4.7 Article

Virus Type and Genomic Load in Acute Bronchiolitis: Severity and Treatment Response With Inhaled Adrenaline

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 213, 期 6, 页码 915-921

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiv513

关键词

bronchiolitis; respiratory syncytial virus; human rhinovirus; racemic adrenaline; infant

资金

  1. Medicines for Children Network, Norway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Acute bronchiolitis frequently causes infant hospitalization. Studies on different viruses or viral genomic load and disease severity or treatment effect have had conflicting results. We aimed to investigate whether the presence or concentration of individual or multiple viruses were associated with disease severity in acute bronchiolitis and to evaluate whether detected viruses modified the response to inhaled racemic adrenaline. Methods. Nasopharyngeal aspirates were collected from 363 infants with acute bronchiolitis in a randomized, controlled trial that compared inhaled racemic adrenaline versus saline. Virus genome was identified and quantified by polymerase chain reaction analyses. Severity was assessed on the basis of the length of stay and the use of supportive care. Results. Respiratory syncytial virus (83%) and human rhinovirus (34%) were most commonly detected. Seven other viruses were present in 8%-15% of the patients. Two or more viruses (maximum, 7) were detected in 61% of the infants. Virus type or coinfection was not associated with disease severity. A high genomic load of respiratory syncytial virus was associated with a longer length of stay and with an increased frequency of oxygen and ventilatory support use. Treatment effect of inhaled adrenaline was not modified by virus type, load or coinfection. Discussion. In infants hospitalized with acute bronchiolitis, disease severity was not associated with specific viruses or the total number of viruses detected. A high RSV genomic load was associated with more-severe disease.

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