Primary Swine Respiratory Epithelial Cell Lines for the Efficient Isolation and Propagation of Influenza A Viruses.

Influenza virus isolation from clinical samples is critical for the identification and characterization of circulating and emerging viruses. Yet efficient isolation can be difficult. In these studies, we isolated primary swine nasal and tracheal respiratory epithelial cells and immortalized swine nasal epithelial cells (siNEC) and tracheal epithelial cells (siTEC) that retained the abilities to form tight junctions and cilia and to differentiate at the air-liquid interface like primary cells. Critically, both human and swine influenza viruses replicated in the immortalized cells, which generally yielded higher-titer viral isolates from human and swine nasal swabs, supported the replication of isolates that failed to grow in Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells, and resulted in fewer dominating mutations during viral passaging than MDCK cells.IMPORTANCE Robust in vitro culture systems for influenza virus are critically needed. MDCK cells, the most widely used cell line for influenza isolation and propagation, do not adequately model the respiratory tract. Therefore, many clinical isolates, both animal and human, are unable to be isolated and characterized, limiting our understanding of currently circulating influenza viruses. We have developed immortalized swine respiratory epithelial cells that retain the ability to differentiate and can support influenza replication and isolation. These cell lines can be used as additional tools to enhance influenza research and vaccine development.

Non-mumps Viral Parotitis During the 2014-2015 Influenza Season in the United States.

Background: During the 2014-2015 US influenza season, 320 cases of non-mumps parotitis (NMP) among residents of 21 states were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). We conducted an epidemiologic and laboratory investigation to determine viral etiologies and clinical features of NMP during this unusually large occurrence. Methods: NMP was defined as acute parotitis or other salivary gland swelling of >2 days duration in a person with a mumps- negative laboratory result. Using a standardized questionnaire, we collected demographic and clinical information. Buccal samples were tested at the CDC for selected viruses, including mumps, influenza, human parainfluenza viruses (HPIVs) 1-4, adenoviruses, cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex viruses (HSVs) 1 and 2, and human herpes viruses (HHVs) 6A and 6B. Results: Among the 320 patients, 65% were male, median age was 14.5 years (range, 0-90), and 67% reported unilateral parotitis. Commonly reported symptoms included sore throat (55%) and fever (48%). Viruses were detected in 210 (71%) of 294 NMP patients with adequate samples for testing, ≥2 viruses were detected in 37 samples, and 248 total virus detections were made among all samples. These included 156 influenza A(H3N2), 42 HHV6B, 32 EBV, 8 HPIV2, 2 HPIV3, 3 adenovirus, 4 HSV-1, and 1 HSV-2. Influenza A(H3N2), HHV6B, and EBV were the most frequently codetected viruses. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that, in addition to mumps, clinicians should consider respiratory viral (influenza) and herpes viral etiologies for parotitis, particularly among patients without epidemiologic links to mumps cases or outbreaks.

High-throughput, sensitive, and accurate multiplex PCR-microsphere flow cytometry system for large-scale comprehensive detection of respiratory viruses.

Human respiratory viruses are a diverse group of pathogens composed of hundreds of virus strains, and this presents a major challenge for diagnostic laboratories. To efficiently detect numerous viruses in a large epidemiologic study, we developed a fast, multitarget, sensitive, and specific assay named the Respiratory MultiCode-PLx Assay (RMA). The RMA utilizes improved multiplex PCR chemistry (EraGen MultiCode-PLx technology) coupled with high-throughput microsphere flow cytometry (Luminex). Eighteen sets of virus-specific multiplex PCR primers were developed based on the conserved sequences of all available respiratory-virus sequences for eight distinct groups: human rhinovirus (HRV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenza virus (PIV), influenza virus (InfV), metapneumovirus, adenovirus (Ad), coronavirus, and enterovirus. Each primer set detected 20 cDNA copies of the intended target per sample and had no reaction with 60,000 copies of human genomic DNA. The accuracy and sensitivity of the RMA for detecting respiratory viruses in human samples were tested with two sets of clinical specimens. First, 101 nasal-wash specimens that were positive for HRV, RSV, InfV, PIV, or Ad by traditional techniques were reanalyzed by RMA, and all target viruses were detected with an overall sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 99%. Second, 103 nasal-wash samples from 5-year-old children with asthma and respiratory symptoms were analyzed; RMA detected viruses in 74 specimens (71.8%) compared to only 24 (23.3%) by traditional culture and immunofluorescent-staining techniques. These results show that RMA is an accurate, sensitive, and practical test for respiratory-virus infections.

Inhaled zanamivir versus rimantadine for the control of influenza in a highly vaccinated long-term care population.

BACKGROUND: Despite vaccination, influenza commonly causes morbidity and mortality in institutional settings. Influenza control with rimantadine and amantadine is limited by emergence and transmission of drug-resistant influenza A variants, ineffectiveness against influenza B, and toxicity. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of zanamivir versus rimantadine for influenza outbreak control in long-term care facilities. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, controlled study prospectively enrolled nursing home residents for 3 influenza seasons (1997 to 2000). Vaccine was offered to all subjects. Following influenza outbreak declaration, subjects were randomized to inhaled zanamivir 10 mg or standard of care (rimantadine 100 mg for influenza A or placebo for influenza B) once daily for 14 days. The proportion of randomized subjects developing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza during prophylaxis was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Of 482 randomizations (238 zanamivir, 231 rimantadine, 13 placebo), 96% of subjects were elderly or had high-risk conditions; over 90% were vaccinated. Symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza occurred in 3% of zanamivir subjects and 8% of rimantadine subjects during chemoprophylaxis (P = .038; additional protective efficacy for zanamivir over rimantadine = 61%). Since only 25 subjects were randomized during 2 influenza B outbreaks and none developed influenza, the influenza B data were excluded from further analysis. Zanamivir was well tolerated and unassociated with emergence of resistant virus; rimantadine-resistant variants were common. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective, controlled study demonstrating effectiveness of chemoprophylaxis for influenza outbreak control. Zanamivir prevents symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza more effectively than rimantadine, is unassociated with resistant virus, and has a favorable safety profile. Zanamivir is an appropriate alternative for influenza outbreak control among institutionalized vaccinated elderly.

Inhaled zanamivir versus placebo for the prevention of influenza outbreaks in an unvaccinated long-term care population.

BACKGROUND: Antiviral chemoprophylaxis effectiveness for influenza control has not been prospectively established for unvaccinated residents of long-term care facilities. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of zanamivir against the standard of care (no intervention, ie, placebo) for influenza outbreak control in a largely unvaccinated institutionalized population. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of zanamivir versus placebo for influenza outbreak control in long-term care facilities. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study prospectively enrolled/followed residents of long-term care facilities (LTCF) at 12 centers for 1 to 3 influenza seasons (1997 to 2000). Following influenza outbreak declaration, asymptomatic subjects were randomized for prophylaxis to inhaled zanamivir 10 mg or inhaled placebo given once daily for 14 days. The proportion of randomized subjects who during prophylaxis developed symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza (SLCI) was the primary end point. RESULTS: Influenza outbreaks were explosive. The attack rates varied from 9.5 to 14.8 per 100 residents. Of 1763 consents given and resulting in 494 randomizations, 49% received zanamivir and 51% placebo; 66% were elderly and 9% were vaccinated. SLCI occurred in 6% of zanamivir and 9% of placebo subjects (P = .355; protective efficacy for zanamivir = 29%, 95% confidence interval 31% to 62%), and symptomatic influenza confirmed by culture in 2% and 6%, respectively (P = .052; protective efficacy = 65%, 95% confidence interval 8.5% to 86%). Zanamivir use was also associated with a 70% (95% confidence interval 13% to 89%) reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza with fever (2% vs 6%, P = .043). Influenza B was not detected. Zanamivir was well tolerated. No virus isolate demonstrated zanamivir resistance. CONCLUSIONS: The protective efficacy of zanamivir versus placebo for SLCI was marginal, for all laboratory confirmed illnesses, but significant against culture proven and febrile influenza, suggesting zanamivir can be effective for outbreak control and symptom reduction of unvaccinated institutionalized residents. Zanamivir had an acceptable safety profile in elderly, high-risk LTCF residents and was not associated with the emergence of resistant strains.