The common cold is the primary cause of illness in the community, with over 200 viral strains identified, and rhinovirus infections being the most prevalent. Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) is also a significant cause of severe illness. The burden of acute respiratory infections has a significant impact on the economy, resulting in absenteeism from work and school. Rhinovirus infections can exacerbate asthma and other chronic diseases, leading to hospitalization. The objective of this study is to investigate the factors associated with death and survival in patients hospitalized for rhinovirus in Brazil in 2022. This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the national surveillance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2022 in Brazil, with all the norrifications. We analysed and compared clinical and epidemiological factors and outcomes between survivors and deaths in patients hospitalised for rhinovirus. The absolute and relative frequencies were calculated according to the states. Bivariate analysis was performed using chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test, while multivariate analysis was performed using COX regression. Out of 8,130 cases of SARS caused by rhinovirus, 291 (3.58%) resulted in death while 7839 (96.47%) patients survived. The factors associated with death were invasive ventilation (p- < 0.001 HR 4.888 CI 95% 3.816-6.262), bocavirus (p- < 0.001 HR 4.204 CI 95% 2.595-6.812), immunodepression/Immunosuppression (p- < 0.001 HR 2.417 CI 95% 1. 544-3, 786), COVID-19 (p- < 0.001 HR 2.167 CI 95% 1.495-3.142), chronic neurological diseases (p-0.007 HR 1.610 CI 95% 1.137-2.280), abdominal pain (p-0.005 HR 1.734 CI 95% 1.186-2.537), age (p- < 0.001 HR 1.038 CI 95% 1.034-1.042). The survival factors identified in this study were dyspnea (p = 0.005; HR 0.683; CI 95% 0.524-0.889), cough (p < 0.001; HR 0.603; CI 95% 0.472-0.769), and asthma (p = 0.052; HR 0.583; CI 95% 0.339-1.004). Additionally, the study found that receiving a COVID-19 booster dose was also a significant survival factor (p = 0.001; HR 0.570; CI 95% 0.415-0.784). The factors associated with death were similar to those in the literature, and the factors associated with survival were also similar, except for the booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, which we didn't find in any studies. Our study is the first to associate the full course of the COVID-19 vaccine with survival in those hospitalized for rhinovirus, regardless of COVID-19 and rhinovirus co-detection.

Rhinoviruses (RVs) are the most frequent viral causes of respiratory infections worldwide and contribute substantially to a spectrum of respiratory diseases, including wheezing, asthma, and lower respiratory tract illnesses throughout the lifespan. Despite their substantial disease burden, vaccine development for RVs has been hindered for decades due to extensive serotypic diversity and limited cross-reactive immune responses. However, recent progress in structural virology, immune profiling, and antigen discovery─particularly through peptide array mapping and the identification of conserved neutralizing epitopes─has revived interest in the design of RV vaccines. Novel strategies targeting conserved B cell capsid domains, conserved T cell epitopes, and high-valent vaccine formulations have shown promise in preclinical models. This review summarizes the current understanding of RV infection epidemiology, risk stratification for early vaccine prioritization, and evolving vaccine development strategies, while highlighting critical gaps and the growing scientific momentum toward clinical translation. With continued innovation, RV vaccination may become a viable strategy to mitigate the longstanding and pervasive global health burden of RV infection.

<h4>Background/objectives</h4>Enterovirus-D68 (EV-D68) and rhinoviruses are major contributors to respiratory illnesses in children, presenting a spectrum of clinical manifestations ranging from asymptomatic cases to severe lower respiratory tract infections. No specific antiviral treatments are currently approved for these viruses.<h4>Method</h4>We conducted a comprehensive literature review of antiviral agents investigated for EV-D68 and rhinovirus infections.<h4>Results</h4>Several antiviral candidates are under investigation, each targeting distinct stages of the viral replicative cycle. Capsid-binding agents and monoclonal antibodies prevent viral attachment by blocking receptor-virus interactions. Inhibitors of viral replication proteins disrupt polyprotein processing and replication organelle biogenesis by targeting non-structural viral proteins. Host factor inhibitors impair viral attachment, replication organelle formation, or RNA replication by interfering with critical host pathways.<h4>Conclusions</h4>While no specific antivirals are yet approved for EV-D68 and rhinovirus infections, emerging therapeutic candidates offer potential avenues for treatment. Continued preclinical and clinical investigation will be essential to validate these approaches and expand the available options for affected patients.

Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This is an update of a review first published in 2012. To assess the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo or other active controls (excluding antibiotics) in reducing the duration of symptoms and alleviating symptoms (general feeling of illness, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, and cough) in children and adults with the common cold. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, Embase, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, LILACS, and Web of Science to 10 June 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 10 June 2021. Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo, other active treatment (excluding antibiotics), or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We categorised the included trials according to the active ingredients. We identified 30 studies (6304 participants) including 31 treatment comparisons. The control intervention was placebo in 26 trials and an active substance (paracetamol, chlorphenindione + phenylpropanolamine + belladonna, diphenhydramine) in six trials (two trials had placebo as well as active treatment arms). Reporting of methods was generally poor, and there were large differences in study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Most of the included trials involved adult participants. Children were included in nine trials. Three trials included very young children (from six months to five years), and five trials included children aged 2 to 16. One trial included adults and children aged 12 years or older. The trials took place in different settings: university clinics, paediatric departments, family medicine departments, and general practice surgeries. Antihistamine-decongestant: 14 trials (1298 participants). Eight trials reported on global effectiveness, of which six studies were pooled (281 participants on active treatment and 284 participants on placebo). The odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure was 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.48; moderate certainty evidence); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3.9 (95% CI 3.03 to 5.2). On the final evaluation day (follow-up: 3 to 10 days), 55% of participants in the placebo group had a favourable response compared to 70% on active treatment. Of the two trials not pooled, one showed some global effect, whilst the other showed no effect. Adverse effects: the antihistamine-decongestant group experienced more adverse effects than the control group: 128/419 (31%) versus 100/423 (13%) participants suffered one or more adverse effects (OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.78 to 3.21; moderate certainty of evidence). Antihistamine-analgesic: four trials (1608 participants). Two trials reported on global effectiveness; data from one trial were presented (290 participants on active treatment and 292 participants on ascorbic acid). The OR of treatment failure was 0.33 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.46; moderate certainty evidence); NNTB 6.67 (95% CI 4.76 to 12.5). Forty-three per cent of participants in the control group and 70% in the active treatment group were cured after six days of treatment. The second trial also showed an effect in favour of the active treatment. Adverse effects: there were not significantly more adverse effects in the active treatment group compared to placebo (drowsiness, hypersomnia, sleepiness 10/152 versus 4/120; OR 1.64 (95 % CI 0.48 to 5.59; low certainty evidence). Analgesic-decongestant: seven trials (2575 participants). One trial reported on global effectiveness: 73% of participants in the analgesic-decongestant group reporte