Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 22;16(7):e0253161. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253161

Clinical outcomes of adults hospitalized for laboratory confirmed respiratory syncytial virus or influenza virus infection

Magdalena Chorazka 1, Domenica Flury 2, Kathrin Herzog 3, Werner C Albrich 2, Danielle Vuichard-Gysin 1,4,*
Editor: Tai-Heng Chen5
PMCID: PMC8297903  PMID: 34292983

Abstract

Objectives

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause severe disease in adults, but far less is known than for influenza. The aim of our study was to compare the disease course of RSV infections with influenza infections among hospitalized adults.

Methods

We retrieved clinical data from an ongoing surveillance of adults hospitalized with RSV or influenza virus infection in two acute care hospitals in North-Eastern Switzerland during the winter seasons 2017/2018 and 2018/2019. Our main analysis compared the odds between RSV and influenza patients for admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) or in-hospital death within 7 days after admission.

Results

There were 548 patients, of whom 79 (14.4%) had an RSV and 469 (85.6%) an influenza virus infection. Both groups were similar with respect to age, sex, smoking status, nutritional state, and comorbidities. More RSV patients had an infiltrate on chest radiograph on admission (46.4% vs 29.9%, p = .007). The proportion of patients with RSV who died or were admitted to ICU within seven days after admission was 19.0% compared to 10.2% in influenza patients (p = .024). In multivariable analysis, a higher leukocyte count (adjusted OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02–1.13, p = .013) and the presence of a pneumonic infiltrate (aOR 3.41, 95% CI 1.93–6.02) significantly increased the risk for experiencing the adverse primary outcome while the effect of the underlying viral pathogen became attenuated (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58–2.41, p = .0.655).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that RSV is responsible for clinical courses at least as severe as influenza in adults. This supports the need for better guidance on diagnostic strategies as well as on preventive and therapeutic measures for hospitalized adults with RSV infection.

Introduction

Viral respiratory infections are one of the most common reasons for outpatient consultation and hospitalization every year between October and April [1, 2]. They are associated with increased morbidity and mortality either caused by the virus itself, due to bacterial superinfection, or deterioration of already existing chronic medical conditions [3, 4]. Symptoms and signs of influenza overlap with those seen with other respiratory pathogens, including RSV [5, 6]. The burden of influenza has been characterized best compared to other viral respiratory infections and has a long tradition of epidemiological surveillance [7]. In addition, diagnostic procedures, preventive measures such as vaccination and isolation precautions, and treatment with neuraminidase inhibitors have been well investigated [8]. For years, viral respiratory infections were dichotomized in clinical practice into influenza and other influenza-like respiratory tract infections which ignored the potential relevance of RSV, mostly because of the absence of reliable diagnostic tests and therapeutic options [9]. Only recently, RSV has been recognized as important risk factor for hospitalization and mortality in the elderly population [4, 1012]. In addition, patients with underlying cardiopulmonary diseases seem to have a greater risk for symptomatic RSV infection and subsequent healthcare utilization [13]. There are no approved vaccines or direct treatment options for non-immunocompromised adults yet. Therefore, routine diagnostics and isolation precautions are the only measure that can be implemented to potentially reduce nosocomial spread of RSV [14]. In Switzerland, there is a well-established influenza surveillance for hospitalized patients spanning over several years and a systematic COVID-19 surveillance in patients admitted to hospital has been rapidly established [15]. In contrast, data regarding the epidemiology and outcomes of hospitalized adults with RSV infection in Switzerland are scarce. Therefore, the proportion of RSV infections in adult patients admitted to acute care, their clinical course and outcome remain ill-defined. In addition, recommendations on routine diagnostics or on isolation precautions for non-immunocompromised adult patients are lacking. If clinical course and outcomes of RSV and influenza virus infections are comparable, consideration should be given to establish a similar prospective surveillance in adults admitted to hospital to better inform clinicians and public health authorities. Our study goal therefore was to compare the clinical burden of RSV and influenza virus infections among adult patients hospitalized for acute respiratory illness in two acute care hospitals in Northeastern Switzerland.

Methods

Study design

We performed a retrospective analysis from patients with laboratory confirmed influenza or RSV infection, who were admitted to one of the two acute care hospitals in the canton Thurgau during winter season I (2017/2018) or II (2018/2019).

Study setting and population

The Thurgau hospital group has about 570 acute care beds. To prevent the spread of influenza in the hospital, the division of infection control established a new surveillance program in October 2017 for patients who are being hospitalized with influenza or RSV infection. At this time, the microbiology laboratory introduced a combined RT-PCR for the diagnosis of influenza and RSV infection. Clinicians were advised to obtain a nasopharyngeal swab for microbial diagnosis of influenza or RSV as a standard diagnostic procedure in all patients with symptoms and signs of acute respiratory infection (ARI) and whose condition required hospital admission. Patients with ARI presented with an influenza-like illness consisting of fever, general malaise, cough, or myalgia or had a chest infiltrate suggestive for viral pneumonia. Cases on the wards who developed new ARI also underwent testing for influenza and RSV. All patients who tested positive for influenza were immediately placed in droplet isolation as per local infection control guideline.

Data collection

The hospital influenza and RSV surveillance served as basis for our study. As part of this surveillance program, the division of infection control routinely collects data on microbiological diagnosis, length of hospital stay, admission to ICU, and death during hospital stay in patients who test positive for influenza virus or RSV by means of an RT-PCR. This prospective surveillance starts in calendar week 44 in the previous year and extends to calendar week 16 in the following year.

We included all adult patients (equal or older than 18 years of age at time of hospitalization) who were hospitalized during influenza seasons I and II with a laboratory confirmed influenza or RSV infection. Only the first episode was considered. We excluded patients with an RSV/influenza co-infection. Additional data on patient demographics, comorbidities, vital signs on admission, laboratory results, treatment and outcomes were retrospectively retrieved from individual electronic patient files. These data were entered into the electronic patient file during routine patient care. Every death in the community is automatically reported to the public hospitals in the canton and is therefore visible in the electronic health record. This enabled us to also determine the 30-day mortality.

Microbiological diagnostic

Our laboratory has introduced the Xpert Flu/RSV Xpress Assay, which is a rapid, automated in vitro diagnostic test for qualitative detection and differentiation of influenza A and B viruses and RSV performed on the Cepheid GeneXpert Xpress System. The Xpert Flu/RSV Xpress Assay has consistently shown excellent performance [16, 17]. In a recent prospective evaluation, the sensitivity was almost 100% for influenza A and B and 90.5% for RSV, and the specificity ranged from 98.6% to 99.7% for influenza A, influenza B, and RSV, respectively. The positive predictive value of the Xpert assay is 95.5% for Influenza A, 97.0% for Influenza B, and 90.5% for RSV [18]. Results are automatically sent to the local infection prevention and control team for continuous surveillance.

Statistical analysis

Our primary endpoint was a composite of ICU-admission (need for ventilatory or vasopressor support) and/or in-hospital death within 7 days after hospital admission. We deemed 7 days an appropriate duration of follow-up since we expected a high discharge rate for those with a favourable outcome after this period. In addition, a previous meta-analysis on the burden of RSV in older adults found that hospital stays were rather short (< 7 days) and a high proportion of ICU admission occurred within this time frame [19]. A longer observation period could lead to overestimation of the frequency of the primary endpoint, with the additional disadvantage that a direct association of the outcome with the initial RSV or influenza virus infection will become less likely. Secondary outcomes included cardiopulmonary and cardiovascular events, proportion and duration of antibiotic treatment, discharge to nursing home, 30-day re-admission and 30-day all-cause mortality.

For descriptive analyses we used medians and interquartile range (IQR) and numbers along with percentages as appropriate. We applied Chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney-U test for comparison of proportions and medians, respectively. We used binary logistic regression to model the crude prediction of RSV and influenza virus infection for the probability of ICU admission or death within the first 7 days after hospital admission. We then applied multivariable models to adjust for additional predictors of our primary outcome in patients with RSV compared to influenza virus infection. Only predictors that were statistically significant in univariate analyses were considered in the multivariable model. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using SPSS Version 27.0 [20].

Ethical approval

The ethics commission of North-Eastern Switzerland approved the study (No. 2019–01423). The ethics committee granted our waiver request to obtain informed consent from individual patients because of the retrospective nature of the work and the large sample size.

Results

Over the two winter seasons there were a total of 1983 patients hospitalized for ARI with a nasopharyngeal swab sample available that had been analyzed for influenza virus and RSV. Of these, 79 (4.0%) tested positive for RSV and 469 (23.7%) tested positive for influenza. There were significant differences in the proportion of admissions for RSV and influenza comparing the two respiratory seasons (Table 1, p < .001). The cumulative numbers of laboratory confirmed RSV and influenza cases per calendar week are shown in Fig 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of patients with laboratory confirmed RSV or influenza virus infection on admission.

RSV Influenza p-value a
Total cases, n (%) 79 (14.4) 469 (85.6)
Admitted during season I 27 (34.2) 270 (57.6) <0.001
Admitted during season II 52 (65.8) 199 (42.4)
Age, median (IQR) 78 (65–84) 74 (63–83) 0.072
Age 18–65 years, n (%) 21 (26.6) 146 (31.1)
Age 65–80 years, n (%) 25 (31.6) 160 (34.1) 0.470
Age > 80 years, n (%) 33 (41.8) 163 (34.8)
Females, n (%) 48 (60.8) 269 (57.4) 0.571
Ever smoked, n (%) 32 (40.5) 195 (41.6) 0.680
BMI, median (IQR) 27.0 (22.0–32.0) 26.0 (22.4–29.1) 0.280
Admitted from home, n (%) 67 (84.8) 408 (87.0)
Admitted from nursing home, n (%) 9 (11.4) 49 (10.4) 0.800
Admitted from other healthcare facility, n (%) 3 (3.8) 12 (2.6)
Nutritional risk score, median (IQR) 2 (1–2) 2 (1–3) 0.690
Comorbidities
Myocardial infarction b 3 (3.8) 8 (1.7) 0.380
Congestive heart failure b 38 (48.1) 199 (42.4) 0.347
Hypertension 47 (59.5) 266 (56.7) 0.644
Stroke b 2 (2.5) 11 (2.3) 1.000
COPD 17 (21.5) 87 (18.6) 0.534
Asthma 7 (8.9) 29 (6.2) 0.374
Diabetes 10 (12.7) 73 (15.6) 0.505
Hematological disorder 5 (6.3) 12 (2.6) 0.083
Charlson Comorbidity Index, median (IQR) 3 (1–5) 3 (1–5) 0.363
Clinical features on admission p-value a
Temperature (in°C), median (IQR) 37.4 (37.0–38.0) 38.0 (37.0–38.6) 0.019
Blood pressure systolic, median (IQR) 132 (120–152) 134 (119–148) 0.958
Peripheral O2 saturation (in %), median (IQR) 95 (91–97) 95 (92–98) 0.152
CRP (in mg/L), median (IQR) 31.0 (11–84.5) 38.0 (16–93.3) 0.277
Leukocyte count (in 10e9/L), median (IQR) 9.2 (7.0–11.7) 7.2 (5.2–10.0) <0.001
Infiltrate on chest radiograph 32 (40.5) 115 (24.5) 0.007

a p-values were calculated using Chi-square for comparison of proportions and Mann-Whitney U-test for comparison of medians

b within 1 year prior to admission

Fig 1. Weekly distribution of confirmed RSV and influenza virus infections 2017–2019.

Fig 1

The surveillance started in week 44 in the previous year and ended in week 16 in the following year).

The two groups did not differ significantly in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking habits, nutritional status, or comorbidities. Median age was 78 years (IQR 65–84) and 74 years (63–83) in RSV and influenza patients, respectively. In both groups, there were slightly more women (60.8% of RSV patients and 57.4% of influenza patients, p = .571). The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension and congestive heart failure. We found a statistically significant difference in clinical signs and symptoms between the two groups with a higher median temperature of 38.0°C versus 37.4°C (p = .019) and a lower median leukocyte count of 7.2 x 10^9/L versus 9.2 x 10^9/L (p < .001) in the influenza group compared to the RSV group. In contrast, the proportion of patients with an infiltrate on chest X-ray was significantly higher in the RSV group (46.4% vs. 29.9%, p = .007) (Table 1).

With 19% (15/79) in the RSV group versus 10.2% (48/469) in the influenza group, the proportion of patients with RSV reaching our primary endpoint compared to patients with influenza was significantly higher (p = .024). The proportion of patients reaching any of our prespecified secondary end points, such as need for ventilatory support, development of congestive heart failure, length of hospital stay, re-admission within 30 days after discharge or death of any cause after 30 days were equal or higher in the RSV group compared to influenza. However, none of these differences in proportions were statistically significant (Table 2).

Table 2. Outcomes of patients with laboratory confirmed RSV and influenza virus infection.

RSV n = 79 Influenza n = 469 p-value a
Primary outcome
ICU admission or death within 7 days, n (%) 15 (19.0) 48 (10.2) 0.024
Secondary outcomes
ICU admission, n (%) 13 (16.5) 44 (9.4) 0.057
ICU admission within 7 days, n (%) 12 (15.2) 37 (7.9) 0.035
Ventilatory support, n (%) 6 (7.6) 24 (5.1) 0.419
Hospital-acquired pneumonia, n (%) 10 (12.7) 54 (11.5) 0.770
Congestive heart failure, n (%) 16 (20.3) 73 (15.6) 0.296
Death within 7 days (%) 4 (5.1) 8 (1.7) 0.059
Death 30 days after admission 8 (10.1) 34 (7.2) 0.374
Total length of stay, median (IQR) 6 (4–12) 6 (3–10) 0.348
Discharge into nursing homes, n (%) 3 (4.7) 27 (6.7) 0.605
Re-admission within 30 days after discharge, n (%) 9 (12.5) 43 (9.7) 0.466
Total duration of antibiotic therapy in days, median (IQR) 2 (0–6) 0 (0–6) 0.287
Any antibiotic treatment, n (%) 42 (53.2) 212 (45.2) 0.223
ICU or death within 7 days according to season RSV Influenza p-value a
Admitted in season I, n of total (%) 5/27 (18.5) 25/270 (9.3) 0.128
Admitted in season II, n of total (%) 10/52 (19.2) 23/199 (11.6) 0.145

a p-values were calculated using Chi-square for comparison of proportions.

In the crude analysis, RSV patients were twice as likely to be admitted to ICU or die within 7 days after admission compared to patients with influenza (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.09–3.90, p = .027) (Table 3). However, the association was no longer significant after controlling for temperature, leukocyte count, and presence of a pulmonary infiltrate on admission. While neither fever nor the underlying respiratory virus appeared to have a significant impact on the primary outcome in the adjusted analysis, a higher leukocyte count (adjusted OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02–1.13) and the presence of a pulmonary infiltrate on chest X-ray (aOR 3.41, 95% CI 1.93–6.02, p < .001) appeared to significantly increase the risk of an unfavourable outcome. Patients with pneumonia on admission were 3.41 times more likely to be transferred to ICU or to die within the first 7 days than patients without pneumonia. The addition of this predictor to the model, however, seems to attenuate the effect of RSV as indicated by a decrease in the adjusted OR.

Table 3. Univariate and multivariable analysis for the probability of ICU admission or death within 7 days after hospital admission in patients with RSV compared to influenza virus infection.

OR (95% confidence interval) p-value
Unadjusted RSV infection 2.06 (1.09–3.90) 0.027
Adjusted RSV infection 1.18 (0.58–2.41) 0.655
Temperature (in°C) 0.91 (0.69–1.20) 0.489
Leukocyte count (in 10e9/L) 1.07 (1.02–1.13) 0.013
Pulmonary infiltrate 3.41 (1.93–6.02) <0.001

To better understand the association of a pulmonary infiltrate with clinical outcome, we performed a subgroup analysis, examining the impact of age on ICU admission or death within 7 days after admission in patients presenting with a pulmonary infiltrate stratified by influenza and RSV. First, we found that 29 of 115 (25.2%) influenza cases and 7 of 32 (21.9%) RSV cases in this subgroup experienced the primary outcome. The difference was not statistically significant. However, we note that the proportion of cases reaching the outcome between the influenza and RSV group clearly differed by age category with a higher proportion of elderly (over 80 years of age) patients in the RSV group (Fig 2). The identified virus modified the effect of age on the development of the outcome of ICU admission or death among those with a pulmonary infiltrate.

Fig 2. Proportion of patients with RSV or influenza virus infection and a pulmonary infiltrate on admission reaching the primary endpoint according to age category.

Fig 2

Discussion

This is the first cohort study in Switzerland that compares clinical characteristics and outcomes of adult patients being hospitalized with PCR-confirmed RSV or influenza virus infection. Our results are compatible with previous findings from other countries, which suggest that RSV infections in hospitalized patients can cause a similar or even more severe disease than seasonal influenza in non-immunocompromised adult patients [4, 10, 21]. Overall, it seems, that a higher leukocyte count and the presence of an infiltrate increase the risk of an adverse outcome. There was a statistically significantly higher proportion of leukocytosis among patients with RSV compared to those with influenza, albeit with most patients having only mild leukocytosis at most. In multivariable analysis, leukocytosis but not RSV was associated with more severe clinical course. The association between RSV and leukocytosis has received some attention recently. A study of 243 US adults with RSV showed that 11% had leukocytosis with no difference between those with moderate to severe disease (10%) and those with milder illness (12%, p = 0.8). In this study, patients with more severe disease had more frequently pneumonia [22]. In a large Chinese study of 1046 adults with RSV, 38% had leukocytosis overall including 44% of those with influenza coinfection, while even with these large case numbers the authors were unable to find an association between leukocytosis and severity of radiologic infiltrates [23]. In children with RSV, one study found a leukocytosis in 24% of those with fever and 18% of those without fever. In those with fever, there was also a higher likelihood of bacterial infection, but among febrile children with a white blood count (WBC) below 30,000 per milliliter, there was no difference in the WBC between those with and those without bacterial superinfection [24]. Therefore, it remains speculative, whether the observed higher WBC count in patients with RSV compared to influenza in our study is related to more frequent bacterial superinfections (antibiotic therapy had a non-significantly higher point estimate in RSV than influenza) or is a marker of more severe clinical presentation of a viral infection. WBC was previously shown to have similar prognostic accuracy as CRP for severe outcome in community acquired pneumonia but without being sensitive or specific enough to work as a predictor on its own [25].

In contrast to previous results that pointed towards older patients and patients with comorbidities [4, 10], our primary findings of serious outcomes in patients with RSV were independent of age and comorbidities. We therefore further explored the potential influence of age in those patients with a pulmonary infiltrate on admission. When examining this subgroup for a possible influence of age, we found a higher proportion of RSV infected individuals over 80 years of age who reached the primary endpoint compared to younger age groups. In contrast, there was an opposite trend among influenza-infected individuals rendering the type of respiratory virus an effect modifier for the presence of a pulmonary infiltrate. However, the numbers were too small to perform any meaningful statistics. This result therefore needs to be examined in more detail in a larger cohort, ideally using virus typing and looking at the two endpoints separately.

In addition, none of our secondary prespecified endpoints showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups, suggesting that the severity of the disease at the time of admission, rather than the virus itself was responsible for a poorer outcome. These findings are important because in Switzerland, during routine care, RSV is still rarely considered an important pathogen in non-immunocompromised adults. Our data therefore underline the importance of developing uniform guidelines on diagnosis, prevention, and control of RSV in adults and lay the basis of treatment criteria when effective therapies become available. Given the considerable overlap between underlying comorbidities and clinical manifestations and different management, virological diagnosis will likely become even more important in the future.

One strength of our study was the systematic case finding by means of combined influenza and RSV molecular testing, thereby minimizing the risk of selection bias. Furthermore, thanks to our comprehensive analysis of clinical characteristics and various important endpoints, we were able to show that RSV is comparable to influenza in several respects.

However, our study has also some limitations. First, as it is the case in most retrospective cohort studies, there is a certain risk of referral bias. Since we were unable to evaluate for the duration of symptoms prior to admission, we cannot be sure, whether patients presenting with more classical symptoms suggesting influenza were referred to the hospital at an earlier stage and, therefore, rendered them more likely to have a favorable outcome. Second, because of the limited number of hospitalized RSV patients, the number of events related to our primary end point was small, which limited the number of confounding factors that could be adjusted for. Nonetheless, our results highlight that although the population burden of hospitalization is higher for influenza than for RSV, the individual risk of a severe outcome may be higher for RSV than for influenza.

Our study was designed before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This changed situation emphasizes even more the need to not neglect other respiratory viruses such as RSV, whose course can be at least as severe as influenza and which cannot readily be distinguished based on clinical grounds alone [26]. The transmissibility of a pathogen and severity of the causing disease must be considered when implementing additional transmission-based precautions. RSV transmission risk has rarely been studied in non-severely immunocompromised adults in healthcare settings, but from what is known, this risk may be substantial [14]. In the absence of effective treatment and vaccines, nursing homes and acute care settings should be conscious to take additional preventive measures for all respiratory infections.

In Switzerland, a prospective multicenter study of hospitalized influenza patients to evaluate the effectiveness of infection prevention measures has been initiated in 2015 [27]. Since this year, a national epidemiological surveillance on SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients is also in place; and only recently, influenza virus infection was added to this surveillance [28]. With the growing recognition that RSV can cause a similarly severe course as influenza, emphasis on prevention in and out of the hospital, future intervention studies and prospective surveillance systems should include RSV patients.

Conclusion

Our data provide further evidence that RSV infection is a serious problem in hospitalized adults, even in those without severe immunosuppression. RSV infection should therefore be diagnosed and further transmission, especially in healthcare facilities, must be prevented by appropriate interventions.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Data Availability

The data underlying this study have been uploaded as Supporting Information and to https://osf.io/7udb5/.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Zhou H, Thompson WW, Viboud CG, Ringholz CM, Cheng PY, Steiner C, et al. Hospitalizations associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States, 1993–2008. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54(10):1427–36. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Matias G, Taylor R, Haguinet F, Schuck-Paim C, Lustig R, Shinde V. Estimates of hospitalization attributable to influenza and RSV in the US during 1997–2009, by age and risk status. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):271. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4177-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, Brammer L, Cox N, Anderson LJ, et al. Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA. 2003;289(2):179–86. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.2.179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ackerson B, Tseng HF, Sy LS, Solano Z, Slezak J, Luo Y, et al. Severe Morbidity and Mortality Associated With Respiratory Syncytial Virus Versus Influenza Infection in Hospitalized Older Adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(2):197–203. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy991 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Vuichard-Gysin D, Mertz D, Pullenayegum E, Singh P, Smieja M, Loeb M. Development and validation of clinical prediction models to distinguish influenza from other viruses causing acute respiratory infections in children and adults. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0212050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Walsh EE, Peterson DR, Falsey AR. Is clinical recognition of respiratory syncytial virus infection in hospitalized elderly and high-risk adults possible? J Infect Dis. 2007;195(7):1046–51. doi: 10.1086/511986 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ziegler T, Mamahit A, Cox NJ. 65 years of influenza surveillance by a World Health Organization-coordinated global network. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2018;12(5):558–65. doi: 10.1111/irv.12570 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Uyeki TM, Fowler RA, Fischer WA. Gaps in the Clinical Management of Influenza: A Century Since the 1918 Pandemic. JAMA. 2018;320(8):755–6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.8113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Falsey AR, Walsh EE. Respiratory syncytial virus infection in adults. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000;13(3):371–84. doi: 10.1128/CMR.13.3.371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Falsey AR, Hennessey PA, Formica MA, Cox C, Walsh EE. Respiratory syncytial virus infection in elderly and high-risk adults. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(17):1749–59. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043951 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Loubet P, Lenzi N, Valette M, Foulongne V, Krivine A, Houhou N, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcome of respiratory syncytial virus infection among adults hospitalized with influenza-like illness in France. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017;23(4):253–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2016.11.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ellis SE, Coffey CS, Mitchel EF, Dittus RS, Griffin MR. Influenza- and respiratory syncytial virus-associated morbidity and mortality in the nursing home population. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(6):761–7. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2389.2003.51254.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ivey KS, Edwards KM, Talbot HK. Respiratory Syncytial Virus and Associations With Cardiovascular Disease in Adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(14):1574–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.02.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.French CE, McKenzie BC, Coope C, Rajanaidu S, Paranthaman K, Pebody R, et al. Risk of nosocomial respiratory syncytial virus infection and effectiveness of control measures to prevent transmission events: a systematic review. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2016;10(4):268–90. doi: 10.1111/irv.12379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Fröhlich GM, De Kraker M, Abbas M, Keiser O, Thiabaud A, Roulens M, et al. COVID-19: more than "a little flu"? Insights from the Swiss hospital-based surveillance of Influenza and COVID-19. 2020. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.17.20233080v1. Last accessed May, 24, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cohen DM, Kline J, May LS, Harnett GE, Gibson J, Liang SY, et al. Accurate PCR Detection of Influenza A/B and Respiratory Syncytial Viruses by Use of Cepheid Xpert Flu+RSV Xpress Assay in Point-of-Care Settings: Comparison to Prodesse ProFlu. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(2). doi: 10.1128/JCM.01237-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ling L, Kaplan SE, Lopez JC, Stiles J, Lu X, Tang YW. Parallel Validation of Three Molecular Devices for Simultaneous Detection and Identification of Influenza A and B and Respiratory Syncytial Viruses. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(3). doi: 10.1128/JCM.01691-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zou X, Chang K, Wang Y, Li M, Zhang W, Wang C, et al. Comparison of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV assay and commercial real-time PCR for the detection of influenza A and influenza B in a prospective cohort from China. Int J Infect Dis. 2019;80:92–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2018.12.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Colosia AD, Yang J, Hillson E, Mauskopf J, Copley-Merriman C, Shinde V, et al. The epidemiology of medically attended respiratory syncytial virus in older adults in the United States: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0182321. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.IBM Corp. Released 2020. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
  • 21.Zhang Y, Wang Y, Zhao J, Xiong Z, Fan Y, Zhang W, et al. Severity and mortality of respiratory syncytial virus vs influenza A infection in hospitalized adults in China. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2020;14(5):483–90. doi: 10.1111/irv.12754 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Belongia EA, King JP, Kieke BA, Pluta J, Al-Hilli A, Meece JK, et al. Clinical Features, Severity, and Incidence of RSV Illness During 12 Consecutive Seasons in a Community Cohort of Adults ≥60 Years Old. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018;5(12):ofy316. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofy316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cui D, Feng L, Chen Y, Lai S, Zhang Z, Yu F, et al. Clinical and Epidemiologic Characteristics of Hospitalized Patients with Laboratory-Confirmed Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection in Eastern China between 2009 and 2013: A Retrospective Study. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0165437. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165437 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Purcell K, Fergie J. Lack of usefulness of an abnormal white blood cell count for predicting a concurrent serious bacterial infection in infants and young children hospitalized with respiratory syncytial virus lower respiratory tract infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2007;26(4):311–5. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000258627.23337.00 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Christ-Crain M, Morgenthaler NG, Stolz D, Müller C, Bingisser R, Harbarth S, et al. Pro-adrenomedullin to predict severity and outcome in community-acquired pneumonia [ISRCTN04176397]. Crit Care. 2006;10(3):R96. doi: 10.1186/cc4955 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Call SA, Vollenweider MA, Hornung CA, Simel DL, McKinney WP. Does this patient have influenza? JAMA. 2005;293(8):987–97. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.8.987 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.https://nursing.unibas.ch/de/forschung/forschung-227/forschung/haipstudy/ (last accessed Dec 13, 2020).
  • 28.Thiabaud A, Iten A, Balmelli C, Senn L, Troillet N, Widmer A, et al. Cohort profile: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 hospitalised patients in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly. 2021;151:w20475. doi: 10.4414/smw.2021.20475 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Tai-Heng Chen

6 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-03134

Clinical outcomes of adults hospitalized for laboratory confirmed respiratory syncytial virus or influenza virus infection .

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vuichard-Gysin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 20 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tai-Heng Chen, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting piece of research that has not been explored well enough. However, I have a few questions and it relates mainly toward the small number of events and the analysis.

1. The outcomes table should be placed in the main manuscript instead of the supplementary material.

2. I’m trying to understand how the data has been collected as the study design section mentioned “retrospective analysis” and study population and data collection section writes “prospectively collected data”. Were these patients prospectively recruited or were cases identified through the hospital surveillance program? If the latter, would it have been possible to increase the sample size to another season as the number of events of the RSV groups is very low (n=15).

3. Can the authors elaborate on how the cases with ARI were identified? Were they based on ED diagnosis codes? In addition, I see that all 588 patients had a chest radiograph. Is that a requirement for all ARI admissions?

4. The follow-up time here is only 7 days and likely to encounter ties in their analysis. Can the authors explain the rationale in performing a PH model instead of a simpler logistic regression model?

5. The authors adjusted for age and comorbidities. In my opinion, that might not be necessary since they were found to be insignificant in Table 1. Why was adjustment only done for pulmonary infiltrate but not the other clinical features found significant on admission in Table 1?

6. Presence of pulmonary infiltrate has been found to increase the risk of ICU admission or mortality. This was presented as a significant finding and discussed briefly. However, this finding does not seem to align with the objectives of the study of comparing disease severity of RSV vs influenza.

In the discussion, the authors “suspect the influence of pneumonic infiltrate was so strong that age and comorbidities were no longer relevant..”. From Table 2, it looks like the effects of pneumonic infiltrate attenuating the effect of the RSV instead of these potential confounders. The authors could relate these findings better by further investigating the proportion of patients who experienced the event and had pulmonary infiltrates , stratified by RSV/influenza.

Reviewer #2: Minor Comments:

Methods:

• The influence of seasonality (season I vs. season II) on the outcome of the patients is not mentioned. It would be interesting to explore if the RSV/Influenza-associated hospitalizations varied substantially during the study period, related to the particular virus types and subtypes in circulation

Results:

• The authors stated that the proportion of patients with infiltrate on chest X-ray was significantly higher in the RSV group (46.4% vs. 29.9%). However, figure 1 shows 40.5% vs.24.5%. Please revise

• Primary endpoint is part of the main objective of this paper but the results are not shown in main body. Please move Suppl. Table 1. to main body

• Justify why the covariates tested in the multivariate model were selected (e.g. Significance criteria/supported by previous literature)

Reviewer #3: 1. As the inpatient follow up was limited to 7 days, would the authors be expected to fully describe the clinical outcome of adults patients hospitalised with RSV or influenza infection? This is important as "outcomes" is present in both the full and short title of the manuscript.

2. Is Figure 2 necessary? In its current form, it appears to add little to the manuscript as the cutoff is at 7 days

3. Please review reference 16 - this research article had described workflow parameters and in its results, it did not describe sensitivity or specificity of the test referred to.

4. Would the authors consider expanding their discussion to other points including clinical prediction models for RSV, possible preventive measures, nosocomial transmission, possible planned clinical interventions for RSV.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 22;16(7):e0253161. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253161.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Apr 2021

We would like to thank all reviewers for their time and scrutiny to improve this manuscript. We hope that our responses will be satisfying. Please find below our point-by-point reply:

Reviewer #1:

This is an interesting piece of research that has not been explored well enough. However, I have a few questions and it relates mainly toward the small number of events and the analysis.

1. The outcomes table should be placed in the main manuscript instead of the supplementary material.

Response: This is an excellent suggestion, and we would like to thank you for that. We moved the outcomes table in the main manuscript.

2. I’m trying to understand how the data has been collected as the study design section mentioned “retrospective analysis” and study population and data collection section writes “prospectively collected data”. Were these patients prospectively recruited or were cases identified through the hospital surveillance program? If the latter, would it have been possible to increase the sample size to another season as the number of events of the RSV groups is very low (n=15).

Response: Thank you for raising this question which gives us the opportunity to provide some clarifications. The study population was indeed identified through the hospital surveillance program. Since the hospital’s microbiology laboratory introduced combined PCR testing for RSV and influenza only at the beginning of October 2017, these are all available data. Based on your comment that it is not entirely clear how the data were collected, we have taken the liberty of revising the methodology section and hope that it is more understandable now.

The section now reads as follows (page 4, lines 82-102 and page 5, lines 103-113):

Study design

We performed a retrospective analysis from patients with laboratory confirmed influenza or RSV infection, who were admitted to one of the two acute care hospitals in the canton Thurgau during winter season I (2017/2018) or II (2018/2019).

Study setting and population

The Thurgau hospital group has about 570 acute care beds. To prevent the spread of influenza in the hospital, the division of infection control established a new surveillance program in October 2017 for patients who are being hospitalized with influenza or RSV infection. At this time, the microbiology laboratory introduced a combined RT-PCR for the diagnosis of influenza and RSV infection. Clinicians were advised to obtain a nasopharyngeal swab for microbial diagnosis of influenza or RSV as a standard diagnostic procedure in all patients with symptoms and signs of acute respiratory infection (ARI) and whose’ condition required hospital admission. Patients with ARI presented with an influenza-like illness consisting of fever, general malaise, cough, or myalgia or had a chest infiltrate suggestive for viral pneumonia. Patients hospitalized on the wards who developed new ARI also underwent testing for influenza and RSV. All patients who tested positive for influenza were immediately placed in droplet isolation as per local infection control guideline.

Data collection

The hospital influenza and RSV surveillance served as basis for our study. As part of this surveillance program, the division of infection control routinely collects data on microbiological diagnosis, length of hospital stay, admission to ICU, and death during hospital stay in patients who test positive for influenza virus or RSV by means of an RT-PCR. This prospective surveillance starts in week 44 in the previous year and extends to week 16 in the following year.

We included all adult patients (equal or older than 18 years of age at time of hospitalization) who were hospitalized during influenza seasons I and II with a laboratory confirmed influenza or RSV infection. Only the first episode was considered. We excluded patients with an RSV/influenza co-infection. Additional data on patient demographics, comorbidities, vital signs on admission, laboratory results, treatment and outcomes were retrospectively retrieved from individual electronic patient files. These data were entered into the electronic patient file during routine patient care. Every death in the community is automatically reported to the public hospitals in the canton and is therefore visible in the electronic health record. This enabled us to also determine the 30-day mortality.

3. Can the authors elaborate on how the cases with ARI were identified? Were they based on ED diagnosis codes? In addition, I see that all 588 patients had a chest radiograph. Is that a requirement for all ARI admissions?

Response: We are grateful for this question. Before introducing the combined PCR, clinicians were instructed about the clinical and radiological criteria they should apply to decide whether a patient qualifies for a nasopharyngeal swab. However, whether a patient was tested by PCR eventually remained at the discretion of the responsible physicians working in the ED. The majority of patients with new clinical signs of ARI receive at least a chest X-ray. In this cohort, 454 of 548 (82.8%) received a chest x-ray. Since the question relates to the previous one, we kindly ask you to review the revisions already mentioned above under point 2. We hope that our revision will sufficiently answer your question.

4. The follow-up time here is only 7 days and likely to encounter ties in their analysis. Can the authors explain the rationale in performing a PH model instead of a simpler logistic regression model?

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for this important question that enables us to improve the statistical analyzes and draw correct inferences. We agree that we would need to consider ties in our Cox PH regression model. This could be done by an Efron or Breslow approximation. However, instead of performing a more complex analysis that would be less understandable we decided to redo our main analysis by applying simple binary logistic regression. With the new analysis, main outcomes and inferences that can be drawn remain the same. We kindly ask you to refer to our response under the point 5 to review all changes that have been made to the manuscript.

5. The authors adjusted for age and comorbidities. In my opinion, that might not be necessary since they were found to be insignificant in Table 1. Why was adjustment only done for pulmonary infiltrate but not the other clinical features found significant on admission in Table 1?

Response: Again, we are grateful for raising this important issue. Being in line with your previous suggestion to rather stick with simple logistic regression, we repeated our multivariable analysis and entered only those predictors that were statistically significant in univariate analyses. This procedure also enabled us to be parsimonious with the predictors entered and eventually prevented from overfitting of the model.

The concerning statistics and results sections have been revised accordingly:

Page 7, lines 138-143: We used binary logistic regression to model the crude prediction of RSV and influenza virus infection for the probability of ICU admission or death within the first 7 days after hospital admission. We then applied multivariable models to adjust for additional predictors of our primary outcome in patients with RSV compared to influenza virus infection. Only predictors that were statistically significant in univariate analyses were considered in the multivariable model.

Page 10, lines 192-199: In the crude analysis, RSV patients were twice as likely to be admitted to ICU or die within 7 days after admission compared to patients with influenza (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.09-3.90, p=.027) (Table 3). However, the association was no longer significant after controlling for temperature, leukocyte count, and presence of a pulmonary infiltrate on admission. While neither fever nor the underlying respiratory virus appeared to have a significant impact on the primary outcome in the adjusted analysis, a higher leukocyte count (adjusted OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13) and the presence of a pulmonary infiltrate on chest X-ray (aOR 3.41, 95% CI 1.93-6.02, p<.001) appeared to significantly increase the risk of an unfavourable outcome.

6. Presence of pulmonary infiltrate has been found to increase the risk of ICU admission or mortality. This was presented as a significant finding and discussed briefly. However, this finding does not seem to align with the objectives of the study of comparing disease severity of RSV vs influenza.

In the discussion, the authors “suspect the influence of pneumonic infiltrate was so strong that age and comorbidities were no longer relevant..”. From Table 2, it looks like the effects of pneumonic infiltrate attenuating the effect of the RSV instead of these potential confounders. The authors could relate these findings better by further investigating the proportion of patients who experienced the event and had pulmonary infiltrates, stratified by RSV/influenza.

Response: We agree with the comment that the finding does not align with the study objectives and thank the reviewer for suggesting an additional analysis. We now performed a subgroup analysis, evaluating the impact of age on ICU admission or death within 7 days after admission in patients presenting with a pulmonary infiltrate stratified by influenza and RSV. A total of 29 (25.2%) influenza cases and 7 (21.9%) RSV cases in this subgroup experienced the primary outcome. The difference was not statistically significant. However, the proportion of cases reaching the outcome between the influenza and RSV group clearly differed by age category with a higher proportion of elderly (over 80 years of age) patients in the RSV group. The numbers were too small to perform any meaningful statistics. We suggest adding this figure to the results and remove the original figure 2 as suggested by reviewer #2.

The revised section reads accordingly:

Page 10, lines 199-202: Patients with pneumonia on admission were 3.41 times more likely to be transferred to ICU or to die within the first 7 days than patients without pneumonia (aOR 3.41, 95% CI 1.93-6.02, p<.001). The addition of this predictor to the model, however, seemed to attenuate the effect of RSV as indicated by a decrease in the adjusted OR.

Page 11, lines 208-216: To better understand the association of a pulmonary infiltrate with clinical outcome, we performed a subgroup analysis, examining the impact of age on ICU admission or death within 7 days after admission in patients presenting with a pulmonary infiltrate stratified by influenza and RSV. First, we found that 29 of 115 (25.2%) influenza cases and 7 of 32 (21.9%) RSV cases in this subgroup experienced the primary outcome. The difference was not statistically significant. However, we note that the proportion of cases reaching the outcome between the influenza and RSV group clearly differed by age category with a higher proportion of elderly (over 80 years of age) patients in the RSV group (Fig 2). The identified virus modified the effect of age on the development of the outcome of ICU admission or death among those with a pulmonary infiltrate.

Reviewer #2: Minor Comments:

Methods:

• The influence of seasonality (season I vs. season II) on the outcome of the patients is not mentioned. It would be interesting to explore if the RSV/Influenza-associated hospitalizations varied substantially during the study period, related to the particular virus types and subtypes in circulation

Response: According to your suggestion we evaluated the influence of seasonality. There were significant differences in the proportion of admissions comparing the two respiratory seasons. We have added the numbers of admission for RSV and influenza separated for the 2 respiratory seasons in Table 1. The percentages of patients in the RSV- and influenza-group experiencing the outcome were surprisingly constant over the two seasons. We suggest adding these results to table 2.

ICU or death within 7 days according to season RSV Influenza p-value a

Admitted in season I, n of total (%) 5/27 (18.5) 25/270 (9.3) 0.128

Admitted in season II, n of total (%) 10/52 (19.2) 23/199 (11.6) 0.145

a p-values were calculated using Chi-square for comparison of proportions.

Unfortunately, we did not collect the data on influenza subtypes. We therefore could not perform such additional analysis which would have been beyond the scope of this manuscript.

Results:

• The authors stated that the proportion of patients with infiltrate on chest X-ray was significantly higher in the RSV group (46.4% vs. 29.9%). However, figure 1 shows 40.5% vs.24.5%. Please revise

Response: We thank Reviewer #2 for detecting this oversight. The percentages have been corrected in the abstract and in Table 1.

• Primary endpoint is part of the main objective of this paper but the results are not shown in main body. Please move Suppl. Table 1. to main body

Response: This is an excellent suggestion, and we would like to thank you and Reviewer #1 for pointing this out. We moved the outcomes table in the main manuscript as Table 2.

• Justify why the covariates tested in the multivariate model were selected (e.g. Significance criteria/supported by previous literature)

Response: we would like to thank you and Reviewer #1 for highlighting this issue. We repeated the complete analysis. We kindly ask you to refer to our response above provided to Reviewer #1 under point 5.

Reviewer #3:

1. As the inpatient follow up was limited to 7 days, would the authors be expected to fully describe the clinical outcome of adults patients hospitalised with RSV or influenza infection? This is important as "outcomes" is present in both the full and short title of the manuscript.

Response: This is an excellent suggestion, and we would like to thank you and the other reviewers for pointing this out. We moved the outcomes table in the main manuscript as Table 2.

2. Is Figure 2 necessary? In its current form, it appears to add little to the manuscript as the cutoff is at 7 days

Response: Again, this is an excellent remark. We removed this figure. However, since Reviewer #1 recommended performing a subgroup analysis, we propose to add this figure from the subgroup analysis evaluating age as a predictor of the primary outcome in the subgroup of those with a pulmonary infiltrate stratified by the underlying viral disease.

3. Please review reference 16 - this research article had described workflow parameters and in its results, it did not describe sensitivity or specificity of the test referred to.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this oversight. The correct reference (Zou Xiaohui et al. Int J Infect Dis. 2019;80:92-7.) which is now reference 18. and two additional references (16. Cohen et al. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(2) and 17. Ling et al. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(3)) which are related to the validation of this test have been added to the manuscript.

4. Would the authors consider expanding their discussion to other points including clinical prediction models for RSV, possible preventive measures, nosocomial transmission, possible planned clinical interventions for RSV.

Response: We agree with reviewer #3 that the importance of preventive measures and clinical interventions to prevent nosocomial transmission of RSV cannot be emphasized enough. We have added a statement on the importance of virological diagnosis and prevention.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Tai-Heng Chen

10 May 2021

PONE-D-21-03134R1

Clinical outcomes of adults hospitalized for laboratory confirmed respiratory syncytial virus or influenza virus infection .

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vuichard-Gysin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 24 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tai-Heng Chen, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I thank the authors for revising their manuscript to make it clearer and transparent. Responses are also well organized inside the Response to Reviewers file. This research shows that it is not easy differentiating adverse clinical outcomes between viral pathogens, especially on viruses that are detected less frequently.

Major comment:

With this revised analysis, the authors could not find any difference in severity between RSV and influenza. However, higher leucocyte counts, and presence of chest infiltrates increased the risk of ICU admission/death. Importantly, RSV patients also had higher median leucocyte counts and number of chest infiltrates. These baseline differences make any inference attributable to the pathogen problematic. More needs to be done in order to understand the relationship between the 2 predictors of interest and RSV/influenza.

It will be useful for the authors to give a plausible explanation for their findings and discuss the role of WBC and chest infiltrates in viral etiology, especially if others have found similar clinical characteristics between RSV and influenza. What is the possible pathway here? Eg: (RSV -> higher leucocyte -> ICU/death or RSV -> higher leucocyte -> ICU/death). Discussing this allow the readers to understand if these findings are biologically plausible or due to self-selection factors (ie: RSV patients coming into the ED at a sicker phase of illness).

Minor comments:

1. In Study Setting and Population, “who’s condition required hospital admission.” Should be whose.

2. In Data Collection: week 44 to 16, did you mean epi weeks or calendar week? Could just specify.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PlosOne_SwissRSV_review.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 22;16(7):e0253161. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253161.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


25 May 2021

We would like to thank all reviewers again for their efforts and are pleased that our manuscript comes close to meeting the PLOS ONE publication criteria. Thank you for inviting us to submit a revised manuscript. We hope that we were able to adequately address the points raised.

Please find below our response to reviewer #1.

Reviewer #1: Major comment:

With this revised analysis, the authors could not find any difference in severity between RSV and influenza. However, higher leucocyte counts, and presence of chest infiltrates increased the risk of ICU admission/death. Importantly, RSV patients also had higher median leucocyte counts and number of chest infiltrates. These baseline differences make any inference attributable to the pathogen problematic. More needs to be done in order to understand the relationship between the 2 predictors of interest and RSV/influenza.

It will be useful for the authors to give a plausible explanation for their findings and discuss the role of WBC and chest infiltrates in viral etiology, especially if others have found similar clinical characteristics between RSV and influenza. What is the possible pathway here? Eg: (RSV -> higher leucocyte -> ICU/death or RSV -> higher leucocyte -> ICU/death). Discussing this allow the readers to understand if these findings are biologically plausible or due to self-selection factors (ie: RSV patients coming into the ED at a sicker phase of illness).

Authors’ response:

We agree that the association between higher leukocyte count/presence of chest infiltrate and ICU admission or death disserves an in-depth discussion. After reconsidering our findings and looking again into the literature, we feel that both considerations remain speculative.

We suggest the following explanation to be added to the discussion section (pages 11-12, line 228-247):

“There was a statistically significantly higher proportion of leukocytosis among patients with RSV compared to those with influenza, albeit with most patients having only mild leukocytosis at most. In multivariable analysis, leukocytosis but not RSV was associated with more severe clinical course. The association between RSV and leukoyctosis has received some attention recently. A study of 243 US adults with RSV showed that 11% had leukocytosis with no difference between those with moderate to severe disease (10%) and those with milder illness (12%, p=0.8). In this study, patients with more severe disease had more frequently pneumonia (Belongia et al. OFID 2018). In a large Chinese study of 1046 adults with RSV, 38% had leukocytosis overall including 44% of those with influenza coinfection while even with these large case numbers the authors were unable to find an association between leukocytosis and severity or radiologic infiltrates (Cui et al. Plos One 2016). In children with RSV, one study found leukocytosis in 24% of those with fever and 18% of those without fever. In those with fever, there was also a higher likelihood of bacterial infection, but among febrile children with a white blood count (WBC) count below 30,000 per milliliter, there was no difference in the WBC between those with and those without bacterial superinfection (Purcell et al. PIDJ 2007). Therefore, it remains speculative, whether the observed higher WBC count in patients with RSV compared to influenza in our study is related to more frequent bacterial superinfections (antibiotic therapy had a non-significantly higher point estimate in RSV than influenza) or to is a marker of more severe clinical presentation of a viral infection, regardless of whether RSV or influenza. WBC was previously shown to have similar prognostic accuracy as CRP for severe outcome in community acquired pneumonia but without being sensitive or specific enough to work as a predictor on its own (Christ-Crain et al. Crit. Care 10, R96 2006).”

For better transition, we also slightly adjusted the first sentence in the subsequent paragraph (page 12, lines 248-250):

“In contrast to previous results that pointed towards older patients and patients with comorbidities (4, 10), our primary findings of serious outcomes in patients with RSV were independent of age and comorbidities.”

Reviewer #1: Minor comments:

1. In Study Setting and Population, “who’s condition required hospital admission.” Should be whose.

Reply: Thank you very much. We have corrected this.

2. In Data Collection: week 44 to 16, did you mean epi weeks or calendar week? Could just specify.

Reply: Thank you very much. We considered calendar weeks. We clarified this within the text (page 6, line 104-105):

“This prospective surveillance starts in calendar week 44 in the previous year and extends to calendar week 16 in the following year.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Tai-Heng Chen

31 May 2021

Clinical outcomes of adults hospitalized for laboratory confirmed respiratory syncytial virus or influenza virus infection .

PONE-D-21-03134R2

Dear Dr. Vuichard-Gysin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Tai-Heng Chen, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Tai-Heng Chen

14 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-03134R2

Clinical outcomes of adults hospitalized for laboratory confirmed respiratory syncytial virus or influenza virus infection.

Dear Dr. Vuichard-Gysin:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Tai-Heng Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PlosOne_SwissRSV_review.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying this study have been uploaded as Supporting Information and to https://osf.io/7udb5/.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES