Joanne E. Enstone

Risk factors for hospitalisation and poor outcome with pandemic A/H1N1 influenza: United Kingdom first wave (May–September 2009)

Background During the first wave of pandemic H1N1 influenza in 2009, most cases outside North America occurred in the UK. The clinical characteristics of UK patients hospitalised with pandemic H1N1 infection and risk factors for severe outcome are described. Methods A case note-based investigation was performed of patients admitted with confirmed pandemic H1N1 infection. Results From 27 April to 30 September 2009, 631 cases from 55 hospitals were investigated. 13% were admitted to a high dependency or intensive care unit and 5% died; 36% were aged <16 years and 5% were aged ≥65 years. Non-white and pregnant patients were over-represented. 45% of patients had at least one underlying condition, mainly asthma, and 13% received antiviral drugs before admission. Of 349 with documented chest x-rays on admission, 29% had evidence of pneumonia, but bacterial co-infection was uncommon. Multivariate analyses showed that physician-recorded obesity on admission and pulmonary conditions other than asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were associated with a severe outcome, as were radiologically-confirmed pneumonia and a raised C-reactive protein (CRP) level (≥100 mg/l). 59% of all in-hospital deaths occurred in previously healthy people. Conclusions Pandemic H1N1 infection causes disease requiring hospitalisation of previously fit individuals as well as those with underlying conditions. An abnormal chest x-ray or a raised CRP level, especially in patients who are recorded as obese or who have pulmonary conditions other than asthma or COPD, indicate a potentially serious outcome. These findings support the use of pandemic vaccine in pregnant women, children <5 years of age and those with chronic lung disease.

Predictors of clinical outcome in a national hospitalised cohort across both waves of the influenza A/H1N1 pandemic 2009–2010 in the UK

Background Although generally mild, the 2009–2010 influenza A/H1N1 pandemic caused two major surges in hospital admissions in the UK. The characteristics of patients admitted during successive waves are described. Methods Data were systematically obtained on 1520 patients admitted to 75 UK hospitals between May 2009 and January 2010. Multivariable analyses identified factors predictive of severe outcome. Results Patients aged 5–54 years were over-represented compared with winter seasonal admissions for acute respiratory infection, as were non-white ethnic groups (first wave only). In the second wave patients were less likely to be school age than in the first wave, but their condition was more likely to be severe on presentation to hospital and they were more likely to have delayed admission. Overall, 45% had comorbid conditions, 16.5% required high dependency (level 2) or critical (level 3) care and 5.3% died. As in 1918–1919, the likelihood of severe outcome by age followed a W-shaped distribution. Pre-admission antiviral drug use decreased from 13.3% to 10% between the first and second waves (p=0.048), while antibiotic prescribing increased from 13.6% to 21.6% (p<0.001). Independent predictors of severe outcome were age 55–64 years, chronic lung disease (non-asthma, non-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), neurological disease, recorded obesity, delayed admission (≥5 days after illness onset), pneumonia, C-reactive protein ≥100 mg/litre, and the need for supplemental oxygen or intravenous fluid replacement on admission. Conclusions There were demographic, ethnic and clinical differences between patients admitted with pandemic H1N1 infection and those hospitalised during seasonal influenza activity. Despite national policies favouring use of antiviral drugs, few patients received these before admission and many were given antibiotics.

Potential role of human challenge studies for investigation of influenza transmission

The importance of different routes of influenza transmission (including the role of bioaerosols) and the ability of masks and hand hygiene to prevent transmission remain poorly understood. Interest in transmission of influenza has grown as the effectiveness of prevention measures implemented during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic are questioned and as plans to better prepare for the next pandemic are debated. Recent studies of naturally infected patients have encountered difficulties and have fallen short of providing definitive answers. Human challenge studies with influenza virus date back to the 1918 pandemic. In more recent decades they have been undertaken to investigate the efficacy of antiviral agents and vaccines. Could experimental challenge studies, in which volunteers are deliberately infected with influenza virus, provide an alternative approach to the study of transmission? Here, we review the latest intervention studies and discuss the potential of challenge studies to address the remaining gaps in our knowledge.

Survival of influenza A(H1N1) on materials found in households: implications for infection control.

Background The majority of influenza transmission occurs in homes, schools and workplaces, where many frequently touched communal items are situated. However the importance of transmission via fomites is unclear since few data exist on the survival of virus on commonly touched surfaces. We therefore measured the viability over time of two H1N1 influenza strains applied to a variety of materials commonly found in households and workplaces. Methodology and Principal Findings Influenza A/PuertoRico/8/34 (PR8) or A/Cambridge/AHO4/2009 (pandemic H1N1) viruses were inoculated onto a wide range of surfaces used in home and work environments, then sampled at set times following incubation at stabilised temperature and humidity. Virus genome was measured by RT-PCR; plaque assay (for PR8) or fluorescent focus formation (for pandemic H1N1) was used to assess the survival of viable virus. Conclusions/Significance The genome of either virus could be detected on most surfaces 24 h after application with relatively little drop in copy number, with the exception of unsealed wood surfaces. In contrast, virus viability dropped much more rapidly. Live virus was recovered from most surfaces tested four hours after application and from some non-porous materials after nine hours, but had fallen below the level of detection from all surfaces at 24 h. We conclude that influenza A transmission via fomites is possible but unlikely to occur for long periods after surface contamination (unless re-inoculation occurs). In situations involving a high probability of influenza transmission, our data suggest a hierarchy of priorities for surface decontamination in the multi-surface environments of home and hospitals.

Nosocomial Pandemic (H1N1) 2009, United Kingdom, 2009-2010.

To determine clinical characteristics of patients hospitalized in the United Kingdom with pandemic (H1N1) 2009, we studied 1,520 patients in 75 National Health Service hospitals. We characterized patients who acquired influenza nosocomially during the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 outbreak. Of 30 patients, 12 (80%) of 15 adults and 14 (93%) of 15 children had serious underlying illnesses. Only 12 (57%) of 21 patients who received antiviral therapy did so within 48 hours after symptom onset, but 53% needed escalated care or mechanical ventilation; 8 (27%) of 30 died. Despite national guidelines and standardized infection control procedures, nosocomial transmission remains a problem when influenza is prevalent. Health care workers should be routinely offered influenza vaccine, and vaccination should be prioritized for all patients at high risk. Staff should remain alert to the possibility of influenza in patients with complex clinical problems and be ready to institute antiviral therapy while awaiting diagnosis during influenza outbreaks.

Clinical and laboratory features distinguishing pandemic H1N1 influenza-related pneumonia from interpandemic community-acquired pneumonia in adults

Background Early identification of patients with H1N1 influenza-related pneumonia is desirable for the early instigation of antiviral agents. A study was undertaken to investigate whether adults admitted to hospital with H1N1 influenza-related pneumonia could be distinguished clinically from patients with non-H1N1 community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Methods Between May 2009 and January 2010, clinical and epidemiological data of patients with confirmed H1N1 influenza infection admitted to 75 hospitals in the UK were collected by the Influenza Clinical Information Network (FLU-CIN). Adults with H1N1 influenza-related pneumonia were identified and compared with a prospective study cohort of adults with CAP hospitalised between September 2008 and June 2010, excluding those admitted during the period of the pandemic. Results Of 1046 adults with confirmed H1N1 influenza infection in the FLU-CIN cohort, 254 (25%) had H1N1 influenza-related pneumonia on admission to hospital. In-hospital mortality of these patients was 11.4% compared with 14.0% in patients with inter-pandemic CAP (n=648). A multivariate logistic regression model was generated by assigning one point for each of five clinical criteria: age ≤65 years, mental orientation, temperature ≥38°C, leucocyte count ≤12×109/l and bilateral radiographic consolidation. A score of 4 or 5 predicted H1N1 influenza-related pneumonia with a positive likelihood ratio of 9.0. A score of 0 or 1 had a positive likelihood ratio of 75.7 for excluding it. Conclusion There are substantial clinical differences between H1N1 influenza-related pneumonia and inter-pandemic CAP. A model based on five simple clinical criteria enables the early identification of adults admitted with H1N1 influenza-related pneumonia.

Influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis from a public health policy perspective.

Background Immunocompromised patients are vulnerable to severe or complicated influenza infection. Vaccination is widely recommended for this group. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients in terms of preventing influenza-like illness and laboratory confirmed influenza, serological response and adverse events. Methodology/Principal Findings Electronic databases and grey literature were searched and records were screened against eligibility criteria. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed in duplicate. Results were synthesised narratively and meta-analyses were conducted where feasible. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and publication bias was assessed using Beggs funnel plot and Eggers regression test. Many of the 209 eligible studies included an unclear or high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed a significant effect of preventing influenza-like illness (odds ratio [OR] = 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.16–0.34; p<0.001) and laboratory confirmed influenza infection (OR = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.03–0.63; p = 0.01) through vaccinating immunocompromised patie nts compared to placebo or unvaccinated controls. We found no difference in the odds of influenza-like illness compared to vaccinated immunocompetent controls. The pooled odds of seroconversion were lower in vaccinated patients compared to immunocompetent controls for seasonal influenza A(H1N1), A(H3N2) and B. A similar trend was identified for seroprotection. Meta-analyses of seroconversion showed higher odds in vaccinated patients compared to placebo or unvaccinated controls, although this reached significance for influenza B only. Publication bias was not detected and narrative synthesis supported our findings. No consistent evidence of safety concerns was identified. Conclusions/Significance Infection prevention and control strategies should recommend vaccinating immunocompromised patients. Potential for bias and confounding and the presence of heterogeneity mean the evidence reviewed is generally weak, although the directions of effects are consistent. Areas for further research are identified.

Personal protective equipment in an influenza pandemic: a UK simulation exercise

There is limited experience of both operational and financial impacts that adoption of UK pandemic influenza infection control guidance will have on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), patients and staff. We attempted to assess these issues from a live exercise in a hospital in north-west England. During this 24h exercise, all staff on an acute general medical ward wore PPE and adopted the procedures described in the UK pandemic influenza infection control guidance. Teams of infection control nurses observed and recorded staff behaviour and practice throughout the exercise, including staff attitudes towards the use of PPE. Although World Health Organization recommendations on the likely use of high-level PPE (FFP3 respirators) proved to be excessive, more gloves and surgical masks were used than expected. Despite pre-exercise training, many staff lacked confidence in using PPE and following infection control measures. They found PPE uncomfortable, with even basic tasks taking longer than usual. Large quantities of clinical waste were generated: an additional 12 bags (570 L) per day. The estimates of PPE usage within this exercise challenge assumptions that large amounts of high-level PPE are required, with significant implications for healthcare budgets. A programme of ongoing infection control education is needed. Healthcare in a pandemic situation is not simply a case of applying pandemic influenza infection control guidance to current practice; hospitals need to consider changing the way care and services are delivered.

Effectiveness of common household cleaning agents in reducing the viability of human influenza A/H1N1

Background In the event of an influenza pandemic, the majority of people infected will be nursed at home. It is therefore important to determine simple methods for limiting the spread of the virus within the home. The purpose of this work was to test a representative range of common household cleaning agents for their effectiveness at killing or reducing the viability of influenza A virus. Methodology/Principal Findings Plaque assays provided a robust and reproducible method for determining virus viability after disinfection, while a National Standard influenza virus RT-PCR assay (VSOP 25, www.hpa-standardmethods.org.uk) was adapted to detect viral genome, and a British Standard (BS:EN 14476:2005) was modified to determine virus killing. Conclusions/Significance Active ingredients in a number of the cleaning agents, wipes, and tissues tested were able to rapidly render influenza virus nonviable, as determined by plaque assay. Commercially available wipes with a claimed antiviral or antibacterial effect killed or reduced virus infectivity, while nonmicrobiocidal wipes and those containing only low concentrations (<5%) of surfactants showed lower anti-influenza activity. Importantly, however, our findings indicate that it is possible to use common, low-technology agents such as 1% bleach, 10% malt vinegar, or 0.01% washing-up liquid to rapidly and completely inactivate influenza virus. Thus, in the context of the ongoing pandemic, and especially in low-resource settings, the public does not need to source specialized cleaning products, but can rapidly disinfect potentially contaminated surfaces with agents readily available in most homes.

Adverse medical events in British service personnel following anthrax vaccination.

The safety of the UK anthrax vaccine in British service personnel was evaluated by a retrospective cohort study of randomly selected personnel from five Royal Air Force bases by investigating adverse medical events and consultation rates for a period before and after vaccination. Vaccination acceptance rate varied from 27 to 89% (P=0.0001). In the vaccinated cohort 11.1% (n=368) reported side-effects. The number of consultations in the year prior to vaccination (P=0.04) and RAF base (P=0.0085) were associated with side-effects. Only the RAF base remained a statistically significant factor (P=0.007) after adjusting for other factors. The anthrax vaccine resulted in mild side-effects in 11%, and no serious side-effects were observed. Acceptors of vaccine did not have significantly more medical consultations following vaccination than their unvaccinated counterparts.