Hand-to-hand transmission of rhinovirus colds

Rhinovirus was transmitted from experimentally infected volunteers (donors) to susceptible recipients and the efficiencies of spread by hand-to-hand contact and large- and small-particle aerosols compared. Transmission of infection was very efficient by the hand route: 11 of 15 hand-contact exposures initiated infection, compared with one of 12 large-particle (P less than 0.005) and none of 10 small-particle (P less than 0.005) exposures. Rhinovirus was present in nine of 18 (50%) nasal swab specimens, 28 of 43 (65%) hand rinses, and seven of 18 (39%) saliva specimens of donors; geometric mean titers of positive specimens were 10(1.5), 10(1.4), and 10(1.2) tissue culture infectious dose 50/ml (TCID 50/ml), respectively. Rhinovirus was present in 20 of 43 (46%) recipient hand rinses, with a geometric mean titer of 10(1.4)TCID50/ml. Virus on donors' hands was transferred to recipients' fingers during 20 of 28 (71%) 10-second hand-contact exposures. These findings support the concept that hand contact/self-inoculation may be an important natural route of rhinovirus transmission.

Aerosol transmission of rhinovirus colds

Rhinovirus infections may spread by aerosol, direct contact, or indirect contact involving environmental objects. We examined aerosol and indirect contact in transmission of rhinovirus type 16 colds between laboratory-infected men (donors) and susceptible men (recipients) who played cards together for 12 hr. In three experiments the infection rate of restrained recipients (10 [56%] of 18), who could not touch their faces and could only have been infected by aerosols, and that of unrestrained recipients (12[67%] of 18), who could have been infected by aerosol, by direct contact, or by indirect fomite contact, was not significantly different (chi 2 = 0.468, P = .494). In a fourth experiment, transmission via fomites heavily used for 12 hr by eight donors was the only possible route of spread, and no transmissions occurred among 12 recipients (P less than .001 by two-tailed Fisher's exact test). These results suggest that contrary to current opinion, rhinovirus transmission, at least in adults, occurs chiefly by the aerosol route.

Chronic Rhinoviral Infection in Lung Transplant Recipients

RATIONALE

Lung transplant recipients are particularly at risk of complications from rhinovirus, the most frequent respiratory virus circulating in the community.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether lung transplant recipients can be chronically infected by rhinovirus and the potential clinical impact.

METHODS

We first identified an index case, in which rhinovirus was isolated repeatedly, and conducted detailed molecular analysis to determine whether this was related to a unique strain or to re-infection episodes. Transbronchial biopsies were used to assess the presence of rhinovirus in the lung parenchyma. The incidence of chronic rhinoviral infections and potential clinical impact was assessed prospectively in a cohort of 68 lung transplant recipients during 19 mo by screening of bronchoalveolar lavages.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We describe 3 lung transplant recipients with graft dysfunctions in whom rhinovirus was identified by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction in upper and lower respiratory specimens over a 12-mo period. In two cases, rhinovirus was repeatedly isolated in culture. The persistence of a unique strain in each case was confirmed by sequence analysis of the 5'NCR and VP1 gene. In the index case, rhinovirus was detected in the lower respiratory parenchyma. In the cohort of lung transplant recipients, rhinoviral infections were documented in bronchoalveolar lavage specimens of 10 recipients, and 2 presented with a persistent infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Rhinoviral infection can be persistent in lung transplant recipients with graft dysfunction, and the virus can be detected in the lung parenchyma. Given the potential clinical impact, chronic rhinoviral infection needs to be considered in lung transplant recipients.

Potential role of hands in the spread of respiratory viral infections: studies with human parainfluenza virus 3 and rhinovirus 14

Hands often become contaminated with respiratory viruses, either directly or through contact with contaminated surfaces. Spread of such viruses could then occur by touching the nasal mucosa or the conjunctivae. In this quantitative study, we compared the survival of mucin-suspended human parainfluenza virus 3 (HPIV-3) and rhinovirus 14 (RV-14) and the transfer of the viruses to and from the fingers of adult volunteers. When each finger pad was contaminated with 10 microliters of either HPIV-3 (1.3 x 10(5) to 5.5 x 10(5) PFU) or RV-14 (2.1 x 10(4) to 1.1 x 10(5) PFU), less than 1.0% of HPIV-3 and 37.8% of RV-14 remained viable after 1 h; after 3 h, nearly 16% of RV-14 could still be detected, whereas HPIV-3 became undetectable. Tests on the potential spread of viruses from contaminated hands or surfaces were conducted 20 min after contamination of the donor surface by pressing together donor and recipient surfaces for 5 s. Transfer of HPIV-3 from finger to finger or finger to metal disk could not be detected, but 1.5% of infectious HPIV-3 was transferred from disk to finger. Irrespective of the type of donor or recipient surface, 0.7 to 0.9% of RV-14 was transferred. The relatively rapid loss of HPIV-3 infectivity on hands suggests that their role in the direct spread of parainfluenza viruses is limited. However, the findings of this study further reinforce the view that hands can be vehicles for rhinovirus colds. These results also suggest a role for nonporous environmental surfaces in the contamination of hands with respiratory viruses.

Greater frequency of viral respiratory infections in asthmatic children as compared with their nonasthmatic siblings

A longitudinal clincal and microbiologic surveillance was conducted from October to May, 1971-72, on 16 children with infectious asthma and 15 of their nonasthmatic siblings. Asthmatic children experienced a significantly greater frequency of viral respiratory infections than did nonasthmatic ones (5.1 vs. 3.8 per subject). This increased incidence appeared to be largely the result of a greater number of rhinovirus infections. While respiratory infections of identical etiology that occurred concurrently in an asthmatic and his sibling were equivalent in severity, illnesses were longer (but not significantly so) in asthmatic children.

Prevention of natural colds by contact prophylaxis with intranasal alpha 2-interferon

We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study to determine whether intranasal alpha 2-interferon could prevent respiratory illnesses in healthy contacts of ill family members. Beginning within 48 hours of the onset of illness in a family member, contacts self-administered interferon (5 X 10(6) IU) or placebo spray once daily for seven days. Respiratory illness developed during the eight-day period, starting with the second day of spraying, in 52 of 222 persons in the placebo group as compared with 32 of 226 in the interferon group (P = 0.02; efficacy, 39 percent). Among persons exposed to laboratory-documented rhinovirus colds, illness developed in 2 of 27 interferon recipients as compared with 12 of 34 placebo recipients (P = 0.02; efficacy, 79 percent). During the two-week period during and after spraying, rhinovirus colds developed in 1.3 percent of those spraying with interferon and in 15.1 percent of those spraying with placebo (P = 0.003; efficacy, 88 percent). Blood-tinged mucus or nasal mucosal bleeding or both were detected in 7.7 percent of placebo and 13.6 percent of interferon users (P = 0.04), but no evidence of cumulative nasal toxicity was found. We conclude that postexposure prophylaxis with intranasal interferon may in some cases provide an effective strategy for controlling the spread of natural colds, especially those caused by rhinoviruses.

Transmission of viral respiratory infections in the home

Respiratory viruses in the home exploit multiple modes of transmission. RSV is transmitted primarily by contact with ill children and contaminated objects in the environment. Influenza appears to be spread mainly by airborne droplet nuclei. Despite many years of study, from the plains of Salisbury, to the hills of Virginia, to the collegiate environment of Madison, WI, the precise routes rhinovirus takes to inflict the misery of the common cold on a susceptible population remain controversial.

Transmission of experimental rhinovirus infection by contaminated surfaces

Transfer of experimental rhinovirus infection by an intermediary environmental surface was examined in healthy young adults, in four studies done in 1980--1981, by having recipients handle surfaces previously contaminated by infected donors. Recipients touched their nasal and conjunctival mucosa after touching the surfaces. Five (50%) of 10 recipients developed infection after exposure to virus-contaminated coffee cup handles and nine (56%) of 16 became infected after exposure to contaminated plastic tiles. Spraying of contaminated tiles with a commercially available phenol/alcohol disinfectant reduced (p = 0.003) the rate of recovery of virus from the tiles from 42% (20/47) to 8% (2/26). Similarly, the rate of detection of virus on fingers touching the tiles was reduced (p = 0.001) from 61% (28/46) with unsprayed tiles to 21% (11/53) with sprayed tiles. Fifty-six per cent (9/16) of the recipients exposed on three consecutive days to untreated tiles became infected while 35% (7/20) touching only sprayed tiles became infected with rhinovirus (p = 0.3). These studies indicate that experimental rhinovirus colds can be spread by way of contaminated environmental surfaces and suggest that disinfectant treatment of such surfaces may reduce risk of viral transmission by this route.

An investigation of the possible transmission of Rhinovirus colds through indirect contact

Rhinovirus was recovered from the fingers of 16 of 38 volunteers and others, who were swabbed during the acute stages of their colds. Very low titres of virus were also recovered from 6 of 40 objects recently handled by infected volunteers, but not from the fingers of 18 non-infected subjects whose flat-mates were shedding virus. When rhinovirus from nasal secretions was dried on skin or other surfaces during laboratory experiments, approximately 40-99% of infectivity was lost. Virus could be transferred from surface to surface by rubbing, the transfer being more efficient if it was carried out while the inoculum was still damp. Volunteers could infect themselves if a moderately heavy dose (88 TCD50) of virus was inoculated on the finger and then rubbed into the conjunctiva or nostril, especially if the inoculum was still damp. From estimates of virus titres in nasal washings and on fingers, and of amounts transferred by rubbing, it was concluded that apread of colds is unlikely to occur via objects contaminated by the hands of the virus-shedder, but that a receipient might pick up enough virus on his fingers by direct contact with heavily infected skin or secretions to constitute a risk of self-inoculation via the conjunctiva or nostril.

Clinical effects of rhinovirus infections

Rhinovirus is the major cause of common cold and frequently associates with acute wheezing, otitis media, sinusitis, and pneumonia. High prevalence of rhinovirus in hospitalized children and adults has been documented recently. We screened children > or =1 month of age, hospitalized for any infection, for the presence of rhinoviruses and recruited 24 families with > or =2 children for a 3-week follow-up study. Rhinovirus was detected in 46 (28%) of 163 hospitalizations by study children. Most rhinovirus-positive children (85%) had respiratory symptoms. During the follow-up, rhinoviruses were detected in virtually all children and in one-half of adults in families with a rhinovirus-positive index child, but commonly also in families with a rhinovirus-negative index child. Melting temperature and sequence analysis revealed the transmission routes of the viruses and showed that several virus types could circulate in the families simultaneously. Our studies corroborate the major contribution of rhinovirus to hospitalization of children, most often because of wheezing. Young children with respiratory symptoms are major spreaders of rhinovirus in family setting.

Environmental contamination with rhinovirus and transfer to fingers of healthy individuals by daily life activity

Rhinovirus infection may be acquired by inoculation of virus on fingertips to conjunctiva or nose (self-inoculation). The virus contaminating the fingertips may come from hand contact with someone with a cold or from virus in mucus on environmental surfaces. This study was designed to assess rhinovirus contamination of surfaces by adults with colds and rhinovirus transfer from surfaces to fingertips during normal daily activities. Fifteen adults with natural rhinovirus colds stayed overnight in a local hotel. Ten touched sites in each room were tested for rhinovirus RNA using RT-PCR. Transfer to fingertips of five subjects was examined by drying 10 microl of virus-containing mucus from each subject onto light switches, telephone dial buttons and telephone handsets. After an interval of 1 or 18 hr the subject flipped the light switch, pressed the button, held the handset. Fingertip rinses were tested for virus. Thirty five percent of the 150 environmental sites in the rooms were contaminated. Common virus-positive sites were door handles, pens, light switches, TV remote controls, faucets, and telephones. Rhinovirus was transferred from surfaces to fingertips in 18/30 (60%) trials 1 hr after contamination and in 10/30 (33%) of trials 18 hr (overnight) after contamination. Adults with colds commonly contaminate environmental surfaces with rhinovirus; virus on surfaces can be transferred to a fingertip during normal daily activities.

In China, students in crowded dormitories with a low ventilation rate have more common colds: evidence for airborne transmission

Objective

To test whether the incidence of common colds among college students in China is associated with ventilation rates and crowdedness in dormitories.

Methods

In Phase I of the study, a cross-sectional study, 3712 students living in 1569 dorm rooms in 13 buildings responded to a questionnaire about incidence and duration of common colds in the previous 12 months. In Phase II, air temperature, relative humidity and CO₂ concentration were measured for 24 hours in 238 dorm rooms in 13 buildings, during both summer and winter. Out-to indoor air flow rates at night were calculated based on measured CO₂ concentrations.

Results

In Phase I, 10% of college students reported an incidence of more than 6 common colds in the previous 12 months, and 15% reported that each infection usually lasted for more than 2 weeks. Students in 6-person dorm rooms were about 2 times as likely to have an incidence of common colds ≥6 times per year and a duration ≥2 weeks, compared to students in 3-person rooms. In Phase II, 90% of the measured dorm rooms had an out-to indoor air flow rate less than the Chinese standard of 8.3 L/s per person during the heating season. There was a dose-response relationship between out-to indoor air flow rate per person in dorm rooms and the proportion of occupants with annual common cold infections ≥6 times. A mean ventilation rate of 5 L/(s•person) in dorm buildings was associated with 5% of self reported common cold ≥6 times, compared to 35% at 1 L/(s•person).

Conclusion

Crowded dormitories with low out-to indoor airflow rates are associated with more respiratory infections among college students.

Interruption of experimental rhinovirus transmission

Aqueous iodine (2%) applied to the fingers was effective in blocking had transmission of experimental rhinovirus infection. None of eight volunteers became infected when exposed to rhinovirus immediately after treatment of the fingers with iodine. All of seven similarly exposed subjects treated with a placebo preparation became infected (P less than 0.001, Fisher's exact test). One of 10 volunteers became infected when exposed 2 hr after treatment of fingers with iodine, compared with six of 10 who became infected in the control group (P = 0.06, Fisher's exact test). Virus was recovered from three (11%) of 27 hand rinses from volunteers using iodine and from 11 (41%) of 27 hand rinses from volunteers using the placebo preparation (P less than 0.03), Fisher's exact test).

Chemical disinfection to interrupt transfer of rhinovirus type 14 from environmental surfaces to hands

Rhinoviruses can survive on environmental surfaces for several hours under ambient conditions. Hands can readily become contaminated after contact with such surfaces, and self-inoculation may lead to infection. Whereas hand washing is crucial in preventing the spread of rhinovirus colds, proper disinfection of environmental surfaces may further reduce rhinovirus transmission. In this study, the capacities of Lysol Disinfectant Spray (0.1% o-phenylphenol and 79% ethanol), a domestic bleach (6% sodium hypochlorite diluted to give 800 ppm of free chlorine), a quaternary ammonium-based product (7.05% quaternary ammonium diluted 1:128 in tap water), and a phenol-based product (14.7% phenol diluted 1:256 in tap water) were compared in interrupting the transfer of rhinovirus type 14 from stainless steel disks to fingerpads of human volunteers upon a 10-s contact at a pressure of 1 kg/cm2. Ten microliters of the virus, suspended in bovine mucin (5 mg/ml), was placed on each disk, and the inoculum was dried under ambient conditions; the input number on each disk ranged from 0.5 x 10(5) to 2.1 x 10(6) PFU. The dried virus was exposed to 20 microliters of the test disinfectant. The Lysol spray was able to reduce virus infectivity by > 99.99% after a contact of either 1 or 10 min, and no detectable virus was transferred to fingerpads from Lysol-treated disks. The bleach (800 ppm of free chlorine) reduced the virus titer by 99.7% after a contact time of 10 min, and again no virus was transferred from the disks treated with it.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Transmission of experimental rhinovirus colds in volunteer married couples

Communicability of rhinovirus type 16 or type 55 was studied in 24 childless couples; on partner (the donor) was infected with laboratory-grown virus. Initially, both partners lacked antibody to the challenge agent. Rates of transmission between partners were 41% and 33% for type 16 and type 55, respectively. These rates are similar to those determined in epidemiologic studies of natural rhinovirus infection. Although the mucosa of the anterior nares was shown to be highly susceptible to infection (less than one 50% tissue culture infective dose [TCID50]), transmission rarely occurred unless (1) at least 1,000 TCID50 of virus was recovered from the donor's nasal washing, (2) the donor had virus on his hands and anterior nares, (3) he was at least moderately symptomatic, and (4) he spent many hours with his spouse. Since person-to-person transfer of rhinovirus was so dependent upon time spent together and shedding of large amounts of virus by the donor, it seems possible that the chain of infection could be interrupted by environmental manipulation.

Misconceptions about colds and predictors of health service utilization

OBJECTIVE

Colds accounted for 1.6 million emergency department (ED) visits and 25 million ambulatory visits by children and adults in 1998. Although most colds are caused by viruses and do not require medical intervention, many families seek health care for the treatment of colds. Parental misconceptions about the cause and appropriate treatment of colds may contribute to unnecessary health service utilization. The objective of this study was to determine predictors of reported ED use and ambulatory care use for colds among families with young children.

METHODS

This study was an observational, prospective cohort study to determine attack rates for respiratory illnesses within families that have at least 1 child who is 6 months to 5 years of age and enrolled in out-of-home child care. Families were randomly selected from 5 pediatric practices in Massachusetts and were considered eligible when the child was enrolled in child care with at least 5 other children for >or=10 hours per week. Enrolled families were asked to complete a survey that assessed knowledge about colds, antibiotic indications, and frequency of health service utilization. Predictors of self-reported use of health care services were assessed in multivariate logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of the 261 families enrolled in the study, 197 families (75%) returned completed surveys. Although 93% of parents understood that viruses caused colds, 66% of parents also believed that colds were caused by bacteria. Fifty-three percent believed that antibiotics were needed to treat colds. Parents reported that they would visit the ED (23%) or their doctor's office (60%) when their child had a cold. Predictors of ED use on multivariate analysis included Medicaid insurance (odds ratio [OR]: 17.6 [2.2-139.3]), history of wheezing (OR: 18.3 [4.4-75.8]), and belief that antibiotics treat colds (OR: 4.2 [1.4-12.9]). Predictors of ambulatory care use included parent younger than 30 years (OR: 10.0 [1.6-64.3]), history of wheezing (OR: 5.6 [1.1-29.7]), and belief that antibiotics treat colds (OR: 3.8 [1.7-8.5]).

CONCLUSIONS

Misconceptions about the appropriate treatment of colds are predictive of increased health service utilization. Targeted educational interventions for families may reduce inappropriate antibiotic-seeking behavior and unnecessary health service utilization for colds.

Dispersal ofStaphylococcus aureusInto the Air Associated With a Rhinovirus Infection

Objective:

To determine whether healthy adult nasal carriers ofStaphylococcus aureuscan disperseS. aureusinto the air after rhinovirus infection.

Design:

We investigated the “cloud” phenomenon among adult nasal carriers ofS. aureusexperimentally infected with a rhinovirus. Eleven volunteers were studied for 16 days in an airtight chamber wearing street clothes, sterile garb, or sterile garb plus surgical mask; rhinovirus inoculation occurred on day 2. Daily quantitative air, nasal, and skin cultures forS. aureus; cold symptom assessment; and nasal rhinovirus cultures were performed.

Setting:

Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Participants:

Wake Forest University undergraduate or graduate students who had persistent nasal carriage ofS. aureusfor 4 or 8 weeks.

Results:

After rhinovirus inoculation, dispersal ofS. aureusinto the air increased 2-fold with peak increases up to 34-fold. Independent predictors ofS. aureusdispersal included the time period after rhinovirus infection and wearing street clothes (P< .05). Wearing barrier garb but not a mask decreased dispersal ofS. aureusinto the air (P< .05).

Conclusion:

Virus-induced dispersal ofS. aureusinto the air may have an important role in the transmission ofS. aureusand other bacteria.

Shared office space and the risk of the common cold

The common cold persists as a major economic and public health problem worldwide. Despite its long-established ubiquity, little is yet certain about the determinants of indoor environment in spreading of the infection, and even less about the role of indoor air quality as a mediator. The effect of sharing an office with one or more colleagues on the risk of the common cold was studied in a modern, mechanically ventilated, 8 story office building in central Helsinki. Data on respiratory infections and the relevant personal and environmental determinants were collected in a self-administered questionnaire (response rate 71.0%). The study population, one person from each office on floors 3 to 8, consisted of 893 workers, 493 males (49.2%) and 454 females (50.8%). In logistic regression analysis the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for more than two episodes of common cold during the past 12 months in subjects with one or more office colleagues vs those working alone was 1.35 (95% CI 1.00-1.82). Among all workers higher risk also emerged for those with young children (OR 1.46, 1.05-2.04) or a history of hay fever (OR 2.07, 1.47-2.92). Females (OR 1.25, 0.95-1.66) and all under 40 years of age (OR 1.15, 0.86-1.55) had non-significantly increased risk, while smokers did not differ essentially from non-smokers (OR 1.05, 0.76-1.42). The results suggest that sharing office space increases the risk of the common cold, although the primary mode of transmission-airborne, direct or indirect contact-remains controversial.

Role of infectious secretions in the transmission of rhinovirus

In a series of studies aimed at investigating the role of environmental surfaces in the transmission of certain respiratory virus infections, it was shown that small amounts of nasal mucus containing rhinovirus (infectious mucus) can spread from fingertips to door knobs, faucet handles, or other environmental surfaces and remain infectious for many hours. These surfaces can serve as a reservoir of virus and may provide sufficient infectious material to contaminate hands. Recent studies have shown that once virus is on the fingers, it may be transferred to the nasal and conjunctival mucosa by means of autoinoculation. It has been estimated that as little as 1.0 plaque-forming unit can produce an infection in a susceptible human. In the present experiments, the amount of rhinovirus transmitted from fingers contaminated with infectious mucus to environmental surfaces and from there onto the fingers of a volunteer who touched the contaminated objects was quantitated, and the efficiency of transfer was studied. From 3 to 1,800 plaque-forming units of rhinovirus were recovered from the fingertips of volunteers (recipients) who handled either a door knob or a faucet that had previously been manipulated by another volunteer (donor) whose fingers were contaminated with infectious mucus. The average amount of rhinovirus recovered from the fingers of the recipients was approximately 13.5% of the amount recoverable from the fingers of the donor. In experiments in which there was direct hand-to-hand contact between donor and recipient, about 6.7% of the virus present on the fingertips of donors was recoverable from the recipients.

Transmission and control of rhinovirus colds

With the expanding knowledge of rhinovirus transmission and rhinovirus chemistry, the outlook for control of infections with these agents has brightened considerably. Although rhinoviruses are probably the world's leading cause of respiratory illness, they are surprisingly reluctant transmitters, infecting only about 50% of susceptibles in family-like settings. Current research suggests that rhinoviruses are spread chiefly by aerosol, rather than by fomites or personal contact. It has been possible to interrupt rhinovirus transmission completely by careful use of virucidal facial tissues, which, presumably, smothered aerosols generated by coughing, sneezing and nose blowing. Accordingly, it may be feasible to control rhinovirus (and perhaps other virus) dissemination by appropriate air handling and filtration systems in combination with careful nasal sanitation. Anti-rhinovirus drug development is also moving forward. Although there are over 100 rhinovirus serotypes, it has been found that most rhinoviruses attach to a single cell receptor by a single binding site on the virus. Also, the structure of the rhinovirus capsid is now known at the atomic level. These two pieces of knowledge about basic viral architecture appear to open new vistas for reasoned synthesis of antiviral drugs, and some promising compounds are now under investigation. Even interferon has been demonstrated useful in a family setting. On several research fronts, there are good grounds for optimism about control of rhinovirus colds.