Original Article

Bacterial and viral co-infections in community-acquired pneumonia in adults: a prospective study of multiple hospital centers

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, Phuong Minh Pham3https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8214-3233
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
3Quality Control Center for Medical Laboratory, University of Medicine and Pharmacy HCMC, 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: Jul 31, 2024

Abstract

Introduction:

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is mostly caused by bacteria and viruses. Identifying pathogenic bacteria and viruses using traditional culture techniques is challenging. Therefore, multiplex real-time PCR (MPL-rPCR) has the capacity not only to concurrently identify the causative bacteria, atypical bacteria, and viruses but also to quantify their load and detect co-infections.

Methods:

This study was carried out on patients with CAP who were admitte to the Respiratory departments of Nguyen Tri Phuong Hospital, Nhan Dan Gia Dinh Hospital and University Medical Center, from April 2021 to March 2023, using a cross-sectional descriptive design in prospect. Sputum samples, evaluated by the Barlett scale, were collected and processed using the MPL-rPCR technique at Nam Khoa Company’s laboratory.

Results:

Bacterial pathogens and viruses were detected at rates of 67.7% and 57.5% (p<0.05). Gram – negative bacteria included Klebsiella pneumoniae at 18.5%, Acinetobacter baumannii at 17.3%, and Haemophilus influenzae at 14.1%. Among Gram-positive bacteria, Streptococcus pneumoniae was found at 16.4%. The Epstein–Barr virus was the most frequently identified virus at 34.9%, followed by Cytomegalovirus at 16.7%, and Influenza virus type A at 10.3%. One sputum sample showed the presence of more than one bacterium or virus, with high rates observed for Epstein–Barr virus and Cytomegalovirus.

Conclusions:

Gram – negative bacteria are found in high proportions, and viruses were predominant, particularly Epstein–Barr virus, Cytomegalovirus, Influenza virus types A and B. Almost all viruses were co-infected with pathogenic bacteria, and multiple bacteria or viruses were identified in one sputum sample.

Keywords: community-acquired infections; real-time polymerase chain reaction; coinfection; pneumonia

1. INTRODUCTION

Hospitalized community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a widespread disease that could affect all ages and genders, which is mostly caused by bacteria and viruses [1,2]. However, defining the pathogenic bacteria and viruses responsible for CAP is challenging because the patients’ sputum (or phlegm) is easily contaminated when passing through oropharynx. Therefore, traditional culture technique has several limitations [3]. Traditional culture technique cannot detect atypical bacteria as well as viruses. In addition, patients often using antibiotics before hospitalization, potentially leading to the destruction of bacteria in the sputum samples while they may still exist in alveolar or bronchial epithelial fluid; a lack of suitable environment to isolate primary bacteria, particularly Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae. To overcome those difficulties, we implemented multiplex real-time PCR (MPL-rPCR) technique, known for its high sensitivity and specificity. MPL-rPCR not only enables simultaneous detection of causative bacteria and viruses but also quantifies their quantity to define the primary, thereby delineating and the combined pathogenic agents (co-infection).

Our aims were: (1) to determine the proportion of bacteria and viruses causing CAP in hospitalized adult patients. (2) to determine rate of bacterial and viral combinations.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Study design

This study utilized a prospective cross-sectional descriptive design, conducted on adult patients with CAP hospitalized at Respiratory department of Nguyen Tri Phuong Hospital, Nhan Dan Gia Dinh Hospital and University Medical Center from 04/2021 to 03/2023.

Sample selection criteria involved the collecting sputum samples from hospitalized CAP patients diagnosed by clinical doctors according to the Ministry of Health standards specified in Decision No. 4815/QD-BYT. These sputum samples were then transferred to Nam Khoa Company’s Laboratory, where the authors conducted analyses to identify the causative agents. Exclusion criteria included sputum samples from hospitalized CAP patients with lung cancer, advanced tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, or undergoing treatment with immunosuppressive drugs. Sputum samples collected from the same patient during the treatment period were also excluded.

Deviation control: Strictly comply with diagnostic standards and classification of underlying diseases; select samples based on the Barlett scale (≥2 point); strictly implement exclusion criteria and perform testing procedures according to the standard procedures of Nam Khoa Biotek Company’s Laboratory. For ethical considerations, we only worked with patients’ sputum samples at Nam Khoa Biotek’s Laboratory. The researcher did not get in touch with patients or interfered with the doctors’ treatment process. The Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy HCMC approved our study at Decision No 330/DHYD-HDDD, issue: June 14th, 2019.

This manuscript was prepared and written in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [4]. The STROBE check list of the manuscript is described in the supplementary document.

2.2. Collection of sputum samples

We exclusively examined sputum samples which rated at or above 2 points on the Barlett scale. These samples were transported to Nam Khoa Company’s laboratory for analysis using both traditional culture technique as well as by MPL-rPCR. With the MPL-rPCR method, the nucleic acid was extracted by DNARNAprep-MAGBEAD drug (belongs to Nam Khoa Co., Ltd, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam) and the King Fisher FLEX machine (from Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Subsequently, these DNA extracts were combined with MPL-rPCR mixes specific for bacterial pathogens causing pneumonia (Nam Khoa Co., Ltd) and subject to detection and quantification of the target nucleic acid using CFX 96TM real-time PCR machine (from Biorad, Herculanes, CA, USA). All bacteria with numbers ≥100,000 copies were recognized as pathogens. If atypical bacteria and viruses are detected in sputum samples (regardless of quantity), they are recorded as pathogens. Whichever bacteria were counted with highest number was the main pathogen while the others are combined agents [2]. Bacteria identified by traditional culture technique were all identified as pathogens, regardless of whether they were the main agent or a combination agent.

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) [5] 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

The number of sputum samples we collected at Nguyen Tri Phương hospital (101 sputum samples), Nhan dân 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

Eliminate patients’ sputum samples that did not agree the selection criteria. We used software SPSS 20.0 and Microsoft Excel 2020 for statistical analysis.

3. RESULTS

There were 341 sputum samples from 341 CAP patients that met the criteria presented above.

The demographic data and the results in bacterial and viral detection by MPL-rPCR technique were shown in Table 1.

Table 1 above indicates that the proportion of causative bacteria in CAP was 67.7%, while the proportion of causative viruses was 57.5%. The difference of these percentages was found to be statistically significant (p<0.05). Furthermore, the relationships between females with males, between age group≤60 years with age group>60 years were also statistically significant (p<0.05).

Table 1. The demographic data and the bacterial detection by multiplex real-time PCR
Characteristics

Bacteria detected n (%)1)

Virus detected n (%)1)

p-value

Gender

Female

82 (24.0)

72 (21.1)

p<0.001

Male

149 (43.7)

124 (36.4)

Age

16–60 years

56 (16.4)

51 (15.0)

p<0.001

>60 years

175 (51.3)

145 (42.5)

CAP patients

231

196

Positive rate

67.7

57.5

p=0.0056

1) The percentage among 341 CAP patients. CAP, community-acquired pneumonia.

Download Excel Table

The causative bacterial pathogens and viruses in CAP detected by MPL-rPCR from sputum samples of 341 hospitalized patients were shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The proportion of bacterial and viral pathogens detected by multiplex real-time PCR
Bacteria

n (%)1)

Virus

n (%)1)

Streptococcus pneumoniae

56 (16.4)

Influenza virus type A

35 (10.3)

Streptococcus agalactiae

2 (0.6)

Influenza virus type B

15 (4.4)

Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

7 (2.1)

Influenza virus type C

1 (0.3)

Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA)

1 (0.3)

Parainfluenza virus type 3

9 (2.6)

Coagulase negative staphylococcus

5 (1.5)

Epstein – Barr virus (EBV)

119 (34.9)

Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE)

21 (6.2)

Cytomegalovirus (CMV)

57 (16.7)

Enterococcus faecalis

7 (2.1)

Rhinovirus

12 (3.5)

Enterococcus faecium

9 (2.6)

Respiratory cyncytial virus

10 (2.9)

Escherichia coli

33 (9.7)

Human metapneumovirus

8 (2.3)

Klebsiella pneumoniae

63 (18.5)

Adenovirus

1 (0.3)

Enterobacter cloacae

1 (0.3)

Bocavirus

1 (0.3)

Morganella morganii

12 (3.5)

SARS CoV-2

12 (3.5)

Providencia sp.

11 (3.2)

Proteus mirabilis

5 (1.5)

Acinetobacter baumannii

59 (17.3)

Burkholderia cepacia

9 (2.6)

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

15 (4.4)

Moraxella catarrhalis

4 (1.2)

Haemophilus influenzae

48 (14.1)

Haemophilus influenzae type B

1 (0.3)

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia

29 (8.5)

Mycoplasma sp.

21 (6.2)

Total

419

280

Positive

231 (67.7)

196 (57.5)

1) The percentage was over 100% since in many cases, more than one bacteria or virus were found in one sputum of CAP patients. MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus; MRSE, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis; CAP, community-acquired pneumonia.

Download Excel Table

In 341 sputum samples from CAP hospitalized adult patients, there were 231 sputum samples determined as having bacterial patho-gens, reaching a rate of 67.7% and 196 sputum samples detected with viruses, the positive rate was 57.5%. In many cases where bacte-ria pathogens as well as viruses were detected, there were multiple pathogenic agents found in a single sputum sample of CAP patients.

The list of bacterial pathogens showed that, Gram-negative bacilli occurred in higher percentages than Gram-positive cocci (290 vs 108), in which Klebsiella pneumoniae 18.5%, Acinetobacter baumannii 17.3%, H. influenzae 14.1% and Escherichia coli 9.7% while S. pneumoniae was the highest percentage in Gram-positive cocci at 16.4%. Mycoplasma, atypical bacterium was detected at 6.2%.

From the list of viruses, this study showed that Epstein – Barr virus was found at the percentage of 34.9%, followed by Cytomegalo-virus 16.7%, Influenza virus type A 10.3%, Influenza virus type B 4.4%, Rhinovirus and Respiratory syncytial virus were found at the rates of 3.5% and 2.9%.

Based on the quantity of bacterial pathogen discovered by the MPL-rPCR, we categorized the detected bacterial pathogens into main (primary) bacterial pathogens, which exhibited the highest copy numbers, and the co-infected (combined) bacterial pathogens, which had lower copy numbers. The co-infection of bacterial agents was shown in Table 3.

Table 3 illustrates that S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae were frequently detected as a primary bacterium alone, while K. pneu-moniae, A. baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa often acted as primary bacteria in combination with other bacteria. M. morganii and Providencia sp. were exclusively found as combined bacteria.

Table 3. The combination of bacterial pathogens causing CAP in hospitalized adult patients
Pathogens1)

Primary alone

Primary in combination

Combined

The main combined bacteria

Klebsiella pneumoniae (63)

15

16

32

A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, E. coli, S. maltophilia

Acinetobacter baumannii (59)

15

13

31

K. pneumoniae, S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, E. coli

Streptococcus pneumoniae (56)

12

18

26

K. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, M. catarrhalis

Haemophilus influenzae (48)

24

10

14

S. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, Mycoplasma sp.

Escherichia coli (33)

7

8

18

A. baumannii, M. catarrhalis, M. morganii, Providencia sp.

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (29)

4

12

13

A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae, M. morganii, Providencia sp.

Staphylococcus epidermidis (21)

1

7

13

S. pneumoniae, S. maltophilia, A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae

Pseudomonas aeruginosa (15)

5

7

3

K. pneumoniae, S. maltophilia, H. influenzae

Morganella morganii (12)

0

0

12

E. coli, S. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, S. maltophilia

Providencia sp.(11)

0

0

11

E. coli, K. pneumoniae, S. pneumoniae, A. baumannii

Enterococcus faecium (9)

2

1

6

A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae, S. maltophilia

Burkholderia cepacia (9)

3

2

4

A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae, S. maltophilia, Providencia sp., Mycoplasma

Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)(7)

1

1

5

K. pneumoniae, E. coli, S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae

Enterococcus faecalis (7)

2

2

3

A. baumannii, S. maltophilia, K. pneumoniae, E. coli, Mycoplasma

Coagulase negative Staphylococcus (5)

2

0

3

K. pneumoniae, B. cepacia, A. baumannii, Mycoplasma

Proteus mirabilis (5)

0

0

5

K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, Providencia sp., S. pneumoniae

Moraxella catarrhalis (4)

2

1

1

S. pneumoniae, K. pneumoniae

Streptococcus agalactiae (2)

0

1

1

E. coli, K. pneumoniae

Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA)(1)

1

0

0

Enterobacter cloaceae (1)

0

0

1

K. pneumoniae

Haemophilus influenzae type B(1)

0

0

1

S. pneumoniae

Mycoplasma (21)

0

0

21

K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, E. coli, S. maltophilia, B. cepacia, Providencia, P. aeruginosa, H. influenzae

Total (419)

96

99

224

1) Bacterial pathogens can act as primary bacteria alone or as primary bacteria in co-infection or as only co-infected bacteria. CAP, community-acquired pneumonia; MRSA, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA, Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus.

Download Excel Table

Analyzed the results showed in Table 4, except Human metapneumovirus, the remain viruses were all in combination with bacterial pathogens causing CAP at the percentages about 60%, in which Epstein-Barr virus, Cytomegalovirus, Influenza virus type A, B had the higher percentages in combination with bacterial pathogens. The primary viruses causing CAP occurred in low percentage 30.6% (60/196). The co-infected bacteria in combination were most common with S. pneumoniae, followed by H. influenzae, K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii.

Table 4. The combination of viruses with bacterial pathogens in causing CAP
Virus

Primary virus n (%)

Combined with bacteria1) n (%)

Combined bacteria (n)

Influenza virus type A (35)

7 (20.0)

28 (80.0)

S. pneumoniae (9), A. baumannii (4), H. influenzae (3), E. coli (2), MRSE (2), K. pneumoniae (2), S. maltophilia (2), P. aeruginosa (2), B. cepacia (1), Mycoplasma (1)

Influenza virus type B (15)

4 (26.7)

11 (73.3)

S. pneumoniae (6), MRSA (1), MRSE (1), E. coli (1), H. influenzae (1), S. maltophilia (1)

Influenza virus type C (1)

1 (100)

0 (0)

-

Parainfluenza virus type 3 (9)

0 (0)

9 (100)

K. pneumoniae (2), B. cepacia (2), S. pneumoniae (1), S. agalactiae (1), P. aeruginosa (1), H. influenzae (1)

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) (119)2)

28 (23.5)

79 (66.4)

H. influenzae (17), A. baumannii (14), K. pneumoniae (14), S. pneumoniae (8), E. coli (5), S. maltophilia (5), MRSE (3), B. cepacia (3), MRSA (2), E. faecalis (2), P. aeruginosa (2), E. faecium (2), Mycoplasma (1), CoNS (1)

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) (57)3)

1 (1.8)

44 (77.2)

A. baumannii (12), H. influenzae (9), K. pneumoniae (6), S. maltophilia (5), S. pneumoniae (4), MRSE (2), E. coli (2), P. aeruginosa (2), E. faecalis (2), B. cepacia (1)

Rhinovirus (12)

5 (41.7)

7 (58.3)

S. pneumoniae (3), K. pneumoniae (2), A. baumannii (1), H. influenzae (1)

Respiratory syncytial virus (10)

4 (40.0)

6 (60.0)

K. pneumoniae (3), H. influenzae (2), P. aeruginosa (2)

Human metapneumo virus (8)

5 (62.5)

3 (37.5)

H. influenzae (2), K. pneumoniae (1)

Adenovirus (1)

0 (0)

1 (100)

S. pneumoniae (1)

Bocavirus (1)

0 (0)

1 (100)

A. baumannii (1)

SARS CoV-2 (12)

5 (4.7)

7 (58.3)

E. coli (2), K. pneumoniae (2), A. baumannii (2), H. influenzae (1)

Total

60

196

1) In some cases, virus can combine with 2 or more bacteria. 2) 12 cases (10.1%) infected in combination with fungi or other viruses. 3) 12 cases (21.1%) infected in combination with fungi or other viruses. CAP, community-acquired pneumonia; MRSE, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis; MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Download Excel Table

4. DISCUSSION

There were 341 CAP patients who met the inclusion criteria of our study, and infections by pathogenic bacteria and viruses were predominance in male and in individuals over 60 years of age, consistent with reports by previous authors such as Tao [1], Li [6], Gómez-Junyent [7], Cavallazzii [8], Dang [9], Voiriot [10]. The significant increase in age of CAP patients in previous decades was likely due to the aging population [11]. In this study, pathogenic bacteria were detected at the rate of 67.7%, similar to previous reports by Ly & Pham [12] (69%), Ly & Ly [13] (65.5%), while pathogenic viruses were found at the rate of 57.5%, higher than reports by Tao [1] (23.4%), Voiriot [10] (28%), Self [14] (24.5%), Kim [15] (17.7%), Radovanovic [16] (28.4%), Alimi [17] (22.0%), Ruuskanen [18] (29.0%).

Table 2 showed that, among 231 positive sputum samples from CAP patients, there were 419 bacteria detected by MPL-rPCR, in which Gram-negative bacilli occurred in higher percentages than those in Gram-positive cocci, likely reports by previous authors [8,9,19–21]. Perhaps Gram-negative bacilli, especially A. baumannii and K. pneumoniae has become more prevalent in causing CAP patient in recent days. S. pneumoniae was found at the highest prevalent 16.4% in Gram-positive cocci, which is lower than reported by authors such as Gómez-Junyent [7] (36.5%), Purba [22] (29.2%), Temesgen [23] (35.9%). However, some studies indicated that, although S. pneumoniae occurred less common in recent day but it still plays an significant role in causing CAP in adult patients [8,9,1921].

In our study, P. aeruginosa causing CAP was counted at the low rate 4.4% (Table 2), but it holds significance in causing CAP, particularly severe CAP, due to its rick factors such as antibiotic resistance and mortality [6,11,21,2428]. Furthermore, previous studies have reported that P. aeruginosa remained important for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), especially among the elderly who are receiving regular oral corticosteroid therapy [2830].

Mycobacteria was the only atypical bacteria detected in low frequency 6.2%, similar to previous research of Liu [31] (6.5%). Some recent authors have commented that atypical bacteria causing CAP were rarely detected and often occurred as co-bacteria with other bacterial pathogens [3234].

In this study, Epstein-Barr virus was detected at the rate of 34.4%, followed by Cytomegalovirus 16.7% (Table 2). These rates were higher than those of Influenza virus type A 10.3%, Influenza virus type B 4.4%, Rhinovirus 3.5% and Respiratory syncytial virus 2.9%.We were surprised by the high percentages of Epstein-Barr virus and Cytomegalovirus, and we were left wondering if they were co-infections or opportunistic agents, necessitating further careful and thorough examination. Apart from the report by Voiriot [10], where the percentages for Influenza virus type A were at 18.4% , Rhinovirus at 12.6%, almost all reports by previous authors showed that Influenza virus type A, Influenza virus type B, Rhinovirus, Respiratory syncytial virus, H. metapneumovirus were detected at percentages ranging from 2% to 8%, which typically corresponds to the seasons when outbreaks of respiratory viruses are occurring [1,1418,35] In many cases, more than one pathogenic bacteria and virus were detected in a single sputum sample. Our study, as shown in Table 3, revealed that among 231 sputum samples detected with pathogenic bacteria by MPL-rPCR, there were 96 sputum samples detected with only one % andial pathogens (primary bacteria alone) at the rate of 28.2% (96/341) and 135 sputum samples detected with 2 or more bacterial pathogens at the rate of 39.6% (135/341), similar to previous reports by Ly & Pham [12] 38.3%, Ly & Ly [13] 39.2% and Ta [36] 37.5%. S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae were discovered frequently as a primary bacterium alone while K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, E. coli, P. aeruginosa were often found as primary bacteria in combination with other bacteria (co-infection). M. morganii and Providencia sp. were found as only combined bacteria (bacterial co-infection).

Analyzing the results in Table 3, almost viruses were in combination with bacterial pathogens causing CAP at the rates from 60% to 80%, in which, Epstein-Barr virus, Cytomegalovirus, Influenza virus type A, B, having the highest percentages. S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, K. pneumoniae were the most frequent bacteria in viral co-infection [1,10,16,35]. Detections of Influenza virus, Respiratory syncytial virus, H. metapneumovirus in adult patients with CAP likely indicate an etiology role, whereas detections of Epstein-Barr virus and Cytomegalovirus should require further careful and thorough examination [17,18,37].

5. CONCLUSION

Bacterial pathogens and viruses were detected at positive rates of 67.7% and 57.5%, respectively (p<0.05), in which bacterial pathogens extend to Gram-negative bacilli such as K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, H. influenzae, while predominent viruses occur included Epstein-Barr virus, Cytomegalovirus, Influenza virus type A, B. More than one pathogenic bacteria and viruses are found in one sputum sample. S. pneumoniae, K. pneumoniae, H. influenzae are the most common bacteria in viral co-infections and almost all viruses are co-infected with pathogenic bacteria. Epstein-Barr virus and Cytomegalovirus should require further scrutiny examination.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding sources

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

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

Authors' contributions

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 Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy HCMC at Decision No 330/DHYD-HDDD, issue: June 14th, 2019.

REFERENCES

1.

Tao RJ, Luo XL, Xu W, Mao B, Dai RX, Li CW, et al. Viral infection in community acquired pneumonia patients with fever: a prospective observational study. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(7):4387-95

2.

Le TH, Ly KV, Hoang TM, Phan TCL. Combination of bacteria and virus causing community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized adult patients. Vietnam Med J. 2023;256(2):267-72

3.

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

4.

Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidermiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(8):W163-94

5.

Van PH, Thanh NV, Ngoc TV, Duy ND. Pathogens causing hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia results from REAL study 2016-2017. J Med Times. 2018:51-63

6.

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

7.

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

8.

Cavallazzi R, Ramirez J. Community-acquired pneumonia in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2020;33(2):173-81

9.

Dang QGV, Le TV. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive palmonary disease [Internet]. HCMC Res Society. 2018 [cited 2023 Aug 10]. https://www.hoihohaptphcm.org/index.php/chuyende/copd/469-dac-diem-lam-sang-va-ket-cuc-cua-viem-phoi-o-benh-nhan-benh-phoi-tac-nghen-man-tinh

10.

Voiriot G, Visseaux B, Cohen J, Nguyen LBL, Neuville M, Morbieu C, et al. Viral-bacterial coinfection affects the presentation and alters the prognosis of severe community-acquired pneumonia. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):375

11.

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

12.

Ly Khanh V, Van PH. Pathogens causing hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia. J Med Ho Chi Minh City. 2018;22(2):238-43

13.

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

14.

Self WH, Williams DJ, Zhu Y, Ampofo K, Pavia AT, Chappell JD, et al. Respiratory viral detection in children and adults: comparing asymptomatic controls and patients with community-acquired pneumonia. J Infect Dis. 2016;213(4):584-91

15.

Kim MA, Park JS, Lee CW, Choi WI. Pneumonia severity index in viral community acquired pneumonia in adults. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(3):e0210102

16.

Radovanovic D, Sotgiu G, Jankovic M, Mahesh PA, Marcos PJ, Abdalla MI, et al. An international perspective on hospitalized patients with viral community-acquired pneumonia. Eur J Intern Med. 2019;60:54-70

17.

Alimi Y, Lim WS, Lansbury L, Leonardi-Bee J, Nguyen-Van-Tam JS. Systematic review of respiratory viral pathogens identified in adults with community-acquired pneumonia in Europe. J Clin Virol. 2017;95:26-35

18.

Ruuskanen O, Lahti E, Jennings LC, Murdoch DR. Viral pneumonia. Lancet. 2011;377(9773):1264-75

19.

Søgaard M, Madsen M, Løkke 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(1):455-65

20.

Braeken D, Franssen F, Schütte H, Pletz M, Bals R, Martus P, et al. Microbial aetiology of community-acquired pneumonia and it's relation with ICS use in patients with COPD - results from the German competence network CAPNETZ. Eur Respir J. 2014;44(58):2476

21.

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

22.

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

23.

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

24.

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

25.

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

26.

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

27.

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

28.

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

29.

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

30.

Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, Anzueto A, Brozek J, Crothers K, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(7):e45-67

31.

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

32.

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

33.

Chaabane N, Coupez E, Buscot M, Souweine B. Acute respiratory distress syndrome related to Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection. Respir Med Case Rep. 2017;20:89-91

34.

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

35.

Pavia AT. What is the role of respiratory viruses in community-acquired pneumonia?: what is the best therapy for influenza and other viral causes of community-acquired pneumonia. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2013;27(1):157-75

36.

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

37.

Esposito S, Daleno C, Prunotto G, Scala A, Tagliabue C, Borzani I, et al. Impact of viral infections in children with community-acquired pneumonia: results of a study of 17 respiratory viruses. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2013;7(1):18-26