4.7 Article

Respiratory syncytial virus infection in infants in rural Nepal

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
Volume 73, Issue 2, Pages 145-154

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2016.05.007

Keywords

Respiratory syncytial virus; Pneumonia; Preterm birth; Resource-limited setting

Funding

  1. Gilead
  2. Chimerix
  3. GlaxoSmithKline
  4. Pfizer
  5. Roche
  6. National Institutes of Health [K23-AI103105]
  7. PATH
  8. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [50274]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) pneumonia is a leading cause of infant mortality worldwide. The risk of RSV infection associated with preterm birth is not well-characterized in resource-limited settings. We aimed to obtain precise estimates of risk factors and disease burden of RSV in infants in rural southern Nepal. Methods: Pregnant women were enrolled, and along with their infants, followed to six months after birth with active weekly home-based surveillance for acute respiratory illness (ARI). Mid-nasal swabs were obtained and tested for RSV by PCR for all illness episodes. Birth outcomes were assessed at a postpartum home visit. Results: 311 (9%) of 3509 infants had an RSV ARI. RSV ARI incidence decreased from 551/1000 person-years in infants born between 28 and 31 weeks to 195/1000 person-years in infants born full-term (p = 0.017). Of 220 infants (71%) evaluated in the health system, 41 (19%) visited a hospital or physician. Of 287 infants with an assessment performed, 203 (71%) had a lower respiratory tract infection. Conclusions: In a rural south Asian setting with intensive home-based surveillance, RSV caused a significant burden of respiratory illness. Preterm infants had the highest incidence of RSV ARI, and should be considered a priority group for RSV preventive interventions in resource-limited settings. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The British Infection Association.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available