4.4 Article

Bacterial colonization dynamics associated with respiratory syncytial virus during early childhood

期刊

PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY
卷 55, 期 5, 页码 1237-1245

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ppul.24715

关键词

coinfection; respiratory tract infection; RSV; Streptococcus pneumoniae

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an important cause of early life acute respiratory infections. Potentially pathogenic respiratory bacteria, including Streptococcus pneumoniae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Haemophilus influenzae are frequently detected during RSV infections and associated with increased illness severity. However, the temporal dynamics of bacterial colonization associated with RSV infection remain unclear. We used weekly nasal swab data from a prospective longitudinal birth cohort in Brisbane, Australia, to investigate bacterial colonization patterns within children aged less than 2 years in the 4-week period before and after an RSV infection. During 54 RSV infection episodes recorded in 47 children, both S. pneumoniae and M. catarrhalis were detected frequently (in 33 [61.1%] and 26 [48.1%] RSV infections, respectively). In most cases, S. pneumoniae and M. catarrhalis colonization preceded the viral infection, with the nasal load of each increasing during RSV infection. Generally, the dominant serotype of S. pneumoniae remained consistent in the 1 to 2 weeks immediately before and after RSV infection. Little evidence was found to indicate that prior colonization with either bacteria predisposed participants to developing RSV infection during the annual seasonal epidemic. Possible coacquisition events, where the bacteria species was first detected with RSV and not in the preceding 4 weeks, were observed in approximately 20% of RSV/S. pneumoniae and RSV/M. catarrhalis codetections. Taken together our results indicate that RSV generally triggered an outgrowth, rather than a new acquisition, of S. pneumoniae and M. catarrhalis from the resident microbial community.

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

4.4
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