Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Is Chlamydia pneumoniae an important pathogen in patients with community-acquired pneumonia?

S. Ewig, A. Torres
European Respiratory Journal 2003 21: 741-742; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.03.00023003
S. Ewig
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Torres
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Chlamydia pneumoniae has been established as a respiratory pathogen since 1986, when the association of this pathogen with respiratory infections was demonstrated by culture in a study of seroconverting patients in Seattle, USA, in 1984 1. Since then, the majority of studies evaluating the aetiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) have reported the occurrence of C. pneumoniae in ∼10–20% of patients 2–8. Current guidelines published by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 9, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 10, the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society, the Canadian Thoracic Society 11, the European Respiratory Society 12 and the British Thoracic Society (BTS) 13 all agree that C. pneumoniae is an important pathogen that should be covered when targeting empirical initial antimicrobial treatment.

Obviously, the variation of incidence rates across these studies is not only due to differences in the populations and geographical areas studied but also to inconsistencies in the methodologies used to establish acute C. pneumoniae infections. Whereas most studies applied serological methods, the criteria of seropositivity differed and only a minority of studies also included culture and/or molecular methods. To make things even more complicated, there is no generally accepted technique to firmly diagnose acute C. pneumoniae infection. Whereas complement fixation is only genus- and not species-specific, microimmunofluorescence is difficult to perform, has an important subjective element with regard to reading and remains open to diverse interpretations of seropositivity 14. Moreover, seropositivity is not irrefutably diagnostic of acute infection as positive serological tests were also found to occur in asymptomatic individuals in up to 20% of cases 15. In addition, culture and polymerase-chain reaction (PCR) techniques also have inherent limitations in terms of specificity. In general, it remains difficult, if not impossible, to interpret the significance of diverse results of serology and culture or PCR.

Another area of much debate is the significance of C. pneumoniae as a co-pathogen. C. pneumoniae has been identified as forming part of mixed infections in several studies. Again, the exact rate varies considerably, ranging between 25–60% and more 16. In fact, since this pathogen induces ciliostasis in human bronchial epithelial cells 17, it may promote subsequent superinfection with other pathogens, particularly Streptococcus pneumoniae. However, the question remains whether the role of C. pneumoniae is limited to such promotion of infection or whether it acts as a true independent pathogen. This has important clinical implications in terms of targeting empirical antimicrobial treatment regimen.

In this issue of the European Respiratory Journal, Marrie et al. 18 present important new insights into the role of C. pneumoniae as a cause of CAP. In a prospective cohort observational study conducted at 15 teaching centres in eight Canadian provinces during a 22-month period, they studied 539 acute and 272 convalescent serum samples, examining C. pneumoniae by the microimmunofluorescence test. With regard to seropositivity, the data presented correspond well with previous results in that seropositivity is high (75% in this study) and increases with age. Tobacco smoking, non-White race and higher body mass index were identified as risk factors for seropositivity. The results are truely intriguing in terms of acute infection. First, only 12 of the 539 patients (2.2%), including 12 of 272 (4.4%) studied by paired serology, had acute C. pneumoniae infection as judged by a four-fold increase in antibody titres or an immunoglobulin (Ig)M antibody titre of ≥1:16. An additional 32 cases (5.9%) had possible acute infection as defined by an IgG titre of ≥512. Secondly, patients with acute infection were not different from those with possible infection. Thirdly, of the 44 patients, only 16 (38%) had no other pathogen identified, whereas the remaining 26 had one (n=26 patients) or two or more pathogens (n=10 patients) identified. S. pneumoniae and respiratory viruses accounted for most of these infections.

What is the meaning of these results? Although the authors conclude that C. pneumoniae is an important pathogen, the exact opposite could also be concluded. Applying strict criteria, the rate of 2.2% (or 4.4% if only patients with paired serology are taken into account) is not high, and certainly three to 10 times lower than previously reported. For example, in the authors' study, where only seroconversion was judged as acute C. pneumoniae infection, the incidence was 15 of 204 (7.4%) 7. Given that overall seropositivity rates were very high, there is only limited confidence in the significance of the remaining “possible acute infections”. Therefore, prior to any preterm conclusion, it would be important to include culture and deoxyribonucleic acid amplification methods concurrently in order to get some idea of the meaning of these possible infections. However, currently available data have provided conflicting results in this regard. In a Spanish study including 184 patients with CAP, C. pneumoniae was detected in the PCR of throat-swab specimens in nine patients, but only one showed seroconversion 19. Conversely, in a study originating from Germany, 46 patients with pneumonia who had experienced a treatment failure in the majority of cases and, therefore, were subject to bronchoscopy and bronchoalvolar lavage (BAL) were investigated. These authors found a positive PCR of BAL fluid in seven cases, resulting in a 15% incidence 20. However, culture was positive in only one case and, unfortunately, serology was not performed. Without any doubt, the latter study highlights the relevance of this pathogen in this particular population with treatment failures. In fact, the subject of mixed infections including C. pneumoniae is difficult to settle, and, therefore, different approaches must be applied to improve the understanding of the particular role of this pathogen.

The present study confirms the observation of previous studies that C. pneumoniae may frequently be involved in mixed infections. Unfortunately, the authors do not report the frequency of mixed infections in the 12 patients with definite acute infection, leaving their study open to the conclusion that mixed infections may be caused by a large amount of artefacts due to the single antibody titre criteria applied. Another concern when considering mixed infections established mainly by serological methods is the possible cross-reactivity of serological measurements. However, interesting clinical differences between patients with C. pneumoniae as the only pathogen and the mixed-infection group appeared. Duration of symptoms prior to hospitalisation was considerably shorter in the prior group and this group was more likely to have asthma, nausea and vomiting. These observations resemble the clinical presentation of viral lower respiratory tract infections and this may be the true clinical picture of pure C. pneumoniae infection.

Another shortcoming of this study is that the authors do not report the mortality of definite acute C. pneumoniae infection separately. The reported mortality of the whole group (4.9%) is low and lower than the 9.4% of the remainder of the cohort. To the best of the authors' knowledge, there are no data in the literature analysing the impact of Chlamydial infection on pneumonia mortality.

Should Chlamydia pneumoniae be regularly included in the initial antimicrobial treatment of patients hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia? Are mixed infections including Chlamydia pneumoniae important? Obviously, the exact answers are unknown. In addition to the concerns expressed here, there is some anecdotal data suggesting that treatment may not be effective or even necessary in all patients. For example, patients may have persisting positive culture results despite adequate treatment and clinical recovery 21. Moreover, patients may recover despite having received appropriate antimicrobial treatment 22, 23. The present study is important in that it shows how the unanswered questions should be addressed in future studies. First, large populations have to be recruited. Secondly, serological and deoxyribonucleic acid amplification methods should be applied concurrently. Thirdly, analysis should strictly divide patients with definite and possible infections, particularly when analysing mixed infections. Finally, the independent impact of Chlamydia pneumoniae infection on morbidity and mortality must be addressed. Only data from such studies will firmly establish the role these pathogens have in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

    • © ERS Journals Ltd

    References

    1. ↵
      Grayston JT, Kuo CC, Wang SP, Altmann J. A new Chlamydia psittaci strain, TWAR, isolated in acute respiratory tract infections. N Engl J Med 1986;315:161–168.
    2. ↵
      Blasi F, Consentini R, Legnani D, Denti F, Allegra L. Incidence of community acquired pneumonia caused by Chlamydia pneumoniae in Italian patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1993;12:696–699.
    3. Bohte R, van Furth R, van den Broek PJ. Aetiology of community-acquired pneumonia: a prospective study among adults requiring admission to hospital. Thorax 1995;50:543–547.
    4. Mundy LM, Auwaerter PG, Oldach D, et al. Community-acquired pneumonia: impact of immune status. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995;152:1309–1315.
    5. Lieberman D, Schlaeffer F, Boldur I, et al. Multiple pathogens in adult patients admitted with community-acquired pneumonia: a one year propspective study of 346 consecutive patients. Thorax 1996;51:179–184.
    6. Neill AM, Martin IR, Weir R, et al. Community acquired pneumonia: aetiology and usefulness of severity criteria on admission. Thorax 1996;51:1010–1016.
    7. ↵
      Ruiz M, Ewig S, Marcos MA, et al. Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia: impact of age, comorbidity, and severity. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;160:397–405.
    8. ↵
      Park DR, Sherbin VL, Goodman MS, et al. for the Harborview CAP study. The etiology of community acquired pneumonia at an urban public hospital: influence of human immunodeficiency virus infection and initial severity. J Infect Dis 2001;184:268–277.
    9. ↵
      American Thoracic Society: Guidelines for the management of adults with community-acquired pneumonia.: Diagnosis, assessment of severity, antimicrobial therapy, and prevention. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;163:1730–1754.
    10. ↵
      Bartlett JG, Dowell SF, Mandell LA, File TM Jr, Musher DM, Fine MJ. Practice guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2000;31:347–382.
    11. ↵
      Mandell LA, Marrie TJ, Grossmann RF, Chow AW, Hyland RH, and the Canadian Community-Acquired Pneumonia Working Group. Canadian guidelines for the initial management of community-acquired pneumonia: an evidence-based update by the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society and the Canadian Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis 2000;31:383–421.
    12. ↵
      Huchon G, Woodhead M. Guidelines for management of adult community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. Eur Respir J 1998;11:986–991.
    13. ↵
      BTS Guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia. Thorax 2001;56:Suppl. IV, 1–64.
    14. ↵
      Hammerschlag MR. Diagnostic methods for intracellular pathogens. Clin Microbiol Dis 1996;1:Suppl. 1, S3–S9.
    15. ↵
      Gaydos CA, Roblin PM, Hammerschlag MR, et al. Diagnostic utility of PCR-enzyme immunoassay, culture, and serology for detection of Chlamydia pneumoniae in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. J Clin Microbiol 1994;32:903–905.
    16. ↵
      Kauppinen MT, Herva E, Kujala P, et al. The etiology of community-acquired pneumonia among hospitalized patients during a Chlamydia pneumoniae epidemic in Finland. J Infect Dis 1995;172:1330–1335.
    17. ↵
      Shemer-Avni Y, Lieberman D. Chlamydia pneumoniae induced ciliostasis in ciliated human bronchial epithelial cells. J Infect Dis 1995;171:1274–1278.
    18. ↵
      Marrie TJ, Peeling RW, Reid T, De Carolis E, the Canadian Community-Acquired Pneumonia Investigators: . Chlamydia species as a cause of community-acquired pneumonia in Canada. Eur Respir J 2003;21:779–784.
    19. ↵
      Menendez R, Cordoba J, Cuadra P, et al. Value of the polymerase chain reaction assay in noninvasive respiratory samples for diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;159:1868–1873.
    20. ↵
      Dalhoff K, Maas M. Chlamydia pneumoniae pneumonia in hospitalized patients. Clinical characteristics and diagnostic value of polymerase chain reaction detection in BAL. Chest 1996;110:351–356.
    21. ↵
      Roblin PM, Hammerschlag MR. Microbiologic efficacy of azithromycin and susceptibilities to azithromycin of isolates of Chlamydia pneumoniae from adults and children with community-acquired pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998;42:194–196.
    22. ↵
      Lieberman D, Ben-Yaakov M, Lanzarovich Z, et al. Chlamydia pneumoniae community-acquired pneumonia: a review of 62 hospitalized patients. Infection 1995;24:109–114.
    23. ↵
      Marrie TJ, Grayston T, Wang S, Kuo C. Pneumonia associated with the TWAR strain of Chlamydia. Ann Intern Med 1987;106:507–511.
    View Abstract
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 21 Issue 5 Table of Contents
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Is Chlamydia pneumoniae an important pathogen in patients with community-acquired pneumonia?
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Citation Tools
    Is Chlamydia pneumoniae an important pathogen in patients with community-acquired pneumonia?
    S. Ewig, A. Torres
    European Respiratory Journal May 2003, 21 (5) 741-742; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.03.00023003

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    Is Chlamydia pneumoniae an important pathogen in patients with community-acquired pneumonia?
    S. Ewig, A. Torres
    European Respiratory Journal May 2003, 21 (5) 741-742; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.03.00023003
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • References
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • Gut microbiota and cardiovascular effects of sleep apnoea
    • Enhancing immunity to COVID-19 in lung transplant recipients
    • The ERJ heads for the next frontier
    Show more Editorials

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Reviewers
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Publication ethics and malpractice
    • Submit a manuscript

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society