Advertisement

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with Respiratory Viral Co-Infection during the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic

  • Ignacio A. Echenique,

    Affiliation: Department of Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America

  • Philip A. Chan,

    Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America, Division of Infectious Diseases, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America

  • Kimberle C. Chapin,

    Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America, Department of Pathology, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America

  • Sarah B. Andrea,

    Affiliation: Department of Pathology, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America

  • Joseph L. Fava,

    Affiliation: Centers for Behavioral and Preventive Medicine, The Miriam Hospital, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America

  • Leonard A. Mermel

    lmermel@lifespan.org

    Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America, Division of Infectious Diseases, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with Respiratory Viral Co-Infection during the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic

  • Ignacio A. Echenique, 
  • Philip A. Chan, 
  • Kimberle C. Chapin, 
  • Sarah B. Andrea, 
  • Joseph L. Fava, 
  • Leonard A. Mermel
PLOS
x
  • Published: April 9, 2013
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060845

Abstract

Background

The clinical consequences of co-infection with two or more respiratory viruses are poorly understood. We sought to determine if co-infection with pandemic 2009–2010 influenza A H1N1 (pH1N1) and another respiratory virus was associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed of all hospitalized patients with a positive respiratory viral panel (RVP) for two or more viruses within 72 hours of admission at our institution from October 2009 to December 2009. We compared patients infected with one respiratory virus to those with respiratory viral co-infection.

Results

We identified 617 inpatients with a positive RVP sample with a single virus and 49 inpatients with a positive RVP sample for two viruses (i.e. co-infection). Co-infected patients were significantly younger, more often had fever/chills, tachypnea, and they more often demonstrated interstitial opacities suggestive of viral pneumonia on the presenting chest radiograph (OR 7.5, 95% CI 3.4–16.5). The likelihood of death, length of stay, and requirement for intensive care unit level of care were similar in both groups, but patients with any respiratory virus co-infection were more likely to experience complications, particularly treatment for a secondary bacterial pneumonia (OR 6.8, 95% CI 3.3–14.2). Patients co-infected with pH1N1 and another respiratory virus were more likely to present with chest radiograph changes suggestive of a viral pneumonia, compared to mono-infection with pH1N1 (OR 16.9, 95% CI 4.5–62.7). By logistic regression using mono-infection with non-PH1N1 viruses as the reference group, co-infection with pH1N1 was the strongest independent predictor of treatment for a secondary bacterial pneumonia (OR 17.8, 95% CI 6.7–47.1).

Conclusion

Patients with viral co-infection, particularly with pH1N1, were more likely to have chest radiograph features compatible with a viral pneumonia and complications during their hospital course, particularly treatment for secondary bacterial pneumonia. Despite this, co-infection was not associated with ICU admission.

Introduction

In the United States, pandemic 2009–2010 influenza A (pH1N1) was first identified in April 2009 [1]. Two waves of infection followed, accounting for an estimated 61 million cases, 274,000 hospitalizations, and 12,470 deaths [2], [3]. Compared to seasonal averages, there was an increase in hospitalizations and a decrease in mortality. Children experienced a greater burden of disease and a disproportionately increased burden of mortality [4][10]. However, the majority of children did not progress to severe disease [11]. In contrast, fewer adults were afflicted but proportionally more experienced severe disease [12]. The clinical characteristics of pH1N1-infected individuals are well described [13][22].

In pediatrics, viral co-infection is frequently encountered but the clinical consequences remain unclear. Co-infection occurs in 25–40% of children with bronchiolitis [23][26]. Viral co-infection also increases the likelihood of requiring pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) level of care [27]. These findings may reflect certain combinations of co-infection. For example, infection with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and metapneumovirus is associated with a 10-fold greater likelihood of PICU level of care [28]. Although some studies revealed similar findings with RSV and rhinovirus co-infection [29][31], others have not confirmed this finding [32][37] or have found less severe disease with viral co-infection [38], [39]. In adults the clinical significance of co-infection is poorly understood. It accounts for approximately 5% (range 2%–16%) [40][42] of adult viral acute respiratory infections, with varying prevalence of specific pairs of viruses [43][47]. Co-infection during the 2009–2010 pH1N1 season varied as well [42], [48]. One study found pH1N1 co-infection with rhinovirus correlated with a lower clinical severity, whereas pH1N1 co-infection with other viruses led to greater severity [48].

Few studies have examined the clinical characteristics of co-infected patients [27], [29], [42], [49][54] and their outcomes [31], [43], [48], [55][62]. Some have described an association between pH1N1 viral co-infection and poorer outcomes [48], [57], [58], whereas others have not demonstrated differences in outcomes [55], [56], [59][63]. Many of these studies are limited by small sample size. Furthermore, direct comparisons are limited by varying age groups and a wide array of acuity that ranges from outpatient to exclusively critical care settings. We previously compared patients with pH1N1to those infected with other respiratory viruses [64]. In the present study, we describe the characteristics and outcomes of co-infected patients at our institution at the height of the pH1N1 pandemic.

Materials and Methods

Study Design

A retrospective cohort study was performed of all individuals presenting to our hospital system between October 16, 2009 and December 1, 2009 who were hospitalized and had a positive respiratory viral panel (RVP, Luminex xTAG®; Luminex Corporation, Austin, TX) within 72 hours of hospital admission. Clinical history, laboratory data, medications, radiographic imaging, and hospital course were reviewed as previously described [64]. Patients co-infected with two or more viruses, excluded from the initial study, were the focus of this analysis. We hypothesized that infection with certain combinations of respiratory viruses, particularly those with influenza pH1N1, would have worse outcomes than mono-infected patients.

Chart review was done to assess for complications such as treatment for bacterial pneumonia, aspiration pneumonia, metabolic acidosis, acute kidney injury, febrile seizure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, peritonitis, and hypotension requiring vasopressors. Treatment for bacterial pneumonia was defined as reported in the discharge diagnosis, chart review, or the explicit use of antibiotics for this purpose. Antibiotics empirically started and later discontinued did not fulfill this criterion.

Ethics Statement

The Rhode Island Hospital institutional review board approved this study. A waiver of informed consent was obtained.

Statistical Analysis

Initial analyses examined the frequencies and percentages of categorical variables, and the means and standard deviations of continuous variables. Age was determined to be a significant covariate for many outcome variables of interest, and all subsequent analyses included age as a covariate and only the age-adjusted results are reported. Age as a variable was highly skewed and not normally distributed. Thus, a natural log transformation was used in covariate-adjusted analyses. Several continuous outcome variables (duration of symptoms pre-admission, length of intensive care unit [ICU] stay, length of hospital stay, WBC, and percent bands) were also not normally distributed and a natural log transformation was also used to normalize these variables before analysis. Logistic regression, adjusting for age, was used to examine all categorical outcomes, with results reported based on Wald tests with associated odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusting for age, was used to examine all continuous variables. ANCOVA results report the covariate-adjusted F-test p-values and the adjusted outcome means with their standard errors and 95% confidence intervals. All adjusted natural log transformed outcome variables were transformed back into their original metric in tabled values. Analyses were performed using IBM SPSS version 20.

Results

A total of 1,192 inpatient RVP samples were performed from October 2009 to December 2009. Six hundred and fifteen were positive for a single respiratory virus, and 52 with two viruses. No samples showed infection with three or more viruses. Review of the 52 co-infected samples revealed two samples where detection of a second virus was initially indeterminate but later finalized as negative, and were therefore reclassified as mono-infection. Additionally, a separate co-infected patient was found to have two specimens. Therefore, 617 (51.8%) inpatients with a single agent identified in their RVP were compared to 49 (4.1%) patients with co-infection (see Table 1).

thumbnail
Table 1. Respiratory viral co-infection (N = 49).

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060845.t001

By uncorrected chi-square analysis, pH1N1 was identified in 49% (24/49) of the co-infected group and 47% (290/617) of the mono-infected control group (p = 0.8). No seasonal influenza A H3 or influenza B was encountered in either group. In co-infected patients, rhinovirus was observed most frequently [78% (38/49) of co-infected and 34% (208/617) of mono-infected patients, respectively (OR 6.8, 95% CI 3.4–13.6, p<0.001)]. RSV A affected 22% (11/49) of the co-infected and 5.8% (36/617) of mono-infected patients, respectively (OR 4.7, 95% CI 2.2–10.0, p<0.001). Adenovirus was present in 27% (13/49) of the co-infected and 4.4% (27/617) of mono-infected patients, respectively (OR 7.9, 95% CI 3.8–16.6, p<0.001). Parainfluenza 4 was present in 12% (6/49) and 2.3% (14/617) of the co-infected and mono-infected patients, respectively, (OR 6.0, 95% CI 2.2–16.4, p<0.001).

Co-infection with any combination of respiratory viruses compared to mono-infection with any single virus was associated with younger age (mean 8.8 years of age compared to 21 years of age, respectively, p<0.001; Figure 1). To adjust for these differences, all subsequent analyses were performed with age as a covariate.

thumbnail
Figure 1. Distribution of respiratory virus co-infection versus mono-infection relative to age group.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060845.g001

Co-infection with any combination of respiratory viruses compared to mono-infection with any single virus was associated with age less than five years (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.5–6.8, p = 0.003; Table 1). All co-infected patients were under 60 years of age (Figure 1). Co-infected patients more frequently reported sick contacts (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1–3.6, p = 0.02). Co-infected patients were more frequently HIV seropositive (OR 5.5, 95% CI 1.1–27.7, p = 0.04; Table 2). Co-infected patients were more likely to present with complaints of fever/chills, and were more frequently tachypneic at presentation (36.4±1.7 breaths per minute in co-infected patients compared to 32.5±0.5 breaths per minute in mono-infected patients, p = 0.03). Both groups had similar numbers of chest radiographs (84% and 86% of co-infected and mono-infected patients, respectively). Co-infection was more often associated with interstitial opacities (OR 7.5, 95% CI 3.4–16.5, p<0.001).

thumbnail
Table 2. Age-adjusted characteristics in patients with respiratory viral co-infection compared to mono-infection.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060845.t002

Once hospitalized, oseltamivir was used more often in co-infected than mono-infected patients [80% (39/49) and 62% (385/617), respectively, OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.6–7.0, p = 0.001]. More co-infected patients received antibacterial agents compared to mono-infected patients [76% (37/49) and 55% (337/617), respectively, OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.6–6.2, p = 0.001, Table 3].

thumbnail
Table 3. Age-adjusted treatments and outcomes in patients with respiratory viral co-infection compared to mono-infection.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060845.t003

Among co-infected patients, 15 (31%) were treated for a potential bacterial pneumonia, 4 (8.2%) had respiratory isolates sent for analysis, with confirmation of a bacterial pneumonia in one patient (2.0%). In contrast, 57 (9.2%) mono-infected patients were treated for a potential bacterial pneumonia. Respiratory isolates were obtained in 60 patients (9.7%), with identification of a causative pathogen in 17 (2.8%). An additional three patients had Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteremia. Co-infected patients were more likely to experience complications (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.8–7.0, p<0.001), particularly treatment for a secondary bacterial pneumonia (OR 6.8, 95% CI 3.3–14.2, p<0.001). Most (72%) patients treated for a secondary bacteria pneumonia were infected with pH1N1.

Further analysis was performed of patients co-infected with pH1N1 and another respiratory virus (n = 24) compared with pH1N1 mono-infection (n = 290). Of patients co-infected with pH1N1, 71% had rhinovirus, 8.3% RSV A, 4.2% RSV B, 4.2% adenovirus, 4.2% metapneumovirus, 4.2% parainfluenza II, and 4.2% with parainfluenza IV. Co-infected pH1N1 patients, when compared to mono-infected pH1N1 patients were younger (mean age of 14 years and 23 years, respectively, p = 0.04; Figure 2). Because of the unequal distribution of age, we performed all subsequent analyses with age as a covariate. Once performed, pH1N1 co-infection, as compared to pH1N1 mono-infection, was not significantly associated with any age category.

thumbnail
Figure 2. Distribution of pH1N1 co-infection versus pH1N1 mono-infection relative to age group.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060845.g002

PH1N1 co-infected patients were more likely to be immunocompromised, particularly with HIV infection. Co-infected pH1N1 patients more often complained of dyspnea and symptoms consistent with conjunctivitis. Co-infected pH1N1 patients were more likely to have interstitial opacities on their admission chest radiograph (Table 4).

thumbnail
Table 4. Age-adjusted characteristics in patients with pH1N1 influenza viral co-infection compared to pH1N1 mono-infection.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060845.t004

Patients co-infected with pH1N1 were more likely to experience complications and to receive treatment for a secondary bacterial pneumonia (OR 6.3, 95% CI 2.5–15.8, p<0.001; Table 5).

thumbnail
Table 5. Age-adjusted treatments and outcomes in patients with pH1N1 influenza viral co-infection compared to pH1N1 mono-infection.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060845.t005

Using logistic regression with the reference group composed of mono-infected patients other than pH1N1, all co-infected groups had an increased likelihood of treatment for a secondary bacterial pneumonia, particularly co-infection with pH1N1 (OR 17.8, 95% CI 6.7–47.1). Increasing age was also associated with such treatment (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2–1.88, p<0.001; Table 6).

thumbnail
Table 6. Independent predictors of treatment for a secondary bacterial pneumonia comparing patients with non-pH1N1 mono-infection to other patient groups.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060845.t006

Discussion

We found 7.4% of hospitalized patients with a positive respiratory viral panel had co-infection, similar to other studies [41], [42], [48], [55], [65]. While there were distinct differences in presentation, we did not find a specific prodrome to distinguish respiratory virus co-infection from mono-infection. PH1N1 co-infected patients were more likely to present with interstitial opacities consistent with a viral pneumonia and they were more likely to received treatment for a presumed secondary bacterial pneumonia. However, there were no differences in admission to any ICU, ICU length of stay, or duration of hospitalization. These findings appear incongruent, as other authors have described an association between pH1N1 mono-infection and secondary bacterial pneumonia, which in turn is associated with increased morbidity and mortality [14], [19], [42], [47], [49], [66][73]. We used the treatment for a bacterial pneumonia as a surrogate marker for this complication. Only a third of patients treated for a bacterial pneumonia had respiratory specimens submitted. Thus, our ability to microbiologically confirm this diagnosis was limited. Additionally, the misinterpretation of interstitial opacities on admission chest radiographs as representative of bacterial rather than viral pneumonia likely contributed to provider overtreatment.

Overall, we observed a higher frequency of interstitial opacities consistent with viral pneumonia in both co-infection in general, but also with pH1N1 co-infection specifically. There is increasing recognition of the various forms of viral pneumonia associated with pH1N1 [74][83] To our knowledge, only one other study has described the association between respiratory virus co-infection and an increased likelihood of a viral pneumonia [60]. The dearth of deep respiratory specimens limits the interpretation of our findings, but the radiographic and clinical characteristics of our patients support the association between respiratory virus co-infection and viral pneumonia.

Co-infection occurred more frequently in younger patients and the likelihood of receiving treatment for a secondary bacterial pneumonia increased with increasing age. Of note, we did not identify any patients with respiratory viral co-infection greater than sixty years of age. This may be secondary to the younger age distribution of our cohort or may be due to other immunologic or host parameters in the aging population in general or particular to pH1N1 [84], [85]. Younger patients may have an absence of protective antibodies or other forms of immunity from limited past exposure to viral pathogens, making co-infection potentially more likely.

While studies during previous seasons have reported a similar likelihood of co-infection as we observed, many studies were limited to the critical care or outpatient setting which may introduce selection bias by virtue of patient acuity [22], [26], [33][37], [40], [43], [46]. While hospitalized patients with respiratory virus co-infection did not experience poorer outcomes in our study, our findings do not address whether it was a risk factor for hospitalization itself. To this end, a large multi-center study across various levels of care is necessary.

In influenza mono-infection, the host response is simultaneously pro- and anti-inflammatory [86]. Exceeding these bounds, pH1N1, as compared to seasonal influenza, demonstrates an accentuated pro-inflammatory response, but also a suppressed adaptive immune cytokine response [87][91]. The pathogenesis of dual respiratory viral infections is unclear. Esper et al found co-infection with pH1N1 and rhinovirus correlated with lower clinical severity, whereas other pH1N1 virus pairs had greater severity, independent of pH1N1 titers [48]. Elsewhere, co-infection with RSV and another virus was associated with a decreased IFN-gamma response and ultimately increased severity [31]. Further research into the host cytokine and cellular responses of co-infected patients are needed, as are studies with a more robust microbiologic assessment to distinguish viral from bacterial pneumonia.

Conclusion

Respiratory virus co-infection may be associated with differences in disease manifestation and complications, particularly chest radiographic changes suggestive of viral pneumonia and treatment for a presumed secondary bacterial pneumonia. Even when adjusted for pH1N1, which has a known association with bacterial pneumonia, co-infection in all forms was associated with treatment for a bacterial pneumonia. Co-infection with pH1N1 in particular carries the greatest risk for this complication. However, our findings suggest that respiratory virus co-infection is not associated with worse outcomes despite these complications.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: IAE PAC LAM KCC. Performed the experiments: IAE PAC SA. Analyzed the data: JLF IAE. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: SA KCC. Wrote the paper: IAE PAC LAM.

References

  1. 1. Dawood FS, Jain S, Finelli L, Shaw MW, Lindstrom S, et al. (2009) Emergence of a novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus in humans. N Engl J Med 360: 2605–2615. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa0903810
  2. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010) Updated CDC Estimates of 2009 H1N1 Influenza Cases, Hospitalizations and Deaths in the United States, April 2009– April 10, 2010.
  3. 3. Altmann M, Fiebig L, Buda S, von Kries R, Dehnert M, et al. (2012) Unchanged severity of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 infection in children during first postpandemic season. Emerg Infect Dis 18: 1755–1762. doi: 10.3201/eid1811.120719
  4. 4. Mazick A, Gergonne B, Wuillaume F, Danis K, Vantarakis A, et al.. (2010) Higher all-cause mortality in children during autumn 2009 compared with the three previous years: pooled results from eight European countries. Euro Surveill 15.
  5. 5. Bhat N, Wright JG, Broder KR, Murray EL, Greenberg ME, et al. (2005) Influenza-associated deaths among children in the United States, 2003–2004. N Engl J Med 353: 2559–2567. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa051721
  6. 6. Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, Brammer L, Bridges CB, et al. (2004) Influenza-associated hospitalizations in the United States. JAMA 292: 1333–1340. doi: 10.1001/jama.292.11.1333
  7. 7. Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, Brammer L, Cox N, et al. (2003) Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA 289: 179–186. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.2.179
  8. 8. Cox CM, Blanton L, Dhara R, Brammer L, Finelli L (2011) 2009 Pandemic influenza A (H1N1) deaths among children–United States, 2009–2010. Clin Infect Dis 52 Suppl 1S69–74. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciq011
  9. 9. Van Kerkhove MD, Vandemaele KA, Shinde V, Jaramillo-Gutierrez G, Koukounari A, et al. (2011) Risk factors for severe outcomes following 2009 influenza A (H1N1) infection: a global pooled analysis. PLoS Med 8: e1001053. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001053
  10. 10. Cox CM, D'Mello T, Perez A, Reingold A, Gershman K, et al. (2012) Increase in rates of hospitalization due to laboratory-confirmed influenza among children and adults during the 2009–10 influenza pandemic. J Infect Dis 206: 1350–1358. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jis517
  11. 11. Riley S, Kwok KO, Wu KM, Ning DY, Cowling BJ, et al. (2011) Epidemiological characteristics of 2009 (H1N1) pandemic influenza based on paired sera from a longitudinal community cohort study. PLoS Med 8: e1000442. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000442
  12. 12. Larrauri Camara A, Jimenez-Jorge S, Mateo Ontanon S, Pozo Sanchez F, Ledesma Moreno J, et al. (2012) Epidemiology of the 2009 influenza pandemic in Spain. The Spanish Influenza Surveillance System. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 30 Suppl 42–9. doi: 10.1016/s0213-005x(12)70098-8
  13. 13. Bautista E, Chotpitayasunondh T, Gao Z, Harper SA, Shaw M, et al. (2010) Clinical aspects of pandemic 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infection. N Engl J Med 362: 1708–1719. doi: 10.1056/nejmra1000449
  14. 14. Belongia EA, Irving SA, Waring SC, Coleman LA, Meece JK, et al. (2010) Clinical characteristics and 30-day outcomes for influenza A 2009 (H1N1), 2008–2009 (H1N1), and 2007–2008 (H3N2) infections. JAMA 304: 1091–1098. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1277
  15. 15. Cao B, Li XW, Mao Y, Wang J, Lu HZ, et al. (2009) Clinical features of the initial cases of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infection in China. N Engl J Med 361: 2507–2517. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa0906612
  16. 16. Carcione D, Giele C, Dowse GK, Mak DB, Goggin L, et al. (2010) Comparison of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 and seasonal influenza, Western Australia, 2009. Emerg Infect Dis 16: 1388–1395. doi: 10.3201/eid1609.100076
  17. 17. Crum-Cianflone NF, Blair PJ, Faix D, Arnold J, Echols S, et al. (2009) Clinical and epidemiologic characteristics of an outbreak of novel H1N1 (swine origin) influenza A virus among United States military beneficiaries. Clin Infect Dis 49: 1801–1810. doi: 10.1086/648508
  18. 18. Dominguez-Cherit G, Lapinsky SE, Macias AE, Pinto R, Espinosa-Perez L, et al. (2009) Critically Ill patients with 2009 influenza A(H1N1) in Mexico. JAMA 302: 1880–1887. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1536
  19. 19. Jain S, Kamimoto L, Bramley AM, Schmitz AM, Benoit SR, et al. (2009) Hospitalized patients with 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, April-June 2009. N Engl J Med 361: 1935–1944. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa0906695
  20. 20. Lessler J, Reich NG, Cummings DA, Nair HP, Jordan HT, et al. (2009) Outbreak of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) at a New York City school. N Engl J Med 361: 2628–2636. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa0906089
  21. 21. Perez-Padilla R, de la Rosa-Zamboni D, Ponce de Leon S, Hernandez M, Quinones-Falconi F, et al. (2009) Pneumonia and respiratory failure from swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) in Mexico. N Engl J Med 361: 680–689. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa0904252
  22. 22. Li G, Yilmaz M, Kojicic M, Fernandez-Perez E, Wahab R, et al. (2009) Outcome of critically ill patients with influenza virus infection. J Clin Virol 46: 275–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2009.07.015
  23. 23. Miron D, Srugo I, Kra-Oz Z, Keness Y, Wolf D, et al. (2010) Sole pathogen in acute bronchiolitis: is there a role for other organisms apart from respiratory syncytial virus? Pediatr Infect Dis J 29: e7–e10. doi: 10.1097/inf.0b013e3181c2a212
  24. 24. Nascimento MS, Souza AV, Ferreira AV, Rodrigues JC, Abramovici S, et al. (2010) High rate of viral identification and coinfections in infants with acute bronchiolitis. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 65: 1133–1137.
  25. 25. Stempel HE, Martin ET, Kuypers J, Englund JA, Zerr DM (2009) Multiple viral respiratory pathogens in children with bronchiolitis. Acta Paediatr 98: 123–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.01023.x
  26. 26. Richard N, Komurian-Pradel F, Javouhey E, Perret M, Rajoharison A, et al. (2008) The impact of dual viral infection in infants admitted to a pediatric intensive care unit associated with severe bronchiolitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 27: 213–217. doi: 10.1097/inf.0b013e31815b4935
  27. 27. Paranhos-Baccala G, Komurian-Pradel F, Richard N, Vernet G, Lina B, et al. (2008) Mixed respiratory virus infections. J Clin Virol 43: 407–410. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2008.08.010
  28. 28. Semple MG, Cowell A, Dove W, Greensill J, McNamara PS, et al. (2005) Dual infection of infants by human metapneumovirus and human respiratory syncytial virus is strongly associated with severe bronchiolitis. J Infect Dis 191: 382–386. doi: 10.1086/426457
  29. 29. Foulongne V, Guyon G, Rodiere M, Segondy M (2006) Human metapneumovirus infection in young children hospitalized with respiratory tract disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J 25: 354–359. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000207480.55201.f6
  30. 30. Konig B, Konig W, Arnold R, Werchau H, Ihorst G, et al. (2004) Prospective study of human metapneumovirus infection in children less than 3 years of age. J Clin Microbiol 42: 4632–4635. doi: 10.1128/jcm.42.10.4632-4635.2004
  31. 31. Aberle JH, Aberle SW, Pracher E, Hutter HP, Kundi M, et al. (2005) Single versus dual respiratory virus infections in hospitalized infants: impact on clinical course of disease and interferon-gamma response. Pediatr Infect Dis J 24: 605–610. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000168741.59747.2d
  32. 32. Garcia-Garcia ML, Calvo C, Perez-Brena P, De Cea JM, Acosta B, et al. (2006) Prevalence and clinical characteristics of human metapneumovirus infections in hospitalized infants in Spain. Pediatr Pulmonol 41: 863–871. doi: 10.1002/ppul.20456
  33. 33. Wilkesmann A, Schildgen O, Eis-Hubinger AM, Geikowski T, Glatzel T, et al. (2006) Human metapneumovirus infections cause similar symptoms and clinical severity as respiratory syncytial virus infections. Eur J Pediatr 165: 467–475. doi: 10.1007/s00431-006-0105-4
  34. 34. Wolf DG, Greenberg D, Kalkstein D, Shemer-Avni Y, Givon-Lavi N, et al. (2006) Comparison of human metapneumovirus, respiratory syncytial virus and influenza A virus lower respiratory tract infections in hospitalized young children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 25: 320–324. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000207395.80657.cf
  35. 35. Garcia-Garcia ML, Calvo C, Martin F, Perez-Brena P, Acosta B, et al. (2006) Human metapneumovirus infections in hospitalised infants in Spain. Arch Dis Child 91: 290–295. doi: 10.1136/adc.2005.082388
  36. 36. Marguet C, Lubrano M, Gueudin M, Le Roux P, Deschildre A, et al. (2009) In very young infants severity of acute bronchiolitis depends on carried viruses. PLoS One 4: e4596. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004596
  37. 37. Greensill J, McNamara PS, Dove W, Flanagan B, Smyth RL, et al. (2003) Human metapneumovirus in severe respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis. Emerg Infect Dis 9: 372–375. doi: 10.3201/eid0903.020289
  38. 38. Martin ET, Kuypers J, Wald A, Englund JA (2012) Multiple versus single virus respiratory infections: viral load and clinical disease severity in hospitalized children. Influenza Other Respi Viruses 6: 71–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00265.x
  39. 39. Canducci F, Debiaggi M, Sampaolo M, Marinozzi MC, Berre S, et al. (2008) Two-year prospective study of single infections and co-infections by respiratory syncytial virus and viruses identified recently in infants with acute respiratory disease. J Med Virol 80: 716–723. doi: 10.1002/jmv.21108
  40. 40. Drews AL, Atmar RL, Glezen WP, Baxter BD, Piedra PA, et al. (1997) Dual respiratory virus infections. Clin Infect Dis 25: 1421–1429. doi: 10.1086/516137
  41. 41. Yang X, Yao Y, Chen M, Yang X, Xie Y, et al. (2012) Etiology and clinical characteristics of influenza-like illness (ILI) in outpatients in Beijing, June 2010 to May 2011. PLoS One 7: e28786. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028786
  42. 42. Nisii C, Meschi S, Selleri M, Bordi L, Castilletti C, et al. (2010) Frequency of detection of upper respiratory tract viruses in patients tested for pandemic H1N1/09 viral infection. J Clin Microbiol 48: 3383–3385. doi: 10.1128/jcm.01179-10
  43. 43. Druce J, Tran T, Kelly H, Kaye M, Chibo D, et al. (2005) Laboratory diagnosis and surveillance of human respiratory viruses by PCR in Victoria, Australia, 2002–2003. J Med Virol 75: 122–129. doi: 10.1002/jmv.20246
  44. 44. Ren L, Gonzalez R, Wang Z, Xiang Z, Wang Y, et al. (2009) Prevalence of human respiratory viruses in adults with acute respiratory tract infections in Beijing, 2005–2007. Clin Microbiol Infect 15: 1146–1153. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.02746.x
  45. 45. Brunstein JD, Cline CL, McKinney S, Thomas E (2008) Evidence from multiplex molecular assays for complex multipathogen interactions in acute respiratory infections. J Clin Microbiol 46: 97–102. doi: 10.1128/jcm.01117-07
  46. 46. Kaye M, Skidmore S, Osman H, Weinbren M, Warren R (2006) Surveillance of respiratory virus infections in adult hospital admissions using rapid methods. Epidemiol Infect 134: 792–798. doi: 10.1017/s0950268805005364
  47. 47. Lee MH, Arrecubieta C, Martin FJ, Prince A, Borczuk AC, et al. (2010) A postinfluenza model of Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. J Infect Dis 201: 508–515. doi: 10.1086/650204
  48. 48. Esper FP, Spahlinger T, Zhou L (2011) Rate and influence of respiratory virus co-infection on pandemic (H1N1) influenza disease. J Infect 63: 260–266. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2011.04.004
  49. 49. Franz A, Adams O, Willems R, Bonzel L, Neuhausen N, et al. (2010) Correlation of viral load of respiratory pathogens and co-infections with disease severity in children hospitalized for lower respiratory tract infection. J Clin Virol 48: 239–245. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2010.05.007
  50. 50. Sasaki A, Suzuki H, Saito R, Sato M, Sato I, et al. (2005) Prevalence of human metapneumovirus and influenza virus infections among Japanese children during two successive winters. Pediatr Infect Dis J 24: 905–908. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000180984.61778.1e
  51. 51. Shafik CF, Mohareb EW, Yassin AS, Amin MA, El Kholy A, et al. (2012) Viral etiologies of lower respiratory tract infections among Egyptian children under five years of age. BMC Infect Dis 12: 350. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-12-350
  52. 52. Peci A, Winter AL, Gubbay JB, Skowronski DM, Balogun EI, et al.. (2012) Community-acquired respiratory viruses and co-infection among patients of Ontario sentinel practices, April 2009 to February 2010. Influenza Other Respi Viruses.
  53. 53. Tanner HE, Curran MD, Boxall EH, Osman H (2012) Viral respiratory infections during the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) outbreak in the West Midlands Region, UK. Epidemiol Infect 140: 1551–1556. doi: 10.1017/s0950268811002251
  54. 54. Yu X, Lu R, Wang Z, Zhu N, Wang W, et al. (2012) Etiology and clinical characterization of respiratory virus infections in adult patients attending an emergency department in Beijing. PLoS One 7: e32174. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032174
  55. 55. Randolph AG, Vaughn F, Sullivan R, Rubinson L, Thompson BT, et al. (2011) Critically ill children during the 2009–2010 influenza pandemic in the United States. Pediatrics 128: e1450–1458. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-0774
  56. 56. Navarro-Mari JM, Perez-Ruiz M, Galan Montemayor JC, Marcos Maeso MA, Reina J, et al. (2012) Circulation of other respiratory viruses and viral co-infection during the 2009 pandemic influenza. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 30 Suppl 425–31. doi: 10.1016/s0213-005x(12)70101-5
  57. 57. Goka E, Vallely P, Mutton K, Klapper P (2012) Influenza A viruses dual and multiple infections with other respiratory viruses and risk of hospitalisation and mortality. Influenza Other Respi Viruses.
  58. 58. Kouni S, Karakitsos P, Chranioti A, Theodoridou M, Chrousos G, et al.. (2012) Evaluation of viral co-infections in hospitalized and non-hospitalized children with respiratory infections using microarrays. Clin Microbiol Infect.
  59. 59. Blyth CC, Webb SA, Kok J, Dwyer DE, van Hal SJ, et al.. (2012) The impact of bacterial and viral co-infection in severe influenza. Influenza Other Respi Viruses.
  60. 60. Esposito S, Daleno C, Prunotto G, Scala A, Tagliabue C, et al. (2013) Impact of viral infections in children with community-acquired pneumonia: results of a study of 17 respiratory viruses. Influenza Other Respi Viruses 7: 18–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2012.00340.x
  61. 61. Schnepf N, Resche-Rigon M, Chaillon A, Scemla A, Gras G, et al. (2011) High burden of non-influenza viruses in influenza-like illness in the early weeks of H1N1v epidemic in France. PLoS One 6: e23514. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023514
  62. 62. Cordero E, Perez-Romero P, Moreno A, Len O, Montejo M, et al. (2012) Pandemic influenza A(H1N1) virus infection in solid organ transplant recipients: impact of viral and non-viral co-infection. Clin Microbiol Infect 18: 67–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03537.x
  63. 63. Camargo C, Guatura SB, Bellei N (2012) Respiratory viral coinfection among hospitalized patients with H1N1 2009 during the first pandemic wave in Brazil. Braz J Infect Dis 16: 180–183. doi: 10.1016/s1413-8670(12)70302-1
  64. 64. Chan PA, Mermel LA, Andrea SB, McCulloh R, Mills JP, et al. (2011) Distinguishing characteristics between pandemic 2009–2010 influenza A (H1N1) and other viruses in patients hospitalized with respiratory illness. PLoS One 6: e24734. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024734
  65. 65. Pretorius MA, Madhi SA, Cohen C, Naidoo D, Groome M, et al. (2012) Respiratory viral coinfections identified by a 10-plex real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction assay in patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory illness–South Africa, 2009–2010. J Infect Dis 206 Suppl 1S159–165. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jis538
  66. 66. Louie JK, Acosta M, Winter K, Jean C, Gavali S, et al. (2009) Factors associated with death or hospitalization due to pandemic 2009 influenza A(H1N1) infection in California. JAMA 302: 1896–1902. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1583
  67. 67. Palacios G, Hornig M, Cisterna D, Savji N, Bussetti AV, et al. (2009) Streptococcus pneumoniae coinfection is correlated with the severity of H1N1 pandemic influenza. PLoS One 4: e8540. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008540
  68. 68. Bacterial coinfections in lung tissue specimens from fatal cases of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) - United States, May-August 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 58: 1071–1074. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000366838.82857.78
  69. 69. Jain S, Benoit SR, Skarbinski J, Bramley AM, Finelli L (2012) Influenza-Associated Pneumonia Among Hospitalized Patients With 2009 Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) Virus–United States, 2009. Clin Infect Dis.
  70. 70. Wright PF, Kirkland KB, Modlin JF (2009) When to consider the use of antibiotics in the treatment of 2009 H1N1 influenza-associated pneumonia. N Engl J Med 361: e112. doi: 10.1056/nejmopv0910749
  71. 71. Dhanoa A, Fang NC, Hassan SS, Kaniappan P, Rajasekaram G (2011) Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 infections: the effects of bacterial coinfection. Virol J 8: 501. doi: 10.1186/1743-422x-8-501
  72. 72. Shieh WJ, Blau DM, Denison AM, Deleon-Carnes M, Adem P, et al. (2010) 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1): pathology and pathogenesis of 100 fatal cases in the United States. Am J Pathol 177: 166–175.
  73. 73. Colamussi ML, White MR, Crouch E, Hartshorn KL (1999) Influenza A virus accelerates neutrophil apoptosis and markedly potentiates apoptotic effects of bacteria. Blood 93: 2395–2403.
  74. 74. Busi Rizzi E, Schinina V, Ferraro F, Rovighi L, Cristoforo M, et al. (2010) Radiological findings of pneumonia in patients with swine-origin influenza A virus (H1N1). Radiol Med 115: 507–515. doi: 10.1007/s11547-010-0553-9
  75. 75. Guo W, Wang J, Sheng M, Zhou M, Fang L (2012) Radiological findings in 210 paediatric patients with viral pneumonia: a retrospective case study. Br J Radiol.
  76. 76. Valente T, Lassandro F, Marino M, Squillante F, Aliperta M, et al. (2012) H1N1 pneumonia: our experience in 50 patients with a severe clinical course of novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus (S-OIV). Radiol Med 117: 165–184. doi: 10.1007/s11547-011-0734-1
  77. 77. Jartti A, Rauvala E, Kauma H, Renko M, Kunnari M, et al. (2011) Chest imaging findings in hospitalized patients with H1N1 influenza. Acta Radiol 52: 297–304. doi: 10.1258/ar.2010.100379
  78. 78. Lu PX, Deng YY, Yang GL, Liu WL, Liu YX, et al. (2012) Relationship between respiratory viral load and lung lesion severity: a study in 24 cases of pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza A pneumonia. J Thorac Dis 4: 377–383.
  79. 79. Li P, Su DJ, Zhang JF, Xia XD, Sui H, et al. (2011) Pneumonia in novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus infection: high-resolution CT findings. Eur J Radiol 80: e146–152. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.05.029
  80. 80. Marchiori E, Zanetti G, D'Ippolito G, Verrastro CG, Meirelles GS, et al. (2011) Swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) viral infection: thoracic findings on CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196: W723–728. doi: 10.2214/ajr.10.5109
  81. 81. Lee EY, McAdam AJ, Chaudry G, Fishman MP, Zurakowski D, et al. (2010) Swine-origin influenza a (H1N1) viral infection in children: initial chest radiographic findings. Radiology 254: 934–941. doi: 10.1148/radiol.09092083
  82. 82. Agarwal PP, Cinti S, Kazerooni EA (2009) Chest radiographic and CT findings in novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus (S-OIV) infection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193: 1488–1493. doi: 10.2214/ajr.09.3599
  83. 83. Cunha BA, Syed U, Strollo S (2011) Swine influenza (H1N1) pneumonia in hospitalized adults: chest film findings. Heart Lung 40: 253–256. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2010.07.013
  84. 84. Jhung MA, Swerdlow D, Olsen SJ, Jernigan D, Biggerstaff M, et al. (2011) Epidemiology of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 52 Suppl 1S13–26. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciq008
  85. 85. Hancock K, Veguilla V, Lu X, Zhong W, Butler EN, et al. (2009) Cross-reactive antibody responses to the 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza virus. N Engl J Med 361: 1945–1952. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa0906453
  86. 86. Hall MW, Geyer SM, Guo CY, Panoskaltsis-Mortari A, Jouvet P, et al. (2013) Innate Immune Function and Mortality in Critically Ill Children With Influenza: A Multicenter Study*. Crit Care Med 41: 224–236. doi: 10.1097/ccm.0b013e318267633c
  87. 87. Lee N, Wong CK, Chan PK, Chan MC, Wong RY, et al. (2011) Cytokine response patterns in severe pandemic 2009 H1N1 and seasonal influenza among hospitalized adults. PLoS One 6: e26050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026050
  88. 88. Heltzer ML, Coffin SE, Maurer K, Bagashev A, Zhang Z, et al. (2009) Immune dysregulation in severe influenza. J Leukoc Biol 85: 1036–1043. doi: 10.1189/jlb.1108710
  89. 89. Bermejo-Martin JF, Ortiz de Lejarazu R, Pumarola T, Rello J, Almansa R, et al. (2009) Th1 and Th17 hypercytokinemia as early host response signature in severe pandemic influenza. Crit Care 13: R201. doi: 10.1186/cc8208
  90. 90. Bermejo-Martin JF, Martin-Loeches I, Rello J, Anton A, Almansa R, et al. (2010) Host adaptive immunity deficiency in severe pandemic influenza. Crit Care 14: R167. doi: 10.1186/cc9259
  91. 91. To KK, Hung IF, Li IW, Lee KL, Koo CK, et al. (2010) Delayed clearance of viral load and marked cytokine activation in severe cases of pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza virus infection. Clin Infect Dis 50: 850–859. doi: 10.1086/650581