Article

Epidemiology of respiratory viruses in children admitted to an infant/toddler unit

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
American journal of infection control (Impact Factor: 2.33). 09/2011; 40(5):462-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2011.05.024
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study examined the prevalence of common respiratory viruses in an infant/toddler cohort tested as part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent nosocomial respiratory virus transmission and measured the unrecognized reservoir of viruses in children without common respiratory virus symptoms.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Trish M Perl, Dec 30, 2013
0 Followers
 · 
111 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:: Viral respiratory infections are among the most common reasons for hospitalization of children in the United States. Our objective was to compare molecular and conventional methods in a cohort of hospitalized children with and without symptoms of respiratory viral illness (RVI). METHODS:: Retrospective cohort study of infants and toddlers hospitalized between December 2007 and March 2008 at Johns Hopkins Hospital. 569 of 641 patient visits (89%) were tested on admission. Conventional tests (immunochromatography, direct fluorescent antibody, shell vial, and tube culture) were performed on all patients and nucleic acid tests (NATs) were performed on available samples (n=306). Viruses were grouped into those routinely (Group 1) and those not routinely (Group 2) detected by conventional methods. RESULTS:: In children with RVI symptoms (N=148), NATs identified a virus in 83% specimens compared with 49% by conventional methods (p<0.001), but detected a similar percentage of specimens with Group 1 viruses (48.6% and 55.4%, p=0.13) compared with conventional tests. In children without RVI symptoms (N=158), NATs identified a virus in 41.7% specimens compared with 4.4% by conventional tests (p<0.001) and identified more Group 1 viruses (9.5% and 4.4%, p=0.03) compared with conventional tests. Group 2 viruses were identified by NATs in a similar percentage of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (25% and 32.3%, p=0.20). CONCLUSION:: Molecular assays may have several advantages over conventional methods for detecting respiratory viruses, including improved sensitivity and rapid detection, but given the high prevalence of positive results in children without RVI symptoms, results should be interpreted cautiously.
    The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 06/2012; 31(12). DOI:10.1097/INF.0b013e318265a804 · 3.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rapid detection of respiratory viruses is important for management and infection control in hospitalized patients. Multiplex nucleic acid tests (NATs) have begun to replace conventional methods as gold standards for respiratory virus detection. To compare the performance of two large multiplex NATS, ResPlex II (RPII) and Respiratory Virus Surveillance kit with electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (RVS/MS) using nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPAs) from hospitalized children who had been tested previously with conventional methods. Stored residual NPAs (N=306) were tested concomitantly by RPII and RVS/MS. Alternate NATs were used to adjudicate discordant results. More viruses were detected with multiplex NATs (RPII, 110; RVS/MS, 109) than conventional assays (86); diagnostic gain was primarily for fastidious viruses (coronaviruses and enteroviruses [EVs]/human rhinoviruses [HRVs]). Total positive and negative agreement between the multiplex NATs for all viruses detected was quite high (86% positive agreement, 99% negative agreement). Most individual viruses were detected with fairly equivalent accuracy by the multiplex NATs, except for adenoviruses (RPII sensitivity 40%) and human metapneumovirus (RVS/MS sensitivity 42%). RPII had the advantage of detecting EVs and HRVs, however, it demonstrated considerable EV/HRV cross-reactivity (29 HRV-positive specimens by real-time PCR were positive for EV by RPII and 21 specimens positive for HRV only by RT-PCR were dual positive for EV/HRV by RPII). RPII also had reduced sensitivity for HRV detection (in 36 specimens, HRV was detected by RT-PCR but not by RPII). Both multiplex NATs were promising, but had notable limitations.
    Journal of clinical virology: the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology 07/2012; 55(2):168-72. DOI:10.1016/j.jcv.2012.06.019 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A novel eSensor respiratory viral panel (eSensor RVP) multiplexed nucleic acid amplification test (GenMark Diagnostics, Inc., Carlsbad, CA) was compared to laboratory-developed real-time PCR assays for the detection of various respiratory viruses. A total of 250 frozen archived pediatric respiratory specimens previously characterized as either negative or positive for one or more viruses by real-time PCR were examined using the eSensor RVP. Overall agreement between the eSensor RVP and corresponding real-time PCR assays for shared analytes was 99.2% (kappa = 0.96 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.94 to 0.98]). The combined positive percent agreement was 95.4% (95% CI, 92.5 to 97.3); the negative percent agreement was 99.7% (95% CI, 99.4 to 99.8). The mean real-time PCR threshold cycle (C(T)) value for specimens with discordant results was 39.73 (95% CI, 38.03 to 41.43). Detection of coinfections and correct identification of influenza A virus subtypes were comparable between methods. Of note, the eSensor RVP rhinovirus assay was found to be more sensitive and specific than the corresponding rhinovirus real-time PCR. In contrast, the eSensor RVP adenovirus B, C, and E assays demonstrated some cross-reactivity when tested against known adenovirus serotypes representing groups A through F. The eSensor RVP is robust and relatively easy to perform, it involves a unique biosensor technology for target detection, and its multiplexed design allows for efficient and simultaneous interrogation of a single specimen for multiple viruses. Potential drawbacks include a slower turnaround time and the need to manipulate amplified product during the protocol, increasing the possibility of contamination.
    Journal of clinical microbiology 08/2012; 50(11):3458-65. DOI:10.1128/JCM.01384-12 · 4.23 Impact Factor
Show more