Viral interference and the live-attenuated intranasal influenza vaccine: Results from a pediatric cohort with cystic fibrosis

Interference between rhinovirus and other RNA respiratory viruses in the first 2-years of life: A longitudinal community-based birth cohort study

BACKGROUND

Cross-sectional studies report negative associations between rhinovirus and other RNA respiratory viruses. However, longitudinal studies with frequent, serial sampling are needed to identify the directionality of this relationship and its nature.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between rhinovirus and other RNA respiratory viruses detected 1-week apart.

METHODS

The Observational Research in Childhood Infectious Diseases cohort study was conducted in Brisbane, Australia (2010-2014). Parents collected nasal swabs weekly from birth until age 2-years. Swabs were analysed by real-time polymerase chain reaction. The association between new rhinovirus detections and five other RNA viruses (influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza viruses, seasonal human coronaviruses, and human metapneumovirus) in paired swabs 1-week apart were investigated.

RESULTS

Overall, 157 children provided 8,101 swabs, from which 4,672 paired swabs 1-week apart were analysed. New rhinovirus detections were negatively associated with new pooled RNA respiratory virus detections 1-week later (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13-0.83), as were pooled RNA virus detections with new rhinovirus detections the following week (aOR 0.34; 95%CI: 0.09-0.60). At the individual species level, rhinovirus had the strongest negative association with new seasonal human coronavirus detections in the subsequent week (aOR 0.34; 95%CI: 0.120.95) and respiratory syncytial virus had the strongest negative association with rhinovirus 1-week later (aOR 0.21; 95%CI: 0.050.88).

CONCLUSION

A strong, negative bidirectional association was observed between rhinovirus and other RNA viruses in a longitudinal study of a community-based cohort of young Australian children. This suggests within-host interference between RNA respiratory viruses.

Can virus-virus interactions impact the dynamics of the covid-19 pandemic?

Viral respiratory infections can occur in pandemics and can spread rapidly within communities resulting in health concerns globally. Several respiratory viruses co-circulate at one specific time. However, interface between different viruses has not been clearly established. This interaction is crucial to delineate, especially during pandemics, including the one relate to covid-19. This commentary will provide a brief description of how respiratory viruses interact and the outcome of this interaction on a pandemic.Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.

Concomitant Swine Influenza A Virus Infection Alters PRRSV1 MLV Viremia in Piglets but Does Not Interfere with Vaccine Protection in Experimental Conditions

Modified-live vaccines (MLVs) against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome viruses (PRRSVs) are usually administrated to piglets at weaning when swine influenza A virus (swIAV) infections frequently occur. SwIAV infection induces a strong interferon alpha (IFNa) response and IFNa was shown to abrogate PRRSV2 MLV replication and an inherent immune response. In this study, we evaluated the impacts of swIAV infection on the replication of a PRRSV1 MLV (MLV1), post-vaccine immune responses and post-challenge vaccine efficacy at both the systemic and pulmonary levels. Piglets were either swIAV inoculated and MLV1 vaccinated 6 h apart or singly vaccinated or mock inoculated and mock vaccinated. Four weeks after vaccination, the piglets were challenged with a PRRSV1 field strain. The results showed that swIAV infection delayed MLV1 viremia by six days and post-vaccine seroconversion by four days. After the PRRSV1 challenge, the swIAV enhanced the PRRSV1-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI) but the PRRSV1 field strain viremia was not better controlled. High IFNa levels that were detected early after swIAV infection could have been responsible for both the inhibition of MLV1 replication and CMI enhancement. Thus, whereas swIAV infection had a negative impact on humoral responses post-vaccination, it did not interfere with the protective effectiveness of the PRRSV MLV1 in our experimental conditions.

Interference between rhinovirus and influenza A virus: a clinical data analysis and experimental infection study

Background

During the 2009 pandemic of an emerging influenza A virus (IAV; H1N1pdm09), data from several European countries indicated that the spread of the virus might have been interrupted by the annual autumn rhinovirus epidemic. We aimed to investigate viral interference between rhinovirus and IAV with use of clinical data and an experimental model.

Methods

We did a clinical data analysis and experimental infection study to investigate the co-occurrence of rhinovirus and IAV in respiratory specimens from adults (≥21 years) tested with a multiplex PCR panel at Yale-New Haven Hospital (CT, USA) over three consecutive winter seasons (Nov 1 to March 1, 2016–17, 2017–18, and 2018–19). We compared observed versus expected co-detections using data extracted from the Epic Systems electronic medical record system. To assess how rhinovirus infection affects subsequent IAV infection, we inoculated differentiated primary human airway epithelial cultures with rhinovirus (HRV-01A; multiplicity of infection [MOI] 0·1) or did mock infection. On day 3 post-infection, we inoculated the same cultures with IAV (H1N1 green fluorescent protein [GFP] reporter virus or H1N1pdm09; MOI 0·1). We used reverse transcription quantitative PCR or microscopy to quantify host cell mRNAs for interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs) on day 3 after rhinovirus or mock infection and IAV RNA on days 4, 5, or 6 after rhinovirus or mock infection. We also did sequential infection studies in the presence of BX795 (6 μM), to inhibit the interferon response. We compared ISG expression and IAV RNA and expression of GFP by IAV reporter virus.

Findings

Between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019, examination of 8284 respiratory samples positive for either rhinovirus (n=3821) or IAV (n=4463) by any test method was used to establish Nov 1 to March 1 as the period of peak virus co-circulation. After filtering for samples within this time frame meeting the inclusion criteria (n=13 707), there were 989 (7·2%) rhinovirus and 922 (6·7%) IAV detections, with a significantly lower than expected odds of co-detection (odds ratio 0·16, 95% CI 0·09–0·28). Rhinovirus infection of cell cultures induced ISG expression and protected against IAV infection 3 days later, resulting in an approximate 50 000-fold decrease in IAV H1N1pdm09 viral RNA on day 5 post-rhinovirus inoculation. Blocking the interferon response restored IAV replication following rhinovirus infection.

Interpretation

These findings show that one respiratory virus can block infection with another through stimulation of antiviral defences in the airway mucosa, supporting the idea that interference from rhinovirus disrupted the 2009 IAV pandemic in Europe. These results indicate that viral interference can potentially affect the course of an epidemic, and this possibility should be considered when designing interventions for seasonal influenza epidemics and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Funding

National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Yale Department of Laboratory Medicine.

Adverse events following live-attenuated intranasal influenza vaccination of children with cystic fibrosis: Results from two influenza seasons

BACKGROUND

Despite the approved use of live-attenuated intranasal influenza vaccine (LAIV) for seasonal immunization of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF), many questions remain unanswered regarding the timing, duration, and types of adverse events that occur following administration of this vaccine.

METHODS

In 2012 and 2013, 264 LAIV doses were administered to 198 patients aged 2-19 with CF. Vaccinees were followed prospectively for 55 days after vaccination (day 0) and information on adverse events was collected. Bayesian change-point analysis was used to identify the risk period following LAIV during which participants had a higher risk of reporting adverse events. Multivariable zero-inflated Poisson regression models were then used to estimate the adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) of reporting each adverse event in the risk period versus the control period.

RESULTS

There was a higher risk of reporting serious adverse events (SAEs) (aIRR 1.45, 95% CrI (0.29, 5.17)) and solicited symptoms during days 0-6 of follow-up compared to control period days 7-55. However, most SAEs were not causally related to LAIV and the solicited symptom episodes were brief, usually lasting 1-2 days. There was no increased risk of antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory conditions in the risk vs. control periods (aIRR 0.48, 95% CrI (0.23, 0.91)).

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events were most common 0-6 days after LAIV administration but were generally benign and self-limiting. Pulmonary exacerbations did not increase in frequency.