Prevalence of common respiratory viruses of infants with respiratory tract infections in European countries in the past decade: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing between the pre-COVID-19, pandemic, and post-COVID-19 periods
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Infants with respiratory tract infections in European countries |
| I — Intervention | COVID-19 pandemic periods (pre-, during-, and post-pandemic) |
| C — Comparator | Different time periods (2012/13-2022/23) |
| O — Outcomes | Prevalence of respiratory viruses (RSV, HRV, Influenza virus, others) |
Bottom Line
This comprehensive meta-analysis of 78 European studies demonstrates that RSV and human rhinovirus remain the dominant causes of infant respiratory infections, with RSV showing marked suppression during COVID-19 lockdowns followed by significant rebound (48% to 63% prevalence). The findings support the concept of 'immunological debt' where reduced viral exposure during pandemic restrictions led to increased susceptibility post-lockdown. For Australian clinicians, this reinforces the importance of RSV prevention strategies, particularly as we observe similar post-pandemic patterns. The data supports current RACGP recommendations for RSV surveillance in high-risk infants and validates the recent introduction of maternal RSV vaccination and monoclonal antibody prophylaxis. Clinicians should anticipate continued high RSV burden and prepare for potential seasonal variations as viral circulation patterns stabilise post-pandemic.
Key Findings
P Value: Not reported
Effect Size: RSV prevalence: pre-pandemic 0.48 (0.41-0.56), post-pandemic 0.63 (0.51-0.75)
Primary Outcome: Prevalence of respiratory viruses in European infants with respiratory tract infections
Nnt Or Sensitivity: RSV increased by 31% post-pandemic compared to pre-pandemic levels
Confidence Interval: 95% confidence intervals provided for all pooled estimates
Clinical Application
Highly applicable to Australian practice with similar viral epidemiology patterns Relevant for RACGP guidelines on infant respiratory infections, supports RSV immunisation strategies, aligns with TGA-approved RSV prevention measures Australian infants with respiratory tract infections, particularly during winter months
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study is. to determine the leading cause of respiratory tract infections over the decade; this review examined the proportions of airway viruses in infants with respiratory tract infections in Europe before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024497097). Literature searches in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS) identified 20,453 studies reporting respiratory viral testing in Europe over the past decade (2012/13-2022/23). Eligible studies were English-language full-text or grey articles with low risk of bias and complete data, and reports that explicitly provided the number of positive airway virus cases (n, virus) and the total infant population (N). Risk of bias was assessed using the Hoy et al. scoring system. Pooled prevalence estimates (pooled proportion [95% CI]) were calculated for pre-, during-, and post-COVID-19 periods using proportional meta-analysis with the MetaProp package in R. Fifty studies before, ten studies during, and 18 studies after the COVID-19 pandemic were eligible for proportional meta-analyses of viral testing in infants. Before the pandemic, the predominant viruses in infants with respiratory infections were Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) (0.48 [0.41-0.56]), Human rhinovirus (HRV) (0.24 [0.18-0.29]), and Influenza virus (IV) (0.08 [0.04-0.12]). Post-pandemic, the leading viruses were RSV (0.63 [0.51-0.75]), HRV (0.25 [0.11-0.40]), and IV (0.10 [0.00-0.20]) again. CONCLUSIONS: RSV and HRV remained the two most identified viruses in infants with respiratory infections, pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic. Interestingly, both RSV and IV were suppressed during the pandemic. The trajectory dynamics of respiratory viruses were divergent, with resilient viruses (RSV, HRV, and IV) regaining dominance more rapidly than persistently suppressed viruses. WHAT IS KNOWN: • The COVID-19 pandemic induced an infection precautions policy, which reduced the spread of respiratory infectious diseases. • Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) was estimated as one of the most common causes of respiratory infections in infants. Still, there are no reports summarising the geographical distributions of the various viral agents of infant respiratory diseases. WHAT IS NEW: • This meta-analysis shows that the prevalence of RSV and HRV infections in infants remains high in Europe following the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated precautionary policy. Furthermore, RSV proportionally experienced a marked reduction during COVID-19 pandemic (lockdown periods). However, the immunological debt may have led to a re-emergence in RSV positivity after the lockdown periods. • Our proportional meta-analysis indicates the heterogeneous post-pandemic recovery patterns of each respiratory virus commonly identified in infants, where HRV was shown to be resilient whilst RSV was rapidly rebound.
References
- 1.Mapindra, M., Mahindra, M. P., McNamara, P., Kartasasmita, C., Semple, M. G., Clark, H., & Madsen, J. (2026). Prevalence of common respiratory viruses of infants with respiratory tract infections in European countries in the past decade: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing between the pre-COVID-19, pandemic, and post-COVID-19 periods. European Journal of Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb5793
Related Research
Journal of pediatric surgery
Interpretable deep learning model for pediatric strangulated small bowel obstruction on CT: A multicenter study
3 Aug 2026
European journal of pediatrics
Telemedicine in pediatrics: a critical narrative review of innovations, limitations, and future priorities
2 Aug 2026
European radiology
Deep learning improves image quality in motion-robust and sedation-free pediatric brain MRI
2 Aug 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service