Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jul 22;20(7):e0328516. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328516

Post-vaccination Streptococcus pneumoniae colonization and respiratory manifestations in children: A prospective cohort study

Jaqueline Elisa Verardo Benedetti 1,#, Kauana Pizzutti 1,, Mariana Preussler Mott 1,, Pedro Uriel Pedrotti Vieira 2, Neide Maria Bruscato 3,, Emilio Hideyuki Moriguchi 3,4, Roberta Rigo Dalla Corte 4, João Carlos Batista Santana 3,5,6,#, Cícero Dias 1,2,¤,*,#
Editor: Oriana Rivera-Lozada de Bonilla7
PMCID: PMC12282912  PMID: 40694547

Abstract

Background

Streptococcus pneumoniae is considered one of the main agents for pneumonia, meningitis, bacteremia, sinusitis, and acute otitis media (AOM)especially in children under 5 years, and a cause for morbidity and mortality due to respiratory infections worldwide. Our aim was to investigate the influence of Streptococcus pneumoniae colonization in vaccinated children regarding infections in a one-year follow-up.

Methods

A double-blind, observational, prospective cohort study was conducted on children aged 18–59 months, vaccinated with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine 10 (PCV10) or pneumococcal conjugate vaccine 13 (PCV13). A total of 225 children were monitored, with different dates of entry into the study, which occurred between March 2018 and October 2019 (zero time). At the end of one year, counting from the date of entry, interviews and data collection took place in medical records (end of follow-up). The Poisson regression with robust variance and Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests were used for qualitative analyses; Mann-Whitney or Friedman tests for quantitative analyses.

Results

A high colonization rate (64.4%) was observed, with only 2.8% of carriers having a PCV10 vaccine serotype, specifically 6B, as expected. Being male showed association to colonization (p = 0.05). We found that children colonized by pneumococcus do not have an increased risk for respiratory diseases or antimicrobial use. Exception was only observed in cases of serotype 6B colonization, showing association with pneumonia in children under 2 years (p = 0.016).

Conclusion

Our study reveals that the carriage of Streptococcus pneumoniae does not appear to significantly impact the incidence of respiratory diseases in a fully-vaccinated children population. However, it is noteworthy that a correlation was observed in the occurrence of pneumonia in children under the age of 2 when colonized by serotype 6B.

Introduction

Streptococcus pneumoniae is considered one of the main agents for pneumonia, meningitis, bacteremia, sinusitis, and acute otitis media (AOM) [1,2], especially in children under 5 years, and a cause for morbidity and mortality due to respiratory infections worldwide [3]. In their study, Wahl et al. (2018) estimated that there were 294,000 pneumococcal deaths among children aged 1–59 months worldwide in 2015 and that these deaths decreased by 51% from 2000 to 2015 due to the widespread use of PCV accompanied by also a reduction in cases of the disease [4,5]. The same study highlighted that Brazil reached one of the largest reductions by 2015, 88% of deaths from this agent after the introduction of the 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV10) in the country [4]. More recently, in a hospital-based study historical series on IPD among children in Brazil, fatalities were significantly reduced from 6.6 to 2.0 cases per 10,000 after the introduction of PCV10 in the public system [6]. In the state of Rio Grande do Sul, a decrease in the incidence of meningitis has been observed over time [7].

Prevention for pneumococcal disease is based mainly on active immunization [8], with the capsule being its main target, in which polysaccharide antigens induce serotype-specific response [9,10]. A study was conducted with Brazilian children in 3 moments (2010, 2013 and 2017), and saw that the high prevalence of PCV10 types (47.8%) before vaccination decreased in 2017 to a few isolates (1.4%), represented by serotypes 6B, 9V, 14, 18C and 23F, showing a robust impact of vaccination [11]. The same study showed, through laboratory-base surveillance for invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) pre- and post-PCV10 introduction, that the occurrence of cases involving non-vaccine serotypes (NVT) increased from 20.7% to 88.7%, with serotypes 3, 6C and 19A being the most prevalent [11]. In a time-trend analysis conducted in high-income countries, NVT were observed to be the most prevalent in post-PCV era, but no dominant serotype was observed [12]. Post-conjugate vaccines introduction studies did not find decrease in overall carriage rates in the population, but rather replacement, where non-vaccine serotypes (NVT) have become more prevalent [1315].

Clinical expression of S. pneumoniae in the colonization/disease binomial can occur via non-invasive strains with long time of colonization and low risk of tissue invasion, or via specifically selected clones whose capacity for quick induction of the disease [16] leads to IPD [17]. S. pneumoniae has a remarkable ability of avoiding or taking advantage of the host’s inflammatory and immune responses, which allows it to invade normally sterile sites, such as spaces in middle ear, lungs, bloodstream and meninges [1,9].

There are few longitudinal and prospective studies relating colonization and respiratory disease by monitoring children. Thus, we aimed to investigate the consequences of colonization by Streptococcus pneumoniae in terms of respiratory infections in a cohort of Brazilian children, during a one-year follow-up.

Methods and material

Study design

This was a prospective, double-blind, follow-up, observational cohort study with children aged 18–59 months undertaken in Veranópolis – RS, Brazil from Feb/2018 to Oct/2019. Each child was followed up for up to one year after their entry into the study (Feb/2019 to Oct 2020).

Profile of the study area

This town had an estimated population of 26,533 (87% urban) people in 2020, of which 781 were children aged 18–59 months. Its 0.773 Human Development Index (HDI), U$ 15,400.00 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (IBGE, 2018), and 75.3-year-old life expectancy at birth (IBGE, 2000) [18]. The care network has 15 pediatric health services (7 public, including 1 hospital, and 8 private). In the period 2018–2022 there was 1 death in the age group of 1–4 years in the city (coefficient 3.8/100,000) show that this city has good lifestyle indicators.

This study is reported following the STROBE guidelines [19].

Recruitment

This trial was part of a larger ongoing study called “Streptococcus pneumoniae carriers among elderly and children: evaluation of the effect of PCV10”, initiated in 2018, in which 231 children aged 18–59 months participated.

The trial used the same cohort of 231 children show in Fig 1. Eligibility required children aged 18–59 months, enrolled in it, and having specimens collected from their nasopharynx (NP). Study entry occurred between March 2018 and October 2019 (zero time), with follow-up interviews and medical record reviews conducted one year later. In cases of refusal to have the NP swab collected or to answer the proposed questionnaire a year later, the participant was excluded from the study.

Fig 1. Flowchart.

Fig 1

a Recruiting via: phone call, letter to the parents, community health workers, in-person contact with the parents at school or vaccination campaign, invitation on social media. b Inclusion criteria: child aged 18–59 months with specimens collected from their NP, sample considered adequate, and having participated in the previous study. c May have 1 or more records in different health services.

A participant recruitment strategy was established. Following the random draw order, 11 out of 13 school principals were contacted to ensure a randomized selection. School visits continued until the required sample size was reached, considering a loss of 10%, resulting in different entry and exit dates for each participant. Additional volunteers outside the school environment were recruited through an appeal on local radio.

Follow-up

The following time references were used: “zero time” — beginning of observation, date of the NP swab collection; “end of follow-up” — 12 months after “zero time”. An interview was conducted at “end of follow-up” using a structured questionnaire with closed-ended questions to obtain primary data about sociodemographic characteristics, clinical conditions (number and type of event related to respiratory disease), hospitalization, use of antibiotics, vaccination and exposure factors. Each participant’s vaccination card was used to obtain data on which vaccine was used (PCV10 or PCV13) and when it was administered. Vaccination schedules were analyzed, and children were considered fully vaccinated with the following criteria, according to the National Immunization Program: if vaccinated with PCV10 before 2016, three doses and a booster; as of 2016, two shots and a booster; PCV13, three shots and a booster. We also considered the possibility of mixed regimens (PCV10 + PCV13) [20,21].

Besides the interview, data from each participant’s medical record were collected (date and place of the consultation, use of antimicrobials, signs and symptoms). In the local hospital, a search was made by records of children who have been hospitalized, especially with a diagnosis of pneumonia. They were accessed through 15 different health services to search for relevant outcomes for the study. These outcomes were classified according to the clinical syndrome: community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), sinusitis, AOM, tonsillopharyngitis, asthma and upper and lower Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI).

All outcomes of interest were registered in the database, but the occurrence of each one of them was computed only once per child, even if the same outcome occurred twice for the same participant. If there was no record of visits for a child, we assumed that they did not receive medical care for the outcomes of interest in that period. The diagnoses obtained from the medical records were based exclusively on the criteria of each physician responsible for the child’s care. There was no training aimed at standardizing criteria among professionals. For the diagnosis of pneumonia, we adopted criteria used by Shah at al., 2017: children with cough and/or difficulty breathing, with or without fever in the presence of rapid breathing or subcostal retraction [22,23]. All pneumonia cases were reviewed and confirmed/ruled by our team’s pediatrician (JCBS), considering the previously described criteria for case entry together with the demonstration of infiltrate or consolidation on chest X-ray [24]. A single researcher (JEV) conducted the interviews and the data collection from the records. It should be noted that NP collection occurred in one moment only, at “zero time”, and data for respiratory disease were collected through the one-year observation period. Two different databases were generated using Epi InfoTM 7 version 7.2.4.0 for the entry of data from the interviews and the records.

Sample collection and laboratory procedures

For each eligible individual, the NP swab was collected and immediately put in cryotubes with 1.0 ml of transport medium (STGG) in which it was stored and conserved in a biofreezer at −80ºC until its processing. All samples were considered adequate and remained viable until their analysis. The first stage took place in the Microbiology Laboratory at the Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), where culture and optochin susceptibility and bile solubility tests were conducted. In the same lab, the method used for serotype deduction was multiplex PCR [25]. Then the samples were sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for Quellung reaction.

Sample size

The sample was calculated to find a colonization prevalence of 62.3% (Brandileone et al., 2019) [11], with 95% confidence, acceptable error of 5.3% and a population of 781 children aged 18–59 months from Veranópolis, which resulted in 228 children.

Statistical analysis

Results for qualitative variables were presented as frequency and percentage. In the records, the existence of each diagnosis was defined as the presence of the pathology in at least one visit (including sampled children who did not have visits). The overall number of visits, with each diagnosis and season of the year, was presented as mean, standard deviation and median. The association between qualitative variables was verified through the Chi-squared test or the Fisher’s exact test, when appropriate, and the estimates for relative risk (RR) with CI95% were obtained through Poisson regression analysis with robust variance. The comparison of number of visits according to the colonization was obtained through the Mann-Whitney test. The Friedman test with the Dunn’s test for multiple comparisons was used to compare if there was a difference in the number of visits according to the season. Results were considered significant with p-value<0.05, and were analyzed with SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.).

Ethical consideration

All legal guardians provided written informed consent signed at the moment of the collection through Informed Consent Form (ICF). This study was approved by UFCSPA and HCPA (Clinics Hospital of Porto Alegre) ethics committees (#2.176.785 and #2.106.235, respectively; #3.063.051 and #3.374.087 amendments for the latter), and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki principles (June/1964, latest amendment in 2000).

Results

Among the 228 participants eligible for follow-up, there was a loss rate of 1.32% (Fig 1) yielding 225 children were monitored in 2019/2020 (“end follow-up”). Each child had unique entry and exit dates, and one year after “zero time” 216 phone interviews and 09 in-person interviews were conducted.

A 64.4% (n = 145/225) colonization rate was found, while in 35.6% (n = 80/225) of the children the agent was not found.

Table 1 depicts demographic characteristics for colonized and non-colonized groups regarding age, sex, living conditions, living with a smoker, smoke exposure and vaccination status. We observed higher proportion of colonization among male children — 81 of them (p = 0.05), which presented a 21% increase in risk of colonization (CI95% 0.99–1.48) when compared to female participants (n = 64/110).

Table 1. Cohort of children aged 18–59 months, colonized and non-colonized: general (socioeconomic/demographic) and vaccination characteristics, Veranópolis, Brazil — Interview database, n = 225.

Univariate Multivariate
VARIABLE S. pneumoniae (-) S. pneumoniae (+) p RR CI95% p RR CI95%
n = 80 n = 145
n (%) n (%)
Age: 18–23 months 16 (37.2%) 27 (62.8%) 1 1
 24–35 months 23 (36.5%) 40 (63.5%) 0.941 1.011 0.752-1.360 0.840 1.030 0.773-1.372
 36–47 months 21 (33.9%) 41 (66.1%) 0.727 1.053 0.787-1.409 0.522 1.104 0.815-1.497
 48–59 months 20 (35.1%) 37 (64.9%) 0.828 1.034 0.767-1.394 0.463 1.118 0.830-1.506
Sex: Female 46 (41.8%) 64 (58.2%) 1 1
 Male 34 (29.6%) 81 (70.4%) 0.05 1.21 0.99-1.48 0.117 1.177 0.960-1.443
Household a : 2–3 people 33 (35.1%) 61 (64.9%) 1 1
 4–5 people 40 (34.8%) 75 (65.2%) 0.961 1.005 0.823-1.227 0.585 1.061 0.857-1.314
 6 or more 7 (43.8%) 9 (56.3%) 0.540 0.867 0.549-1.369 0.404 08.26 0.526-1.296
Children in the household b : 01 64 (33.9%) 125 (66.1%) 1 1
 2–3 16 (44.4%) 20 (55.6%) 0.269 1.190 0.874-1.622 0.194 0.802 0.574-1.119
Shared bedroom c : No 45 (34.1%) 87 (65.9%) 1 1
 Yes 35 (37.6%) 58 (62.4%) 0.588 0.946 0.775-1.156 0.363 0.906 0.732-1.121
Smoker family member: No 64 (35%) 119 (65%) 1 1
 Yes 16 (38.1%) 26 (61.9%) 0.703 0.952 0.734-1.235 0.529 0.924 0.723-1.181
Smoke exposure d : No 36 (37.1%) 61 (62.9%) 1 1
 Yes 44 (34.4%) 84 (65.6%) 0.671 1.044 0.856-1.272 0.870 1.017 0.834-1.239
School e : No 2 (40%) 3 (60%) 1 1
 Yes 78 (35.5%) 142 (64.5%) 0.843 1.076 0.522-2.215 0.729 1.128 0.570-2.234
Vaccination: Mixed f 6 (42.9%) 8 (57.1%) 1 1
 PCV13 g 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 0.776 0.875 0.349-2.195 0.796 0.887 0.358-2.199
 PCV10 h 71 (34.6%) 134 (65.4%) 0.570 1.144 0.719-1.820 0.599 1.132 0.713-1.796

S. pneumoniae (-) = non-colonized, S. pneumoniae (+) = colonized. a Number of people living in the same household (including the child). b Number of children under 5 in the household (including the child). c Child shares the bedroom or bed with at least one person. d Use of fireplace or wood cookstove in the house. e School attendance between “zero time” and “end of follow-up”. f Mixed vaccination — the child received PCV10 and PCV13 doses. g Received 4 doses of PCV13. h Received 3 or 4 doses of PCV10.

All children (100%) enrolled in the cohort were considered vaccinated for their age and the period in question, since there was a change in sequential schedule for doses in Brazil, from 3 + 1–2 + 1, in 2016. A total of 205 (91.11%) children (134 colonized and 71 non-colonized) received 3 or 4 doses of PCV10, 6 (2.67%) received 4 doses of PCV13 (3 colonized and 3 non-colonized) and in 14 children (6.22%) vaccines were interchanged (mixed schedule, PCV10 + PCV13), among which there were 8 colonized and 6 non-colonized. There was no association between the vaccine received and colonization, regardless of the product used.

For 188 participants, 524 records were accessed, and 765 medical visits were generated (with one or more outcomes of interest recorded) between “zero time” and “end of follow-up”, with visits ranging from 1 to 15 per participant. For 37 (16.44%) of the 225 children followed, no medical care was registered in the period in question, among which 78.4% (n = 29/37) were colonized and 21.6% (8/37) were non-colonized. The mean of the number of visits for colonized and non-colonized was the same, 3.4 visits/child/period. Among the 145 colonized, 80% had at least one visit in the period (n = 116/145). Among the non-colonized, 90% had at least one visit recorded in the period (72/80). However, the difference was not significant (p = 0.053, CI95%, 0.80–0.99). Regarding seasonality, visits mean was also very similar among colonized and non-colonized. The seasons that showed higher mean of visits were winter (1.1 visit for colonized and 1 for non-colonized) and spring (1.1 visit for both groups).

For both carriers and non-carriers of S. pneumoniae, observed rates for pneumonia, AOM, sinusitis, upper and lower tract ARI, tonsillopharyngitis and asthma were very similar, with no association between pathology and colonization verified, as shown on Table 2. For pneumonia, sinusitis, and AOM, the mean of visits among colonized and non-colonized was 0.05 versus 0.03, 0.2 for both, and 0.2 and 0.3, respectively. On average, in 51.6% (n = 116/225) of medical care visits for S. pneumonia carriers and non-carriers, antimicrobials were prescribed (51.7%, n = 75/145 versus 51.3%, n = 41/80).

Table 2. Distribution of outcomes per clinic syndromea among children aged 18–59 months with medical care in record, Veranópolis, Brazil, n = 225.

Univariate Multivariate
S.pneumoniae
(-) n = 80
S.pneumoniae
(+) n = 145
p RR IC95% p RR IC95%
n % n %
Pneumonia 2 2.50 5 3.4 0.695 1.38 0.27-6.95 0.714 1.37 0.25-7.36
Sinusitis 14 17.50 25 17.2 0.961 0.99 0.54-1.79 0.985 1.01 0.55-1.84
AOMb 14 17.50 26 17.9 0.935 1.02 0.57-1.85 0.850 1.06 0.59-1.90
Tonsillopharyngitis 22 27.50 36 24.8 0.661 0.9 0.57-1.42 0.548 0.87 0.55-1.37
ARIc 66 82.50 109 75.2 0.206 0.91 0.79-1.05 0.382 0.94 0.82-1.08
Asthma 2 2.50 9 6.2 0.217 2.48 0.55-11.2 0.319 2.22 0.46-0.72
Antimicrobiald 41 51.30 75 51.7 0.946 1.01 0.77-1.32 0.972 1.00 0.77-1.31
No medical caree 8 10 29 20 0.064 2.00 0.96-4.17 0.096 1.82 0.90-3.68

a Presence of at least one episode of respiratory disease (pneumonia, sinusitis, AOM, ARI, asthma or tonsillopharyngitis) between “zero time” and “end of follow-up”. b AOM — acute otitis media. c ARI — Upper and lower respiratory tract infection — diagnosis classified in this category when record showed: cold, flu, rhinitis, allergic/viral rhinitis, respiratory virosis, conjunctivitis, influenza, viral tonsillitis, sore throat, nasopharyngitis, pharyngitis, laryngitis, turbinate hypertrophy, enlarged adenoids, tracheobronchitis, bronchitis, bronchiolitis, acute respiratory infection (ARI), head, foot, and mouth disease, erythema multiform, mononucleosis, adenovirus infection, unspecified viral infection, viral/external/serous AOM, positive COVID test. d Record showed one or more uses of antimicrobial between “zero time” and “end of follow-up”. e Children without medical care record in the period of interest.

A total of 19 different serotypes were identified and occurred in 147 isolates (146 with defined serotype and 2 isolates defined as nontypeable) from 145 positive children (2 participants were identified as simultaneous carriers — more than one serotype). A PCV10 serotype (serotype 6B) was found in 4/145 (2.8%) children, and colonization by an additional PCV13 serotype (3, 6A or 19A) was found in 58/145 (40.0%) children. Most carrier children were colonized by non-PCV10/PCV13 serotypes: 57.2% (n = 83/145) of the total.

Data show that 3.1% (7/225) of children had community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in the period, among which 2 were non-colonized and 5 were S. pneumoniae carriers; the difference was not statistically significant (p = 695). Among carriers with CAP (n = 5), colonizing serotypes from PCVs were 25% from PCV10 (n = 1/4), 1.7% from PCV13 (n = 1/58), and 3.6% non-PCV10/PCV13 (n = 3/83); the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.047) (Table 3).

Table 3. Distribution of serotypes included in PCV10a/PCV13b vaccines and non-PCV10/PCV13c serotypes in colonized children per age group with pneumonia, Veranópolis, Brazil. Record database, n = 145.

Age Serotypes Colonized children
n = 145
Pneumonia
n % p
18 to 23 months PCV10 1 1 100.0 0.016
PCV13 12 1 8.3
Non-PCV10/PCV13 14 1 7.1
24 to 35 months PCV10 2 0 0.0 0.463
PCV13 22 0 0.0
Non-PCV10/PCV13 16 1 6.3
36 to 47 months PCV10 0 0 0.0
PCV13 13 0 0.0
Non-PCV10/PCV13 28 0 0.0
48 to 59 months PCV10 1 0 0.0 0.781
PCV13 11 0 0.0
Non-PCV10/PCV13 25 1 4.0
Overall PCV10 4 1 25.0 0.047
PCV13 58 1 1.7
Non-PCV10/PCV13 83 3 3.6

aPCV10 serotypes: 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F. b PCV13 and non-PCV10 serotypes: 3, 6A and 19A. c Non-PCV10 and non-PCV13 serotypes.

When stratified by age, pneumonia incidence was higher in the 18–23 months of age group (n = 3), in which the PCV10 colonizing serotype, 6B, had 100% (n = 1/1) of occurrence, representing a statistically significant difference (p = 0.016). When the presence of serotype 6B (n = 4) was compared to other serotypes (n = 141) regarding the occurrence of pneumonia (n = 5), there is an association between 6B and the pathology, responsible for 25% (n = 1/4) of the occurrences, with p = 0.03 (Table 4).

Table 4. Serotypes 6B (PCV10) X Colonized children and pneumonia diagnosis, Veranópolis, Brazil. Record database, n = 145.

Univariate Multivariate
Pneumonia (-) Pneumonia (+) p RR CI95% p RR CI95%
n % n %
6B 3 75 1 25 0.03 8.81 1.25-62.13 0.01 7.06 1.65-30.19
Other serotypesa 137 97.2 4 2.8

aOther serotypes: 3, 6A, 06C, 10A, 11A, 13, 15A, 15B, 15C, 16F, 16F/037, 19A, 22F, 23A, 23B, 28A, 34, 35B, NT.

Discussion

In this cohort, we investigated the influence of Streptococcus pneumoniae colonization in vaccinated children regarding infectious outcomes. In general, no statistically significant differences were found in comparing the colonized group and the non-colonized group for the variables studied. Colonization by vaccine serotype 6B was rare; however, colonization by this serotype was associated to pneumonia outcome.

Our findings showed a high rate of colonization by pneumococci, over 64%, compatible with results found in other studies [11,13,14,2628]. In Brazil, a gradual increase in the colonization rate among children has been observed in 2010, 2013, and 2017, while these rates decreased for vaccine serotypes through the years, reaching 0.9% of isolates in 2017 [11]. With the introduction of conjugate vaccines and their selective pressure, more virulent serotypes, integrated in PCV10, were eliminated [9,17]. We observed the presence of only one vaccine serotype, 6B, in 2.8% of the colonized group. Even though in lower rates, the presence of these vaccine serotypes is not negligible, due to their pathogenic potential.

Risk factors typically identified for pneumococcal colonization, such as younger age [28], attending school or having a sibling who does [9,29,30], number and age of children living in the same house [28,31], household crowding and smoke exposure [9,28,29], did not show positive association to a carrier status in our study. There are a few specificities in the studied sample that should be taken into consideration, such as the low number of children who did not attend school.

We identified association between male sex and colonization, with a 21% increase in risk (CI95% 0.99–1.48) when compared to female participants (p = 0.05). This was also found in two other studies [28,31], although the reasons are not clear. Few studies have been conducted about this difference usually credited to biological and behavioral factors, which also vary with age [31,32]. The question of whether the differences between sexes are caused by genetic, hormonal or environmental factors or by a combination of them can be raised. However, responding to these questions requires in-depth, multidisciplinary research. Many studies, on the other hand, did not find this difference [26,29,33].

Pneumococci evolve relatively fast in response to environmental changes, with acquired resistance to antibiotics and replacement, promoting selection and continuous expansion [28,34]. Non-vaccine serotypes (non-PCV10/13) were found in 57% of colonized children, which indicates replacement. Many Brazilian studies show that, while serotypes from PCV10 have drastically decreased although not completely disappeared, non-PCV10 serotypes have expressively increased [11,12,30], representing 57.7% of isolates in a national study in 2017 [11]. In our trial, all children were considered vaccinated; 91.1% received PCV10, and some children were vaccinated both before and after the changes to the Brazilian routine immunization schedule (from 3 + 1–2 + 1 doses), in 2016 [20]. PCV13 (3 + 1 doses) was administered in 2.7% of the children, and for 6.2%, vaccines were interchanged (mixed schedule PCV10 + PCV13). There was no association between the vaccine received and colonization. PCV10 coverage in Veranópolis reached a 98% of children (2016–2020, DATASUS), showing that being colonized or not, in this scenario, does not change the risk for the disease.

Among the outcomes investigated in this study, no association with colonization was observed, which emphasizes the concept of lower virulence in non-vaccine serotypes. Pneumonia was observed in only 7/225 (3.1%) of the children in this study, being 5/145 (3.4%) among colonized and 2/80 (2.5%) among non-colonized children (p = 0.695). Not all outcomes presented are directly related to pneumococci. However, taking into account that it can occur through interaction and co-infection by many potential pathogens (viral and bacterial) from the host’s NP [29], this relation should be considered. Petraitiene et al., 2016, observed that pneumococcal colonization is associated to higher pneumonia, sinusitis, and AOM frequencies and to antimicrobial treatment during the episode in comparison to non-colonized children [29]. On the other hand, our findings show that children colonized by pneumococcus do not have an increased risk for respiratory diseases or antimicrobial use. Data have not varied among colonized and non-colonized children, as can be seen in the overall mean of visits (3.4), mean of visits per season (1.1 visit in spring), antimicrobial prescription (average 51.6%), among others. Although this study has not been developed to evaluate vaccination effectiveness, it is reasonable to consider the effect of this intervention on the incidence of infections.

We found association between serotype 6B colonization and pneumonia through the one-year period, especially in children under 2 years (p = 0.016). Although it is not possible to establish that the colonizing pneumococcus caused CAP due to the lack of a documented etiology and the limitations of the study design, the association between the capsular type of the vaccine and this CAP cannot be neglected. Pneumococcus is recognized as the most important agent of bacterial pneumonia [3,13,16,23,35]. Many simulations were conducted between serotype 6B colonization and its relation to pneumonia in the studied cohort, and all resulted in significant association, even with few observed cases. In a vaccinated population, SIREVA network found 4.7% of samples belonging to serotype 6B [36], which shows the continuity of its circulation in post-PCV10 era.

There is substantial variation between individuals in the immune response to vaccination and this occurrence may be linked to factors: intrinsic, extrinsic, environmental, behavioral and nutritional [37,38]. But three factors must be taken into consideration: first, serotype 6B is one of the least effective components of PCV(82.8%) [38,39]; second, there is a reduction in the serospecific response when colonization (6B) occurs before the administration of the first dose of PCV [21,38,40]; third, natural immunity may only be achieved after many episodes of colonization or infection [38,40]. An understanding of all these factors and their impacts offers ways to improve vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy [37]. Association between serotype 6B colonization and pneumonia occurrence in a one-year period is an unprecedented observation, with no similar account found to our knowledge.

This study presents some limitations, including the study design, which prevents us from defining causality. It is also important to mention the lack of standardized definition of criteria for diagnoses among pediatricians and memory bias in interviews with the guardians (minimized by information verified against medical records). The interruption of school activities imposed by social isolation during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic may have influenced children’s exposure to pathogens and the incidence of respiratory infections; however, while the impact of social isolation on S. pneumoniae colonization remains underexplored, studies have observed circulation of pneumococci belonging to NVT among patients suspected of having COVID-19 during the pandemic’s first year [41,42]. On the other hand, our study presents strengths, such as prospective follow-up of a substantial number of infants to preschoolers with longitudinal follow-up for a one-year period.

Although pneumococcal colonization in children has not been shown to increase the risk of respiratory diseases, the residual circulation of vaccine serotypes, such as 6B, warrants attention due to its association with pneumonia. This concern remains valid despite the reduced number of cases observed in this study, as the role of pneumococcus as the leading etiological agent of bacterial pneumonia in children cannot be underestimated. While this study did not directly evaluate vaccine effectiveness, the high vaccination coverage observed suggests that colonization in this context does not significantly alter the risk of disease, highlighting the impact of vaccines. However, it is crucial to monitor serotype replacement and the growing diversity of pneumococcal strains, which could undermine the benefits achieved. The findings reinforce the effectiveness of the strategies implemented by the National Immunization Program (PNI) and underscore the importance of preserving these achievements. Continuous strain analysis, epidemiological surveillance, and future studies are essential to guide adaptations in immunization policies, particularly regarding residual serotypes like 6B, which was the second most common in the pediatric population during the pre-PCV era and associated with severe infections. These efforts are vital to ensuring effective protection against pneumococcal disease, considering that, so far, vaccination is the only available tool.

Acknowledgments

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for performing pneumococcal serotyping.

• Moriguchi Institute for helping us with secretariat support and logistics.

• Cristiane Bündchen for providing statistical assistance.

• Veranópolis Health Department and HCSPL (Hospital São Peregrino Lazziozi) for collecting information from medical records.

• We thank all children and their parents/guardians who took part in the study and the nurses, pediatricians and community health workers at the Public and Private Health Systems of Veranópolis.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript. Database available on request to the author.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Brooks LRK, Mias GI. Streptococcus pneumoniae’s virulence and host immunity: aging, diagnostics, and prevention. Front Immunol. 2018;9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Engholm DH, Kilian M, Goodsell DS, Andersen ES, Kjærgaard RS. A visual review of the human pathogen Streptococcus pneumoniae. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2017;41(6):854–79. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fux037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Troeger C, Blacker B, Khalil IA, Rao PC, Cao J, Zimsen SRM, et al. Estimates of the global, regional, and national morbidity, mortality, and aetiologies of lower respiratory infections in 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018. Nov;18(11):1191–210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wahl B, O’Brien KL, Greenbaum A, Majumder A, Liu L, Chu Y. Burden of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae type b disease in children in the era of conjugate vaccines: global, regional, and national estimates for 2000–15. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(7):e744-57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bardach A, Ruvinsky S, Palermo MC, Alconada T, Sandoval MM, Brizuela ME, et al. Invasive pneumococcal disease in Latin America and the Caribbean: Serotype distribution, disease burden, and impact of vaccination. A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2024;19(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Berezin EN, Jarovsky D, Cardoso MRA, Mantese OC. Invasive pneumococcal disease among hospitalized children in Brazil before and after the introduction of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Vaccine. 2020;38(7):1740–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Centro Estadual de Vigilância em Saúde. INFORME EPIDMIOLÓGICO DAS MENINGITES 2018-2022. Porto Alegre: Secretaria Estadual de Saúde - RS. Brazil; 2023. Jan p. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zivich PN, Grabenstein JD, Becker-Dreps SI, Weber DJ. Streptococcus pneumoniae outbreaks and implications for transmission and control: a systematic review. Pneumonia (Nathan). 2018;10:11. doi: 10.1186/s41479-018-0055-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Weiser JN, Ferreira DM, Paton JC. Streptococcus pneumoniae: transmission, colonization and invasion. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16(6):355–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Pichichero ME. Pneumococcal whole-cell and protein-based vaccines: changing the paradigm. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2017;16(12):1181–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Brandileone M-C de C, Zanella RC, Almeida SCG, Cassiolato AP, Lemos APS de, Salgado MM, et al. Long-term effect of 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on nasopharyngeal carriage of Streptococcus pneumoniae in children in Brazil. Vaccine. 2019;37(36):5357–63. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.07.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lochen A, Croucher NJ, Anderson RM. Divergent serotype replacement trends and increasing diversity in pneumococcal disease in high income settings reduce the benefit of expanding vaccine valency. Sci Rep. 2020. Dec 4;10(1):18977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Simell B, Auranen K, Käyhty H, Goldblatt D, Dagan R, O’Brien KL, et al. The fundamental link between pneumococcal carriage and disease. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2012;11(7):841–55. doi: 10.1586/erv.12.53 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kong IG, Sato A, Yuki Y, Nochi T, Takahashi H, Sawada S, et al. Nanogel-based PspA intranasal vaccine prevents invasive disease and nasal colonization by Streptococcus pneumoniae. Infect Immun. 2013;81(5):1625–34. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00240-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Weinberger DM, Malley R, Lipsitch M. Serotype replacement in disease after pneumococcal vaccination. Lancet. 2011;378(9807):1962–73. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62225-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.van der Poll T, Opal SM. Pathogenesis, treatment, and prevention of pneumococcal pneumonia. Lancet. 2009;374(9700):1543–56. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61114-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Loughran AJ, Orihuela CJ, Tuomanen EI. Streptococcus pneumoniae: Invasion and inflammation. In: Fischetti VA, Novick RP, Ferretti JJ, Portnoy DA, Braunstein M, Rood JI, editors. Microbiol Spectr. 2019. p. 3–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). Censo Demográfico. 2019.
  • 19.Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Nota Informativa no 149. Ministério da Saúde. Brasil. Brasília, D.F, Brasil: Ministéiro da Saúde; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Domingues CMAS, Verani JR, Montenegro Renoiner EI, de Cunto Brandileone MC, Flannery B, de Oliveira LH. Effectiveness of ten-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine against invasive pneumococcal disease in Brazil: a matched case-control study. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(6):464–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Shah SN, Bachur RG, Simel DL, Neuman MI. Does This Child Have Pneumonia?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review. JAMA. 2017;318(5):462–71. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.9039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nascimento-Carvalho AC, Ruuskanen O, Nascimento-Carvalho CM. Wheezing independently predicts viral infection in children with community-acquired pneumonia. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2019;54(7):1022–8. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24339 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.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. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201908-1581ST [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dias CA, Teixeira LM, Carvalho M da G, Beall B. Sequential multiplex PCR for determining capsular serotypes of pneumococci recovered from Brazilian children. J Med Microbiol. 2007;56(9). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sutcliffe CG, Shet A, Varghese R, Veeraraghavan B, Manoharan A, Wahl B. Nasopharyngeal carriage of Streptococcus pneumoniae serotypes among children in India prior to the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines: A cross-sectional study. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sogstad MKR, Aaberge IS, Sørdal JO, Høiby EA, Frøholm LO, Alme AR. Carriage of Streptococcus pneumoniae in healthy Norwegian children attending day-care centres. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006;25(8):510–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Neal EFG, Nguyen CD, Ratu FT, Dunne EM, Kama M, Ortika BD, et al. Factors associated with pneumococcal carriage and density in children and adults in Fiji, using four cross-sectional surveys. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0231041. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Petraitiene S, Alasevicius T, Staceviciene I, Vaiciuniene D, Kacergius T, Usonis V. The influence of Streptococcus pneumoniae nasopharyngeal colonization on the clinical outcome of the respiratory tract infections in preschool children. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:403. doi: 10.1186/s12879-015-1149-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Brandileone M-C de C, Zanella RC, Almeida SCG, Brandao AP, Ribeiro AF, Carvalhanas T-RMP, et al. Effect of 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on nasopharyngeal carriage of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae among children in São Paulo, Brazil. Vaccine. 2016;34(46):5604–11. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.09.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Al-Lahham A. Multicenter study of pneumococcal carriage in children 2 to 4 years of age in the winter seasons of 2017-2019 in Irbid and Madaba governorates of Jordan. PLoS One. 2020;15(8):e0237247. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237247 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Klein SL, Flanagan KL. Sex differences in immune responses. Nat Rev Immunol. 2016;16(10):626–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dagan R, Pelton S, Bakaletz L, Cohen R. Prevention of early episodes of otitis media by pneumococcal vaccines might reduce progression to complex disease. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(4):480–92. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00549-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Payne DB, Gray BM. Streptococcus pneumoniae serogroup 6 clones over two decades. Epidemiol Infect. 2014;142(12):2501–13. doi: 10.1017/S0950268814000508 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Andrade DC, Borges IC, Vilas-Boas AL, Fontoura MSH, Araújo-Neto CA, Andrade SC. Infection by Streptococcus pneumoniae in children with or without radiologically confirmed pneumonia. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2018;94(1):23–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Comissão Nacional de Incorporação de Tecnologias no SUS. Vacina pneumocócica conjugada 13-valente contra doenças pneumocócicas em pacientes de risco. Brasil: Ministério da Saúde; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zimmermann P, Curtis N. Factors that influence the immune response to vaccination. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2019;32(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Dagan R, Jiang Q, Juergens C, Trammel J, Gruber WC, Scott DA. Carrier-Induced Hyporesponsiveness to Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccines: Unraveling the Influence of Serotypes, Timing, and Previous Vaccine Dose. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(3):448–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Corcoran M, Mereckiene J, Cotter S, Murchan S, Cunney R, Humphreys H. Invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae Infections and Vaccine Failures in Children in Ireland From the Postvaccine Era From 2007 to 2018. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020;39(4):339–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ramos-Sevillano E, Ercoli G, Brown JS. Mechanisms of naturally acquired immunity to Streptococcus pneumoniae. Front Immunol. 2019;10(MAR):358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Primon-Barros M, Varela FH, Polese-Bonatto M, Sartor ITS, Azevedo TR, de David CN. High prevalence of 19A pneumococcal serotype carriage during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Braz J Infect Dis. 2024;28(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Friedrich F, Ongaratto R, Scotta MC, Veras TN, Stein RT, Lumertz MS. Early impact of social distancing in response to coronavirus disease 2019 on hospitalizations for acute bronchiolitis in infants in Brazil. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(12):2071–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Oriana Rivera-Lozada de Bonilla

Dear Dr. Dias,

Your study is quite interesting, however, you should consider some aspects such as: improve the wording of the summary section, review the sample size calculation in the sample section, and the power of the study. You should also strengthen the discussion of the research, and clearly specify the implications of the research. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 29 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Oriana Rivera-Lozada de Bonilla

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the online submission form, you indicated that [All relevant data are within the manuscript. Database available on request to the author.]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

4. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

5. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: This study aims to explore the relationship between pneumococcal vaccination, Streptococcus pneumoniae colonization, and potential respiratory complications following vaccination. While the findings offer valuable insights, certain issues related to sample selection, and methodology may influence the reliability and generalizability of the results.

Line 1: The title could be made more concise and precise: Post-Vaccination Streptococcus pneumoniae Colonization and Respiratory Manifestations in Children: A Prospective Cohort Study

Line 35: The abstract should be organized into distinct subsections: background, methods, results, and conclusion.

Line 43: In the abstract section, it is sufficient to mention the number of participants who successfully completed the follow-up, without specifying the number of individuals who dropped out of the study.

Line 61-67: The authors have effectively addressed the impact of the vaccination program on reducing mortality associated with pneumococcal respiratory infections. it would be beneficial to provide data on the incidence rates of both invasive and non-invasive pneumococcal disease among children in the study area, Brazil, or similar regions, both before and after the introduction of the vaccination program. Clarification is needed regarding whether the immunity conferred by the PCV10 and PCV13 vaccines primarily prevents the occurrence of infections or mitigates the severity of the disease.

Line 78: The author should clarify the statement, “post-conjugate vaccine introduction studies did not find a decrease in overall carriage rates in the population, but instead observed a simultaneous replacement by NVT." It should be noted that the introduction of conjugate vaccines led to serotype replacement, where non-vaccine serotypes (NVTs) became more prevalent within the population.

The following references are well-established in the literature to support these findings:

Hammitt, L. L., et al. (2014). "Effect of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction on nasopharyngeal pneumococcal carriage in Kenyan children: a cross-sectional study." The Lancet Global Health.

Weinberger, D. M., et al. (2011). "Serotype replacement in disease after pneumococcal vaccination." The Lancet.

van Hoek, A. J., et al. (2014). "The effect of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on the carriage of Streptococcus pneumoniae in England: a cross-sectional study." PLOS Medicine.

Line 110: The study's recruitment strategy, which relies heavily on one or two local schools, may introduce selection bias by potentially excluding non-school-attending children or students from other schools in different urban or rural areas. Clarify any potential biases resulting from the recruitment method. The study also heavily depends on data from prior research, limiting the capacity to control for all variables.

Line 128: Relying on non-standardized diagnostic criteria used by physicians for respiratory diseases may introduce variability and reduce diagnostic consistency. The authors should address the implications of using non-standardized diagnostic criteria across different physicians and its potential impact on the consistency of outcome measures. Could this variability have biased the results, leading to an underestimation or overestimation of disease incidence?

Line 143: The outcomes, particularly pneumonia, were rigorously defined using criteria from Shah et al., enhancing the study's internal validity. However, for pneumonia specifically, while chest X-rays were used to confirm cases, it remains unclear whether all children with suspected pneumonia underwent imaging. This potential inconsistency may have introduced bias. The authors should discuss whether all suspected pneumonia cases were subjected to chest X-ray confirmation, and how missing data or inconsistent confirmation might have influenced the study’s findings.

Line 146: Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected only at the initial time point, which may not fully capture the dynamics of colonization over time. A longitudinal sampling approach, involving multiple NP swabs over time, could have provided more comprehensive data on colonization persistence or clearance.

Line 160: The sample size calculation appears well-justified; however, details regarding the actual statistical power based on the final dataset are missing. A more thorough discussion is needed to determine whether the achieved sample size was sufficient to detect the hypothesized effect size, particularly within subgroups. Additionally, consider addressing potential confounding factors in the Poisson regression analysis, such as socioeconomic status, healthcare access, or pre-existing health conditions.

Line 290: The text contains several small formatting errors, such as redundant citations and minor repetition (e.g., "24, 24" in multiple places).

Line 307: The implications of the study for public health and vaccine policy are not emphasized enough, despite the study having potential relevance for the National Immunization Program in Brazil. A more explicit connection between the study's findings and how they could inform vaccine strategies or policies would be valuable. For example, the implications of continued circulation of serotype 6B should be further discussed in the context of vaccine development or the need for updated vaccines.

Line 315: The lack of association between colonization and respiratory outcomes is an important finding, yet the discussion does not explore potential reasons why this might be the case. The authors could elaborate on possible explanations, such as the effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing disease despite colonization, or the role of other pathogens and co-infections in respiratory disease outcomes. This would provide a more thorough interpretation of the results.

Line 350: The authors briefly mention the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the study, but this section could be expanded.

Reviewer #2: REVIEWER COMMENTS

General

Verardo et al assessed the effect of S. pneumoniae colonization on risk of respiratory diseases among children aged 18-59 months who are fully vaccinated with PCV. The study is important and could contribute to knowledge in the area. Generally, it is well written but would require proofreading to fix minor language errors, as well as clarification of some technical issues.

Abstract

1. Lines 48-49” and the presence of only one PCV10 vaccine serotype, 6B (2.8% of colonized)”: Was it expected that more vaccine serotypes will be colonized among the study participants who have been vaccinated? Please, clarify

2. Lines 51-52 “Restriction was only observed in cases of serotype 6B colonization….”: This statement is not clear. Does “restriction” mean “exception”? Please reword

Introduction

1. Lines 63-64: What accounted for the decreased mortality between 2000 and 2015?

2. Lines 65-67: Within which period was the 88% reduction? What about the 51% reduction? These statements appear confusing, kindly reconcile

Methods and material

1. Study design

a. It is not clear which period the study was undertaken

b. Lines 93-100: Separate the study design from the profile of the study areas. Improve the profile of the study area by include access to healthcare i.e. number of healthcare facilities; top causes of morbidity and mortality among children 18-59 months, the position of S. pneumoniae-associated respiratory infections on the log of top causes of morbidity and mortality; map of the study area etc.

2. Recruitment

a. Line 103: Consider substituting “10-valent conjugate vaccine” with PCV10 for consistency

3. Follow-up

a. Line 119: Change “closed questions” to “close-ended questions”

b. Line 123: What is the difference between “SimPCV13” and PCV13? Please ensure consistency

Results

1. Line 185: The period of follow up (March/2019 to October/2020) is more than one year. Kindly reconcile this with the respective sections e.g. title, line 186 etc.

2. Line 190: The text in Fig.1 is blur. Kindly replace with a better image

3. Line 197: Change “colonized” to “colonization”

4. Lines 231 “In 51% of medical care visits for both carriers and non-carriers of S. pneumoniae, there was antimicrobial prescription (51.7%, n=75/145 versus 51.3%, n=41/80)”. This statement is not clear. 51.7% vrs 51.3% do not round up to 51%, respectively. Kindly clarify

5. Table 2: What was the comparison group for the respective variables?

Discussion

1. Line 276 “no differences”: The were differences, except that they were not statistically significant. Kindly reconcile

2. Line 340 “hyporesponsiveness due to vaccine failure”. Vaccine failure may be inherent to the vaccine, and hypo-responsiveness may be person-related outcome. Hypo-responsiveness may not be as a result of the vaccine but biological factors of the individual including genetic and nutritional. Please revise the statement

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Michael Rockson Adjei

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: REVIEWER COMMENTS.docx

pone.0328516.s001.docx (15.3KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 Jul 22;20(7):e0328516. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328516.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


21 Mar 2025

Reviewer 1

The specific comments:

Reviewer #1: This study aims to explore the relationship between pneumococcal vaccination, Streptococcus pneumoniae colonization, and potential respiratory complications following vaccination. While the findings offer valuable insights, certain issues related to sample selection, and methodology may influence the reliability and generalizability of the results.

Your notes were very important. Each one was answered as follows below.

Line 1: The title could be made more concise and precise: Post-Vaccination Streptococcus pneumoniae Colonization and Respiratory Manifestations in Children: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Thank you for the suggestion about the title. We accept the reviewer suggestion and the manuscript has a different title: “Post-Vaccination Streptococcus pneumoniae Colonization and Respiratory Manifestations in Children: A Prospective Cohort Study”

Line 35: The abstract should be organized into distinct subsections: background, methods, results, and conclusion.

We appreciate the suggestion, and the summary section now contains distinct subsections: Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion. It was modified as suggested.

Line 43: In the abstract section, it is sufficient to mention the number of participants who successfully completed the follow-up, without specifying the number of individuals who dropped out of the study.

It was modified as suggested.

“A total of 225 children were monitored, with different dates of entry into the study, which occurred between March 2018 and October 2019 (zero time)."

Line 61-67: The authors have effectively addressed the impact of the vaccination program on reducing mortality associated with pneumococcal respiratory infections. it would be beneficial to provide data on the incidence rates of both invasive and non-invasive pneumococcal disease among children in the study area, Brazil, or similar regions, both before and after the introduction of the vaccination program. Clarification is needed regarding whether the immunity conferred by the PCV10 and PCV13 vaccines primarily prevents the occurrence of infections or mitigates the severity of the disease.

Thank you for the excellent suggestion. Unfortunately, in Brazil, there is no surveillance for pneumonia or IPD in all regions of the country; therefore, there are no study data available that have clearly demonstrated a decrease in the incidence of IPD in the Southern region (site of the study in question). We have included bibliographic references as per the text below:

“In their study, Wahl et al. (2018) estimated that there were 294,000 pneumococcal deaths among children aged 1–59 months worldwide in 2015 and that these deaths decreased by 51% from 2000 to 2015 due to the widespread use of PCV accompanied by also a reduction in cases of the disease 4,5. The same study highlighted that Brazil reached one of the largest reductions by 2015, 88% of deaths from this agent after the introduction of the 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV10) in the country4. More recently, in a hospital-based study historical series on IPD among children in Brazil, fatalities were significantly reduced from 6.6 to 2.0 cases per 10,000 after the introduction of PCV10 in the public system6. In the state of Rio Grande do Sul, a decrease in the incidence of meningitis has been observed over time7.

Bibliographic references:

Bardach, A., Ruvinsky, S., Palermo, M. C., Alconada, T., Sandoval, M. M., Brizuela, M. E., Wierzbicki, E. R., Cantos, J., Gagetti, P., & Ciapponi, A. (2024). Invasive pneumococcal disease in Latin America and the Caribbean: Serotype distribution, disease burden, and impact of vaccination. A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 19(6 June). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304978

Berezin, E. N., Jarovsky, D., Cardoso, M. R. A., & Mantese, O. C. (2020). Invasive pneumococcal disease among hospitalized children in Brazil before and after the introduction of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Vaccine, 38(7), 1740–1745. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.VACCINE.2019.12.038

Centro Estadual de Vigilância em Saúde. (2023). INFORME EPIDMIOLÓGICO DAS MENINGITES 2018-2022.

Line 78: The author should clarify the statement, “post-conjugate vaccine introduction studies did not find a decrease in overall carriage rates in the population, but instead observed a simultaneous replacement by NVT." It should be noted that the introduction of conjugate vaccines led to serotype replacement, where non-vaccine serotypes (NVTs) became more prevalent within the population.

Thank you for suggestion. We have included suggested bibliographic references and changed the text as follows.:

“Post-conjugate vaccine introduction studies have not found a decrease in overall carriage rates in the population, but rather replacement, where non-vaccine serotypes (NVT) have become more prevalent13-15.

Bibliographic reference:

Weinberger, D. M., Malley, R., & Lipsitch, M. (2011). Serotype replacement in disease after pneumococcal vaccination. The Lancet, 378(9807), 1962–1973. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62225-8/ASSET/F7618DAA-6766-491D-8BE2-40B062953AB9/MAIN.ASSETS/GR1.SML

Line 110: The study's recruitment strategy, which relies heavily on one or two local schools, may introduce selection bias by potentially excluding non-school-attending children or students from other schools in different urban or rural areas. Clarify any potential biases resulting from the recruitment method. The study also heavily depends on data from prior research, limiting the capacity to control for all variables.

We agree with your comment, as the text described suggested that only 2 schools were accessed, but in fact the process involved 11 out of 13 schools in the community.

It was modified as suggested line 121 to 125: “Following the random draw order, 11 out of 13 school principals were contacted to ensure a randomized selection. School visits continued until the required sample size was reached, considering a loss of 10%, resulting in different entry and exit dates for each participant. Additional volunteers outside the school environment were recruited through an appeal on local radio.”

Line 128: Relying on non-standardized diagnostic criteria used by physicians for respiratory diseases may introduce variability and reduce diagnostic consistency. The authors should address the implications of using non-standardized diagnostic criteria across different physicians and its potential impact on the consistency of outcome measures. Could this variability have biased the results, leading to an underestimation or overestimation of disease incidence?

We agree with your comment that there really is a potential bias in relation to the diagnosis because it is a variable that is not fully controlled and this appears recorded in the study limitations section between lines 357 to 364 (text below). However, if on the one hand there is a potential bias, on the other hand all diagnoses were rigorously evaluated and confirmed/ruled out by a pediatrician on our team with extensive clinical and academic experience in respiratory diseases.

“It is also important to mention the lack of standardized definition of criteria for diagnoses among pediatricians and memory bias in interviews with the guardians (minimized by information verified against medical records).”

Line 143: The outcomes, particularly pneumonia, were rigorously defined using criteria from Shah et al., enhancing the study's internal validity. However, for pneumonia specifically, while chest X-rays were used to confirm cases, it remains unclear whether all children with suspected pneumonia underwent imaging. This potential inconsistency may have introduced bias. The authors should discuss whether all suspected pneumonia cases were subjected to chest X-ray confirmation, and how missing data or inconsistent confirmation might have influenced the study’s findings.

We agree with your observation that we do not have absolute control over this issue. However, in the community where the study was conducted, children often undergo radiologic evaluation when pneumonia is suspected in the pediatric clinic. That said, we cannot guarantee that all suspected cases underwent radiologic investigation. We emphasize that all diagnoses were rigorously evaluated and confirmed/ruled out by a pediatrician on our staff with solid expertise in respiratory diseases, as described in line 153 to 155 of the manuscript: "All pneumonia cases were reviewed and confirmed/ruled by our team's pediatrician (JCBS), considering the previously described criteria for case entry together with the demonstration of infiltrate or consolidation on chest X-ray”. However, this limitation is addressed in the study discussion section, line 357 to 364: “It is also important to mention the lack of standardized definition of criteria for diagnoses among pediatricians….”.

Line 146: Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected only at the initial time point, which may not fully capture the dynamics of colonization over time. A longitudinal sampling approach, involving multiple NP swabs over time, could have provided more comprehensive data on colonization persistence or clearance.

We agree with your comment that ideally monitoring involving multiple serial NP swabs would have provided greater consistency to the study, but it was not designed to monitor colonization over time.

Line 160: The sample size calculation appears well-justified; however, details regarding the actual statistical power based on the final dataset are missing. A more thorough discussion is needed to determine whether the achieved sample size was sufficient to detect the hypothesized effect size, particularly within subgroups. Additionally, consider addressing potential confounding factors in the Poisson regression analysis, such as socioeconomic status, healthcare access, or pre-existing health conditions.

In fact, we reconsidered some issues, we appreciate the suggestion and, as shown in tables 1, 2 and 4, we included the multivariate analysis adjusted for age and sex with the intention of clarifying possible confounding factors.

Table 1 - Cohort of children aged 18–59 months, colonized and non-colonized: general (sociodemographic) and vaccination characteristics, Veranópolis, Brazil — Interview database, n=225.

Univariate Multivariate

VARIABLE S. pneumoniae (-) S. pneumoniae (+) p RR CI95% p RR CI95%

n=80 n=145

n (%) n (%)

Age: 18 to 23 months 16 (37.2%) 27 (62.8%) 1 1

24 to 35 months 23 (36.5%) 40 (63.5%) 0,941 1,011 0,752 1,36 0,840 1,030 0,773-1,372

36 to 47 months 21 (33.9%) 41 (66.1%) 0,727 1,053 0,787 1,409 0,522 1,104 0,815-1,497

48 to 59 months 20 (35.1%) 37 (64.9%) 0,828 1,034 0,767 1,394 0,463 1,118 0,830-1,506

Sex: Female 46 (41.8%) 64 (58.2%) 1 1

Male 34 (29.6%) 81 (70.4%) 0,05 1,21 0,99 1,48 0,117 1,177 0,960-1,443

Householda: 2–3 people 33 (35.1%) 61 (64.9%) 1 1

4–5 people 40 (34.8%) 75 (65.2%) 0,961 1,005 0,823 1,227 0,585 1,061 0,857-1,314

6 or more 7 (43.8%) 9 (56.3%) 0,540 0,867 0,549 1,369 0,404 0,826 0,526-1,296

Children in the householdb: 0-1 64 (33.9%) 125 (66.1%) 1 1

2–3 16 (44.4%) 20 (55.6%) 0,269 0,84 0,616 1,145 0,194 0,802 0,574-1,119

Shared bedroomc: No 45 (34.1%) 87 (65.9%) 1 1

Yes 35 (37.6%) 58 (62.4%) 0,588 0,946 0,775 1,156 0,363 0,906 0,732-1,121

Smoker family member: No 64 (35%) 119 (65%) 1 1

Yes 16 (38.1%) 26 (61.9%) 0,703 0,952 0,734 1,235 0,529 0,924 0,723-1,181

Smoke exposured: No 36 (37.1%) 61 (62.9%) 1 1

Yes 44 (34.4%) 84 (65.6%) 0,671 1,044 0,856 1,272 0,870 1,017 0,834-1,239

Schoole: No 2 (40%) 3 (60%) 1 1

Yes 78 (35.5%) 142 (64.5%) 0,843 1,076 0,522 2,215 0,729 1,128 0,570-2,234

Vaccination: Mixedf 6 (42.9%) 8 (57.1%) 1 1

PCV13g 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 0,776 0,875 0,349 2,195 0,796 0,887 0,358-2,199

PCV10h 71 (34.6%) 134 (65.4%) 0,570 1,144 0,719 1,820 0,599 1,132 0,713-1,796

S. pneumoniae (-) = non-colonized, S. pneumoniae (+) = colonized. a Number of people living in the same household (including the child). b Number of children under 5 in the household (including the child). c Child shares the bedroom or bed with at least one person. d Use of fireplace or wood cookstove in the house. e School attendance between “zero time” and “end of follow-up”. f Mixed vaccination — the child received PCV10 and PCV13 doses. g Received 4 doses of PCV13. h Received 3 or 4 doses of PCV10.

Table 2 - Distribution of outcomes per clinic syndromea among children aged 18–59 months with medical care in record, Veranópolis, Brazil, n=225.

Univariate Multivariate

S.pneumoniae (-) n=80 S.pneumoniae (+) n=145 p RR IC95% p RR IC95%

n % n %

Pneumonia 2 2,50% 5 3,40% 0,695 1,38 0,27 6,95 0,714 1,37 0,25 7,36

Sinusitis 14 17,50% 25 17,20% 0,961 0,99 0,54 1,79 0,985 1,01 0,55 1,84

AOMb 14 17,50% 26 17,90% 0,935 1,02 0,57 1,85 0,850 1,06 0,59 1,90

Tonsillopharyngitis 22 27,50% 36 24,80% 0,661 0,9 0,57 1,42 0,548 0,87 0,55 1,37

ARIc 66 82,50% 109 75,20% 0,206 0,91 0,79 1,05 0,382 0,94 0,82 1,08

Asthma 2 2,50% 9 6,20% 0,217 2,48 0,55 11,2 0,319 2,22 0,46 10,72

Antimicrobiald 41 51,30% 75 51,70% 0,946 1,01 0,77 1,32 0,972 1,00 0,77 1,31

No medical caree 8 10% 29 20% 0,064 2,00 0,96 4,17 0,096 1,82 0,90 3,68

a Presence of at least one episode of respiratory disease (pneumonia, sinusitis, AOM, ARI, asthma or tonsillopharyngitis) between “zero time” and “end of follow-up”. b AOM — acute otitis media. c ARI — Upper and lower respiratory tract infection — diagnosis classified in this category when record showed: cold, flu, rhinitis, allergic/viral rhinitis, respiratory virosis, conjunctivitis, influenza, viral tonsillitis, sore throat, nasopharyngitis, pharyngitis, laryngitis, turbinate hypertrophy, enlarged adenoids, tracheobronchitis, bronchitis, bronchiolitis, acute respiratory infection (ARI), head, foot, and mouth disease, erythema multiform, mononucleosis, adenovirus infection, unspecified viral infection, viral/external/serous AOM, positive COVID test. d Record showed one or more uses of antimicrobial between “zero time” and “end of follow-up”. e Children without medical care record in the period of interest.

Table 4 - Serotypes 6B (PCV10) X Colonized children and pneumonia diagnosis, Veranópolis, Brazil. Record database, n=145.

Univariate Multivariate

Pneumonia (-) Pneumonia (+) p RR CI95% p RR CI95%

n % n %

6B 3 75,0% 1 25% 0,03 8,81 1,25 62,1 0,01 7,06 1,65 30,19

Other serotypesa 137 97,2% 4 2,80%

aOther serotypes: 3, 6A, 06C, 10A, 11A, 13, 15A, 15B, 15C, 16F, 16F/037, 19A, 22F, 23A, 23B, 28A, 34, 35B, NT.

Line 290: The text contains several small formatting errors, such as redundant citations and minor repetition (e.g., "24, 24" in multiple places).

It was modified as suggested.

Line 307: The implications of the study for public health and vaccine policy are not emphasized enough, despite the study having potential relevance for the National Immunization Program in Brazil. A more explicit connection between the study's findings and how they could inform vaccine strategies or policies would be valuable. For example, the implications of continued circulation of serotype 6B should be further discussed in the context of vaccine development or the need for updated vaccines.

It was modified as suggested between lines 367 to 382.

“Although pneumococcal colonization in children has not been shown to increase the risk of respiratory diseases, the residual circulation of vaccine serotypes, such as 6B, warrants attention due to its association with pneumonia. This concern remains valid despite the reduced number of cases

Attachment

Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS.docx

pone.0328516.s003.docx (53.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Oriana Rivera-Lozada de Bonilla

Post-Vaccination Streptococcus pneumoniae Colonization and Respiratory Manifestations in Children: A Prospective Cohort Study

PONE-D-24-16432R1

Dear Dr. Cícero Dias,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Oriana Rivera-Lozada de Bonilla

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: The manuscript presents a prospective cohort study examining the relationship between Streptococcus pneumoniae colonization and respiratory disease outcomes in a vaccinated pediatric population in southern Brazil. The study is timely and relevant. The authors are to be commended for their extensive and thoughtful responses to the two previous reviews. The manuscript is well organized and substantially improved. However, some critical issues remain regarding exposure assessment, the interpretation of key findings, and the framing of conclusions. These do not invalidate the work but warrant additional clarification

• The study classifies children as "colonized" or "non-colonized" based on a single nasopharyngeal swab at baseline (“zero time”). While this limitation is acknowledged, it significantly affects the ability to draw conclusions over a one-year follow-up period. Colonization is known to be dynamic in this age group.

The discussion should more explicitly consider the implications of this limitation, including possible exposure misclassification and its likely direction of bias.

• The reported association between colonization with serotype 6B and pneumonia appears to stem from a single case among four colonized children. Although this yields a statistically significant relative risk, the absolute number is too small to draw robust inferences.

Reframe this association as exploratory and hypothesis-generating.

• The finding of no significant association between overall colonization and respiratory illness is important. However, alternative explanations should be more fully explored in the discussion—for example: effective immunity, low pathogenicity of the prevailing non-vaccine serotypes, possible diagnostic under-reporting due to mild symptoms or pandemic disruptions. Expand on these potential explanations.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Oriana Rivera-Lozada de Bonilla

PONE-D-24-16432R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dias,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Oriana Rivera-Lozada de Bonilla

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: REVIEWER COMMENTS.docx

    pone.0328516.s001.docx (15.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS.docx

    pone.0328516.s003.docx (53.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript. Database available on request to the author.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES