Differences Between RSV A and RSV B Subgroups and Implications for Pharmaceutical Preventive Measures.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the differences between respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) subgroups A and B provides insights for the development of prevention strategies and public health interventions. We aimed to describe the structural differences of RSV subgroups, their epidemiology, and genomic diversity. The associated immune response and differences in clinical severity were also investigated. METHODS: A literature review from PubMed and Google Scholar (1985-2023) was performed and extended using snowballing from references in captured publications. RESULTS: RSV has two major antigenic subgroups, A and B, defined by the G glycoprotein. The RSV F fusion glycoprotein in the prefusion conformation is a major target of virus neutralizing antibodies and differs in surface exposed regions between RSV A and RSV B. The subgroups co-circulate annually, but there is considerable debate as to whether clinical severity is impacted by the subgroup of the infecting RSV strain. Large variations between the studies reporting RSV subgroup impact on clinical severity were observed. A tendency for higher disease severity may be attributed to RSV A but no consensus could be reached as to whether infection by one of the subgroup caused more severe outcomes. RSV genotype diversity decreased over the last two decades, and ON and BA have become the sole lineages detected for RSV A and RSV B, since 2014. No studies with data obtained after 2014 reported a difference in disease severity between the two subgroups. RSV F is relatively well conserved and highly similar between RSV A and B, but changes in the amino acid sequence have been observed. Some of these changes led to differences in F antigenic sites compared to reference F sequences (e.g., RSV/A Long strain), which are more pronounced in antigenic sites of the prefusion conformation of RSV B. Initial results from the second season after vaccination suggest specific RSV B efficacy wanes more rapidly than RSV A for RSV PreF-based monovalent vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: RSV A and RSV B both contribute substantially to the global RSV burden. Both RSV subgroups cause severe disease and none of the available evidence to date suggests any differences in clinical severity between the subgroups. Therefore, it is important to implement measures effective at preventing disease due to both RSV A and RSV B to ensure impactful public health interventions. Monitoring overtime will be needed to assess the impact of waning antibody levels on subgroup-specific efficacy.

Pediatric Respiratory Syncytial Virus Diagnostic Testing Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adding additional specimen types (eg, serology or sputum) to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) increases respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) detection among adults. We assessed if a similar increase occurs in children and quantified underascertainment associated with diagnostic testing. METHODS: We searched databases for studies involving RSV detection in persons <18 years using ≥2 specimen types or tests. We assessed study quality using a validated checklist. We pooled detection rates by specimen and diagnostic tests and quantified performance. RESULTS: We included 157 studies. Added testing of additional specimens to NP aspirate (NPA), NPS, and/or nasal swab (NS) RT-PCR resulted in statistically nonsignificant increases in RSV detection. Adding paired serology testing increased RSV detection by 10%, NS by 8%, oropharyngeal swabs by 5%, and NPS by 1%. Compared to RT-PCR, direct fluorescence antibody tests, viral culture, and rapid antigen tests were 87%, 76%, and 74% sensitive, respectively (pooled specificities all ≥98%). Pooled sensitivity of multiplex versus singleplex RT-PCR was 96%. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR was the most sensitive pediatric RSV diagnostic test. Adding multiple specimens did not substantially increase RSV detection, but even small proportional increases could result in meaningful changes in burden estimates. The synergistic effect of adding multiple specimens should be evaluated.

Underascertainment of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection in Adults Due to Diagnostic Testing Limitations: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most observational population-based studies identify respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) by nasal/nasopharyngeal swab reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (RT-PCR) only. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to quantify specimen and diagnostic testing-based underascertainment of adult RSV infection. METHODS: EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched (January 2000-December 2021) for studies including adults using/comparing >1 RSV testing approach. We quantified test performance and RSV detection increase associated with using multiple specimen types. RESULTS: Among 8066 references identified, 154 met inclusion. Compared to RT-PCR, other methods were less sensitive: rapid antigen detection test (RADT; pooled sensitivity, 64%), direct fluorescent antibody (DFA; 83%), and viral culture (86%). Compared to singleplex PCR, multiplex PCR's sensitivity was lower (93%). Compared to nasal/nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR alone, adding another specimen type increased detection: sputum RT-PCR, 52%; 4-fold rise in paired serology, 44%; and oropharyngeal swab RT-PCR, 28%. Sensitivity was lower in estimates limited to only adults (for RADT, DFA, and viral culture), and detection rate increases were largely comparable. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR, particularly singleplex testing, is the most sensitive RSV diagnostic test in adults. Adding additional specimen types to nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR testing increased RSV detection. Synergistic effects of using ≥3 specimen types should be assessed, as this approach may improve the accuracy of adult RSV burden estimates.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an important cause of illness and death among older adults. Most studies of how frequent RSV infection is among older adults use only nasal swab testing to identify RSV infection. These nasal swabs are checked for genetic material from the virus, known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. We examined published studies from January 2000 to December 2021 to estimate how many RSV infections would be missed by using only this approach to RSV testing. We found 154 studies had information to answer our question. Compared to PCR testing of nasal swab alone, adding sputum specimen PCR testing (ie, testing cough mucus or phlegm for RSV genetic material) increased RSV infections found by 52%. Adding blood testing increased RSV infections found by 44%. Adding mouth/throat swab PCR testing, increased RSV infections by 28%. In summary, adding additional specimen types to nasal swab PCR testing increased RSV detection. Impact of using 3 or more specimen types at the same time should be assessed, as this approach may further improve accuracy.

Vertical transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the third trimester: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Studies on COVID-19 infection in pregnancy thus far have largely focused on characterizing maternal and neonatal clinical characteristics. However, another evolving focus is assessing and mitigating the risk of vertical transmission amongst COVID-19-positive mothers. The objective of this review was to summarize the current evidence on the vertical transmission potential of COVID-19 infection in the third trimester and its effects on the neonate. METHODS: OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL) were searched from January 2020 to May 2020, with continuous surveillance. RESULTS: 18 studies met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 157 mothers and 160 neonates. The mean age of the pregnant patients was 30.8 years and the mean gestational period was 37 weeks and 1 d. Currently, there is currently no conclusive evidence to suggest that vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs. Amongst 81 (69%) neonates who were tested for SARS-CoV-2, 5 (6%) had a positive result. However, amongst these 5 neonates, the earliest test was performed at 16 h after birth, and only 1 neonate was positive when they were later re-tested. However, this neonate initially tested negative at birth, suggesting that the SARS-CoV-2 infection was likely hospital-acquired rather than vertically transmitted. 13 (8%) neonates had complications or symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this rapid descriptive review based on early clinical evidence suggest that vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mother to neonate/newborn did not occur. Future studies are needed to determine the optimal management of neonates born to COVID-19-positive mothers.

ACE2: the molecular doorway to SARS-CoV-2.

The angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the host functional receptor for the new virus SARS-CoV-2 causing Coronavirus Disease 2019. ACE2 is expressed in 72 different cell types. Some factors that can affect the expression of the ACE2 are: sex, environment, comorbidities, medications (e.g. anti-hypertensives) and its interaction with other genes of the renin-angiotensin system and other pathways. Different factors can affect the risk of infection of SARS-CoV-2 and determine the severity of the symptoms. The ACE2 enzyme is a negative regulator of RAS expressed in various organ systems. It is with immunity, inflammation, increased coagulopathy, and cardiovascular disease. In this review, we describe the genetic and molecular functions of the ACE2 receptor and its relation with the physiological and pathological conditions to better understand how this receptor is involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19. In addition, it reviews the different comorbidities that interact with SARS-CoV-2 in which also ACE2 plays an important role. It also describes the different factors that interact with the virus that have an influence in the expression and functional activities of the receptor. The goal is to provide the reader with an understanding of the complexity and importance of this receptor.

Vital Signs: Preventing Antibiotic-Resistant Infections in Hospitals - United States, 2014.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated antibiotic-resistant (AR) infections increase patient morbidity and mortality and might be impossible to successfully treat with any antibiotic. CDC assessed healthcare-associated infections (HAI), including Clostridium difficile infections (CDI), and the role of six AR bacteria of highest concern nationwide in several types of healthcare facilities. METHODS: During 2014, approximately 4000 short-term acute care hospitals, 501 long-term acute care hospitals, and 1135 inpatient rehabilitation facilities in all 50 states reported data on specific infections to the National Healthcare Safety Network. National standardized infection ratios and their percentage reduction from a baseline year for each HAI type, by facility type, were calculated. The proportions of AR pathogens and HAIs caused by any of six resistant bacteria highlighted by CDC in 2013 as urgent or serious threats were determined. RESULTS: In 2014, the reductions in incidence in short-term acute care hospitals and long-term acute care hospitals were 50% and 9%, respectively, for central line-associated bloodstream infection; 0% (short-term acute care hospitals), 11% (long-term acute care hospitals), and 14% (inpatient rehabilitation facilities) for catheter-associated urinary tract infection; 17% (short-term acute care hospitals) for surgical site infection, and 8% (short-term acute care hospitals) for CDI. Combining HAIs other than CDI across all settings, 47.9% of Staphylococcus aureus isolates were methicillin resistant, 29.5% of enterococci were vancomycin resistant, 17.8% of Enterobacteriaceae were extended-spectrum beta-lactamase phenotype, 3.6% of Enterobacteriaceae were carbapenem resistant, 15.9% of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates were multidrug resistant, and 52.6% of Acinetobacter species were multidrug resistant. The likelihood of HAIs caused by any of the six resistant bacteria ranged from 12% in inpatient rehabilitation facilities to 29% in long-term acute care hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Although there has been considerable progress in preventing some HAIs, many remaining infections could be prevented with implementation of existing recommended practices. Depending upon the setting, more than one in four of HAIs excluding CDI are caused by AR bacteria. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE: Physicians, nurses, and healthcare leaders need to consistently and comprehensively follow all recommendations to prevent catheter- and procedure-related infections and reduce the impact of AR bacteria through antimicrobial stewardship and measures to prevent spread.

Vital Signs: Preventing Antibiotic-Resistant Infections in Hospitals - United States, 2014.

BACKGROUND: Health care-associated antibiotic-resistant (AR) infections increase patient morbidity and mortality and might be impossible to successfully treat with any antibiotic. CDC assessed health care-associated infections (HAI), including Clostridium difficile infections (CDI), and the role of six AR bacteria of highest concern nationwide in several types of health care facilities. METHODS: During 2014, approximately 4,000 short-term acute care hospitals, 501 long-term acute care hospitals, and 1,135 inpatient rehabilitation facilities in all 50 states reported data on specific infections to the National Healthcare Safety Network. National standardized infection ratios and their percentage reduction from a baseline year for each HAI type, by facility type, were calculated. The proportions of AR pathogens and HAIs caused by any of six resistant bacteria highlighted by CDC in 2013 as urgent or serious threats were determined. RESULTS: In 2014, the reductions in incidence in short-term acute care hospitals and long-term acute care hospitals were 50% and 9%, respectively, for central line-associated bloodstream infection; 0% (short-term acute care hospitals), 11% (long-term acute care hospitals), and 14% (inpatient rehabilitation facilities) for catheter-associated urinary tract infection; 17% (short-term acute care hospitals) for surgical site infection, and 8% (short-term acute care hospitals) for CDI. Combining HAIs other than CDI across all settings, 47.9% of Staphylococcus aureus isolates were methicillin resistant, 29.5% of enterococci were vancomycin-resistant, 17.8% of Enterobacteriaceae were extended-spectrum beta-lactamase phenotype, 3.6% of Enterobacteriaceae were carbapenem resistant, 15.9% of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates were multidrug resistant, and 52.6% of Acinetobacter species were multidrug resistant. The likelihood of HAIs caused by any of the six resistant bacteria ranged from 12% in inpatient rehabilitation facilities to 29% in long-term acute care hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Although there has been considerable progress in preventing some HAIs, many remaining infections could be prevented with implementation of existing recommended practices. Depending upon the setting, more than one in four of HAIs excluding CDI are caused by AR bacteria. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE: Physicians, nurses, and health care leaders need to consistently and comprehensively follow all recommendations to prevent catheter- and procedure-related infections and reduce the impact of AR bacteria through antimicrobial stewardship and measures to prevent spread.