Impact on Carriage, Acute Otitis Media, Immuno & Safety of GSK Biologicals' Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine 1024850A

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) as regards subjects with culture-confirmed invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) due to any of the pneumococcal vaccine serotypes was tabulated (vaccine pneumococcal serotypes = serotypes 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F). PYAR was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), calculated as a 2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) as regards subjects with culture-confirmed invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) due to any of the pneumococcal vaccine serotypes was tabulated (vaccine pneumococcal serotypes = serotypes 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F). PYAR was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), calculated as a 2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), calculated as a 2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), calculated as a 2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), calculated as a 2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), calculated as a 2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with a probable or culture confirmed ID) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), calculated as a 2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with a probable or culture confirmed ID) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), calculated as a 2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with a probable or culture confirmed ID) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), calculated as a 2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with a probable or culture confirmed ID) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), calculated as a 2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata.

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with hospital-diagnosed pneumonia) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. Hospital-diagnosed pneumonia (HDP) cases identified based on hospital discharge diagnosis using international Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 diagnosis codes: J10.0 (Influenza with HDP, other influenza virus identified), J11.0 (Influenza with HDP, virus not identified), J12 (Viral HDP, not elsewhere classified), J13 (HDP due to Sp.), J14 (for HDP due to Hi.), J15 (all HDP, not elsewhere classified), J16 (HDP due to other infectious organisms, not elsewhere classified), J17 (HDP in diseases classified elsewhere), J18 (HDP organism unspecified), J85.1 (Abscess of lung with HDP), and J86 (Pyothorax including empyema).

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with hospital-diagnosed pneumonia) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. Hospital-diagnosed pneumonia (HDP) cases identified based on hospital discharge diagnosis using international Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 diagnosis codes: J10.0 (Influenza with HDP, other influenza virus identified), J11.0 (Influenza with HDP, virus not identified), J12 (Viral HDP, not elsewhere classified), J13 (HDP due to Sp.), J14 (for HDP due to Hi.), J15 (all HDP, not elsewhere classified), J16 (HDP due to other infectious organisms, not elsewhere classified), J17 (HDP in diseases classified elsewhere), J18 (HDP organism unspecified), J85.1 (Abscess of lung with HDP), and J86 (Pyothorax including empyema).

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with hospital-diagnosed pneumonia) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. Hospital-diagnosed pneumonia (HDP) cases identified based on hospital discharge diagnosis using international Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 diagnosis codes: J10.0 (Influenza with HDP, other influenza virus identified), J11.0 (Influenza with HDP, virus not identified), J12 (Viral HDP, not elsewhere classified), J13 (HDP due to Sp.), J14 (for HDP due to Hi.), J15 (all HDP, not elsewhere classified), J16 (HDP due to other infectious organisms, not elsewhere classified), J17 (HDP in diseases classified elsewhere), J18 (HDP organism unspecified), J85.1 (Abscess of lung with HDP), and J86 (Pyothorax including empyema).

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with hospital-diagnosed pneumonia) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. Hospital-diagnosed pneumonia (HDP) cases identified based on hospital discharge diagnosis using international Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 diagnosis codes: J10.0 (Influenza with HDP, other influenza virus identified), J11.0 (Influenza with HDP, virus not identified), J12 (Viral HDP, not elsewhere classified), J13 (HDP due to Sp.), J14 (for HDP due to Hi.), J15 (all HDP, not elsewhere classified), J16 (HDP due to other infectious organisms, not elsewhere classified), J17 (HDP in diseases classified elsewhere), J18 (HDP organism unspecified), J85.1 (Abscess of lung with HDP), and J86 (Pyothorax including empyema).

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with hospital-diagnosed pneumonia [HDP]) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata for non-consolidated HDP and without strata for consolidated HDP). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. CXR HDP was defined as a HDP case with the presence of abnormal pulmonary infiltrates on the CXR as per independent review panel judgement using WHO methodology. Abnormal pulmonary infiltrates could be either with (Consolidated HDP) or without (Non-consolidated HDP) alveolar consolidation/pleural effusion. New cases of HDP and CXR HDP were based on a 30-day rule, i.e. a new episode was considered if at least a 30-day interval elapsed from the onset of the previous episode.

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with hospital-diagnosed pneumonia [HDP]) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata for non-consolidated HDP and without strata for consolidated HDP). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. CXR HDP was defined as a HDP case with the presence of abnormal pulmonary infiltrates on the CXR as per independent review panel judgement using WHO methodology. Abnormal pulmonary infiltrates could be either with (Consolidated HDP) or without (Non-consolidated HDP) alveolar consolidation/pleural effusion. New cases of HDP and CXR HDP were based on a 30-day rule, i.e. a new episode was considered if at least a 30-day interval elapsed from the onset of the previous episode.

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with hospital-diagnosed pneumonia [HDP]) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata for non-consolidated HDP and without strata for consolidated HDP). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. CXR HDP was defined as a HDP case with the presence of abnormal pulmonary infiltrates on the CXR as per independent review panel judgement using WHO methodology. Abnormal pulmonary infiltrates could be either with (Consolidated HDP) or without (Non-consolidated HDP) alveolar consolidation/pleural effusion. New cases of HDP and CXR HDP were based on a 30-day rule, i.e. a new episode was considered if at least a 30-day interval elapsed from the onset of the previous episode.

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with hospital-diagnosed pneumonia [HDP]) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata for non-consolidated HDP and without strata for consolidated HDP). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. CXR HDP was defined as a HDP case with the presence of abnormal pulmonary infiltrates on the CXR as per independent review panel judgement using WHO methodology. Abnormal pulmonary infiltrates could be either with (Consolidated HDP) or without (Non-consolidated HDP) alveolar consolidation/pleural effusion. New cases of HDP and CXR HDP were based on a 30-day rule, i.e. a new episode was considered if at least a 30-day interval elapsed from the onset of the previous episode.

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with tympanostomy tube placement[TTP]) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. A TTP episode was defined as a TTP episode classified under the DCA 20 code in the Finnish National Institute of Health and Welfare (THL) and Social Insurance Institution of Finland (KELA) registers, using the Nordic Centre for Classifications in Health Care (NOMESCO) Classification of Surgical Procedures (NCSP), version 1.12 from January 2008, and could refer to either an unilateral or a bilateral TTP procedure. New episodes of TTP defined according to a 30-day rule meaning that a new episode was considered if at least 30-day interval elapsed from the onset of the previous episode.

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with tympanostomy tube placement[TTP]) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. A TTP episode was defined as a TTP episode classified under the DCA 20 code in the Finnish National Institute of Health and Welfare (THL) and Social Insurance Institution of Finland (KELA) registers, using the Nordic Centre for Classifications in Health Care (NOMESCO) Classification of Surgical Procedures (NCSP), version 1.12 from January 2008, and could refer to either an unilateral or a bilateral TTP procedure. New episodes of TTP defined according to a 30-day rule meaning that a new episode was considered if at least 30-day interval elapsed from the onset of the previous episode.

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with tympanostomy tube placement[TTP]) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. A TTP episode was defined as a TTP episode classified under the DCA 20 code in the Finnish National Institute of Health and Welfare (THL) and Social Insurance Institution of Finland (KELA) registers, using the Nordic Centre for Classifications in Health Care (NOMESCO) Classification of Surgical Procedures (NCSP), version 1.12 from January 2008, and could refer to either an unilateral or a bilateral TTP procedure. New episodes of TTP defined according to a 30-day rule meaning that a new episode was considered if at least 30-day interval elapsed from the onset of the previous episode.

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with tympanostomy tube placement[TTP]) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. A TTP episode was defined as a TTP episode classified under the DCA 20 code in the Finnish National Institute of Health and Welfare (THL) and Social Insurance Institution of Finland (KELA) registers, using the Nordic Centre for Classifications in Health Care (NOMESCO) Classification of Surgical Procedures (NCSP), version 1.12 from January 2008, and could refer to either an unilateral or a bilateral TTP procedure. New episodes of TTP defined according to a 30-day rule meaning that a new episode was considered if at least 30-day interval elapsed from the onset of the previous episode.

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with antimicrobial prescriptions (APs)) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. An APs episode was an episode of APs to an infant/child falling under following Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical [ATC] codes: J01 (APs) and following codes for AP usually recommended for otitis media (OM) and respiratory tract infections (RTI). "For OM and RTI" category corresponds to following definition: APs for antibacterial usually recommended for OM and RTI (ATC codes: J01CA04, J01CR02, J01CE02, J01DC02, J01DC04, J01EE02, J01FA09 and J01FA10). New episodes of APs were analyzed according to a 2-day rule meaning new episode considered if at least 2 day interval elapsed from the onset of the previous episode.

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with antimicrobial prescriptions (APs)) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. An APs episode was an episode of APs to an infant/child falling under following Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical [ATC] codes: J01 (APs) and following codes for AP usually recommended for otitis media (OM) and respiratory tract infections (RTI). "For OM and RTI" category corresponds to following definition: APs for antibacterial usually recommended for OM and RTI (ATC codes: J01CA04, J01CR02, J01CE02, J01DC02, J01DC04, J01EE02, J01FA09 and J01FA10). New episodes of APs were analyzed according to a 2-day rule meaning new episode considered if at least 2 day interval elapsed from the onset of the previous episode.

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with antimicrobial prescriptions (APs)) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. An APs episode was an episode of APs to an infant/child falling under following Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical [ATC] codes: J01 (APs) and following codes for AP usually recommended for otitis media (OM) and respiratory tract infections (RTI). "For OM and RTI" category corresponds to following definition: APs for antibacterial usually recommended for OM and RTI (ATC codes: J01CA04, J01CR02, J01CE02, J01DC02, J01DC04, J01EE02, J01FA09 and J01FA10). New episodes of APs were analyzed according to a 2-day rule meaning new episode considered if at least 2 day interval elapsed from the onset of the previous episode.

PYAR was calculated: n (= number of subjects with antimicrobial prescriptions (APs)) divided by T (= sum of follow-up (FU) period expressed in years) (per 1000) with 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI-classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). FU period considered as period between Dose 1 administration and cut-off date of 31 December 2011. An APs episode was an episode of APs to an infant/child falling under following Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical [ATC] codes: J01 (APs) and following codes for AP usually recommended for otitis media (OM) and respiratory tract infections (RTI). "For OM and RTI" category corresponds to following definition: APs for antibacterial usually recommended for OM and RTI (ATC codes: J01CA04, J01CR02, J01CE02, J01DC02, J01DC04, J01EE02, J01FA09 and J01FA10). New episodes of APs were analyzed according to a 2-day rule meaning new episode considered if at least 2 day interval elapsed from the onset of the previous episode.

Antimicrobial susceptibility classification of IPD isolates reported during IPD follow-up with percentages for each serotype for the following categories: S= susceptible; I = intermediate ; R = resistant; N = not available.

Analysis of this outcome was performed in the Turku area. The number of subjects reporting at least one LRTI any time after the administration of the first vaccine dose was tabulated.

Analysis of this outcome was performed in the Turku area. The number of subjects reporting at least one URTI any time after the administration of the first vaccine dose was tabulated.

Assessed solicited local symptoms were pain, redness and swelling. Any = occurrence of the symptom regardless of intensity grade. Grade 3 pain = cried when limb was moved/spontaneously painful. Grade 3 redness/swelling = redness/swelling spreading beyond 30 millimeters (mm) of injection site.

Assessed solicited general symptoms were drowsiness, fever [defined as rectal temperature ≥ 38 degrees Celsius (°C) or oral/axillary/tympanic temperature equal to or above 37.5°C], irritability/fussiness and loss pf appetite. Any = occurrence of the symptom regardless of intensity grade. Grade 3 drowsiness = drowsiness that prevented normal activity. Grade 3 fever = rectal temperature > 40°C. Grade 3 irritability/fussiness = cried that could not be comforted/prevented normal activity. Grade 3 loss of appetite = not eating at all. Related = a symptom assessed by investigator as causally related to the vaccination.

An unsolicited AE covers any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical investigation subject temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product, whether or not considered related to the medicinal product and reported in addition to those solicited during the clinical study and any solicited symptom with onset outside the specified period of follow-up for solicited symptoms. Any was defined as the occurrence of any unsolicited AE regardless of intensity grade or relation to vaccination.

An event is defined as 'serious' when it meets one of the pre-defined outcomes described below: results in death, is life-threatening, requires hospitalisation or prolongation of existing hospitalisation; results in disability/incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect in the offspring of a study subject. Medical or scientific judgement should be exercised in deciding whether reporting is appropriate in other situations, such as important medical events that may not be immediately life-threatening or result in death or hospitalisation but may jeopardize the subject or may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the other outcomes listed in the above definition. These should also be considered serious.

An event is defined as 'serious' when it meets one of the pre-defined outcomes described below: results in death, is life-threatening, requires hospitalisation or prolongation of existing hospitalisation; results in disability/incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect in the offspring of a study subject. Medical or scientific judgement should be exercised in deciding whether reporting is appropriate in other situations, such as important medical events that may not be immediately life-threatening or result in death or hospitalisation but may jeopardize the subject or may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the other outcomes listed in the above definition. These should also be considered serious.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated. The "prior to dose 1" nasopharyngeal swab samples collected from subjects within their first 7 months of age were obtained solely from the Immuno subset (The Immuno subset was constituted of the first +/- 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups).

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated. The "prior to dose 1" nasopharyngeal swab samples collected from subjects within their first 7 months of age were obtained solely from the Immuno subset (The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups).

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of subjects with new acquisition associated to the specified bacteria at the considered time point was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of subjects with new acquisition associated to the specified bacteria at the considered time point was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of subjects with new acquisition associated to the specified bacteria at the considered time point was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of subjects with new acquisition associated to the specified bacteria at the considered time point was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of subjects with new acquisition associated to the specified bacteria at the considered time point was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of subjects with new acquisition associated to the specified bacteria at the considered time point was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated. The "prior to dose 1" nasopharyngeal swab samples collected from subjects within their first 7 months of age were obtained solely from the Immuno subset (The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups). Data presented only include results from samples confirmed as positive for Hi/NTHi after differentiation from H. haemolyticus by PCR assay.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated. Data presented only include results from samples confirmed as positive for Hi /NTHi after differentiation from H. haemolyticus by PCR assay.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated. Data presented only include results from samples confirmed as positive for Hi/NTHi after differentiation from H. haemolyticus by PCR assay.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of subjects with new acquisition associated to the specified bacteria at the considered time point was tabulated. Data presented only include results from samples confirmed as positive for Hi/NTHi after differentiation from H. haemolyticus by PCR assay.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of subjects with new acquisition associated to the specified bacteria at the considered time point was tabulated. Data presented only include results from samples confirmed as positive for Hi/NTHi after differentiation from H. haemolyticus by PCR assay.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of subjects with new acquisition associated to the specified bacteria at the considered time point was tabulated. Data presented only include results from samples confirmed as positive for Hi/NTHi after differentiation from H. haemolyticus by PCR assay.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated. The "prior to dose 1" nasopharyngeal swab samples collected from subjects within their first 7 months of age were obtained solely from the Immuno subset (The Immuno subset was constituted of the first 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups).

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated. The "prior to dose 1" nasopharyngeal swab samples collected from subjects within their first 7 months of age were obtained solely from the Immuno subset (The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups).

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated. The "prior to dose 1" nasopharyngeal swab samples collected from subjects within their first 7 months of age were obtained solely from the Immuno subset (The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups).

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated.

At each time point where a swab sample result was available, the number/percentage of swabs associated with the specified bacteria was tabulated.

Antibody concentrations were measured by 22F -inhibition enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), expressed as geometric mean concentrations (GMCs), in micrograms per milliliter (µg/mL). Serotypes assessed were the pneumococcal vaccine serotypes 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F. The cut-off of the assay was >= 0.05 µg/mL. The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups.

Antibody concentrations were measured by 22F-inhibition enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), expressed as geometric mean concentrations (GMCs), in micrograms per milliliter (µg/mL). Serotypes assessed were the pneumococcal vaccine serotypes 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F. The cut-off of the assay was >= 0.05 µg/mL. The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups.

Antibody concentrations were measured by 22F-inhibitionenzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), expressed as geometric mean concentrations (GMCs), in micrograms per milliliter (µg/mL). Serotypes assessed were the cross-reactive pneumococcal serotypes 6A and 19A. The cut-off of the assay was >= 0.05 µg/mL. The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups.

Antibody concentrations were measured by 22F-inhibitionenzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), expressed as geometric mean concentrations (GMCs), in micrograms per milliliter (µg/mL). Serotypes assessed were the cross-reactive pneumococcal serotypes 6A and 19A. The cut-off of the assay was >= 0.05 µg/mL. The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups.

Titers for opsonophagocytic activity against vaccine pneumococcal serotypes 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F. The cut-off of the assay was >= 8. The Immuno subset was constituted of the ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups.

Titers for opsonophagocytic activity against vaccine pneumococcal serotypes 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F. The cut-off of the assay was >= 8. The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups.

Titers for opsonophagocytic activity against cross-reactive pneumococcal serotypes 6A and 19A. The cut-off of the assay was >= 8. The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups.

Titers for opsonophagocytic activity against cross-reactive pneumococcal serotypes 6A and 19A. The cut-off of the assay was >= 8. The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups.

ANTI-PD concentrations are expressed as geometric mean concentrations (GMCs), in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) unit per milliliter (EL.U/mL). The cut-off of the assay was >= 100 EL.U/mL. The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups.

ANTI-PD concentrations are expressed as geometric mean concentrations (GMCs), in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) unit per milliliter (EL.U/mL). The cut-off of the assay was >= 100 EL.U/mL. The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups.

Antibody concentrations were measured by 22F-inhibitionenzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), expressed as geometric mean concentrations (GMCs), in micrograms per milliliter (µg/mL). Serotypes assessed were the pneumococcal vaccine serotypes 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F. The cut-off of the assay was >= 0.05 µg/mL. The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups.

Antibody concentrations were measured by 22F-inhibitionenzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), expressed as geometric mean concentrations (GMCs), in micrograms per milliliter (µg/mL). Serotypes assessed were the pneumococcal vaccine serotypes 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F. The cut-off of the assay was >= 0.05 µg/mL. The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups.

Antibody concentrations were measured by 22F-inhibitionenzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), expressed as geometric mean concentrations (GMCs), in micrograms per milliliter (µg/mL). Serotypes assessed were the cross-reactive pneumococcal serotypes 6A and 19A. The cut-off of the assay was >= 0.05 µg/mL. The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups.

Antibody concentrations were measured by 22F-inhibitionenzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), expressed as geometric mean concentrations (GMCs), in micrograms per milliliter (µg/mL). Serotypes assessed were the cross-reactive pneumococcal serotypes 6A and 19A. The cut-off of the assay was >= 0.05 µg/mL. The Immuno subset was constituted of the first ± 1500 subjects from whom blood samples were collected, according to age and treatment groups.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) as regards subjects with AOM episode was tabulated. PYAR was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with event) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000). An AOM episode assessed as with level 1 of diagnostic certainty was defined as an AOM event diagnosed by a physician according to the Finnish AOM management guidelines (confirmed cases) and reported by subjects' parent(s)/guardian(s) regardless the documentation in medical records or other source document. Note that a post-hoc re-analysis of AOM endpoints with a corrected definition of follow-up taking into account individual end of follow-up time was performed; the results of re-analysis as the most prominent for AOM outcome are presented in this summary.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) as regards subjects with AOM episode was tabulated. PYAR was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with event) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000). An AOM episode assessed as with level 1 of diagnostic certainty was defined as an AOM event diagnosed by a physician according to the Finnish AOM management guidelines (confirmed cases) and reported by subjects' parent(s)/guardian(s) regardless the documentation in medical records or other source document. Note that a post-hoc re-analysis of AOM endpoints with a corrected definition of follow-up taking into account individual end of follow-up time was performed; the results of re-analysis as the most prominent for AOM outcome are presented in this summary.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) as regards subjects with AOM episode was tabulated. PYAR was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with event) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000). An AOM episode assessed as with level 1 of diagnostic certainty was defined as an AOM event diagnosed by a physician according to the Finnish AOM management guidelines (confirmed cases) and reported by subjects' parent(s)/guardian(s) regardless the documentation in medical records or other source document. Note that a post-hoc re-analysis of AOM endpoints with a corrected definition of follow-up taking into account individual end of follow-up time was performed; the results of re-analysis as the most prominent for AOM outcome are presented in this summary.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) as regards subjects with AOM episode was tabulated. PYAR was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with event) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000). An AOM episode assessed as with level 1 of diagnostic certainty was defined as an AOM event diagnosed by a physician according to the Finnish AOM management guidelines (confirmed cases) and reported by subjects' parent(s)/guardian(s) regardless the documentation in medical records or other source document. Note that a post-hoc re-analysis of AOM endpoints with a corrected definition of follow-up taking into account individual end of follow-up time was performed; the results of re-analysis as the most prominent for AOM outcome are presented in this summary.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) as regards subjects with AOM episode was tabulated. PYAR was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with event) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000). An AOM episode assessed as with level 1 of diagnostic certainty was defined as an AOM event diagnosed by a physician according to the Finnish AOM management guidelines (confirmed cases) and reported by subjects' parent(s)/guardian(s) regardless the documentation in medical records or other source document. Note that a post-hoc re-analysis of AOM endpoints with a corrected definition of follow-up taking into account individual end of follow-up time was performed; the results of re-analysis as the most prominent for AOM outcome are presented in this summary.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) as regards subjects with AOM episode was tabulated. PYAR was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with event) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000). An AOM episode assessed as with level 1 of diagnostic certainty was defined as an AOM event diagnosed by a physician according to the Finnish AOM management guidelines (confirmed cases) and reported by subjects' parent(s)/guardian(s) regardless the documentation in medical records or other source document. Note that a post-hoc re-analysis of AOM endpoints with a corrected definition of follow-up taking into account individual end of follow-up time was performed; the results of re-analysis as the most prominent for AOM outcome are presented in this summary.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) as regards subjects with AOM episode was tabulated. PYAR was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with event) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000). An AOM episode assessed as with level 1 of diagnostic certainty was defined as an AOM event diagnosed by a physician according to the Finnish AOM management guidelines (confirmed cases) and reported by subjects' parent(s)/guardian(s) regardless the documentation in medical records or other source document. Note that a post-hoc re-analysis of AOM endpoints with a corrected definition of follow-up taking into account individual end of follow-up time was performed; the results of re-analysis as the most prominent for AOM outcome are presented in this summary.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) as regards subjects with AOM episode was tabulated. PYAR was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with event) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000). An AOM episode assessed as with level 1 of diagnostic certainty was defined as an AOM event diagnosed by a physician according to the Finnish AOM management guidelines (confirmed cases) and reported by subjects' parent(s)/guardian(s) regardless the documentation in medical records or other source document. Note that a post-hoc re-analysis of AOM endpoints with a corrected definition of follow-up taking into account individual end of follow-up time was performed; the results of re-analysis as the most prominent for AOM outcome are presented in this summary.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) as regards subjects with AOM episode was tabulated. PYAR was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with event) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000). An AOM episode assessed as with level 1 of diagnostic certainty was defined as an AOM event diagnosed by a physician according to the Finnish AOM management guidelines (confirmed cases) and reported by subjects' parent(s)/guardian(s) regardless the documentation in medical records or other source document. Note that a post-hoc re-analysis of AOM endpoints with a corrected definition of follow-up taking into account individual end of follow-up time was performed; the results of re-analysis as the most prominent for AOM outcome are presented in this summary.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), calculated as a 2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata.

The PYAR (Person-Year Rate) was calculated as follows n (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD) divided by T (= sum of follow-up period expressed in years) (per 1000) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), calculated as a 2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata.