Does adjunctive clindamycin have a role in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia? A protocol for the adjunctive treatment domain of the S. aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The use of adjunctive antibiotics directed against exotoxin production in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is widespread, and is recommended in many guidelines, but there is limited evidence underpinning this. Existing guidelines are based on the theoretical premise of toxin suppression, as many strains of S. aureus produce toxins such as leucocidins (e.g., Panton-Valentine Leucocidin (PVL), toxic shock syndrome toxin 1 (TSST-1), exfoliative toxins, and various enterotoxins). Many clinicians therefore believe that limiting exotoxin production release by S. aureus could reduce its virulence and improve clinical outcomes. Clindamycin, a protein synthesis inhibitor antibiotic, is commonly used for this purpose. We report the domain-specific protocol, embedded in a large adaptive, platform trial, seeking to definitively answer this question. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial is a pragmatic, randomized, multi-center adaptive platform trial that aims to compare different SAB therapies, simultaneously, for 90-day mortality. The adjunctive treatment domain aims to test the effectiveness of adjunctive antibiotics, initially comparing clindamycin to no adjunctive antibiotic, but future adaptations may include other agents. Individuals will be randomized to receive either five days of adjunctive clindamycin (or lincomycin) or no adjunctive antibiotic therapy alongside standard of care antibiotics. Most participants with SAB (within 72hr of index blood culture and not contraindicated) will be eligible to participate in this domain. Prespecified analyses are defined in the statistical appendix to the core protocol and domain-specific secondary analyses will be adjusted for resistance to clindamycin, disease phenotype (complicated or uncomplicated SAB) and PVL-positive isolate.

Clinician perceptions of research priorities for the management of noncritically ill patients admitted to hospital with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The changing phenotype of coronarvirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may quickly render guideline-recommended interventions obsolete. We developed a 40-question clinician survey in consultation with the Australasian COVID-19 Trial site investigators. The survey was designed to assess clinician perceptions of the current treatment strategies and future research priorities in the management of non-critically ill patients admitted to hospital with SARS-CoV-2 infection. There were 84 complete responses from predominantly Australian and New Zealand clinicians. The perceived prevalence of patients with incidental COVID-19, nosocomial infection, underlying illness exacerbated by COVID-19, and/or immunocompromised status suggests new populations to target. The results highlighted clinician interest in antiviral therapies for future research in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised cohorts. These survey results underscore the need for ongoing surveillance of COVID-19 disease phenotypes and clinician and patient priorities for future research.

TMPRSS2 inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of nafamostat and camostat mesylate.

BACKGROUND: Synthetic serine protease inhibitors block the cellular enzyme transmembrane protease serine 2, thus preventing SARS-CoV-2 cell entry. There are two relevant drugs in this class, namely, nafamostat (intravenous formulation) and camostat (oral formulation). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether transmembrane protease serine 2 inhibition with nafamostat or camostat is associated with a reduced risk of 30-day all-cause mortality in adults with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Scientific databases and clinical trial registry platforms. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, INTERVENTIONS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Preprints or published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of nafamostat or camostat vs. usual care or placebo in adults requiring treatment for COVID-19. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS AND RISK-OF-BIAS ASSESSMENT: The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included time to recovery, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the revised Cochrane RoB 2 tool for individually randomized trials. Meta-analysis was conducted in the R package meta (v7.0-0) using inverse variance and random effects. Protocol registration number was INPLASY202320120. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were included. Overall, the number of available patients was small (nafamostat = 387; camostat = 1061), the number of enrolled patients meeting the primary outcome was low (nafamostat = 12; camostat = 13), and heterogeneity was high. In hospitalized adults, we did not identify differences in 30-day all-cause mortality (risk ratio [95% CI]: 0.58 [0.19, 1.80], p 0.34; I2 = 0%; n = 6) and time to recovery (mean difference [95% CI]: 0.08 days [-0.74, 0.89], p 0.86; n = 2) between nafamostat vs. usual care; and for 30-day all-cause mortality (risk ratio [95% CI]: 0.99 [0.31, 3.18], p 0.99; n = 2) between camostat vs. placebo. CONCLUSION: The RCT evidence is inconclusive to determine whether there is a mortality reduction and safety with either nafamostat or camostat for the treatment of adults with COVID-19. There were high RoB, small sample size, and high heterogeneity between RCTs.

Early oral antibiotic switch in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) Trial Early Oral Switch Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (bacteraemia) is traditionally treated with at least two weeks of IV antibiotics in adults, 3-7 days in children, and often longer for those with complicated disease. The current practice of treating S. aureus bacteraemia (SAB) with prolonged IV antibiotics (rather than oral antibiotics) is based on historical observational research and expert opinion. Prolonged IV antibiotic therapy has significant disadvantages for patients and healthcare systems, and there is growing interest in whether a switch to oral antibiotics following an initial period of IV therapy is a safe alternative for clinically stable patients. PROTOCOL: The early oral switch (EOS) domain of the S. aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial will assess early switch to oral antibiotics compared with continued IV treatment in clinically stable patients with SAB. The primary endpoint is 90-day all-cause mortality. Hospitalised SAB patients are assessed at platform day 7 +/- 2 (uncomplicated SAB) and day 14 +/-2 (complicated SAB) to determine their eligibility for randomisation to EOS (intervention) or continued IV treatment (current standard of care). DISCUSSION: Recruitment is occurring to the EOS domain of the SNAP trial. As of August 2023, 21% of all SNAP participants had been randomised to the EOS domain, a total of 264 participants across 77 centres, with an aim to recruit at least 1000 participants. We describe challenges and facilitators to enrolment in this domain to aid those planning similar trials.

A cross-disciplinary view of current and emerging COVID-19 developments.

The emergency phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is over. Still, the work goes on in understanding the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its evolution, infection impacts - acute and long term - as well as therapeutics and the lessons for preventing and responding to future pandemics. Research into the long-term post-infection effects and therapeutic interventions also expands as the post-infection period lengthens. We provide an overview of the leading edge of COVID-19 research across clinical, epidemiological and social domains.

A multi-site, international laboratory study to assess the performance of penicillin susceptibility testing of Staphylococcus aureus.

OBJECTIVES: There is clinical uncertainty over the optimal treatment for penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (PSSA) infections. Furthermore, there is concern that phenotypic penicillin susceptibility testing methods are not reliably able to detect some blaZ-positive S. aureus. METHODS: Nine S. aureus isolates, including six genetically diverse strains harbouring blaZ, were sent in triplicate to 34 participating laboratories from Australia (n = 14), New Zealand (n = 6), Canada (n = 12), Singapore (n = 1) and Israel (n = 1). We used blaZ PCR as the gold standard to assess susceptibility testing performance of CLSI (P10 disc) and EUCAST (P1 disc) methods. Very major errors (VMEs), major error (MEs) and categorical agreement were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-two laboratories reported 593 results according to CLSI methodology (P10 disc). Nineteen laboratories reported 513 results according to the EUCAST (P1 disc) method. For CLSI laboratories, the categorical agreement and calculated VME and ME rates were 85% (508/593), 21% (84/396) and 1.5% (3/198), respectively. For EUCAST laboratories, the categorical agreement and calculated VME and ME rates were 93% (475/513), 11% (84/396) and 1% (3/198), respectively. Seven laboratories reported results for both methods, with VME rates of 24% for CLSI and 12% for EUCAST. CONCLUSIONS: The EUCAST method with a P1 disc resulted in a lower VME rate compared with the CLSI methods with a P10 disc. These results should be considered in the context that among collections of PSSA isolates, as determined by automated MIC testing, less than 10% harbour blaZ. Furthermore, the clinical relevance of phenotypically susceptible, but blaZ-positive S. aureus, remains unclear.

Anticoagulation Strategies in Non-Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

Anticoagulation in Non-Critically Ill Covid-19 PatientsMcQuilten et al. conducted a randomized clinical trial comparing low-dose, intermediate-dose, low-dose plus aspirin, and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in patients with Covid-19 of diverse ethnicities in high-, low-, and middle-income countries.

A Randomized Trial of Nafamostat for Covid-19.

A Randomized Trial of Nafamostat for Covid-19Nafamostat mesylate is a potent in vitro antiviral that inhibits the host transmembrane protease serine 2 enzyme used by SARS-CoV-2 for cell entry. Morpeth et al report the results of an open-label randomized clinical trial of nafamostat for noncritically ill patients with Covid-19.

ASCOT ADAPT study of COVID-19 therapeutics in hospitalised patients: an international multicentre adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a significant risk of hospitalisation, death, and prolonged impact on quality of life. Evaluation of new treatment options and optimising therapeutic management of people hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection remains essential, but rapid changes in pandemic conditions and potential therapies have limited the utility of traditional approaches to randomised controlled trials. METHODS: ASCOT ADAPT is an international, investigator-initiated, adaptive platform, randomised controlled trial of therapeutics for non-critically ill patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The study design is open label and pragmatic. Potential participants are hospitalised adults with PCR confirmed, symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection, within 14 days of symptom onset. Domains include antiviral, antibody and anticoagulant interventions, with a composite primary outcome of 28-day mortality or progression to intensive-care level respiratory or haemodynamic support. Initial interventions include intravenous nafamostat and variable dose anticoagulation. A range of secondary endpoints, and substudies for specific domains and interventions are outlined. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the trial protocol and management structure, including international governance, remote site monitoring and biobanking activities and provides commentary on ethical and pragmatic considerations in establishing the ASCOT ADAPT trial under pandemic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620000445976) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04483960).

Nafamostat Mesylate for Treatment of COVID-19 in Hospitalised Patients: A Structured, Narrative Review.

The search for clinically effective antivirals against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is ongoing. Repurposing of drugs licensed for non-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) indications has been extensively investigated in laboratory models and in clinical studies with mixed results. Nafamostat mesylate (nafamostat) is a drug licensed in Japan and Korea for indications including acute pancreatitis and disseminated intravascular coagulation. It is available only for continuous intravenous infusion. In vitro human lung cell line studies with nafamostat demonstrate high antiviral potency against SARS-CoV-2 (half maximal inhibitory concentration [IC50] of 0.0022 µM [compared to remdesivir 1.3 µM]), ostensibly via inhibition of the cellular enzyme transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2) preventing viral entry into human cells. In addition, the established antithrombotic activity is hypothesised to be advantageous given thrombosis-associated sequelae of COVID-19. Clinical reports to date are limited, but indicate a potential benefit of nafamostat in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. In this review, we will explore the pre-clinical, pharmacokinetic and clinical outcome data presently available for nafamostat as a treatment for COVID-19. The recruitment to ongoing clinical trials is a priority to provide more robust data on the safety and efficacy of nafamostat as a treatment for COVID-19.

The effect of needle length and skin to deltoid muscle distance in adults receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

BACKGROUND: The mRNA COVID vaccines are only licensed for intramuscular injection but it is unclear whether successful intramuscular administration is required for immunogenicity. METHODS: In this observational study, eligible adults receiving their first ComirnatyTM/BNT162b2 dose had their skin to deltoid muscle distance (SDMD) measured by ultrasound. The relationship between SDMD and height, weight, body mass index, and arm circumference was assessed. Three needle length groups were identified: 'clearly sufficient' (needle exceeding SDMD by >5 mm), 'probably sufficient' (needle exceeding SDMD by ≤ 5 mm), and 'insufficient' (needle length ≤ SDMD). Baseline and follow-up finger prick blood samples were collected and the primary outcome variable was mean spike antibody levels in the three needle length groups. RESULTS: Participants (n = 402) had a mean age of 34.7 years, BMI 29.1 kg/m2, arm circumference 37.5 cm, and SDMD 13.3 mm. The SDMD was >25 mm in 23/402 (5.7%) and >20 mm in 61/402 (15.2%) participants. Both arm circumference (≥40 cm) and BMI (≥33 kg/m2) were able to identify those with a SDMD of >25 mm, the length of a standard injection needle, with a sensitivity of 100% and specificities of 71.2 and 79.9%, respectively. Of 249/402 (62%) participants with paired blood samples, there was no significant difference in spike antibody titres between needle length groups. The mean (SD) spike BAU/mL was 464.5 (677.1) in 'clearly sufficient needle length' (n = 217) compared with 506.4 (265.1) in 'probably sufficient' (n = 21, p = 0.09), and 489.4 (452.3) in 'insufficient needle length' (n = 11, p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: A 25 mm needle length is likely to be inadequate to ensure vaccine deposition within the deltoid muscle in a small proportion of adults. Vaccine-induced spike antibody titres were comparable in those vaccinated with a needle of sufficient versus insufficient length suggesting deltoid muscle deposition may not be required for an adequate antibody response to mRNA vaccines.

Prophylaxis in healthcare workers during a pandemic: a model for a multi-centre international randomised controlled trial using Bayesian analyses.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exposed the disproportionate effects of pandemics on frontline workers and the ethical imperative to provide effective prophylaxis. We present a model for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) that utilises Bayesian methods to rapidly determine the efficacy or futility of a prophylactic agent. METHODS: We initially planned to undertake a multicentre, phase III, parallel-group, open-label RCT, to determine if hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) taken once a week was effective in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in healthcare workers (HCW) aged ≥ 18 years in New Zealand (NZ) and Ireland. Participants were to be randomised 2:1 to either HCQ (800 mg stat then 400 mg weekly) or no prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was time to Nucleic Acid Amplification Test-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondary outcome variables included mortality, hospitalisation, intensive care unit admissions and length of mechanical ventilation. The trial had no fixed sample size or duration of intervention. Bayesian adaptive analyses were planned to occur fortnightly, commencing with a weakly informative prior for the no prophylaxis group hazard rate and a moderately informative prior on the intervention log hazard ratio centred on 'no effect'. Stopping for expected success would be executed if the intervention had a greater than 0.975 posterior probability of reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 10%. Final success would be declared if, after completion of 8 weeks of follow-up (reflecting the long half-life of HCQ), the prophylaxis had at least a 0.95 posterior probability of reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 10%. Futility would be declared if HCQ was shown to have less than a 0.10 posterior probability of reducing acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 20%. DISCUSSION: This study did not begin recruitment due to the marked reduction in COVID-19 cases in NZ and concerns regarding the efficacy and risks of HCQ treatment in COVID-19. Nonetheless, the model presented can be easily adapted for other potential prophylactic agents and pathogens, and pre-established collaborative models like this should be shared and incorporated into future pandemic preparedness planning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The decision not to proceed with the study was made before trial registration occurred.

Clinical features of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 from February to October 2020, during the early waves of the pandemic in New Zealand.

AIM: As New Zealand transitions towards endemic SARS-CoV-2, understanding patient factors predicting severity, as well as hospital resourcing requirements will be essential for future planning. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled patients hospitalised with COVID-19 from 26 February to 5 October 2020 as part of the COVID-19 HospitalisEd Patient SeverIty Observational Study NZ (COHESION). Data on demographics, clinical course and outcomes were collected and analysed as a descriptive case series. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were identified across eight district health boards. Forty-one (49%) were male. The median age was 58 years [IQR: 41.7-70.3 years]. By ethnicity, hospitalisations included 38 NZ European (45%), 19 Pasifika (23%), 13 Maori (15%), 12 Asian (14%) and 2 Other (2%). Pre-existing co-morbidities included hypertension (26/82, 32%), obesity (16/66, 24%) and diabetes (18/81, 22%). The median length of stay was four days [IQR: 2-15 days]. Twelve patients (12/83, 14%) were admitted to an intensive care unit or high dependency unit (ICU/HDU). Ten (10/83, 12%) patients died in hospital of whom seven (70%) were not admitted to ICU/HDU; the median age at death was 83 years. CONCLUSION: Despite initially low case numbers in New Zealand during 2020, hospitalisation with COVID-19 was associated with a high mortality and hospital resource requirements.

The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform Trial Protocol: New Tools for an Old Foe.

Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream (SAB) infection is a common and severe infectious disease, with a 90-day mortality of 15%-30%. Despite this, <3000 people have been randomized into clinical trials of treatments for SAB infection. The limited evidence base partly results from clinical trials for SAB infections being difficult to complete at scale using traditional clinical trial methods. Here we provide the rationale and framework for an adaptive platform trial applied to SAB infections. We detail the design features of the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial that will enable multiple questions to be answered as efficiently as possible. The SNAP trial commenced enrolling patients across multiple countries in 2022 with an estimated target sample size of 7000 participants. This approach may serve as an exemplar to increase efficiency of clinical trials for other infectious disease syndromes.

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

The Utility of Rapid Group A Streptococcus Molecular Testing Compared with Throat Culture for the Diagnosis of Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis in a High-Incidence Rheumatic Fever Population.

Group A streptococcus (GAS) causes significant morbidity and mortality in New Zealand and is responsible for invasive disease and immune sequelae, including acute rheumatic fever (ARF). Early treatment of GAS pharyngitis reduces the risk of ARF. In settings with a high burden of GAS disease, a rapid GAS pharyngitis diagnostic test with a strong negative predictive value is needed to enable prompt and accurate treatment. This prospective study compares the Xpert Xpress Strep A molecular test (Cepheid) to throat culture and a second molecular method, the BioGX group A streptococcus-open system reagent (OSR) for BD Max for the diagnosis of GAS pharyngitis. Throat swabs were collected from the emergency department and wards of Middlemore Hospital, New Zealand. The BioGX group A streptococcus OSR for BD Max contributes to the composite gold standard of throat culture or both molecular methods positive. Basic demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. Two hundred five out of two hundred fourteen swabs were suitable for analysis. Of those, 28/205 (13.7%) were GAS culture positive, 45/205 (22%) Xpert Xpress Strep A positive, and 38/205 (18.5%) BioGX positive. Compared to culture, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Xpert Xpress Strep A molecular test were 100%, 90.4%, 62.2%, and 100%, respectively. Compared to the composite gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were 100%, 95.8%, 84.4%, and 100%, respectively. Seventeen samples were Xpert Xpress positive but culture negative; 6 of these 17 swabs represent true positives with evidence of recent GAS infection. Ten samples were culture negative but both Xpert Xpress and BioGX positive. The Xpert Xpress Strep A molecular test is highly sensitive with a strong negative predictive value and rapid turnaround time. It can be safely introduced as a first-line test for throat swabs in a high-incidence ARF population.

The Etiology of Pneumonia in HIV-uninfected Children in Kilifi, Kenya: Findings From the Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health (PERCH) Study.

BACKGROUND: In the 1980s, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae were identified as the principal causes of severe pneumonia in children. We investigated the etiology of severe childhood pneumonia in Kenya after introduction of conjugate vaccines against H. influenzae type b, in 2001, and S. pneumoniae, in 2011. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study between August 2011 and November 2013 among residents of the Kilifi Health and Demographic Surveillance System 28 days to 59 months of age. Cases were hospitalized at Kilifi County Hospital with severe or very severe pneumonia according to the 2005 World Health Organization definition. Controls were randomly selected from the community and frequency matched to cases on age and season. We tested nasal and oropharyngeal samples, sputum, pleural fluid, and blood specimens and used the Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health Integrated Analysis, combining latent class analysis and Bayesian methods, to attribute etiology. RESULTS: We enrolled 630 and 863 HIV-uninfected cases and controls, respectively. Among the cases, 282 (44%) had abnormal chest radiographs (CXR positive), 33 (5%) died in hospital, and 177 (28%) had diagnoses other than pneumonia at discharge. Among CXR-positive pneumonia cases, viruses and bacteria accounted for 77% (95% CrI: 67%-85%) and 16% (95% CrI: 10%-26%) of pneumonia attribution, respectively. Respiratory syncytial virus, S. pneumoniae and H. influenza, accounted for 37% (95% CrI: 31%-44%), 5% (95% CrI: 3%-9%), and 6% (95% CrI: 2%-11%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory syncytial virus was the main cause of CXR-positive pneumonia. The small contribution of H. influenzae type b and pneumococcus to pneumonia may reflect the impact of vaccine introductions in this population.