesis. Lancet Respir Med. 2017;2(3):238-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70028-1
80. Griffin MR, Zhu Y, Moore MR, Whitney CG, Grijalva CG. U.S. hospitalizations for pneumonia after a decade of pneumococcal vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(2):155-63. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1209165
81. Self WH, Wunderink RG, Williams DJ, Zhu Y, Anderson EJ, Balk RA, et al. Staphylococcus aureus Community-acquired Pneumonia: Prevalence, Clinical Characteristics, and Outcomes. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(3):300-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw300
82. Torres A, Blasi F, Dartois N, Akova M. Which individuals are at increased risk of pneumococcal disease and why? Impact of COPD, asthma, smoking, diabetes, and/or chronic heart disease on community-acquired pneumonia and invasive pneumococcal disease. Thorax. 2015;70(10):984-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-206780
83. Webb BJ, Dascomb K, Stenehjem E, Dean N. Predicting risk of drug-resistant organisms in pneumonia: moving beyond the HCAP model. Respir Med. 2015;109(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2014.10.017
84. Shindo Y, Ito R, Kobayashi D, Ando M, Ichikawa M, Shiraki A, et al. Risk Factors for drug-resistant pathogens in community-acquired and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(8):985-95. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201301-0079OC
85. Garin N, Genné D, Carballo S, Chuard C, Eich G, Hugli O, et al. β-Lactam monotherapy vs β-lactam-macrolide combination treatment in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized noninferiority trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(12):1894-901. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4887
86. Lambert M. IDSA Guidelines on the Treatment of MRSA Infections in Adults and Children. Am Fam Physician. 2011;84(4):455-463.
87. Khan A, Wilson B, Gould IM. Current and future treatment options for community-associated MRSA infection. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2018;19(5):457-470. https://doi.org/10.1080/14656566.2018.1442826
88. Taboada M, Melnick D, Iaconis JP, Sun F, Zhong NS, File TM, et al. Ceftaroline fosamil versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(4):862-70. Erratum in: J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 Jun;71(6):1748-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkv415
89. Lee YR, Houngue C, Hall RG. Treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2015;13(9):1109-21. https://doi.org/10.1586/14787210.2015.1060125
90. Peppard W, Daniels A, Fehrenbacher L, Winner J. Evidence based approach to the treatment of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Drug Resist. 2009;2:27-40. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S3794
91. Siberry GK, Tekle T, Carroll K, Dick J. Failure of clindamycin treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus expressing inducible clindamycin resistance in vitro. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37(9):1257-60. https://doi.org/10.1086/377501
92. Gross AE, Van Schooneveld TC, Olsen KM, Rupp ME, Bui TH, Forsung E, et al. Epidemiology and predictors of multidrug-resistant community-acquired and health care-associated pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(9):5262-8. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02582-14
93. Tomczyk S, Jain S, Bramley AM, Self WH, Anderson EJ, Trabue C, et al. Antibiotic Prescribing for Adults Hospitalized in the Etiology of Pneumonia in the Community Study. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017;4(2):ofx088. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx088
94. Dimopoulos G, Matthaiou DK, Karageorgopoulos DE, Grammatikos AP, Athanassa Z, Falagas ME. Short- versus long-course antibacterial therapy for community-acquired pneumonia: a meta-analysis. Drugs. 2008;68(13):1841-54. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200868130-00004
95. Li JZ, Winston LG, Moore DH, Bent S. Efficacy of short-course antibiotic regimens for community-acquired pneumonia: a meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2017;120(9):783-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.04.023
96. Dunbar LM, Wunderink RG, Habib MP, Smith LG, Tennenberg AM, Khashab MM, et al. High-dose, short-course levofloxacin for community-acquired pneumonia: a new treatment paradigm. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37(6):752-60. https://doi.org/10.1086/377539
97. Murray C, Shaw A, Lloyd M, Smith RP, Fardon TC, Schembri S, et al. A multidisciplinary intervention to reduce antibiotic duration in lower respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(2):515-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkt362
98. Carratalà J, Garcia-Vidal C, Ortega L, Fernández-Sabé N, Clemente M, Albero G, et al. Effect of a 3-step critical pathway to reduce duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy and length of stay in community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(12):922-8. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1690
99. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A, Bartlett JG, Campbell GD, Dean NC, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44 Suppl 2:S27-72. https://doi.org/10.1086/511159
100. Torres A, Ewig S, Lode H, Carlet J; European HAP working group. Defining, treating and preventing hospital acquired pneumonia: European perspective. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(1):9-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-008-1336-9
101. Rhen T, Cidlowski JA. Antiinflammatory action of glucocorticoids--new mechanisms for old drugs. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(16):1711-23. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra050541
102. Siemieniuk RA, Meade MO, Alonso-Coello P, Briel M, Evaniew N, Prasad M, et al. Corticosteroid Therapy for Patients Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(7):519-28. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-0715
103. Wan YD, Sun TW, Liu ZQ, Zhang SG, Wang LX, Kan QC. Efficacy and Safety of Corticosteroids for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Chest. 2017;149(1):209-19. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.15-1733
104. Wu WF, Fang Q, He GJ. Efficacy of corticosteroid treatment for severe community-acquired pneumonia: A meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36(2):179-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2017.07.050
105. Sui D, Zhang W, Zhao H, Wang ZY. Clinical efficacy of glucocorticoids in the treatment of severe community acquired pneumonia and its impact on CRP. J Clin Pulm Med. 2013;18:1171-3.
106. Bi J, Yang J, Wang Y, Yao C, Mei J, Liu Y, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Adjunctive Corticosteroids Therapy for Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0165942. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165942
107. Fernández-Serrano S, Dorca J, Garcia-Vidal C, Fernández-Sabé N, Carratalà J, Fernández-Agüera A, et al. Effect of corticosteroids on the clinical course of community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2011;15(2):R96. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc10103
108. Blum CA, Nigro N, Briel M, Schuetz P, Ullmer E, Suter-Widmer I, et al. Adjunct prednisone therapy for patients with community- acquired pneumonia : a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9977):1511-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62447-8
109. Torres A, Sibila O, Ferrer M, Polverino E, Menendez R, Mensa J, et al. Effect of corticosteroids on treatment failure among hospitalized patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia and high inflammatory response: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313(7):677-86. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.88
110. Snijders D, Daniels JM, de Graaff CS, van der Werf TS, Boersman WG. Efficacy of corticosteroids in community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized double-blinded clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;181(9):975-82. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200905-0808OC
111. Confalonieri M, Urbino R, Potena A, Piattella M, Parigi P, Puccio G, et al. Hydrocortisone infusion for severe community-acquired pneumonia: a preliminary randomized study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;171(3):242-8. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200406-808OC
112. Sabry NA, Omar EE. Corticosteroids and ICU course of community acquired pneumonia in Egyptian settings. Pharmacol Pharm. 2011;2(2):73-81. https://doi.org/10.4236/pp.2011.22009
113. Li G, Gu C, Zhang S, Lian R, Zhang C. Value of glucocorticoid steroids in the treatment of patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia complicated with septic shock. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2016;28(9):780-784.
114. Moreno D, Barroso J, Garcia A. Vaccines for Patients with COPD. Recent Pat Inflamm Allergy Drug Discov. 2015;9(1):23-30. https://doi.org/10.2174/1872213X09666150223114958
115. Lundgren F, Maranhão B, Martins R, Chatkin JM, Rabahi MF, Corrêa RA, et al. Vaccination in the prevention of infectious respiratory diseases in adults. Rev Assoc Med Bras(1992). 2014;60(1):4-15. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.60.02.004
116. Shrestha S, Foxman B, Dawid S, Aiello AE, Davis BM, Berus J, et al. Time and dose-dependent risk of pneumococcal pneumonia following influenza: a model for within-host interaction between influenza and Streptococcus pneumoniae. J R Soc Interface. 2013;10(86):20130233. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0233
117. Jackson ML, Nelson JC, Weiss NS, Neuzil KM, Barlow W, Jackson LA. Influenza vaccination and risk of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent elderly people: a population-based, nested case-control study. Lancet. 2017;372(9636):398-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61160-5
118. Zhang YY, Tang XF, Du CH, Wang BB, Bi ZW, Dong BR. Comparison of dual influenza and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccination with influenza vaccination alone for preventing pneumonia and reducing mortality among the elderly: A meta-analysis. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2016;12(12):3056-3064. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2016.1221552
119. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA) [homepage on the Internet]. Brasília: ANVISA [cited 2018 Jan 27]. Resolução de Diretoria Colegiada - RDC n° 119, 2016 Oct 27 Dispõe sobre a composição das vacinas influenza a serem utilizadas no Brasil no ano de 2017. [about 1 screen]. Available from: http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/documents/10181/3072077/RDC_119_2016_.pdf/9cd4cac1-9fbe-4a05-b0c4-f150af0697ff
120. Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(3):CD001269.
121. Almirall J, Serra-Prat M, Bolibar I. Risk factors for community-acquired pneumonia in adults: Recommendations for its prevention. Community Acquired Infect. 2015;2(2):32-37. https://doi.org/10.4103/2225-6482.159217
122. Torres A, Peetermans WE, Viegi G, Blasi F. Risk factors for community-acquired pneumonia in adults in Europe: a literature review. Thorax. 2013;68(11):1057-65. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-204282
123. Black C, Yue X, Ball SW, Donahue SM, Izrael D, de Perio MA, et al. Influenza Vaccination Coverage Among Health Care Personnel - United States, 2015-16 Influenza Season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(38):1026-31. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6538a2
124. Aliberti S, Mantero M, Mirsaeidi M, Blasi F. The role of vaccination in preventing pneumococcal disease in adults. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017;20 Suppl 5:52-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12518
125. Sociedade Brasileira de Imunizações (SBIm) [homepage on the Internet]. São Paulo: SBIm; c2017 [cited 2018 Jan 27]. Calendário de Vacinação SBIm Adulto 2018/2019. [Adobe Acrobat document, 1p.]. Available from: https://sbim.org.br/images/calendarios/calend-sbim-adulto.pdf
126. Tin Tin Htar M, Stuurman AL, Ferreira G, Alicino C, Bollaerts K, Paganino C, et al. Effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccines in preventing pneumonia in adults, a systematic review and meta-analyses of observational studies. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0177985. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177985
127. de Soárez PC, Sartori AM, Freitas AC, Nishikawa ÁM, Novaes HM. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Universal Vaccination of Adults Aged 60 Years with 23-Valent Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine versus Current Practice in Brazil. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0130217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130217
128. Waight PA, Andrews NJ, Ladhani SN, Sheppard CL, Slack MP, Miller E. Effect of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on invasive pneumococcal disease in England and Wales 4 years after its introduction: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15(5):535-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(15)70044-7
129. BLAMEY R. PNEUMOCOCCAL VACCINES IN ADULTS: AN UPDATE [ARTICLE IN SPANISH]. REV CHILENA INFECTOL. 2014;31(5):607-9. HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.4067/S0716-10182014000500014