Different Clinical Presentations of Human Rhinovirus Species Infection in Children and Adults in Mexico

Abstract

Background Human Rhinoviruses (HRV) are a common cause of influenza-like illness, with the ability to infect the upper and lower respiratory tracts. In this study we aim to describe the clinical and molecular features of HRV infection in Mexican children and adults. Methods We performed a hospital-based, 4-year multicenter prospective observational cohort study of patients with influenza-like illness. Participants that tested positive for HRV were included. We described demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics, and the association between rhinovirus types, illness severity, and clinical outcomes. Results Of the 5662 subjects recruited, 1473 (26%) had HRV; of those, 988 (67.1%) were adults (≥18) and 485 (32.9%) were children. 167 (11.33%) samples were sequenced; 101 (60.5%) were rhinovirus type A (HRV-A), 22 (13.2%) were rhinovirus type B (HRV-B), and 44 (26.3%) were rhinovirus type C (HRV-C). 30.5% of children and 23.5% of adults were hospitalized (non-ICU). The odds of HRV-C are higher than HRV-A for participants in the ICU (compared to outpatient), and when platelets, lymphocytes, WBC, and LDH are increased. The odds of HRV-C are higher than HRV-A and HRV-B with shortness of breath. The odds of HRV-A are higher than HRV-B, and the odds of HRV-B are higher than HRV-C, when mild symptoms like muscle ache and headache occur. Conclusions Rhinoviruses are a common cause of influenza-like illness. It is necessary to improve the surveillance, testing, and species identification for these viruses to understand different clinical presentations and risk factors associated with worse outcomes.

Genetic diversity and characterization of rhinoviruses from Chinese clinical samples with a global perspective

“…Multiple studies similar to ours have reported increasing positive detection rates of RV as RVA, RVC, and RVB ( Fig. 1A ) ( 9 , 39 , 40 ), the estimated effective population size was approximately consistent with it, but RVA did not produce a significant N e(t) advantage compared with RVC after 2000. In the future, further research is necessary to expand the scope of clinical RV detection, enabling the collection of a larger number of sequences.…”