Literature DB >> 29166867

Clinical and virological factors associated with gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with acute respiratory infection: a two-year prospective study in general practice medicine.

Laetitia Minodier1, Shirley Masse1, Lisandru Capai1, Thierry Blanchon2,3, Pierre-Emmanuel Ceccaldi4,5,6, Sylvie van der Werf5,7,8, Thomas Hanslik9,10,11, Remi Charrel12, Alessandra Falchi13.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, such as diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain and nausea are not an uncommon manifestation of an acute respiratory infection (ARI). We therefore evaluated clinical and microbiological factors associated with the presence of GI symptoms in patients consulting a general practitioner (GP) for ARI.
METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs, stool specimens and clinical data from patients presenting to GPs with an ARI were prospectively collected during two winter seasons (2014-2016). Samples were tested by quantitative real-time PCR for 12 respiratory pathogen groups and for 12 enteric pathogens.
RESULTS: Two hundred and four of 331 included patients (61.6%) were positive for at least one respiratory pathogen. Sixty-nine stools (20.8%) were positive for at least one pathogen (respiratory and/or enteric). GI symptoms were more likely declared in case of laboratory confirmed-enteric infection (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.2-9.9]; p = 0.02) or human coronavirus (HCoV) infection (aOR = 2.7; [1.2-6.8]; p = 0.02). Consumption of antipyretic medication before the consultation seemed to reduce the risk of developing GI symptoms for patients with laboratory-confirmed influenza (aOR = 0.3; [0.1-0.6]; p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of GI symptoms in ARI patients could not be explained by the detection of respiratory pathogens in stools. However, the detection of enteric pathogens in stool samples could explained by the presence of GI symptoms in some of ARI cases. The biological mechanisms explaining the association between the presence of HCoVs in nasopharynx and GI symptoms need to be explored.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acute respiratory infection; Enteric pathogens; Gastrointestinal symptoms; General practitioner; Influenza virus

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29166867      PMCID: PMC5700681          DOI: 10.1186/s12879-017-2823-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Infect Dis        ISSN: 1471-2334            Impact factor:   3.090


Background

Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, such as diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain and nausea are not an uncommon manifestation of an acute respiratory infection (ARI) [1-8] (Additional file 1) and have been reported as a hallmark of severe influenza in childhood [9]. Influenza viruses and other respiratory agents such as human rhinoviruses (HRV) [10], have been detected in stools of patients with ARIs (Additional file 2) [5, 10–14], but their correlation with GI symptoms and their viability in stool is still debated [10, 15]. There are several possible explanations for the observed GI symptoms during an ARI. First, each winter, ARIs and gastroenteritis outbreaks overlap, creating a spurious association between ARI and GI symptoms, maybe caused by a co-infection between respiratory agents and enteroviruses [16]. Second, GI symptoms may be a side effect of drug treatment (antibiotic or antiviral) [17, 18] or food consumption (ex: raw shellfish and molluscs) [19]. Third, GI symptoms could either be a manifestation of a direct viral effect, or an indirect viral effect of respiratory viruses, such as lung-derived CD4+ cell-induced dysbiosis resulting in intestinal injury [20]. Insufficient information about the prevalence of GI symptoms in ARIs, their clinical features and their potential risk factors may lead to diagnostic errors and inadequate treatment. In the context of the above limitations, the main objectives of this two-year (2014–2016) prospective study were to evaluate the demographical, clinical and microbiological factors associated with the presence of GI symptoms in patients presenting to general practitioner (GP) with an ARI.

Methods

Study design

A representative sample of 60 GPs from the French Sentinelles Network [21, 22] was recruited to enrol ARI patients from all over mainland France. To ensure that the selection of ARI patients remained random, each GP was required to include, each week, the first two patients seen in consultation who met the inclusion criteria, regardless of their age. The case definition of ARI was “any person with a sudden onset of symptoms and at least one of the following four systemic symptoms: fever (≥ 38 °C or greater) or history of fever (≥ 38 °C or greater) taken at home or feverishness, malaise, headache, myalgia, AND at least one of the following three respiratory symptoms: cough, sore throat, or shortness of breath” [23]. All patients were recruited within 48 h of the onset of symptoms. Patients were enrolled by their GPs over two consecutive ARI seasons from week 46, 2014 (10–16 November 2014) to week 15, 2015 (06-12 April 2015) and from week 45, 2015 (02-8 November 2015) to 16, 2016 (18–24 April 2016) (Additional file 3). The GPs completed a case report form (CRF) for all volunteers who met the case definition and agreed to participate, and submitted this by post (all items are listed on Additional file 4). We defined a patient as vaccinated if he/she had received at least one dose of seasonal influenza vaccine at least 15 days before the onset of ARI symptoms.

Sample collection

Two types of samples were obtained for each enrolled patient: a nasopharyngeal swab and a stool sample. The nasopharyngeal specimen was collected by the GP and was sent with the CRF to the test laboratory by post in a triple-packaged Copan universal transport medium (UTM-RT) container (Copan Italia, Brescia, Italy). Included patients were asked to collect stool specimens and send them to the laboratory within 48 h by post in triple packaging as required by the United Nations class 6.2 specifications.

Laboratory investigations

Nucleic acid extraction

For nasopharyngeal specimens, nucleic acids were extracted from 200 μl of UTM-stored sample and eluted in 60 μl of elution buffer using QiAamp MinElute virus spin kits (Qiagen, France) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Stool specimens were centrifuged at 14,000 xg for 20 min; then nucleic acids were extracted from 200 μl of the UTM-stored sample and eluted in 40 μl of elution buffer using QiAamp MinElute virus spin kits (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. An internal control (T4 and MS2 phages) was added to each extraction tube to assess the quality of the extraction at the end of the amplification [24].

Detection of respiratory pathogens

All extracted samples (nasopharyngeal and stool) were screened for influenza A and B viruses by real-time quantitative Reverse Transcription PCR (RT-qPCR); influenza A virus-positive specimens were subtyped and influenza B virus-positive samples were analysed for Victoria and Yamagata lineage according to the method developed by the French National Influenza Centre [25, 26]. Then, the presence of 10 non-influenza respiratory pathogen groups was analysed by RT-qPCR and qPCR using a Fast Track Diagnostic (FTD) Respiratory pathogens 21 kit (Fast Track Diagnostic, Luxemburg) using five tubes containing primer and probe mix for different viruses; Tube-1 [Influenza A, Influenza A subtype H1N1 (A(H1N1)pdm09), human Rhinovirus (HRV), Influenza B], Tube-2 [human Coronaviruses NL63 (HCoV-NL63), 229E (HCoV 229E), OC43 (HCoV-OC43), and HKU1 (HCoV HKU1)], Tube-3 [human Parainfluenza viruses, 2, 3, and 4 (HPIV- 2, 3 and 4) & Internal Control], Tube-4 [human Parainfluenza viruses-1, Mycoplasma pneumoniae (M.pneu), human Bocavirus (HBoV), human Metapneumovirus (HMPV A/B)] and Tube-5 [Respiratory Syncytial virus (RSVA/B), human Adenovirus (HAdV), Enterovirus (EV), human Parechovirus (HPeV)].

Detection of enteric pathogens

Extracted stool samples were screened by RT-qPCR and qPCR using the FTD Viral gastroenteritis kit (Fast Track Diagnostic, Luxemburg) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, using three multiplex PCRs to detect six viruses: human norovirus (hNoVG1 and hNoVG2), adenovirus (hAdV), human astrovirus (HAstV), rotavirus (RV) and sapovirus (SaV). The panel FTD Bacterial gastroenteritis kit (Fast Track Diagnostic, Luxemburg) was used following the manufacturer’s procedure, using two multiplex RT-qPCR for six bacteria: Campylobacter coli/jejuni/lari, Escherichia coli verotoxin positive, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp. + enteroinvasive Escherichia coli, Yersinia enterocolitica, Clostridium difficile. Two different positives controls for viral and bacterial multiplex RT-qPCR reactions and a negative control tube are provided in these kits.

Statistical analysis

Quantitative variables were described by using means [Min-Max] and standard deviations were compared by the Wilcoxon test. Qualitative variables were described by using proportions and compared using a chi-square or Fisher’s exact test if the chi-square test was not applicable; the results were presented as odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (OR [95% CI]). We used unconditional logistic regression model to study the factors associated with SGI in ARI patients (yes/no) by comparing independent effects of factors that were associated in the bivariate analyses (p-value of <0.20). Variables for the model were chosen through automatic backwards selection using a significance level of 0.05. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed on patients with only one pathogen detected in nasopharyngeal swabs and/or in stool sample. All analyses were been performed using the R program (http://www.r-project.org).

Results

During the study period, 47 of the 60 recruited GPs (78.3%) that agreed to participate in the study enrolled at least one ARI patient. Of the 574 ARI patients recruited by these GPs, 331 (57.6%) sent a stool sample to the virology laboratory and finalized their inclusion in this study (Fig. 1). There were no significant differences in socio-demographic and clinical characteristics or positivity rate for the analysed pathogens between the 574 ARI patients initially recruited by the GPs and the 331 ARI patients with nasopharyngeal and stool samples and completed CRF who were finally included (Table 1).
Fig. 1

Flow diagram describing selection of patients included in the study

Table 1

Comparison of demographical, clinical and microbiological characteristics between patients initially recruited by General Practitioners (GPs) with at least a nasopharyngeal swab (N = 574) and patients included in the study as presenting a nasopharyngeal swab and a stool specimen (N = 331)

CharacteristicsPatients with at least a nasopharyngeal sampleN (%)Patients with nasopharyngeal and stool sampleN (%) P-value*
Number of samples574331
Male268 (46.7)154 (46.5) P > 0.05
Mean age [Min-Max] 35.9 [1-91] 35.8 [1 - 91] P > 0.05
0-4 y38 (6.6)25 (7.5) P > 0.05
5-14 y66 (11.5)59 (17.8) P > 0.05
15-44 y241 (42)122 (36.8) P > 0.05
45-64 y141 (24.6)86 (26) P > 0.05
≥ 65 y66 (11.5)39 (11.8) P > 0.05
Vaccination against influenza51 (8.9)36 (10.9) P > 0.05
Travel (<15 days)29 (5)20 (6) P > 0.05
Risk factor223 (38.8)124 (37.5) P > 0.05
Chronic disease189 (32.9)106 (32) P > 0.05
Depression51 (8.9)26 (7.8) P > 0.05
Hospitalization35 (6.1)20 (6) P > 0.05
Digestive disorders <7 days103 (17.9)59 (17.8) P > 0.05
Symptoms
 High Fever (>39 °C)275 (47.9)156 (47.1) P > 0.05
 Asthenia507 (88.3)288 (87) P > 0.05
 Myalgia431 (75.1)243 (73.1) P > 0.05
 Headaches424 (73.9)244 (73.1) P > 0.05
 Otitis62 (10.8)28 (8.5) P > 0.05
 Dyspnea127 (22.1)73 (22) P > 0.05
 Cough510 (88.8)299 (90.3) P > 0.05
 Expectoration196 (31.2)103 (31.1) P > 0.05
 Rhinitis426 (74.2)251 (75.8) P > 0.05
 Pharyngitis338 (58.9)198 (59.8) P > 0.05
 Hyperemia150 (26.1)81 (24.5) P > 0.05
 Adenopathy66 (11.5)35 (10.6) P > 0.05
 Dehydration6 (1)4 (1.2) P > 0.05
 Gastrointestinal symptoms (SGI)327 (57)189 (57.1) P > 0.05
 Diarrhea84 (14.6)47 (14) P > 0.05
 Vomiting66 (11.5)28 (8.5) P > 0.05
 Nausea195 (34)105 (31.7) P > 0.05
 Abdominal pain197 (34.3)113 (34.1) P > 0.05
Food consumption
 Raw shellfish and molluscs37 (6.4)25 (7.5) P > 0.05
 Cooked shellfish and molluscs51 (8.9)31 (9.4) P > 0.05
 Tap water351 (61.5)198 (59.8) P > 0.05
Drug consumption before consultation
 Antibiotics29 (5)17 (5.1) P > 0.05
 Antiviral16 (2.8)8 (2.4) P > 0.05
 Anti-inflammatory86 (14.9)46 (13.9) P > 0.05
 Antipyretics331 (57.7)189 (57.1) P > 0.05
 Other drugs104 (18.1)64 (19.3) P > 0.05
Drug prescription after consultation
 Antibiotics104 (18.1)57 (17.2) P > 0.05
 Antiviral48 (8.4)24 (7.2) P > 0.05
 Antipyretics473 (82.4)271 (81.9) P > 0.05
 Other drugs165 (28.7)103 (31.1) P > 0.05
Results of virological analyses in nasopharyngeal samples
 Nasopharyngeal samples positive to at least one pathogen320 (55.7)204 (61.6) P > 0.05
 Influenza (A + B)176 (30.7)114 (34.4) P > 0.05
 Influenza A (including 4 A not subtyped)69 (12)42 (12.7) P > 0.05
 A(H1N1)pdm0936 (6.3)24 (7.2) P > 0.05
 A(H3N2)29 (5)14 (4.2) P > 0.05
 Influenza B107 (18.6)72 (21.7) P > 0.05
 Influenza B Victoria89 (15.5)57 (17.2) P > 0.05
 Influenza B Yamagata18 (3.1)15 (4.5) P > 0.05
 Human Coronaviruses NL63, 229E, OC43, HKU148 (8.4)35 (10.6) P > 0.05
 Human Rhinovirus49 (8.5)25 (7.5) P > 0.05
 Respiratory Syncytial virus A/B26 (4.5)20 (6) P > 0.05
 Human Bocavirus 5 (0.9)3 (0.9) P > 0.05
 Human Metapneumovirus A/B16 (2.8)9 (2.7) P > 0.05
 Human Parainfluenza viruses 1, 2,3,46 (1)4 (1.2) P > 0.05
 Human Adenovirus8 (1.4)4 (1.21) P > 0.05
 Human Parechovirus 00
 Mycoplasma pneumoniae00
 Enteroviruses00
 Co-infection13 (2.3)10 (3) P > 0.05

*P-value resulted of Chi square or Fisher exact test

Flow diagram describing selection of patients included in the study Comparison of demographical, clinical and microbiological characteristics between patients initially recruited by General Practitioners (GPs) with at least a nasopharyngeal swab (N = 574) and patients included in the study as presenting a nasopharyngeal swab and a stool specimen (N = 331) *P-value resulted of Chi square or Fisher exact test The demographic data and clinical characteristics of the 331 ARI cases studied are summarized in Table 1. At least one GI symptom was declared by 189 (57.1%) of the 331 ARI patients: diarrhea was reported by 47 (14%), vomiting by 28 (8.5%), nausea by 105 (31.7%) and abdominal pain by 113 (34.1%) (Table 1).

Respiratory pathogens identified in nasopharyngeal samples

Overall, the nasopharyngeal specimens of 204 of the 331 (61.6%) patients were positive for at least one of the 12 respiratory pathogen groups analysed in this study (Table 1). Infection with a single virus accounted for 87.2% (194/204) of the positive nasopharyngeal samples, whereas infections with multiple viruses observed in 5% (10/204) of them, including nine double infections: (A(H1N1)pdm09/HCoV, ADV/HBoV, two Influenza B virus/HCoV, two HCoV/HRVS and two HRV/HBoV) and one triple infection (HRV/ADV/HRSV) (Fig. 2a). The most frequently identified pathogen was influenza virus (34.4%, 114/331; consisting of influenza A virus [12.7%, 42/331] and influenza B virus [21.7%, 72/331]), followed by HCoV (10.6%, 35/331), HRV (7.5%, 25/331) and RSV (6.0%, 20/331) (Table 1 and Fig. 2a). Of the 35 samples that tested positives for HCoV, 13 were HCoV-NL63, 10 HCoV-229E, 7 HCoV-OC43 and 5 HCoV-HKU1.
Fig. 2

a Description of number of positive nasopharyngeal specimens to at least one respiratory pathogen and b) description of number of positive stool specimens to at least one respiratory or enteric pathogen. a * Single infection rate for nasopharyngeal samples was of 87.25% (194/204) and multiple infection rate was of 5% (10/204). ** HCoV details: among 35 positive samples we detected: 13 NL63, 10 229E, 7 OC43 and 5 HKU1. b * Among 25 patients with positive stools to influenza A or B viruses, one patient with influenza B had negative nasopharyngeal sample. **Single infection rate for stool samples was of 94.2% (65/69) and multiple infection rate was of 5.8% (4/69). *** HCoV details: among 4 positive samples we detected: 1 OC43 and 2 NL63 and 1 229E

a Description of number of positive nasopharyngeal specimens to at least one respiratory pathogen and b) description of number of positive stool specimens to at least one respiratory or enteric pathogen. a * Single infection rate for nasopharyngeal samples was of 87.25% (194/204) and multiple infection rate was of 5% (10/204). ** HCoV details: among 35 positive samples we detected: 13 NL63, 10 229E, 7 OC43 and 5 HKU1. b * Among 25 patients with positive stools to influenza A or B viruses, one patient with influenza B had negative nasopharyngeal sample. **Single infection rate for stool samples was of 94.2% (65/69) and multiple infection rate was of 5.8% (4/69). *** HCoV details: among 4 positive samples we detected: 1 OC43 and 2 NL63 and 1 229E

Respiratory and enteric pathogens identified in stool samples

Of the 331 stool samples, 69 (20.8%) were positive for at least one pathogen (respiratory and/or enteric) (Fig. 2b). Of the 69 positive stool samples, 94.2% (65/69) were positive for a single pathogen, whereas multiple viruses (all double infections) were detected in 5.8% (4/69) of positive stool specimens (A(H3N2)/ADV, HBoV/ADV and two HRV/HBoV) (Fig. 2b). The percentage of positive patients was highest for influenza viruses (7.5%, 25/331), for enteric pathogens (7.5%, 25/331) followed by HRV (3.9%, 13/331). HCoV (1 HCoV-NL63, 1 HCoV-229E, 1 HCoV-OC43 and 1 HCoV-HKU1), HBoV, HMPV and PIV were detected in fewer than 2% of the 331 stool specimens from ARI cases (Fig. 2b).

Factors related to GI symptoms

All factors listed in Table 1 have been analysed to investigate association with GI symptoms in ARI patients. Table 2 shows factors significantly related to GI symptoms in ARI patients. Results of RNA/DNA positivity in stools between ARI patients with and without GI symptoms for the respiratory pathogens tested were also reported in Table 2.
Table 2

Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals bivariate and multivariate models of the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms among 331 patients with acute respiratory infections (ARIs)

CharacteristicsARI patients With GI symptoms N = 189 (%)ARI patients Without GI symptoms N = 142 (%)ORa [95% IC](p-value)aORb [95% CI](p-value)
High Fever (>39 °C)99 (52.4)57 (40.1)1.6 [1.1-2.5](0.01)1.7[1.1-2.7](0.03)
Headaches151 (79.9)93 (65.6)2 [1.2-3.4](0.002)2 [1.2-3.4](0.003)
Human Coronavirus in single infection in nasopharynx22 (11.6)6 (4.2)2.9 [1.1-7.6](0.01)2.7 [1.2-6.8](0.02)
Antipyretic consumption before consultation among 104 influenza patients without co-infection32/59 (54.2)35/45 (77.8)0.3 [0.1-0.8](0.001)0.3 [0.1-0.6](0.002)
Pathogens detected in stools
 Influenza A8 (4.2)4 (2.8)1.5 [0.4-5.2](0.46)n.i.
 Influenza B6 (3.1)7 (4.9)0.6 [0.2-1.9]0.66n.i
 Human Rhinovirus6 (3.1)7 (4.9)0.6 [0.2-1.9](0.66)n.i
 Human Coronavirus3 (1.6)1 (0.7)2.3 [0.3-22.1](0.42)n.i
 Respiratory Syncytial Virus0 (0.0)0 (0.0)n.i.n.i
 Human Bocavirus1 (0.5)0 (0.0)n.i.n.i
 Human Metapneumovirus1 (0.5)1 (0.7)n.i.n.i
 Human Parainfluenzavirus1 (0.5)0 (0.0)n.i.n.i
 All respiratory pathogens26 (13.7)20 (14.1)0.9 [0.5 1.9](1)n.i
 Enteric pathogens19 (10.0)5 (3.5)3.0 [1.2-8.4](0.02)3.2 [1.2-9.9](0.02)

aCrude odds ratios (OR) from bivariate models

baOR = Adjusted odds ratios from multivariate models

CI confidence interval, n.i. =not included in the model

Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals bivariate and multivariate models of the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms among 331 patients with acute respiratory infections (ARIs) aCrude odds ratios (OR) from bivariate models baOR = Adjusted odds ratios from multivariate models CI confidence interval, n.i. =not included in the model ARI patients who reported at least one GI symptom (57.1%; 189/331) were associated with the presence of high fever (>39 °C) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.7 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.1–2.7]; p = 0.03), and headaches (aOR = 2.0 [1.2–3.4]; p = 0.003) (Table 2). ARI patients with GI symptoms were more likely to have at least one enteric infection (aOR = 3.2 [1.2–9.9]; p = 0.02) detected in stool or to have an infection with HCoV detected in the nasopharynx (aOR = 2.7; [1.2–6.8]; p = 0.002) (Table 2). Proportion of GI symptoms in ARI patients with single infection ranged from 33.3% with HRV infection (in nasopharyngeal swab) to 79.2% with enteric pathogens infection (in stool specimens) (Table 3). ARI patients with HCoV detected in the nasopharynx or enteric pathogen detected in stool were statistically more likely to have GI symptoms than ARI patients with other respiratory pathogens infection (Table 3). Among the 104 ARI patients with laboratory-confirmed influenza at least in the nasopharynx, 56.7% (59/104) had GI symptoms (Table 2). Consumption of antipyretic medication before the consultation seemed to reduce the risk of developing GI symptoms for this population (aOR = 0.3 [0.1–0.6]; p = 0.002) (Table 2).
Table 3

Proportion of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in patients with acute respiratory infections (ARIs) with single virus infection

Human Coronavirus*Influenza A*Influenza B*Human Rhinovirus*Respiratory syncytial virus*Human Adeno virus*Human Bocavirus*Human Metapneumovirus*Human Parainfluenzavirus *Enteric pathogens ** p-value
Number of single virus detection in ARI patients2841632114309424
GI symptoms in ARI patients with single virus detectionN (%) 22 (78.6) 22 (53.6)35 (57.1) 7 (33.3) 6 (42.8)2 (66.6)05 (55.5)3 (75) 19 (79.2) 0.02 a,b

*in nasopharyngeal swab

**in stool specimen

Significant differences are noted as bold (Highest) versus italic (lowest) when possible

aPearson Chi-square test

binterpret with caution as any cell as a value < 5

Proportion of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in patients with acute respiratory infections (ARIs) with single virus infection *in nasopharyngeal swab **in stool specimen Significant differences are noted as bold (Highest) versus italic (lowest) when possible aPearson Chi-square test binterpret with caution as any cell as a value < 5

Discussion

In this study, results showed that the presence of GI symptoms in ARI patients could not be explained by the detection of respiratory pathogens in stools. However, GI symptoms were more common among patients with ARI who were exclusively infected with HCoV detected in nasopharyngeal sample. This association cannot be explained by the presence of HCoVs in stools because the simultaneous detection of HCoV in nasopharyngeal and stool specimens was sporadic. Even if the association of GI symptoms with enteric infections is not surprising, it is interesting to point out that 13.2% (25/189) of ARI infections with GI symptoms were associated with laboratory-confirmed enteric infections. This result suggests that GI symptoms in patients with ARI could be related to enteric infections, and that the positive correlation between GI symptoms and fever or headache observed in this study increases the difficulty of clinical diagnosis. We detected, HCoVs in 10.6% of nasopharyngeal samples of patients with ARI. These results are in line with previous studies reporting HCoVs in 2.1%–18% of respiratory samples [27] of ARI patients. In the present study, patients with HCoVs featured 11.6% of ARI patients with GI symptoms. Moreover 78.9% of patients with HCoV infection declared to have GI symptoms. Although HCoVs are recognized as causes of respiratory infection, their role in gastrointestinal infection remains uncertain and a subject of debate [12, 28, 29]. In the present study, GI symptoms were positively associated with single laboratory-confirmed HCoV infection detected in the nasopharynx of ARI patients. This association cannot be explained by the presence of HCoVs in stools because the simultaneous detection of HCoV in nasopharyngeal and stool specimens was observed in four patients only. The four commonly circulating HCoVs (1 HCoV-NL63, 1 HCoV-229E, 1 HCoV-OC43 and 1 HCoV-HKU1) were detected in stool samples, thus none of the four HCoV could be specifically associated with positivity of stools. The proportion of HCoVs in stool specimens was less important than it was in nasopharyngeal specimens (4 versus 28 respectively) which hampered an efficient comparison of the results and limited their interpretation. Moreover there was no ARI patient presenting HCoV in stools in the absence of HCoV in nasopharynx. Therefore the presence of HCoV RNA in stool is likely due to swallowing rather than due to local replication in the GI tract [12]. The presence of HCoVs in nasopharynx seems to be linked to GI symptoms in ARI patients but the biological mechanism remained unclear. In line with previous studies [13], no association was observed between seasonal influenza virus detection in nasopharyngeal or stool samples and GI symptoms in ARI patients. However, among the 104 patients with influenza infection, 56.7% (59/104) presented GI symptoms. The mouse model used by Wang [20] showed that influenza infection through a mechanism dependent on type I interferons (IFN-Is) can alter the composition of the intestinal microbiota, resulting in immunological dysregulation that may promote inflammatory gut disorders. The number of Escherichia coli (E.coli) in the intestinal tract increased, perhaps leading to intestinal immune injury. A similar study [30] reported that influenza-induced IFN-Is enhance susceptibility to Salmonella intestinal colonization and dissemination during secondary Salmonella-induced colitis through suppression of host intestinal immunity. The systemic role for IFN-Is in altering the intestinal microbial balance after influenza infection need to be explored. Interestingly, we found that the consumption of antipyretic drugs before consultation seemed to reduce the risk of developing GI symptoms among laboratory-confirmed influenza patients. This result is in line with previous studies that showed that paracetamol dramatically decreases the morbidity associated with influenza, thereby reducing the clinical symptoms associated with influenza virus infection [31, 32]. Therefore, the consumption of antipyretic drugs before consultation may lead to the underestimation of the frequency of GI symptoms in patients with laboratory-confirmed influenza. The strengths of this study include its prospective multicentrer design and study length spanning two consecutive ARI seasons, standardized patient screening by the participant GPs, centralized confirmation of microbiological data, the simultaneous search of respiratory pathogens in nasopharyngeal and stool samples and the presence of enteric pathogens (viruses and bacteria) in stool, and other confounding factors that might also cause GI symptoms. This study did have several limitations. First, the main limitation of this study was the lack of culturing of respiratory viruses from stool samples to determine if RT-qPCR detection represented the presence of viable virus. The detection of respiratory viruses in the stool could simply be RNA/DNA from viruses that were swallowed. A recent study showed that a swallowed virus could be detected in stools if protective mechanisms render it resistant to gastric acid and bile/pancreatic juice [33]. High viscosity of mucus could protect influenza viruses from inactivation in the gastrointestinal environment, accounting for detection of the virus in feces [33]. Second, the number of patients included here did not allow the identification of meaningful associations by sub-analyses. Studies with a small-to-moderate sample size that employ logistic regression have been reported to overestimate the effect measure [34]. Third, we did not collect data pertaining to GI symptoms after GP consultation, which hampered the interpretation of the results.

Conclusion

In conclusion, except for ARI patients with enteric pathogens in stool samples, the presence of GI symptoms in ARI patients could not be explained by the detection of respiratory pathogens in stools. However, the detection of enteric pathogens in stool samples could explained by the presence of GI symptoms in some of ARI cases. The biological mechanisms explaining the association between the presence of HCoVs in nasopharynx and GI symptoms need to be explored. Gastrointestinal symptoms’ proportion by respiratory pathogens infection found in previous studies. (PDF 210 kb) Detection number and/or detection rate of respiratory viruses in stool of Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) patients found in previous studies. (PDF 93 kb) a) Seasonal distribution of influenza viruses identified in patients consulting for an Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) during 2014-2015 season and 2015-2016 season. (PDF 389 kb) List of information collected by General Practitioners in the Case Report Form during consultation recruiting of patients with ARI. (DOCX 20 kb)
  31 in total

1.  Compliance and side effects of prophylactic oseltamivir treatment in a school in South West England.

Authors:  A Wallensten; I Oliver; D Lewis; S Harrison
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2009-07-30

2.  Management of the early symptoms of influenza-like illnesses and ear, nose and throat (ENT) disorders by pharmacists.

Authors:  Karine Danno; Brigitte Cognet-Dementhon; Geneviève Thevenard; Gérard Duru; François-André Allaert; Marie-France Bordet
Journal:  Homeopathy       Date:  2014-06-10       Impact factor: 1.444

3.  Sudden death in toddlers caused by influenza B infection: a report of two cases and a review of the literature.

Authors:  Kristen K Landi; Andrea T Coleman
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.832

4.  Paracetamol reduces influenza-induced immunopathology in a mouse model of infection without compromising virus clearance or the generation of protective immunity.

Authors:  Sarah N Lauder; Philip R Taylor; Stephen R Clark; Rhys L Evans; James P Hindley; Kathryn Smart; Heather Leach; Emma J Kidd; Kenneth J Broadley; Simon A Jones; Matt P Wise; Andrew J Godkin; Valerie O'Donnell; Awen M Gallimore
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2011-02-10       Impact factor: 9.139

5.  Acute diarrhea in adults consulting a general practitioner in France during winter: incidence, clinical characteristics, management and risk factors.

Authors:  Christophe Arena; Jean Pierre Amoros; Véronique Vaillant; Katia Ambert-Balay; Roxane Chikhi-Brachet; Nathalie Jourdan-Da Silva; Laurent Varesi; Jean Arrighi; Cécile Souty; Thierry Blanchon; Alessandra Falchi; Thomas Hanslik
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 3.090

6.  Respiratory influenza virus infection induces intestinal immune injury via microbiota-mediated Th17 cell-dependent inflammation.

Authors:  Jian Wang; Fengqi Li; Haiming Wei; Zhe-Xiong Lian; Rui Sun; Zhigang Tian
Journal:  J Exp Med       Date:  2014-11-03       Impact factor: 14.307

7.  A six-year descriptive epidemiological study of human coronavirus infections in hospitalized patients in Hong Kong.

Authors:  Cyril C Y Yip; Carol S F Lam; Hayes K H Luk; Emily Y M Wong; Rodney A Lee; Lok-Yee So; Kwok-Hung Chan; Vincent C C Cheng; Kwok-Yung Yuen; Patrick C Y Woo; Susanna K P Lau
Journal:  Virol Sin       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 4.327

8.  Detection of four human coronaviruses in respiratory infections in children: a one-year study in Colorado.

Authors:  Samuel R Dominguez; Christine C Robinson; Kathryn V Holmes
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.327

9.  Viral etiologies of hospitalized acute lower respiratory infection patients in China, 2009-2013.

Authors:  Luzhao Feng; Zhongjie Li; Shiwen Zhao; Harish Nair; Shengjie Lai; Wenbo Xu; Mengfeng Li; Jianguo Wu; Lili Ren; Wei Liu; Zhenghong Yuan; Yu Chen; Xinhua Wang; Zhuo Zhao; Honglong Zhang; Fu Li; Xianfei Ye; Sa Li; Daniel Feikin; Hongjie Yu; Weizhong Yang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Influenza Virus Affects Intestinal Microbiota and Secondary Salmonella Infection in the Gut through Type I Interferons.

Authors:  Elisa Deriu; Gayle M Boxx; Xuesong He; Calvin Pan; Sammy David Benavidez; Lujia Cen; Nora Rozengurt; Wenyuan Shi; Genhong Cheng
Journal:  PLoS Pathog       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 6.823

View more
  11 in total

1.  Gut Microbiota of Obese Children Influences Inflammatory Mucosal Immune Pathways in the Respiratory Tract to Influenza Virus Infection: Optimization of an Ideal Duration of Microbial Colonization in a Gnotobiotic Pig Model.

Authors:  Sankar Renu; Loic Deblais; Veerupaxagouda Patil; Jennifer Schrock; Dipak Kathayat; Vishal Srivastava; Ninoshkaly Feliciano-Ruiz; Yi Han; Anikethana Ramesh; Yashavanth S Lakshmanappa; Shristi Ghimire; Santosh Dhakal; Gireesh Rajashekara; Gourapura J Renukaradhya
Journal:  Microbiol Spectr       Date:  2022-05-17

2.  COVID-19 infection causing residual gastrointestinal symptoms - a single UK centre case series.

Authors:  Joseph Cooney; Priscilla Appiahene; Ross Findlay; Lulia Al-Hillawi; Khizar Rafique; William Laband; Benjamin Shandro; Andrew Poullis
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 5.410

3.  The characteristics of gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yuki Hayashi; Kohei Wagatsuma; Masanori Nojima; Tsukasa Yamakawa; Tadashi Ichimiya; Yoshihiro Yokoyama; Tomoe Kazama; Daisuke Hirayama; Hiroshi Nakase
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 7.527

Review 4.  Transmissibility and transmission of respiratory viruses.

Authors:  Nancy H L Leung
Journal:  Nat Rev Microbiol       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 60.633

Review 5.  Clinical Insights into the Gastrointestinal Manifestations of COVID-19.

Authors:  Jonathan Kopel; Abhilash Perisetti; Mahesh Gajendran; Umesha Boregowda; Hemant Goyal
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2020-05-23       Impact factor: 3.487

6.  Lung base CT findings in COVID-19 adult patients presenting with acute abdominal complaints: case series from a major New York City health system.

Authors:  Michael J King; Sara Lewis; Maria El Homsi; Gabriela Hernandez Meza; Adam Bernheim; Adam Jacobi; Michael Chung; Bachir Taouli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-07-04       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  COVID-19 presenting with diarrhoea and hyponatraemia.

Authors:  Fateen Ata; Hussam Almasri; Jamal Sajid; Zohaib Yousaf
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2020-06-07

Review 8.  Is it time for microbiome-based therapies in viral infections?

Authors:  Faizan Ahmed Sadiq
Journal:  Virus Res       Date:  2020-10-22       Impact factor: 6.286

Review 9.  Shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in feces and urine and its potential role in person-to-person transmission and the environment-based spread of COVID-19.

Authors:  David L Jones; Marcos Quintela Baluja; David W Graham; Alexander Corbishley; James E McDonald; Shelagh K Malham; Luke S Hillary; Thomas R Connor; William H Gaze; Ines B Moura; Mark H Wilcox; Kata Farkas
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2020-07-31       Impact factor: 7.963

Review 10.  Features of enteric disease from human coronaviruses: Implications for COVID-19.

Authors:  Nevio Cimolai
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2020-06-05       Impact factor: 20.693

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.