Abstract
Nasally inoculated influenza cases reported milder symptoms and shed lower viral RNA load in exhaled breath aerosols (EBA) than people with classic influenza-like illness including fever, in a previous study. Whether nasally inoculated influenza is representative of mild natural influenza infection, the majority of natural infections, is unknown. Here, we extend our previous analyses to include a broader range of community-acquired influenza cases. Previously, we reported on two groups: (A) volunteers intranasally inoculated with a dose of 5.5 log10TCID50 of influenza A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (H3N2) and (B) cases with cough and sore throat plus fever or a positive rapid antigen test recruited on a college campus in the same year (2013). Here we added two additional groups from a later study: (C) cases from a 2017-2019 surveillance cohort of college dormitory residents and their contacts, and (D) cases recruited from a university health center in 2019. All cases had an influenza A(H3) infection. Using a Gesundheit-II sampler, we collected 30-minute EBA samples. Community-acquired cases from the surveillance cohort (C) shed more EBA viral RNA and were more symptomatic than the nasally inoculated cases (A) but shed less viral RNA than the natural cases that were selected for symptoms (B) in 2013, but not (D) recruited in 2019. Despite sharing a similar symptomatic profile with the 2013 selected natural cases (B), the 2019 community-acquired cases (D) recruited post-infection showed a lower fine aerosol viral RNA load. Nasal inoculation of influenza virus did not reproduce EBA viral RNA shedding or symptoms observed in mild natural infection. Circulating strains of influenza A(H3) may differ, year-to-year in the extent to which symptomatic cases shed virus into fine aerosols. New models, including possibly aerosol inoculation, are needed to study viral aerosol shedding from the human respiratory tract.
Author Summary In this study, we compared influenza A (H3) viral aerosol shedding in the exhaled breath of four different groups of influenza cases: (A) volunteers given the influenza virus intranasally, naturally infected (B) college community members with classic influenza-like illness including fever recruited in 2013, (C) dormitory residents undergoing active surveillance, and (D) patients from a university health center recruited in 2019. We found that mild symptomatic cases among healthy college students (C) released more viral RNA in their exhaled breath than those nasally inoculated with influenza virus (A). We also observed that more symptomatic and medically attended cases from different flu seasons (B and D), although reporting similar symptom severity, shed different levels of viral RNA in their exhaled breath. Our findings indicate that influenza viral aerosol shedding varies from season to season. Most volunteers nasally inoculated at a high virus dose did not shed detectable viral RNA in their exhaled breath or show symptoms, suggesting that nasal inoculation may not accurately mimic natural infection. Our results highlight the need for improved models to study the spread of influenza virus in aerosol forms.
Competing Interest Statement
B.J.C. consults for AstraZeneca, Fosun Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Haleon, Moderna, Novavax, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi Pasteur. D.K.M. consults for A.I.R LLC and holds stock options for Lumen Bioscience, Inc. The authors declare no other competing interests.
Funding Statement
Elements of this work were supported by Cooperative Agreement 1U01IP000497 from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) BTO under the auspices of Col. Matthew Hepburn through agreements N66001-17-2-4023 and N66001-18-2-4015, by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Centers of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance (CEIRS) Contract Number HHSN272201400008C, and by gifts from The Flu Lab and Balvi Filanthropic Fund. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of these funding agencies and no official endorsement should be inferred.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study used data from three previous studies. The EMIT-1 challenge study was conducted in compliance with UK regulatory and ethical (IRB) requirements (under auspices of the UK Health Research Authority (HRA) National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee London-City & East; reference number 12/LO/1277), and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01710111). The EMIT-1 campus study and the Prometheus study were approved by the University of Maryland Institutional Review Board. Participants from all three sources have signed informed consent.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This version of the manuscript has been revised to update the funding and ethics statements. Specifically, we have included additional funding sources to accurately reflect all contributors to the research. In terms of ethics, we have expanded the statement to provide a more comprehensive overview of the ethical considerations addressed in the study.
Data Availability
Data will be made available in a publicly accessible repository upon acceptance of the manuscript.
