Respiratory Viruses Dynamics and Interactions: {T}en Years of Surveillance in Central Europe

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec> <jats:title>Background</jats:title> <jats:p>Lower respiratory tract infections are among the main causes of death. Although there are many respiratory viruses, diagnostic efforts are focused mainly on influenza. The Respiratory Viruses Network (RespVir) collects infection data, primarily from German university hospitals, for a high diversity of infections by respiratory pathogens. In this study, we computationally analysed a subset of the RespVir database, covering 217,150 samples tested for 17 different viral pathogens in the time span from 2010 to 2019.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>We calculated the prevalence of 17 respiratory viruses, analysed their seasonality patterns using information-theoretic measures and agglomerative clustering, and analysed their propensity for dual infection using a new metric dubbed average coinfection exclusion score (ACES).</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>After initial data pre-processing, we retained 206,814 samples, corresponding to 1,408,657 performed tests. We found that Influenza viruses were reported for almost the half of all infections and that they exhibited the highest degree of seasonality. Coinfections of viruses are frequent; the most prevalent coinfection was rhinovirus/bocavirus and most of the virus pairs had a positive ACES indicating a tendency to exclude each other regarding infection.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> <jats:p>The analysis of respiratory viruses dynamics in monoinfection and coinfection contributes to the prevention, diagnostic, treatment, and development of new therapeutics. Data obtained from multiplex testing is fundamental for this analysis and should be prioritized over single pathogen testing.</jats:p> </jats:sec&gt

Multicenter Quality Assessment of PCR Methods for Detection of Enteroviruses

We conducted a multicenter evaluation of commercial and in-house PCR methods for the detection of enteroviruses. Three coded panels of test and control RNA samples, artificial clinical specimens, and representative enterovirus serotypes were used to assess amplification methods, RNA extraction methods, and reactivities with different enterovirus serotypes. Despite several differences between PCR methods, there was good agreement, although some variation in sensitivity was observed. Most PCR methods were able to detect enterovirus RNA derived from 0.01 50% tissue culture infective dose (TCID(50)) and were able to detect at least 1 TCID(50) of enterovirus in cerebrospinal fluid, stool, or throat swab specimens. Most were also able to detect a wide range of enterovirus serotypes, although serotypic identification was not possible. Some laboratories experienced false-positive results due to PCR contamination, which appeared to result mainly from cross-contamination of specimens during RNA extraction. Provided that this problem is overcome, these PCR methods will prove to be a sensitive and rapid alternative to cell culture for the diagnosis of enterovirus infection