Dominik Mertz1, Abdulsalam Alawfi2, Jeffrey M Pernica2, Candy Rutherford2, Kathy Luinstra2, Marek Smieja2. 1. Departments of Medicine (Mertz, Alawfi, Smieja), Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Mertz, Smieja), Pathology and Molecular Medicine (Mertz, Smieja); Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Diseases Research (Mertz, Smieja); Department of Pediatrics (Pernica, Smieja), McMaster University; Hamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine Program (Rutherford, Smieja); Department of Laboratory Medicine (Luinstra, Smieja), St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ont. mertzd@mcmaster.ca. 2. Departments of Medicine (Mertz, Alawfi, Smieja), Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Mertz, Smieja), Pathology and Molecular Medicine (Mertz, Smieja); Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Diseases Research (Mertz, Smieja); Department of Pediatrics (Pernica, Smieja), McMaster University; Hamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine Program (Rutherford, Smieja); Department of Laboratory Medicine (Luinstra, Smieja), St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enterovirus D68 (EV-D68) resulted in a reported increase in the number of children needing hospital or critical care admission because of respiratory insufficiency during 2014. It remains unclear, however, whether EV-D68 infections were more severe than rhinovirus or non-EV-D68 enterovirus infections. METHODS: We evaluated consecutive children presenting to a pediatric hospital between Aug. 1 and Oct. 31, 2014, with positive nasopharyngeal swabs for rhinovirus or enterovirus that were sent automatically for EV-D68 testing. We compared characteristics and outcomes of patients with EV-D68 with those with rhinovirus or non-EV-D68 enterovirus in a matched cohort study. RESULTS: A total of 93/297 (31.3%) of rhinovirus or enterovirus samples tested positive for EV-D68, and it was possible to compare 87 matched pairs. Children with EV-D68 infection were more likely to have difficulty breathing (odds ratio [OR] 3.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-6.14). There was no significant difference in admission to the critical care unit or death among children with EV-D68 infection compared with those with other rhinovirus or enterovirus infections (adjusted OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.61-3.52). Children with EV-D68 infection were more often admitted to hospital, but not significantly so (adjusted OR 2.29, 95% CI 0.96-5.46). INTERPRETATION: Enterovirus D68 seems to be a more virulent pulmonary pathogen than rhinovirus or non-EV-D68 enterovirus, but we did not find a significant difference in death or need for critical care.
BACKGROUND:Enterovirus D68 (EV-D68) resulted in a reported increase in the number of children needing hospital or critical care admission because of respiratory insufficiency during 2014. It remains unclear, however, whether EV-D68 infections were more severe than rhinovirus or non-EV-D68enterovirus infections. METHODS: We evaluated consecutive children presenting to a pediatric hospital between Aug. 1 and Oct. 31, 2014, with positive nasopharyngeal swabs for rhinovirus or enterovirus that were sent automatically for EV-D68 testing. We compared characteristics and outcomes of patients with EV-D68 with those with rhinovirus or non-EV-D68enterovirus in a matched cohort study. RESULTS: A total of 93/297 (31.3%) of rhinovirus or enterovirus samples tested positive for EV-D68, and it was possible to compare 87 matched pairs. Children with EV-D68 infection were more likely to have difficulty breathing (odds ratio [OR] 3.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-6.14). There was no significant difference in admission to the critical care unit or death among children with EV-D68 infection compared with those with other rhinovirus or enterovirus infections (adjusted OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.61-3.52). Children with EV-D68 infection were more often admitted to hospital, but not significantly so (adjusted OR 2.29, 95% CI 0.96-5.46). INTERPRETATION:Enterovirus D68 seems to be a more virulent pulmonary pathogen than rhinovirus or non-EV-D68enterovirus, but we did not find a significant difference in death or need for critical care.
Authors: Zheng Wang; Anthony P Malanoski; Baochuan Lin; Nina C Long; Tomasz A Leski; Kate M Blaney; Christian J Hansen; Jason Brown; Michael Broderick; David A Stenger; Clark Tibbetts; Kevin L Russell; David Metzgar Journal: Microb Ecol Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 4.552
Authors: Karoline Bragstad; Kirsti Jakobsen; Astrid E Rojahn; Marius K Skram; Kirsti Vainio; Mona Holberg-Petersen; Olav Hungnes; Susanne G Dudman; Anne-Marte B Kran Journal: Influenza Other Respir Viruses Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Claire M Midgley; Mary Anne Jackson; Rangaraj Selvarangan; George Turabelidze; Emily Obringer; Daniel Johnson; B Louise Giles; Ajanta Patel; Fredrick Echols; M Steven Oberste; W Allan Nix; John T Watson; Susan I Gerber Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Sandra A Asner; Michelle E Science; Dat Tran; Marek Smieja; Arnaud Merglen; Dominik Mertz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sandra A Asner; Astrid Petrich; Jemila S Hamid; Dominik Mertz; Susan E Richardson; Marek Smieja Journal: Influenza Other Respir Viruses Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Timothy J Savage; Jane Kuypers; Helen Y Chu; Miranda C Bradford; Anne Marie Buccat; Xuan Qin; Eileen J Klein; Keith R Jerome; Janet A Englund; Alpana Waghmare Journal: Influenza Other Respir Viruses Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Georgina Martin; Rachel Li; Victoria E Cook; Matthew Carwana; Peter Tilley; Laura Sauve; Patrick Tang; Akshat Kapur; Connie L Yang Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 2.409