Respiratory virus infection among hospitalized adult patients with or without clinically apparent respiratory infection: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the viral epidemiology and clinical characteristics of patients with and without clinically apparent respiratory tract infection. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was conducted during the 2018 winter influenza season. Adult patients with fever/respiratory symptoms (fever/RS group) were age- and sex-matched with patients without fever/RS (non-fever/RS group) in a 1:1 ratio. Respiratory viruses were tested using NxTAG™ Respiratory Pathogen Panel IVD, a commercially-available multiplex PCR panel. RESULTS: A total of 214 acutely hospitalized patients were included in the final analysis, consisting of 107 with fever/RS (fever/RS group), and 107 age- and sex-matched patients without fever/RS (non-fever/RS group). Respiratory viruses were detected in 34.1% (73/214) of patients, and co-infection occurred in 7.9% (17/214) of patients. The incidence of respiratory virus was higher in the fever/RS group than in the non-fever/RS group (44.9% (48/107) versus 23.4% (25/107), p 0.001). Influenza B virus, enterovirus/rhinovirus and coronaviruses were detected more frequently in the fever/RS group, whereas parainfluenza virus 4B and adenovirus were detected more frequently in the non-fever/RS group. Among the non-fever/RS group, chest discomfort was more common among patients tested positive for respiratory viruses than those without respiratory virus detected (44% (11/25) versus 22% (18/82), p 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory viruses can be frequently detected among hospitalized patients without typical features of respiratory tract infection. These patients may be a source of nosocomial outbreaks.

Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for testing respiratory virus by a point-of-care molecular assay: a diagnostic validity study.

OBJECTIVES: Automated point-of-care molecular assays have greatly shortened the turnaround time of respiratory virus testing. One of the major bottlenecks now lies at the specimen collection step, especially in a busy clinical setting. Saliva is a convenient specimen type that can be provided easily by adult patients. This study assessed the diagnostic validity, specimen collection time and cost associated with the use of saliva. METHODS: This was a prospective diagnostic validity study comparing the detection rate of respiratory viruses between saliva and nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA) among adult hospitalized patients using Xpert® Xpress Flu/RSV. The cost and time associated with the collection of saliva and nasopharyngeal specimens were also estimated. RESULTS: Between July and October 2017, 214 patients were recruited. The overall agreement between saliva and NPA was 93.3% (196/210, κ 0.851, 95% CI 0.776-0.926). There was no significant difference in the detection rate of respiratory viruses between saliva and NPA (32.9% (69/210) versus 35.7% (75/210); p 0.146). The overall sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (81.9%-96.2%) and 100% (97.3%-100%), respectively, for saliva, and were 96.1% (88.9%-99.2%) and 98.5% (94.7%-99.8%), respectively, for NPA. The time and cost associated with the collection of saliva were 2.26-fold and 2.59-fold lower, respectively, than those of NPA. CONCLUSIONS: Saliva specimens have high sensitivity and specificity in the detection of respiratory viruses by an automated multiplex Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-waived point-of-care molecular assay when compared with those of NPA. The use of saliva also reduces the time and cost associated with specimen collection.