Dkm Ip

Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review

Influenza viruses circulate around the world every year. From time to time new strains emerge and cause global pandemics. Many national and international health agencies recommended the use of face masks during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. We reviewed the English-language literature on this subject to inform public health preparedness. There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected. Further studies in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

Seroprevalence of antibody to pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 among healthcare workers after the first wave in Hong Kong

Summary During the first wave of an influenza pandemic prior to the availability of an effective vaccine, healthcare workers (HCWs) may be at particular risk of infection with the novel influenza strain. We conducted a cross-sectional study of the prevalence of antibody to pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 (pH1N1) among HCWs in Hong Kong in February–March 2010 following the first pandemic wave. Sera collected from HCWs were tested for antibody to pH1N1 influenza virus by viral neutralisation (VN). We assessed factors associated with higher antibody titres, and we compared antibody titres in HCWs with those in a separate community study. In total we enrolled 703 HCWs. Among 599 HCWs who did not report receipt of pH1N1 vaccine, 12% had antibody titre ≥1:40 by VN. There were no significant differences in the age-specific proportions of unvaccinated HCWs with antibody titre ≥1:40 compared with the general community following the first wave of pH1N1. Under good adherence to infection control guidelines, potential occupational exposures in the hospital setting did not appear to be associated with any substantial excess risk of pH1N1 infection in HCWs. Most HCWs had low antibody titres following the first pandemic wave.

The Fraction of Influenza Virus Infections That Are Asymptomatic: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: The fraction of persons with influenza virus infection, who do not report any signs or symptoms throughout the course of infection is referred to as the asymptomatic fraction. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published estimates of the asymptomatic fraction of influenza virus infections. We found that estimates of the asymptomatic fraction were reported from two different types of studies: first, outbreak investigations with short-term follow-up of potentially exposed persons and virologic confirmation of infections; second, studies conducted across epidemics typically evaluating rates of acute respiratory illness among persons with serologic evidence of infection, in some cases adjusting for background rates of illness from other causes. Results: Most point estimates from studies of outbreak investigations fell in the range 4%–28% with low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%) with a pooled mean of 16% (95% confidence interval = 13%, 19%). Estimates from the studies conducted across epidemics without adjustment were very heterogeneous (point estimates 0%–100%; I 2 = 97%), while estimates from studies that adjusted for background illnesses were more consistent with point estimates in the range 65%–85% and moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 58%). Variation in estimates could be partially explained by differences in study design and analysis, and inclusion of mild symptomatic illnesses as asymptomatic in some studies. Conclusions: Estimates of the asymptomatic fraction are affected by the study design, and the definitions of infection and symptomatic illness. Considerable differences between the asymptomatic fraction of infections confirmed by virologic versus serologic testing may indicate fundamental differences in the interpretation of these two indicators.

Interpreting Seroepidemiologic Studies of Influenza in a Context of Nonbracketing Sera.

Background: In influenza epidemiology, analysis of paired sera collected from people before and after influenza seasons has been used for decades to study the cumulative incidence of influenza virus infections in populations. However, interpretation becomes challenging when sera are collected after the start or before the end of an epidemic, and do not neatly bracket the epidemic. Methods: Serum samples were collected longitudinally in a community-based study. Most participants provided their first serum after the start of circulation of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus in 2009. We developed a Bayesian hierarchical model to correct for nonbracketing sera and estimate the cumulative incidence of infection from the serological data and surveillance data in Hong Kong. Results: We analyzed 4,843 sera from 2,097 unvaccinated participants in the study, collected from April 2009 to December 2010. After accounting for nonbracketing, we estimated that the cumulative incidence of H1N1pdm09 virus infection was 45% (95% credible interval [CI] = 40%, 49%), 17% (95% CI = 13%, 20%), and 11% (95% CI = 6%, 18%) for children ages 0–18 years, adults 19–50 years, and older adults >50 years, respectively. Including all available data substantially increased precision compared with a simpler analysis based only on sera collected at 6-month intervals in a subset of participants. Conclusions: We developed a framework for the analysis of antibody titers that accounted for the timing of sera collection with respect to influenza activity and permitted robust estimation of the cumulative incidence of infection during an epidemic.

Humoral antibody response after receipt of inactivated seasonal influenza vaccinations one year apart in children.

Background: Annual vaccination against seasonal influenza viruses is recommended for school-age children in some countries. There are limited data on the immunogenicity and efficacy of repeated influenza vaccinations. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, we administered seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo to 64 children 6–15 years of age in two consecutive years and explored their humoral antibody responses. Results: Receipt of TIV in the first year was associated with lower antibody titer rises in the second year to seasonal influenza A(H1N1) and A(H3N2) strains for which the vaccine strains remained unchanged. Antibody response to a different influenza B strain in the second year was unaffected by receipt of TIV in the first year. Children who received TIV in both years showed higher antibody titers against pandemic A(H1N1) which was not included in either TIV. Conclusions: Results from our study suggest that humoral antibody response to TIV may be lower in children receiving repeated vaccination, but receipt of TIV induced seroprotection in most subjects. Our study was underpowered to explore whether differences in immunogenicity translated to differences in vaccine efficacy.