Original Article

Prospective profile of bacterial pathogens in hospitalized adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia: insights from multiplex real-time PCR and traditional culture techniques

Van Khanh Ly1,*https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3352-0758, Van Hung Pham2https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1672-3292, Xuan Van Ly1https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8113-1081
Author Information & Copyright
1University of Medicine and Pharmact at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
2Nam Khoa Biotek Co. Ltd, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
*Corresponding author: Van Khanh Ly. University of Medicine and Pharmact at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. E-mail: lkvan@ump.edu.vn

© Copyright 2024 MedPharmRes. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Aug 18, 2023; Revised: Dec 15, 2023; Accepted: Dec 18, 2023

Published Online: Jun 30, 2024

Abstract

Introduction:

Hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is mainly caused by bacteria and plays its role as primary bacteria alone or combined. The study aimed to determine the proportion of bacterial pathogens causing CAP in hospitalized adult patients and to examine the combination of these bacteria.

Methods:

This study was a cross-sectional descriptive design in prospect conducted on 341 adult patients with CAP hospitalized at the Respiratory Department of Nguyen Tri Phuong Hospital, Nhan Dan Gia Dinh Hospital, and University Medical Center from April 2021 to March 2023. Sputum samples were collected, assessed for reliability (according to the Barlett scale), and transported to Nam Khoa Company’s laboratory to perform traditional culture techniques and multiplex real-time PCR (MPL-rPCR).

Results:

Male sex and age over 60 were 62.5% and 73.0%, respectively. Bacterial pathogens were detected by MPL-rPCR and traditional culture techniques at rates of 67.7% and 46.0%, respectively (p<0.001). More than one strain of bacteria was commonly found in each sputum. Klebsiella pneumoniae was detected by multiplex real-time PCR and traditional culture techniques at a high rate (18.5% & 13.5%), Acinetobacter baumannii (17.3% & 12.9%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (16.4% & 0.6%), H. influenzae (14.1% & 0.6%) and P. aeruginosa (4.4% & 3.8%). Atypical bacteria were only Mycoplasma, with 6.2%, and occurred as a combined bacteria. The rate of bacterial combination was 77.1%, and two or more combined bacteria was 58.4%.

Conclusions:

Bacterial pathogens are detected at 67.7% by MPL-rPCR and 46.0% by traditional culture techniques (p<0.001). Bacterial pathogens are multiform and increase in Gram-negative bacilli.

Keywords: community-acquired infections; polymerase chain reaction; cross-sectional studies; bacteria

1. INTRODUCTION

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common infectious disease that can affect anyone at any age. Prior authors have shown that bacterial pathogens causing CAP can play their role as primary or as combined bacteria at different prevalence rates due to bacterial strains [1]–[4]. Therefore, traditional cultural techniques are limited for many reasons [5]. As most patients often have the habit of using antibiotics before hospitalization, the bacteria could still exist in alveolar or bronchial epithelial fluid but could have already deceased in the sputum. Besides, several subjective causes from the laboratory could reduce the ability to culture pathogens successfully, including a lack of an appropriate environment to isolate the primary pathogens while they are often difficult to culture, the culture period lasts about 2 or 3 days, or technicians are inadequately trained to choose the proper pathogenic colonies on agar to isolate the primary pathogenic bacteria.

We used the multiplex real-time PCR technique with high sensitivity and specificity to overcome such difficulties and correctly detect bacterial pathogens. The method can simultaneously clone and find specific nucleic acid sequences of bacteria and determine the number of copies to permit the realization of the primary pathogenic bacteria and combined bacteria [5]. Studying the characteristics of the pathogen in CAP is necessary, helping clinicians choose empiric treatment when the causative agents still need to be identified. In particular, this multicenter study that used the multiplex real–time PCR technique, so the results have high practical application value.

The study aimed to determine the proportion of bacterial pathogens causing CAP in hospitalized adult patients and to examine the combination of bacteria in hospitalized patients with CAP.

2. METERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Study design

This study was a cross-sectional descriptive design in prospect conducted on adult patients with CAP hospitalized at the Respiratory Department of Nguyen Tri Phuong Hospital, Nhan Dan Gia Dinh Hospital, and University Medical Center from April 2021 to March 2023.

Sample selection criteria: sputum of hospitalized CAP patients according to the standards of the Ministry of Health in Decision No. 4815/QD-BYT was transported to Nam Khoa Company’s Laboratory. After that, the authors and technicians implemented techniques to identify the pathogens in those sputum samples.

Exclusion criteria: sputum of hospitalized CAP patients with lung cancer, advanced tuberculosis, HIV infection or on immunosuppressive therapy or sputum samples taken next time on the same patient during the same course of treatment.

Deviation control: Strictly implement the criteria for diagnosis and classification of underlying diseases; choose a standard sample on the Barlett scale; take the exclusion standard seriously; and perform the standard procedure at the Laboratory of Nam Khoa Biotek Company.

During the effectuation process, we only conducted patients’ sputum sample tests in the laboratory to discover bacterial pathogens causing CAP due to the demand of clinical doctors. The researcher had no contact with patients or interfered with clinical doctors’ treatments. This research was also approved by the Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy HCMC at Decision No 330/DHYD-HDDD, issue: June 14th, 2019. This manuscript was prepared and written following the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [6]. The STROBE checklist of the manuscript is described in the supplementary document.

2.2. Collection of sputum samples

We only perform tests on collected sputum samples that have been evaluated for reliability based on the Barlett scale.

The sputum samples were transported to Nam Khoa Company’s laboratory (ISO 15189, ISO 17025, ISO 13485) to carry out by traditional culture technique as well as by multiplex real-time PCR with King Fisher FLEX machine and PCR CFX 96TM real-time system (testing NKDNARNAprep-MAGBEAD based on the principle of using beads from coated silica (manufactured and validated by Nam Khoa company)). Bacteria detected by the MPL-rPCR technique with a quantity≥100,000 copies were identified as the causative agent of CAP. Since there was no standard for atypical bacteria, we decided on pathogenic agents (regardless of quantity) when detecting them. Bacteria with the highest number of copies were believed to be primary pathogens, and others were combined agents [5],[7]. With the traditional culture technique, all isolated bacteria and fungi were recorded.

Study size :

n = Z ( 1 α / 2 ) 2 p ( 1 p ) d 2

In which :

Z = 1,96 (standard distribution table)

p = 0,69 (based on REAL study 2016–2017) [8]

d: is the error, with the expectation of a reliability of 95%, choose an error of 5% = 0.05

So,

n = ( 1.96 ) 2 × 0.69 × 0.31 ( 0.05 ) 2 = 328.68

Hospitalized CAP patients are indicated for sputum collection: Nguyen Tri Phương hospital: 101 sputum samples, Nhan Dan Gia Định hospital: 172 sputum samples and University Medical Center: 68 sputum samples. A total of 341 sputum samples (equal 341 patients) were analyzed.

2.3. Statistical analysis

Rejection of patients’ sputum samples that violate the selection criteria.

Data collection was solved using Microsoft Excel 2020 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) to describe patient characteristics and proportions of detected bacteria and SPSS 20.0 software (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) to analyze patient characteristics and compare ratios.

3. RESULTS

Our study was executed on 341 sputum samples from 341 patients that met all the criteria. The results of bacterial detection by using MPL-rPCR and traditional culture techniques are shown in the following tables: Tables 14.

Table 1. Characteristics of CAP patients
Characteristics n (%) p-value
Gender
 Female 128 (37.5) p<0.001
 Male 213 (62.5)
Age
 16–60 years 92 (27.0) p<0.001
 >60 years 249 (73.0)
CAP
 With COPD 91 (26.7) p<0.001
 Without COPD 250 (73.3)
Patients with positive rate
 By PCR technique 231 (67.7) p<0.001
 By culture technique 157 (46.0)

p-values were obtained by Chi-square test

CAP, community-acquired pneumonia; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Download Excel Table
Table 2. Bacterial pathogens detected in sputum samples (n=341)
Multiplex real-time PCR n (%) Traditional culture n (%)
Gram-positive Streptococcus pneumoniae 56 (16.4) Streptococcus pneumoniae 2 (0.6)
Streptococcus agalactiae 2 (0.6) Streptococcus agalactiae 0 (0.0)
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) 7 (2.1) Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) 1 (0.3)
Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) 1 (0.3) Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) 11 (3.2)
Coagulase negative Staphylococcus 5 (1.5) Coagulase negative Staphylococcus 5 (1.5)
Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) 21 (6.2) Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) 1 (0.3)
Enterococcus faecalis 7 (2.1) Enterococcus faecalis 0 (0.0)
Enterococcus faecium 9 (2.6) Enterococcus faecium 4 (1.2)
Gram-negative Enterobacteriaceae Escherichia coli 33 (9.7) Escherichia coli 16 (4.7)
Klebsiella pneumoniae 63 (18.5) Klebsiella pneumoniae 47 (13.5)
Enterobacter cloaceae 1 (0.3) Enterobacter cloaceae 0 (0.0)
Morganella morganii 12 (3.5) Morganella morganii 0 (0.0)
Providencia sp. 11 (3.2) Providencia sp. 0 (0.0)
Citrobacter freundii 0 (0.0) Citrobacter freundii 1 (0.3)
Proteus mirabilis 5 (1.5) Proteus mirabilis 3 (0.9)
Others Acinetobacter baumannii 59 (17.3) Acinetobacter baumannii 44 (12.9)
Burkholderia cepacia 9 (2.6) Burkholderia cepacia 2 (0.6)
Burkholderia pseudomallei 0 (0.0) Burkholderia pseudomallei 1 (0.3)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 15 (4.4) Pseudomonas aeruginosa 13 (3.8)
Moraxella catarrhalis 4 (1.2) Moraxella catarrhalis 1 (0.3)
Haemophilus influenzae 48 (14.1) Haemophilus influenzae 2 (0.6)
Haemophilus influenzae type B 1 (0.3) Haemophilus influenzae type B 0 (0.0)
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia 29 (8.5) Stenotrophomonas maltophilia 3 (0.9)
Atypical bacteria Mycoplasma sp. 21 (6.2) Mycoplasma sp. 0 (0.0)

MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus; MRSE, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis.

Download Excel Table
Table 3. The proportion of primary pathogens and combined bacteria detected by multiplex real-time PCR
Pathogens Primary Combined Total
N % N % n %
Streptococcus pneumoniae 12 3.5 44 12.9 56 16.4
Streptococcus agalactiae 0 0 2 0.6 2 0.6
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) 1 0.3 6 1.8 7 2.1
Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) 1 0.3 0 0 1 0.3
Coagulase negative Staphylococcus 2 0.6 3 0.9 5 1.5
Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) 1 0.3 20 5.9 21 6.2
Enterococcus faecalis 2 0.6 5 1.5 7 2.1
Enterococcus faecium 2 0.6 7 2.1 9 2.6
Escherichia coli 7 2.1 26 7.6 33 9.7
Klebsiella pneumoniae 15 4.4 48 14.1 63 18.5
Enterobacter cloaceae 0 0 1 0.3 1 0.3
Morganella morganii 0 0 12 3.5 12 3.5
Providencia sp. 0 0 11 3.2 11 3.2
Proteus mirabilis 0 0 5 1.5 5 1.5
Acinetobacter baumannii 15 4.4 44 12.9 59 17.3
Burkholderia cepacia 3 0.9 6 1.8 9 2.6
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 5 1.5 10 2.9 15 4.4
Moraxella catarrhalis 2 0.6 2 0.6 4 1.2
Haemophilus influenzae 24 7.0 24 7.0 48 14.1
Haemophilus influenzae type B 0 0 1 0.3 1 0.3
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia 4 1.2 25 7.3 29 8.5
Mycoplasma sp. 0 0 21 6.2 21 6.2
Total 96 323 419

MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus; MRSE, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis.

Download Excel Table
Table 4. The combination of the top five bacterial pathogens
Pathogens1) Primary alone Primary in combination Combined only Combined bacteria mainly common
Klebsiella pneumoniae (63) 9 16 38 A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, E. coli, S. maltophilia
Acinetobacter baumannii (59) 10 13 36 K. pneumoniae, S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, E. coli
Streptococcus pneumoniae (56) 17 18 21 K. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, M. catarrhalis
Haemophilus influenzae (48) 19 10 19 S. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, Mycoplasma sp.
Escherichia coli (33) 2 8 23 A. baumannii, M. catarrhalis, M. morganii, Providencia sp.

1) Bacterial pathogens can be the primary agents alone, as agents in combination with other bacteria, or as only combined bacteria.

Download Excel Table

For statistical analysis of 341 hospitalized adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia, data collection was performed as follows:

Table 1 shows that male sex and age over 60 were the most prevalent (62.5% and 73.0%). CAP patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) accounted for 26.7% of total CAP patients. The rates of bacterial pathogens (positive rates) detected by multiplex real-time PCR technique and by traditional culture technique were 67.7% and 46.0%, respectively. These differences were statistically significant (p<0.001).

By analyzing bacteria causing CAP in 341 hospitalized patients, we found bacterial pathogens detected in 231 patients by multiplex real-time PCR and in 157 patients by traditional culture, as shown Table 2.

Table 2 shows the list of bacterial pathogens that caused CAP in hospitalized.

Multiplex real-time PCR and traditional culture techniques detected K. pneumoniae at a high rate (18.5% and 13.5%), followed by A. baumannii (17.3% and 12.9%). Although S. pneumoniae was found by multiplex real-time PCR at a rate of 16.4%, by traditional culture techniques, it was detected only at 0.6%. Atypical bacteria were found, but only Mycobacteria was found at a frequency of 6.2%. There were many cases in which more than one bacterial strain was detected in one sputum.

Based on quantitative measurement of copies by multiplex real-time PCR, data collection in combination with bacterial pathogens causing CAP in 231 hospitalized patients was performed, as shown in Table 3.

Of 231 patients, only 96 (41.6%) were infected with primary bacteria alone, and 135 patients (58.4%) were infected with two or more combined bacteria. The rate of bacterial combination was 77.1% (323/419), and E. coli often occurred as a combined bacteria in 78.8% (26/33). P. aeruginosa, S. maltophilia, M. catarrhalis, M. morganii, Providencia, and Mycoplasma were the only combined bacteria.

Based on quantitative measurement of copies by multiplex real-time PCR, we analyzed the top 5 bacterial pathogens that combined with other bacteria causing CAP in hospitalized patients, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4 shows that K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, S. pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Escherichia coli in the top five bacterial pathogens were found as primary bacteria as well as combined bacteria, in which E. coli played the role of only combined bacteria.

4. DISCUSSION

In total, there were 91/341 (26.7%) COPD patients in our study, similar to the prevalence rates of previous authors: Pascual-Guardia et al. [9] (21%), Gómez-Junyent et al. [10] (23.9%), Sharaf Khaneh et al. [11] (32.7%) and Sogaard et al. [12] (33.3%).

Our study found CAP patients of male sex and age over 60 years at rates of 62.5% and 73.0%, respectively. These rates were similar to those reported by Li et al. [13] (71.0% and 75.3%), Gómez-Junyent et al. [10] (61.0% and 67.0%), and Pasquale et al. [14] (70.2% and 70.5%) but lower than those by Dang et al. [15] (85.5% and 87.6%). Previous studies have shown that male sex and old age are mainly associated with an increased rate of CAP [10],[16]–[18].

Bacterial pathogens detected by MPL-rPCR and by traditional culture technique were 67.7% and 46.0%, respectively, and these different rates were statistically significant in bacterial pathogen detection between the two methods (p<0.001). Using the multiplex real-time PCR technique, Ly and Pham [2], and Ly and Ly [3] detected bacterial pathogens causing CAP at 69% and 65.5%, similar to our study (67.7%) (Table 1). The bacterial detection rate in CAP patients by culture technique was 46.0% in this study; it varied and depended on the participants of patients, date and place in different studies, such as 53.0% by Li et al. [13], 53.8% by Dao [19], 57.4% by Jain et al. [20], 60.36% by Zhang et al. [21], 39.4% by Assefa et al. [22], and 33.5% by Gebre et al. [23].

Bacterial pathogens causing CAP in our study were multiform and increased in Gram-negative bacilli, similar to reports by previous authors [12],[15],[18],[22]–[24]. K.pneumoniae was found by multiplex real-time PCR and traditional culture techniques at high rates (18.5% and 13.5%), followed by A. baumannii (17.3% and 12.9%) (Tables 2 and 3). Gram-negative bacilli, especially K. pneumoniae and A. baumannii, have increased in causing hospitalized CAP in recent days. In our study, S. pneumoniae was detected by multiplex real-time PCR at a rate of 16.4%; however, it was 0.6% in isolation by traditional culture techniques. There were significant differences in the isolation rate of S. pneumoniae between the two methods and between our study and previous reports by authors such as Ly and Pham [1] (28.3%), Gómez-Junyent et al. [10] (36.5%), Li et al. [13] (25%), Purba et al. [25] (29.2%), and Temesgen et al. [26] (35.9%).

Pseudomonas aeruginosa was critical in causing hospitalized CAP, especially serious CAP or CAP with COPD. However, in our study, its isolation rate detected by multiplex real-time PCR was 4.4%, lower than those of Ly and Pham [1] (5.5%), Ly and Ly [3] (6.3%) but similar to Cillóniz et al. [27] (4.2%). Although P. aeruginosa was found at a low rate, it was serious because of antibiotic resistance, mortality, and outcomes [2],[13],[18],[24],[28]–[32], especially severe CAP with COPD, older age, and regular oral corticosteroid therapy [30]–[33].

Atypical bacteria were found only by multiplex real-time PCR. In our study, Mycoplasma was detected at a proportion of 6.2% (Table 2), similar to previous reports of Liu et al. [34] (6.5%) but lower than those of Shoar and Musher [35] (8.8%). Mycoplasma rarely causes infection independently [9] and is often associated with other pathogenic agents [36]–[38]. We found more than one bacterial strain commonly in one sputum of CAP patients [10],[23].

In bacterial combination, our study showed that the rate of CAP patients infected with primary bacteria alone was 41.6%. CAP patients infected with two or more combined bacteria was 58.4%, in which E. coli often occurred as a combined bacteria in 78.8% (Table 3). Among 419 detected pathogenic agents, 323 bacterial agents played the role of combination at a proportion of 77.1% (323/419) (Table 3), higher than those from previous reports by authors: Ly and Pham [1] 38.3% (62/162), Ly and Ly [3] 39.2% (118/301) and Ta [39] 37.5% (33/88). We may have found more combined bacteria than those in the past because of multiplex real-time PCR with 72 primers used in this study. By analyzing the top five bacterial pathogens causing CAP in hospitalized patients, we found that bacterial pathogens can be the primary agents alone, as agents in combination with other bacteria, or as only combined bacteria. K.pneumoniae, A. baumannii, S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and E. coli played the role of primary bacteria as well as combined bacteria. In contrast, P. aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Moraxella catarrhalis, Morganella morganii, Providencia, and Mycoplasma commonly occurred as only combined bacteria (Table 4).

5. CONCLUSION

CAP patients of male sex and age over 60 years are at high proportions of 62.5% and 73.0%, respectively. Bacterial pathogens are detected at 67.7% by multiplex real-time PCR and 46.0% by traditional culture techniques (p<0.001). Bacterial pathogens are multiform and increased in Gram-negative bacilli. K. pneumoniae and A. baumannii are found more commonly, while P. aeruginosa is found at a low proportion of 4.4%. Atypical bacteria are only Mycoplasma, with a proportion of 6.2%. More than one bacterial strain is commonly found in each sputum. The rate of bacterial combination is 77.1%, the rate of CAP patients infected with two or more combined bacteria is 58.4%, and E. coli often occurs as a combined bacteria in 78.8%.

This work was conducted only on CAP patients at three central hospitals in Ho Chi MInh city, therefore data may not reflect cases of less severity that were diagnosis at small hospitals in rural area or in other proviences. Furthermore, with 341 cases collected, our finding may not be representive of entire hospitalized CAP. In addition, serological techniques were not available at the study setting that could not identify more atypical bacteria.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding sources

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Authors' contributions

Conceptualization: VK Ly, VH Pham, XV Ly.

Data curation: VK Ly, VH Pham.

Formal analysis: VK Ly, XV Ly.

Methodology: VK Ly, XV Ly.

Software: VK Ly.

Validation: VH Pham, XV Ly.

Investigation: VK Ly.

Writing - original draft: VK Ly, XV Ly.

Writing - review & editing: VK Ly, VH Pham, XV Ly.

Availability of data and material

Upon reasonable request, the datasets of this study can be available from the corresponding author.

Ethics Approval

All procedures in this study were approved by the Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy HCMC at Decision No 330/DHYD-HDDD, issue: June 14th, 2019.

REFERENCES

1.

Ly KV, Pham HV. Pathogens causing hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia. J Med Ho Chi Minh City. 2018; Suppl 22(2):238-43

2.

Van LK, Van PH. Pathogens causing hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia in COPD patients. J Med Ho Chi Minh City. 2018; 22(2):210-5

3.

Ly KV, Ly VX. Bacteria causing hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia detected by multiplex real-time PCR. J Med Ho Chi Minh City. 2019; Suppl 23(1):66-74

4.

Le TH. Evaluating the combination of pathogenic agents causing hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia. [M.S. thesis], Ho Chi Minh City: University of Medicine and Pharmacy in HCMC. 2021; p. 34-42

5.

Pham HV. Technique for taking and examining clinical microbiology of different specimens. Teach Mater Microbiol Stud. 2005; :54-62

6.

Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147(8):573-7

7.

Le TD, Pham HV. Pathogen of community-acquired pneumoniae. J Med Ho Chi Minh. 2010; 14(2):56-60

8.

Pham HV, Nguyen VT, Tran VN, et al. Pathogens causing hospitalized community acquired pneumonia - Results from REAL study 2016–2017. Med News. 2018; :51-63

9.

Pascual-Guardia S, Amati F, Marin-Corral J, Aliberti S, Gea J, Soni NJ, et al. Bacterial patterns and empiric antibiotic use in COPD patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Arch Bronconeumol. 2023; 59(2):90-100

10.

Gómez-Junyent J, Garcia-Vidal C, Viasus D, Millat-Martínez P, Simonetti A, Santos MS, et al. Clinical features, etiology and outcomes of community-acquired pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. PLOS ONE. 2014; 9(8)e105854

11.

Sharafkhaneh A, Spiegelman AM, Main K, Tavakoli-Tabasi A, Lan C, Musher D. Mortality in patients admitted for concurrent COPD exacerbation and pneumonia. COPD J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017; 14(1):23-9

12.

Sogaard M, Madsen M, Lokke A, Hilberg O, Sørensen HT, Thomsen RW. Incidence and outcomes of patients hospitalized with COPD exacerbation with and without pneumonia. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016; 11:455-65

13.

Li XJ, Li Q, Si LY, Yuan QY. Bacteriological differences between COPD exacerbation and community-acquired pneumonia. Respir Care. 2011; 56(11):1818-24

14.

Pasquale CB, Vietri J, Choate R, McDaniel A, Sato R, Ford KD, et al. Patient-reported consequences of community-acquired pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2019; 6(2):132-44

15.

Dang QGV, Le TV. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Med News J. 2018; 9:63-9

16.

Müllerova H, Chigbo C, Hagan GW, Woodhead MA, Miravitlles M, Davis KJ, et al. The natural history of community-acquired pneumonia in COPD patients: a population database analysis. Respir Med. 2012; 106(8):1124-33

17.

Lin SH, Ji BC, Shih YM, Chen CH, Chan PC, Chang YJ, et al. Comorbid pulmonary disease and risk of community-acquired pneumonia in COPD patients. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013; 17(12):1638-44

18.

Ramirez JA, Cavallazzi R. Community-acquired pneumonia pathogenesis in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Univ Louisville J Respir Infect. 2019; 3(2):4

19.

Dao TMH. Microbial etiologies of community -acquired pneumonia and healthcare -acquired pneumonia are detected by real-time pcr of sputum. Respirat Assoc HCMC. 2019; :72-81

20.

Jain S, Self WH, Wunderink RG, Fakhran S, Balk R, Bramley AM, et al. Community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalization among U.S. adults. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(5):415-27

21.

Zhang L, Xiao Y, Zhang G, Li H, Zhao J, Chen M, et al. Identification of priority pathogens for aetiological diagnosis in adults with community-acquired pneumonia in China: a multicentre prospective study. BMC Infect Dis. 2023; 23(1):1-12

22.

Assefa M, Tigabu A, Belachew T, Tessema B. Bacterial profile, antimicrobial susceptibility patterns, and associated factors of community-acquired pneumonia among adult patients in Gondar, Northwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. PLOS ONE. 2022; 17(2)e0262956

23.

Gebre AB, Begashaw TA, Ormago MD. Bacterial profile and drug susceptibility among adult patients with community acquired lower respiratory tract infection at tertiary hospital, Southern Ethiopia. BMC Infect Dis. 2021; 21(1):440

24.

Bordon J, Slomka M, Gupta R, Furmanek S, Cavallazzi R, Sethi S, et al. Hospitalization due to community-acquired pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: incidence, epidemiology and outcomes. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020; 26(2):220-6

25.

Purba AKR, Ascobat P, Muchtar A, Wulandari L, Rosyid AN, Purwono PB, et al. Multidrug-resistant infections among hospitalized adults with community-acquired pneumonia in an Indonesian tertiary referral hospital. Infect Drug Resist. 2019; 12:3663-75

26.

Temesgen D, Bereded F, Derbie A, Biadglegne F. Bacteriology of community acquired pneumonia in adult patients at Felege Hiwot Referral Hospital. Northwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019; 8(1):101

27.

Cillóniz C, Dominedò C, Torres A. Multidrug resistant gram-negative bacteria in community-acquired pneumonia. Crit Care. 2019 03; 923(1):79

28.

Cillóniz C, Cardozo C, García-Vidal C. Epidemiology, pathophysiology, and microbiology of community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Res Hosp. 2018; 2(1):1-11

29.

Liapikou A, Polverino E, Ewig S, Cillóniz C, Marcos MA, Mensa J, et al. Severity and outcomes of hospitalised community-acquired pneumonia in COPD patients. Eur Respir J. 2012; 39(4):855-61

30.

Lewis PO. Risk factor evaluation for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Pharmacother. 2021; 55(1):36-43

31.

Sando E, Suzuki M, Ishida M, Yaegashi M, Aoshima M, Ariyoshi K, et al. Definitive and indeterminate Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in adults with community-acquired pneumonia: a prospective observational study. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021; 18(9):1475-81

32.

Restrepo MI, Babu BL, Reyes LF, Chalmers JD, Soni NJ, Sibila O, et al. Burden and risk factors for Pseudomonas aeruginosa community-acquired pneumonia: a multinational point prevalence study of hospitalised patients. Eur Respir J. 2018; 52(2):1701190

33.

Ko FWS, Ip M, Chan PKS, Ng SSS, Chau SS, Hui DSC. A one-year prospective study of infectious etiology in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbations of COPD and concomitant pneumonia. Respir Med. 2008; 102(8):1109-16

34.

Liu DS, Han XD, Liu XD. Current status of community-acquired pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chin Med J. 2018; 131(9):1086-91

35.

Shoar S, Musher DM. Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: a systematic review. Pneumonia. 2020; 12(1):11

36.

Dueck NP, Epstein S, Franquet T, Moore CC, Bueno J. Atypical pneumonia: definition, causes, and imaging features. RadioGraphics. 2021; 41(3):720-41

37.

Chaabane N, Coupez E, Buscot M, Souweine B. Acute respiratory distress syndrome related to Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection. Respir Med Case Rep. 2016; 20:89-91

38.

Tejada S, Romero A, Rello J. Community-acquired pneumonia in adults: what’s new focusing on epidemiology, microorganisms and diagnosis?. Erciyes Med J. 2018; 40(4):177-82

39.

Ta TDN. Study on clinic, paraclinic and etiology in community-acquired pneumonia. [Ph.D. dissertation] Ha Noi: University of Medicine Ha Noi. 2016