Clinical characteristics and outcomes of children with single or co-detected rhinovirus-associated acute respiratory infection in Middle Tennessee

Abstract

Abstract Background Rhinovirus (RV) is one of the most common etiologic agents of acute respiratory infection (ARI), which is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in young children. The clinical significance of RV co-detection with other respiratory viruses, including respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), remains unclear. We aimed to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of children with ARI-associated RV-only detection and those with RV co-detection—with an emphasis on RV/RSV co-detection. Methods We conducted a prospective viral surveillance study (11/2015–7/2016) in Nashville, Tennessee. Children < 18 years old who presented to the emergency department (ED) or were hospitalized with fever and/or respiratory symptoms of < 14 days duration were eligible if they resided in one of nine counties in Middle Tennessee. Demographics and clinical characteristics were collected by parental interviews and medical chart abstractions. Nasal and/or throat specimens were collected and tested for RV, RSV, metapneumovirus, adenovirus, parainfluenza 1–4, and influenza A–C using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of children with RV-only detection and those with RV co-detection using Pearson’s χ2 test for categorical variables and the two-sample t-test with unequal variances for continuous variables. Results Of 1250 children, 904 (72.3%) were virus-positive. RV was the most common virus (n = 406; 44.9%), followed by RSV (n = 207; 19.3%). Of 406 children with RV, 289 (71.2%) had RV-only detection, and 117 (28.8%) had RV co-detection. The most common virus co-detected with RV was RSV (n = 43; 36.8%). Children with RV co-detection were less likely than those with RV-only detection to be diagnosed with asthma or reactive airway disease both in the ED and in-hospital. We did not identify differences in hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, supplemental oxygen use, or length of stay between children with RV-only detection and those with RV co-detection. Conclusion We found no evidence that RV co-detection was associated with poorer outcomes. However, the clinical significance of RV co-detection is heterogeneous and varies by virus pair and age group. Future studies of RV co-detection should incorporate analyses of RV/non-RV pairs and include age as a key covariate of RV contribution to clinical manifestations and infection outcomes.