4.7 Article

Frequency of Acute Respiratory Illnesses and Circulation of Respiratory Viruses in Households With Children Over 3 Surveillance Seasons

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 210, 期 11, 页码 1792-1799

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiu327

关键词

acute respiratory illnesses; influenza; respiratory viruses; households with children; surveillance

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [R01 AI097150]
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [U01 IP000474]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The household has traditionally been the site for studying acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs). Most studies were conducted many years ago, and more broadly sensitive laboratory methods to determine ARI etiology are now available. Methods. We recruited and followed households with children over 3 annual surveillance periods and collected respiratory tract specimens from subjects with reported ARI. Virus etiology was determined by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis. Results. Individuals in larger households (defined as households with > 4 members) and those in households with children aged < 5 years had significantly higher ARI frequencies than others. ARI frequency generally declined with increasing age. Virus etiology was most likely to be determined in young children, who were also most likely to have virus coinfection. Overall, 16% of ARIs with 1 virus identified had a parts per thousand yen1 coinfecting virus. Rhinoviruses and coronaviruses were the most frequently identified agents of ARI in all age categories. Influenza virus and adenovirus were less frequently identified but were most likely to cause ARI that required medical attention. Conclusions. Longitudinal studies in families remain a valuable way to study respiratory infections. RT-PCR has increased the sensitivity of virus detection, including coinfecting viruses, and expanded our ability to detect viruses now known to cause ARI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据