Showing posts with label Influenza. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Influenza. Show all posts

The Many Flavors Of ILI

 

image 
Photo Credit CDC

 

# 6868

 

Although flu reports figure prominently in this winter’s news headlines, not every influenza-like-illness (ILI) out there is caused by an influenza virus. In fact, of the more than 12,300 specimens tested by U.S., WHO and NREVSS collaborating labs last week, less than 30% were positive for influenza.

 

image

 

The rest of the respiratory miseries out there are caused by a variety of viral villains (some unidentified, and some flu-negatives may really be positive), that include RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), respiratory Adenoviruses, parainfluenza viruses, rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, and metapneumovirus (to name a few).

The latest Ontario Respiratory Virus Bulletin, 2012-2013 (Week 2: January 6, 2012 – January 12, 2013) provides a fascinating graph that shows both the variety and seasonal fluctuation of respiratory viruses in institutional outbreaks over the past year.

 

image


While influenza A is the dominant player this winter, you’ll notice that last season was truly a mixed bag, with comparatively little flu.  The summer months were dominated by Rhino/enterovirus detections.

 

The DARK BLUE part of  the chart represent unidentified organisms.

 

The truth is - in a clinical setting - most influenza-like-illnesses go unidentified. Viral respiratory infections are generally self-limiting illnesses, treatment is pretty much the same regardless of etiology, and so there is little point in trying to identify the cause of every illness.

 

Scientists – with better tools available today – are indentifying `new’ viruses all of the time. A few well distributed viruses that until recently, were unknown, include:

 

  • The human metapneumovirus (HMPV) was identified in Dutch children with bronchiolitis about a dozen years ago.  Since then, it has been found to be ubiquitous around the world, and responsible for a significant percentage of childhood respiratory infections . . . yet until 2001, no one knew it existed.
  • Human Bocavirus-infection (HBoV) wasn’t identified until 2005, when it was detected in 48 (9.1%) of 527 children with gastroenteritis in Spain (cite).  It has since been found around the globe using PCR testing.

 

And the list grows longer every year.

 

Adding to our misery, it is fairly common to be infected by more than one virus at the same time.

 

In 2008 a study (see Frequent detection of viral coinfection in children hospitalized with acute respiratory tract infection using a real-time polymerase chain reaction) looked at clinical samples taken from 254 children treated in Germany over a 10 month period, finding:

 

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) was the most frequently detected pathogen in 112 samples (44.1%), followed by human bocavirus (hBoV) in 49 (19.3%), and rhinovirus in 17 samples (6.7%).

 

Viral coinfection was detected in 41 (16.1%) samples with RSV and hBoV being the most dominating combination (27 cases, 10.6%). Viral coinfection was found in 10 cases (17%) of children with bronchitis (n = 58) and in 7 cases (23%) of bronchiolitis (n = 30). In patients with pneumonia (n = 51), 17 cases (33%) were positive for 2 or more viral pathogens.

 

This plethora of pathogens helps to explain – in part -why so many people who get the flu shot every year complain they still caught `the flu’.   Often, they’ve caught one of these ubiquitous `flu-like illnesses’.

 

So today, a closer look at three common non-influenza respiratory viruses, and one rare one

 

RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus)

One of the most common infections of young children, it has been estimated that by the age of two, nearly all children in the United States have endured at least one bout with this virus. 

 

For those wondering, `syncytial’ is pronounced (sin-SISH-uhl).

 

While for most people this virus produces a mild illness, often indistinguishable from a `cold’, it is also considered by the CDC to be the the primary cause of bronchiolitis (inflammation of the small airways in the lung) and pneumonia in children under 1 year of age in the United States (cite).

 

The CDC estimates between 75,000 and 125,000 children are hospitalized each year with RSV, and while normally thought of as a childhood illness, adults with weakened immune systems and those over 65 are also at increased risk of severe disease.

 

The CDC maintains an extensive RSV information page.

 

 

Respiratory Adenoviruses

 

With more than 50 varieties identified, respiratory adenoviruses are one of the most common causes of respiratory illness in the world.

 

The CDC’s Adenovirus Information page describes the virus this way:

 

Adenoviruses most commonly cause respiratory illness. The symptoms can range from the common cold to pneumonia, croup, and bronchitis. Depending on the type, adenoviruses can cause other illnesses such as gastroenteritis, conjunctivitis, cystitis, and less commonly, neurological disease.

 

Infants and people with weakened immune systems are at high risk for severe complications of adenovirus infection. Also, adenoviruses commonly cause acute respiratory illness in military recruits.

 

Interestingly, a person can have – and shed – adenovirus for weeks or even months without showing symptoms. 

 

While no vaccine is currently available for the public, the military is using a recently approved (March, 2011) oral vaccine against types 4 and 7 on new recruits to help prevent outbreaks.

 

Over the years we’ve seen some high-profile outbreaks of adenovirus infections that have, at least until they were identified, sounded alarm bells, including  China: Hebei Outbreak Identified As Adenovirus 55.

 

On rare occasions, outbreaks of emerging strains of adenovirus that have caused more serious illness, including one serotype (Ad14) that has been associated with a number of deaths during the past decade (see 2007 MMWR Acute Respiratory Disease Associated with Adenovirus Serotype 14 --- Four States, 2006—2007).

 

 

Parainfluenza Viruses

Human parainfluenza viruses (HPIVs) belong to the Paramyxoviridae family, of which there are 4 types (1-4) and two subtypes  (4a & 4b). Each type has its own set of clinical and epidemiological features.

 

From the CDC’s HPIV page:

Symptoms and Illnesses

The incubation period, the time from exposure to HPIV to onset of symptoms, is generally 2 to 7 days.

  • HPIV-1 and HPIV-2 are most often associated with croup (laryngotracheobronchitis). HPIV-1 often causes croup in children, whereas HPIV-2 is less frequently detected. Both types can cause upper and lower respiratory tract illnesses. People with upper respiratory tract illness may have cold-like symptoms.
  • HPIV-3 is more often associated with bronchiolitis, bronchitis, and pneumonia.
  • HPIV-4 is not recognized as often, but may cause mild to severe respiratory tract illnesses.

Reinfection

People can get multiple HPIV infections in their lifetime. These reinfections usually cause mild upper respiratory tract illness with cold-like symptoms. However, reinfections can cause serious lower respiratory tract illness, such as pneumonia, bronchitis, and bronchiolitis in some people. Older adults and people with compromised immune systems, in particular, have a higher risk for severe infections.

Most children 5 years of age and older have antibodies against HPIV-3 and approximately 75% have antibodies against HPIV-1 and HPIV-2.

 

 

Our last stop is with Human Enterovirus 68 (HEV68), which made headlines in 2011, but of which we’ve heard little of since. In MMWR: Clusters Of HEV68 Respiratory Infections 2008-2010 we looked at reports of six clusters of this rare, emerging enterovirus over the previous couple of years.

 

Enteroviruses encompass a large family of small RNA viruses that include the three Polioviruses, along with myriad non-polio serotypes of Human Rhinovirus, Coxsackievirus, echovirus, and human, porcine, and simian enteroviruses.

 

First detected in California in 1962, but rarely seen since that time, the CDC was notified of six clusters of HEV68 from Asia, Europe, and the United States between 2008-2010.  These clusters included severe illness, and three fatalities.

 

image

Occurrence of human enterovirus 68, by month, duration, and geographic location --- Asia, Europe, and United States, 2008—2010 –MMWR

 

The summary provided for this MMWR release reads:

 

What is already known on this topic?

Human enterovirus 68 (HEV68) is a unique enterovirus that shares epidemiologic and biologic features with human rhinoviruses.

What is added by this report?

Although isolated cases of HEV68 have been reported since the virus was described in 1962, clusters of cases have been recognized only recently. The clusters described in this report occurred late in the typical enterovirus season and included severe cases, three of which were fatal.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Clinicians should be aware of HEV68 as one of many possible causes of viral respiratory disease. Some diagnostic tests might not detect HEV68 or might misidentify it as a human rhinovirus.

 

The number of `known’ respiratory viruses increases practically every year, due to advances in microbiology and sequence-independent amplification of viral genomes.

 

There is, no doubt, much more to discover about the myriad of non-influenza respiratory viruses in circulation around the world.

 

Most of these viruses will prove clinically indistinguishable from the respiratory viruses we already know. 

 

But outliers like SARS CoV in 2003,  HEV68 in 2008-10, or recent infections in the Middle East with the novel coronavirus EMC/2012all capable of producing significant levels of serious illness - show that novel viruses can emerge with little warning.


Which makes the surveillance and identification of these respiratory viruses more than just an academic exercise.

»» Read More

Canada Releases Tamiflu From National Emergency Stockpile

image

Healthmap Flu Near You – Jan 8th, 2013


# 6836

 

 

It’s no secret that influenza is spreading rapidly across North America.  The latest Flu Near You map (above) shows that both the United States and Canada are feeling the effects of this year’s epidemic.

 

In recent days there have been scattered media  reports of localized, temporary shortages of Tamiflu ® (Oseltamivir). Obviously this is of considerable concern to those who – due to the severity of their illness, or pre-existing conditions – have been prescribed the medication.

 

Today the PHAC has announced the `exceptional action’ of  releasing  some of Canada’s National Emergency Stockpile of Tamiflu, in order to help relieve some of these shortages.

January 8, 2013
For immediate release

Government of Canada to address temporary shortage of flu drug oseltamivir (Tamiflu)

Tamiflu is a drug used to treat the flu; it is not a vaccine.

OTTAWA – The Government of Canada is working with Roche Canada and the provincial and territorial health authorities to address a potential temporary shortage of the antiviral flu drug oseltamivir (Tamiflu).

 

The Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada are arranging to immediately release a supply of the drug Tamiflu from the Agency’s National Emergency Stockpile System to the manufacturer for distribution to where it is needed across Canada. This exceptional action will be taken to ensure Tamiflu remains available to those Canadians who need it until the manufacturer replenishes its supply with a new shipment expected in February.

 

The Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada will continue to work with the manufacturer and with provincial and territorial health authorities to help ensure the demand for antiviral drugs continues to be met this flu season.

 

Tamiflu is an antiviral medication that is primarily used for the early treatment of individuals infected with the influenza virus – particularly those at high risk of complications due to influenza, such as the elderly, young children, individuals with other medical conditions or pregnant women. Tamiflu can also be prescribed to help reduce the chance of getting the flu following close contact with an infected individual. Tamiflu should not be confused with the seasonal influenza vaccine (flu shot), which remains the best protection against the influenza virus.

The Public Health Agency of Canada is seeing an early spike in flu cases and more severe illness caused by the flu than was seen in the last two years. This year, the flu shot matches the circulating influenza strains very well and therefore offers excellent protection from the virus. Canadians are reminded to get the flu shot to protect themselves and their loved ones. It is not too late to get the flu shot.

It is also important to take the following steps to protect yourself and your family from infection during flu season:

  • Wash your hands often with soap and warm water for at least 20 seconds, or use hand sanitizer if soap and water are not available.
  • Cough and sneeze into your arm, not your hand.  If you use a tissue, dispose of it as soon as possible and wash your hands.
  • Keep doing what you normally do, but if you get sick, stay home.
  • Keep your hands away from your face.
  • Keep common surface areas – for example, doorknobs, light switches, telephones and keyboards – clean and disinfected.
  • Eat healthy foods and stay physically active to keep your immune system strong.

Learn more by getting a copy of Fight Flu: Your Seasonal Flu Guide by contacting
1 800 O-Canada or visiting
www.fightflu.ca.

 

 

UPDATED: 1500 hrs EST

 

Shortly after I posted this blog, the following report was released by CTVNews.ca.

 

 

Emergency supply of Tamiflu released amid shortage

CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2013 2:40PM EST

The federal government is acknowledging what some doctors have been saying for some time: the country has a shortage of Tamiflu, an antiviral medication often given to those with severe cases of the flu.

 

The Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada announced Tuesday they are arranging to immediately release a supply of the drug from the country’s National Emergency Stockpile System.

 

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/emergency-supply-of-tamiflu-released-amid-shortage-1.1105596#ixzz2HPquTXHn

»» Read More

CDC Statement On This Year’s Flu Activity

image

Photo Credit – Wikipedia


# 6824

 

 

Later today we should get the the latest CDC  FluView and Canada’s FluWatch surveillance data, but for now we have the following statement by the CDC on this year’s early flu season, which includes advice on vaccination and the use of antivirals. 

 

 

 

 

Flu Activity Picks Up Nationwide

CDC recommends vaccination and antiviral treatment against influenza

January 4, 2013 -- Influenza activity continues to increase in the United States and most of the country is now experiencing high levels of influenza-like-illness (ILI), according to CDC’s latest FluView report. “Reports of influenza-like-illness (ILI) are nearing what have been peak levels during moderately severe seasons,” according to Dr. Joe Bresee. CDC continues to recommend influenza vaccination and antiviral treatment when appropriate at this time.

 

“While we can’t say for certain how severe this season will be, we can say that a lot of people are getting sick with influenza and we are getting reports of severe illness and hospitalizations,” says Bresee, who is Chief of the Epidemiology and Prevention Branch in CDC’s Influenza Division.

 

“Anyone who has not already been vaccinated should do so now,” Bresee says. “And it’s important to remember that people who have severe influenza illness, or who are at high risk of serious influenza-related complications, should get treated with influenza antiviral medications if they get flu symptoms regardless of whether or not they got vaccinated. Also, you don’t need to wait for a positive laboratory test to start taking antivirals.”

 

CDC tracks influenza activity year-round and publishes a report weekly on Fridays. According to this surveillance, the proportion of people seeing their health care provider for ILI in the United States has been elevated for four consecutive weeks, climbing sharply from 2.8% to 5.6% during that time. Last season, which was relatively mild, ILI peaked at 2.2 percent. Comparatively, during 1998-1999 and 2003-2004, which were moderately severe seasons, ILI peaked at 7.6%. During 2007-2008, another moderately severe season, ILI peaked at 6.0%. During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, ILI peaked at 7.7%.

 

While the timing of influenza seasons also is impossible to predict, based on past experience it’s likely that flu activity will continue for some time. During the past 10 influenza seasons, ILI remained at or above baseline for an average of 12 consecutive weeks, with a range of 1 week (2011-2012 season) to 16 weeks (2005-2006 season). During the pandemic, the proportion of visits to doctors for ILI remained above the national baseline for 19 consecutive weeks.

 

Twenty-nine states and New York City are now reporting high levels of influenza-like-illness and another 9 states are reporting moderate levels of ILI. Ten states are still reporting low or minimal ILI. (These are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Wisconsin). The District of Columbia and 2 states did not have enough information to calculate an activity level.

 

Information about flu-related hospitalizations is collected from 15 states to calculate a rate of laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations. Right now, cumulative influenza hospitalization rates are 8.1 per 100,000 people. According to Bresee, “This is high for this time of year.”

 

Influenza-associated pediatric deaths have been reportable to CDC since the 2004-2005 season. To date, CDC has received reports of 18 pediatric deaths this season. More information about reported pediatric deaths is available at the Influenza-Associated Pediatric Mortality web application.

One factor that may indicate increased severity this season is that the predominant circulating type of influenza virus is influenza A (H3N2) viruses, which account for about 76 percent of the viruses reported. Bresee explains “typically ‘H3N2 seasons’ have been more severe, with higher numbers of hospitalizations and deaths, but we will have to see how the season plays out.”

 

So far this season, most (91%) of the influenza viruses that have been analyzed at CDC are like the viruses included in the 2012-2013 influenza vaccine. The match between the vaccine virus and circulating viruses is one factor that impacts how well the vaccine works. But Bresee cautions that other factors are involved.

 

“While influenza vaccination offers the best protection we have against influenza, it's still possible that some people may become ill despite being vaccinated,” says Bresee. “Health care providers and the public should remember that influenza antiviral medications are a second line of defense against influenza.” (For more information about why people may become sick with influenza after vaccination, see 2012-2013 season Questions and Answers.)

 

CDC has recommendations on the use of antiviral medications (sold commercially as “Tamiflu®” and “Relenza®”) to treat influenza illness. Antiviral treatment, started as early as possible after becoming ill, is recommended for any patients with confirmed or suspected influenza who are hospitalized, seriously ill, or ill and at high risk of serious influenza-related complications, including young children, people 65 and older, people with certain underlying medical conditions and pregnant women. Treatment should begin as soon as influenza is suspected, regardless of vaccination status or rapid test results and should not be delayed for confirmatory testing.

 

To estimate how well influenza vaccines work each year, CDC has been working with researchers at universities and hospitals since the 2003-2004 influenza season conducting studies using laboratory-confirmed influenza as the outcome. Interim VE estimates will be published as soon as they are available. Bresee concludes, “These estimates will provide more information about how well this season’s vaccine is working.”

 

»» Read More

ECDC Influenza Virus Characterization

image


# 6784

 


The only constant with influenza viruses is their ability to change over time. Since immune systems can learn to recognize and defeat previously seen viral infections, they would soon run out of susceptible hosts if they could not continually evolve.

 

Most of the time, these changes are incremental, and are due to a process called Antigenic drift. Drift comes about due to replication errors that are common with single-strand RNA viruses.

 

Over time these minor changes can accumulate to the point that previously infected immune systems will fail to recognize it, giving the virus a fresh supply of hosts. 

 

NIAID has a nice 3-minute video illustrating the process, which you can view on their Youtube Channel or in the box below.

 

 

 

So, while we talk about seasonal A/H3N2 or A/H1N109 as if they are single entities, in truth, there are a good many minor variations on each theme circulating around the world.

 

Within each strain, we can see numerous `clades’, or genetically distinct groups.  We watch the formation, and progress of these clades carefully, since they may eventually require a change in the flu vaccine’s formulation.

 

Roughly once a month the ECDC releases an influenza virus characterization report, providing laboratory analysis of recently collected flu virus samples across Europe. Collection dates only extend through week 39, but this latest ECDC report indicates continued diversity among the viruses in circulation.

 

The vast majority of flu viruses identified (68%) were of the type A/H3N2. Relatively few A/H1N1 viruses were collected.

 

Among the influenza B viruses received, samples were pretty evenly divided between the Victoria lineage (included in last year’s vaccine) and the Yamagata lineage (part of this year’s vaccine).

 

 

Here’s the link to their report, and the abstract.

 

Influenza virus characterisation - Summary Europe, November 2012

Surveillance reports - 14 Dec 2012

Influenza virus characterisation - Summary Europe, November 2012

Available as PDF in the following languages:

 

ABSTRACT

During the 2011/2012 season, A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B/Victoria and B/Yamagata lineage influenza viruses, with collection dates between 1 January and 30 September 2012 (weeks 1–39), have been detected in ECDC-affiliated countries.

  • Type A viruses predominated over type B.
  • A(H3N2) viruses predominated over A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses.
  • A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses continued to show genetic drift from the vaccine virus, A/California/07/2009, but the vast majority remained antigenically similar to it.
  • Antigenic drift of A(H3N2) viruses compared to the A/Perth/16/2209 vaccine virus resulted in a recommendation to change to an A/Victoria/361/2011-like component for the 2012/2013 influenza season.
  • B/Victoria lineage viruses fell within the B/Brisbane/60/2008 genetic clade and were antigenically similar to reference cell-propagated viruses of the B/Brisbane/60/2008 genetic clade.
  • Recent B/Yamagata-lineage viruses fell into two genetic clades in approximately equal proportions: clade 3 represented by the recommended vaccine component for the 2012/2013 influenza season, B/Wisconsin/1/2010, and clade 2 represented by B/Estonia/55669/2012. Viruses in each clade are antigenically distinguishable.

 

 

The split between clade 2 and clade 3 of the Yamagata B virus lineage bears watching, and A/H3N2 shows the most variety with samples falling into 5 distinct genetic groups.

 

The good news, despite this growing diversity among flu viruses, is that the majority of those collected in Europe through week 39 still appear antigenically similar to this year’s vaccine strains.

»» Read More

BMC: Exploring The `Age Shift’ Of Pandemic Mortality

 

image

The infamous `W shaped curve’ of the 1918 pandemic clearly shows that the death rates among those in their teens, 20s, and 30s was much higher than was normally seen in previous influenza years. Those over the age of 65, however, saw a reduction in mortality during the pandemic.

 

# 6778

 

Seasonal influenza can strike people of any age, but exacts its greatest toll on the elderly – those over the age of 65 whose weaker immune systems (and comorbid conditions) often render them less able to fight off the infection.

 

Exact numbers remain elusive, since influenza is only rarely cited as the primary cause of death. If a cause of death (beyond`natural causes’) is given, comorbidities like COPD, heart disease, asthma are far more likely to listed on a death certificate.

 

Still, estimates are that 90% of seasonal flu mortality occurs in those over the age of 65 (cite CDC Pink book).

 

In 2010, (see Study: Years Of Life Lost Due To 2009 Pandemic), researchers estimated the median age of death due to seasonal influenza-related illness in the United States to be 76.

 

In contrast, pandemic influenza strains, at least during the first few years after their introduction, often produce a dramatic `age shift’ downward in mortality. 

 

The CDC’s estimate of average and median age of death due to the 2009 Pandemic virus reads:

 

Based on two CDC investigations of confirmed 2009 H1N1-related deaths that occurred during the spring and fall of 2009, the average age of people in the U.S. who died from 2009 H1N1 from April to July of 2009 was 40. The median age of death for this time period was 43. From September to October of 2009, the average age of people in the U.S. who died from 2009 H1N1 was 41, and the median age was 45.

 

Admittedly, younger fatalities are more likely to be investigated, and documented, than those that occur among the elderly, but still . . . this is a significant shift.

 

And it corresponds closely to the results of the Years Of Life Lost Study mentioned above, which found the mean age of death from the novel H1N1 virus to be half that of seasonal flu, or 37.4 years.

 

In terms of years of life lost (YLL), the average pandemic flu death has a many fold greater impact than the average seasonal flu fatality.   

 

This same pattern was repeated (to greater and lesser degrees) during the 1918, 1957, and 1968 pandemics  . . .  along with the 1977 return of the H1N1 virus after an absence of 20 years.

 

All of which has led to a good deal of speculation.

 

What drives this age shift?  Why were apparently healthy, younger flu victims, with robust immune systems more likely to die from pandemic flu?

 

Although not universally accepted, one popular theory has centered around the production of a `cytokine storm’, which is believed to be the product of a robust immune system typically found in younger, healthier individuals.

 

Cytokines are a category of signaling molecules that are used extensively in cellular communication. They are often released by immune cells that have encountered a pathogen, and are designed to alert and activate other immune cells to join in the fight against the invading pathogen.

 

This cascade of immune cells rushing to the site of infection, that if it races out of control, can literally kill the patient.

 

The patient’s lungs can fill with fluid (which makes a terrific medium for a bacterial co-infection), and cells in the lungs (Type 1 & Type II Pneumocytes) can sustain severe damage.

 

You can find more on this theory in these earlier posts:

 

Study: Calming The Cytokine Storm
Cytokine Storm Warnings

The Baskin Influenza Pathogenesis Study

Pt. 1               Pt. 2            Pt. 3

 


Another theory has held that older populations are more likely to have been exposed to a similar influenza strain in the past and are more likely to carry some level of immunity to the emerging pandemic strain.

 

This was clearly the case in 1977, when the H1N1 virus – supplanted by the H2N2 virus in 1957 – made an unexpected comeback.  Those born after the virus last circulated in the mid 1950s – were the hardest hit age group.

 

Again with the 2009 H1N1 pandemic virus, those born before the early 1950s appeared to have higher levels of immunity, resulting in fewer severe outcomes among older individuals.

 

All of which serves as prelude to a research article, published yesterday in BMC Medicine, that looks at the age shift during pandemic outbreaks.

 

The age distribution of mortality due to influenza: pandemic and peri-pandemic

Tom Reichert, Gerardo Chowell and Jonathan A McCullers

Background

Pandemic influenza is said to 'shift mortality' to younger age groups; but also to spare a subpopulation of the elderly population. Does one of these effects dominate? Might this have important ramifications?

Methods

We estimated age-specific excess mortality rates for all-years for which data were available in the 20th century for Australia, Canada, France, Japan, the UK, and the USA for people older than 44 years of age. We modeled variation with age, and standardized estimates to allow direct comparison across age groups and countries. Attack rate data for four pandemics were assembled.

Results

For nearly all seasons, an exponential model characterized mortality data extremely well; For seasons of emergence and a variable number of seasons following, however, a subpopulation above a threshold age invariably enjoyed reduced mortality. 'Immune escape', a stepwise increase in mortality among the oldest elderly, was observed a number of seasons after both the A(H2N2) and A(H3N2) pandemics. The number of seasons from emergence to escape varied by country. For the latter pandemic, mortality rates in four countries increased for younger age groups but only in the season following that of emergence. Adaptation to both emergent viruses was apparent as a progressive decrease in mortality rates, which, with two exceptions, was seen only in younger age groups. Pandemic attack rate variation with age was estimated to be similar across four pandemics with very different mortality impact.

Conclusions

In all influenza pandemics of the 20th century, emergent viruses resembled those that had circulated previously within the lifespan of then-living people. Such individuals were relatively immune to the emergent strain, but this immunity waned with mutation of the emergent virus. An immune subpopulation complicates and may invalidate vaccine trials. Pandemic influenza does not 'shift' mortality to younger age groups; rather, the mortality level is reset by the virulence of the emerging virus and is moderated by immunity of past experience. In this study, we found that after immune escape, older age groups showed no further mortality reduction, despite their being the principal target of conventional influenza vaccines. Vaccines incorporating variants of pandemic viruses seem to provide little benefit to those previously immune. If attack rates truly are similar across pandemics, it must be the case that immunity to the pandemic virus does not prevent infection, but only mitigates the consequences.

The complete article is available as a provisional PDF.

 

The entire article is worthy of your attention, and the authors delve into a good many areas, including future pandemic mitigation planning, and vaccine strategies. 

 

But essentially the authors propose that all recent influenza pandemics (over the past century) have involved `recycled’ flu strains to which some portion of the population had previously been exposed to.

 

They conclude:


Pandemics do not ‘shift’ mortality to younger ages

From this study, it is evident that pandemics do not ‘shift’ mortality to younger ages. Rather, the
entire mortality level is simply reset to the virulence level of the emergent virus. This reset is accompanied by immunoprotection in older age groups, which is determined by their level of previous experience with viruses similar to that emerging. 

 


In other words, were older populations not carrying some vestiges of immunity from previously flu encounters, these researchers suggest they would suffer the same levels (or higher) of mortality and morbidity as do younger populations.

 

The authors also point out that initial levels of immunity to emerging (or more properly, re-emerging) influenza viruses in older populations tends to wane in subsequent seasons, leading to what they call Immune Escape: `a stepwise increase in mortality among the oldest elderly’.

 

Does this blow the whole cytokine storm theory out of the water?

 

Not necessarily, although it does call into question just how much of an impact it has on the perceived `age shift’ in pandemic flu cases.

 

These two theories need not be mutually exclusive, however, and so I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that both may play a part in driving pandemic mortality demographics.

»» Read More

PLoS One: Influenza Viral Shedding & Asymptomatic Infections

image

Photo Credit PHIL (Public Health Image Library)

 


# 6776

 

 

Despite major advances in the study of influenza viruses, there remain significant gaps in our understanding of just how they work once they infect a human (or any other animal) host. 

 

Basic questions, such as `How long are we infectious?, or `How common are asymptomatic infections?  remain only partially answered.

 

Complicating matters, variations in individual host’s immune responses, and different strains of flu may produce varying results. Meaning that most studies can only add incrementally to our knowledge, rather than completely answering these questions.

 

Previously, we’ve seen evidence of asymptomatic and `presymptomatic’ shedding of influenza viruses.

 

In 2011, in EID Journal: Pre-Symptomatic Influenza Transmission we looked at three clusters of suspected pre-symptomatic transmission of the 2009 H1N1 virus in Japan.

 

And in Pre-Symptomatic Transmission Of H1N1 Influenza In the Ferret Model, researchers inoculated ferrets with the 2009 H1N1 flu, and then placed them near uninfected ferrets (some in direct contact, others in adjacent cages) at different stages after infection.

 

They then tested the exposed ferrets to see when, and under what circumstances, they became infected. They found that ferrets became infectious just 24 hours after becoming infected, and nearly 24 hours before showing the earliest outward signs of infection (fever).

 

 

The importance of all of this is, if presymptomatic and asymptomatic carriers of a flu virus are able to efficiently transmit the illness on to others, then strategies that seek to identify and isolate flu cases would have only limited success in containing a pandemic.

 

Similarly, understanding how long a person sheds the virus after becoming infected is crucial, so we can know when it is (relatively) safe for flu victims to return to work or school without endangering others.

 

The CDC’s general take on this topic is:

 

The Flu Is Contagious

Most healthy adults may be able to infect others beginning 1 day before symptoms develop and up to 5 to 7 days after becoming sick. Children may pass the virus for longer than 7 days. Symptoms start 1 to 4 days after the virus enters the body. That means that you may be able to pass on the flu to someone else before you know you are sick, as well as while you are sick. Some persons can be infected with the flu virus but have no symptoms. During this time, those persons may still spread the virus to others.

 

 

Yesterday, a new study appeared in PloS One, conducted in Germany over 4 flu seasons (2007-2011) and involving 4 flu strains - seasonal (A(H3N2), A(H1N1), influenza B, and pandemic (A(H1N1)pdm09 - that looks at many of these transmission issues. 

 

Comparison of Shedding Characteristics of Seasonal Influenza Virus (Sub)Types and Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09; Germany, 2007–2011

Thorsten Suess, Cornelius Remschmidt, Susanne B. Schink, Brunhilde Schweiger, Alla Heider, Jeanette Milde, Andreas Nitsche, Kati Schroeder, Joerg Doellinger, Christian Braun, Walter Haas, Gérard Krause, Udo Buchholz

Background

Influenza viral shedding studies provide fundamental information for preventive strategies and modelling exercises. We conducted a prospective household study to investigate viral shedding in seasonal and pandemic influenza between 2007 and 2011 in Berlin and Munich, Germany.

Methods

Study physicians recruited index patients and their household members. Serial nasal specimens were obtained from all household members over at least eight days and tested quantitatively by qRT-PCR for the influenza virus (sub)type of the index patient. A subset of samples was also tested by viral culture. Symptoms were recorded daily.

Results

We recruited 122 index patients and 320 household contacts, of which 67 became secondary household cases. Among all 189 influenza cases, 12 were infected with seasonal/prepandemic influenza A(H1N1), 19 with A(H3N2), 60 with influenza B, and 98 with A(H1N1)pdm09. Nine (14%) of 65 non-vaccinated secondary cases were asymptomatic/subclinical (0 (0%) of 21 children, 9 (21%) of 44 adults; p = 0.03).

 

Viral load among patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) peaked on illness days 1, 2 or 3 for all (sub)types and declined steadily until days 7–9. Clinical symptom scores roughly paralleled viral shedding dynamics.

 

On the first day prior to symptom onset 30% (12/40) of specimens were positive. Viral load in 6 asymptomatic/subclinical patients was similar to that in ILI-patients. Duration of infectiousness as measured by viral culture lasted approximately until illness days 4–6. Viral load did not seem to be influenced by antiviral therapy, age or vaccination status.

Conclusion

Asymptomatic/subclinical infections occur infrequently, but may be associated with substantial amounts of viral shedding. Presymptomatic shedding may arise in one third of cases, and shedding characteristics appear to be independent of (seasonal or pandemic) (sub)type, age, antiviral therapy or vaccination; however the power to find moderate differences was limited.

 

 

While this was a relatively small study, and their findings don’t always align perfectly with others we’ve seen (for instance, children didn’t appear contagious any longer than adults), it does provide us with some interesting data.

 

  • First, nearly 1/3rd of cases began shedding virus while pre-symptomatic
  • Second, viral loads in (six studied) asymptomatic cases were similar to that to patients exhibiting ILI (influenza-like-illness) symptoms.
  • Third, viral load among symptomatic patients peaked on illness days 1, 2 or 3 and declined steadily until days 7–9

 

Some other gems (bolding mine) excerpted from this open access article include:

 

  • Overall 63% of non-vaccinated secondary household cases had an ILI-syndrome and the proportion of asymptomatic/subclinical secondary cases was 14%.
  • Frequency distribution of clinical symptoms did not differ between A(H1N1)pdm09 cases and non-pandemic influenza cases.
  • Interestingly, 21% of adult secondary cases were asymptomatic/subclinical, while all children that contracted influenza were symptomatic.
  • Based on the population of ambulatory patients investigated we found no evidence that the amount of shedding is particularly higher in children, nor that duration of viral shedding is significantly longer in children compared to adults.

 

 

The authors conclude by saying:

 

In summary, our study addresses several important questions on clinical manifestation, duration of infectiousness, viral shedding patterns, including shedding before symptom onset and in asymptomatic/subclinical patients, as well as the effect of vaccination and antiviral therapy on viral shedding.

 

Important single results include the finding that children do not seem to be infected asymptomatically, that shedding one day before symptom onset may occur in one third of influenza patients, that asymptomatic/subclinical influenza patients occur rarely, but viral load (and probably infectiousness) may be substantial, and vaccinated influenza patients do not show different shedding patterns compared to non-vaccinated cases with ILI.

 

Overall results do not show marked differences between seasonal influenza (sub)types and influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.

»» Read More

Influenza Virus Survival At Opposite Ends Of The Humidity Spectrum

image

Photo Credit PHIL (Public Health Image Library)

 

 

# 6763

 

Although just about everybody knows that winter heralds the arrival of influenza season, one of the enduring mysteries about influenza is why it is predominantly a winter phenomenon – at least in temperate zones of the world.


Numerous theories abound, including;

 

  • During the winter people tend to gather indoors, with less outside ventilation.
  • Diminished sunlight exposure may reduced Vitamin D levels (see Study: Vitamin D And Flu-Like Illnesses)
  • With schools in session, millions of children co-mingle and more efficiently share viruses

 

While these may be factors, they don’t satisfactorily explain our yearly winter flu season. Nor are they very helpful in explaining why the flu transmits pretty well in the tropics, where there is little temperature variability. 

 

In recent years, researchers have been looking at relative humidity (RH) and absolute humidity (AB)as factors in aiding influenza virus survival (IVS). 

 

In 2007, we looked at a study (see Cold And Dry Statistics) that appeared in  PLoS Pathogens  entitled  Influenza Virus Transmission Is Dependent on Relative Humidity and Temperature  by Anice C. Lowen, Samira Mubareka, John Steel,  and Peter Palese. 

 

Using a guinea pig as a model host, they showed that airborne spread of the  influenza virus was at least partially dependent upon both ambient relative humidity and temperature.

 

The link was significant, but not overwhelming.

The following year researchers Jeffrey Shaman and Melvin Kohn and found an even stronger correlation between the AH (Absolute Humidity) and the survival, and transmission of the influenza virus (see It's Not So Much The Heat, It's The Humidity).

 

Absolute humidity modulates influenza survival, transmission, and seasonality

Jeffrey Shaman, and Melvin Kohn

 


In early 2010, Jeffrey Shaman returned – joined by Virginia E. Pitzer, Cécile Viboud, Bryan T. Grenfell and Marc Lipsitch – to pen a study published in PLoS Biology called:

 

Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States

(Excerpt)

Here we extend these findings to the human population level, showing that the onset of increased wintertime influenza-related mortality in the United States is associated with anomalously low absolute humidity levels during the prior weeks. We then use an epidemiological model, in which observed absolute humidity conditions temper influenza transmission rates, to successfully simulate the seasonal cycle of observed influenza-related mortality.  

 


During the summer, ambient air often contains 4 times as much water as it does on a cool dry winter's day. This, increasingly, is beginning to look as if it is a significant factor in the spread of influenza viruses.

 

As a side note, the Chinese have long boiled vinegar in their homes to ward off respiratory ailments, such as influenza.  

 

The noxious odor was supposed to `purify' the air inside the home, and newspapers still recommend this practice during their influenza season.

 

It may well be that the `active ingredient' is really the water vapor being released, raising the absolute humidity in their homes to an unfavorable level for influenza virus survival and transmission.

 

All of which is neat and tidy until you consider that flu transmits readily in the tropics, where the atmosphere is often nearly saturated with water vapor.

 

Enter researchers from Virginia Tech who have found that both extremely low and extremely high levels of humidity appear to aid and abet the viability of the flu virus – at least when it resides in mucus and respiratory fluids like those found in your nose, throat, or lungs.

 

This is an open access article, available from PloS One.

 

Relationship between Humidity and Influenza A Viability in Droplets and Implications for Influenza’s Seasonality

PLoS ONE 7(10): e46789. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046789

Wan Yang, Subbiah Elankumaran, Linsey C. Marr

Abstract (excerpts reparagraphed for readability)

Humidity has been associated with influenza’s seasonality, but the mechanisms underlying the relationship remain unclear. There is no consistent explanation for influenza’s transmission patterns that applies to both temperate and tropical regions.

 

This study aimed to determine the relationship between ambient humidity and viability of the influenza A virus (IAV) during transmission between hosts and to explain the mechanisms underlying it.

 

We measured the viability of IAV in droplets consisting of various model media, chosen to isolate effects of salts and proteins found in respiratory fluid, and in human mucus, at relative humidities (RH) ranging from 17% to 100%.

 

In all media and mucus, viability was highest when RH was either close to 100% or below ~50%. When RH decreased from 84% to 50%, the relationship between viability and RH depended on droplet composition: viability decreased in saline solutions, did not change significantly in solutions supplemented with proteins, and increased dramatically in mucus.

(Continue. . . . )

 

 

Essentially, these researchers inoculated droplets of simulated respiratory fluids (containing salts & proteins) with influenza viruses, and tested their survivability at different humidity levels.

 

  • At low humidity (< 50%) the droplets evaporated quickly, and the virus survived well in a dry environment.
  • At high humidity (near 100%), the droplets were stable, and the virus survived as well.

 

But at humidity levels in-between, the droplets slowly dried out, increasing the concentration of salts and proteins to which the viruses were exposed, decreasing their survival rate.

 


As these experiments were conducted on relatively large droplets, how these findings would relate to viruses carried by smaller, aerosolized particles (that would desiccate much faster, even at higher humidities) remains untested.

 

Still, it’s fascinating research, and it adds incrementally to our understanding of how the influenza virus survives outside of a host.

 

You may recall I featured another study by these same researchers in early 2011 (see Why Size Matters) where they analyzed the amount of influenza virus suspended in the air in several environments, including a daycare center, a healthcare waiting room,  and aboard commercial aircraft.

 

They found airborne virus particles in half of the air samples tested, and in quantities they believe sufficient to enable transmission of the virus.

 

Many of these virus particles were very small, less than 2.5 micrometers, which can remain aloft on a room’s air currents for hours. Larger droplets would settle far sooner, and theoretically present less of a threat.

 

"As a whole," the three authors concluded in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface, "our results provide quantitative support for the possibility of airborne transmission of influenza in indoor environments."

 

All of which makes the influenza virus a formidable foe, and highlights the importance of maintaining good flu hygiene (hand washing, covering coughs & sneezes & staying home when sick), and the wisdom of getting that flu shot every year.

»» Read More

NIVW 2012

 

image

Credit CDC

 

# 6759

 


Regular readers of this blog know by now that I get the flu vaccine every year, and that I encourage others to do the same. Not because the vaccine is perfect (it isn’t), but because it is the best preventive measure we have available to us at this time.

 

This week (Dec 2-8)  is National Influenza Vaccination Week (NIVW), the CDC’s annual attempt to reach flu vaccine holdouts before the heart of the flu season arrives.

 

So this week, you’ll be hearing a lot about the flu vaccine on the news and online.

 

The theme this year is It’s Not Too Late To Vaccinate.

 

The CDC will hold a Twitter chat on Wednesday, December 5th, from 1-2pm EST hosted by Dr. Mike Jung. You can participate or follow the conversation via the twitter hash tags @CDCFlu and #NIVW2012.

 

And you’ll find videos and promotional materials on the National Influenza Vaccination Week website, including:

 

 

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that In this year’s NIWV talking points, noticeably absent are any estimates of vaccine effectiveness.

 

Flu campaigns in the past have touted that for healthy adults under the age of 65, in years when the vaccine is a good match to circulating strains, effectiveness ranges from 70%-90%. This year, that message is replaced with a more generic:

The flu vaccine is the best way modern medicine currently has to protect against this potentially serious disease.


a.  While how well flu vaccines work can vary, the findings of many studies from multiple countries across age groups support the benefits of vaccination, especially during years when the vaccine is well-matched to circulating viruses.

The reason for this change is that studies in recent years have shown the effectiveness of the flu vaccine to vary considerably from year-to-year, and among different age cohorts.

 

A little over a year ago, CIDRAP’s  Comprehensive Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Meta-Analysis) found the trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) had a combined efficacy of 59% among healthy adults (aged 18–65 years).

 

Among children aged 2-7, the LAIV proved more protective, showing efficacy in 9 out of 12 flu seasons (75%) with a pooled efficacy of 83%.

 

Not awful, but not terrific either. This is a problem we’ve covered many times before, including:

 

CID Study: Effectiveness Of 2010-11 Flu Vaccine

Study: Flu Vaccines And The Elderly

Flu Shots For The Elderly May Have Limited Benefits

 

 

All of which makes issuing blanket statements about the vaccine’s effectiveness problematic. While I might prefer the CDC could find a way to be more precise, I have to admit are simply too many caveats and exceptions to fit into an easily deliverable press meme.

 

Despite their limitations, flu shots have an excellent safety profile (see Harvard Study Reaffirms Safety Of Flu Vaccine), and remain one of the most important steps we can take to avoid catching influenza each year.

 

Of course, flu shot or not, practicing good flu hygiene is important, too.  Washing your hands frequently, covering coughs & sneezes, and staying home when sick.

 

Flu shots are like seat belts in your automobile. They may not guarantee you’ll walk away from a collision unscathed, but they certainly improve your chances.  

 

Which is why I buckle up every time I get into a car, and why I get the flu shot every year. Not because I’m 100% certain of a good outcome, but because sometimes you’ve just got to play the odds.

»» Read More

Revisiting The Numbers Racket

 

 

 

# 6739

 

An excellent piece by Kelly Crowe of CBC News over the weekend questions the credibility of flu mortality numbers and reminds us, once again, that in public health easy answers are often the hardest to deliver.

 

First a link to the article, which I encourage you to read in its entirety. 

 

Flu deaths reality check

Credibility of flu models disputed
By Kelly Crowe, CBC News
Posted: Nov 25, 2012 5:14 PM ET

Do thousands of Canadians really die every year from the flu? The flu folks keep saying so. I've already heard it repeated several times this year and flu season has just started. This is what the Public Health Agency of Canada said in a recent press release: "Every year, between 2,000 and 8,000 Canadians die of the flu and its complications."

(Continue . . . )

 

 

Long time visitors to this blog will recall that we’ve trod this perilous path before - for both seasonal and pandemic flu - along with a variety of other diseases.  

 

Quite understandably, the public and the media expect public health officials to have some kind of handle on the number of deaths caused by infectious diseases in our society. 

 

Particularly with something as ubiquitous as flu.

 

But the truth is, no one really knows.

 

After more than a decade of promoting the `flu kills roughly 36,000 Americans each year’ meme, the CDC revised (and hopefully improved) their estimates in 2010 ( see MMWR: Estimates Of Yearly Seasonal Influenza Deaths)

 

For deaths with underlying pneumonia and influenza causes (the most narrow definition of flu-related fatalities used) the models estimated a yearly average of 6,309 (range: 961 in 1986--87 to 14,715 in 2003--04) influenza-associated deaths.

 

Using a broader criteria (underlying respiratory and circulatory causes including pneumonia and influenza causes)  the models estimated an annual average of 23,607 (range: 3,349 in 1986--87 to 48,614 in 2003--04) influenza-associated deaths.

 

Despite the 12-fold difference in deaths between the 1986-87 and 2003-04 seasons, the operative word here remains `estimated’. 

 

  • Estimates are extrapolated based on a surveillance subset of the country, not the whole nation
  • There are often co-circulating viruses that may influence overall mortality.
  • Surveillance, testing, and reporting may change over time
  • Different mathematical models can produce differing results
  • There are varying opinions as to what constitutes an influenza-related fatality.

 

When combined with the inevitable variations in the severity of influenza seasons (H3 years are usually more severe than H1 years), this makes it impossible to derive a single number that `works’.

 

In an attempt not to compound a felony, I try to leave it as influenza `kills thousands each year’ or `is the cause of substantial mortality’ in this blog. Sometimes I’ll use the range (3,000-48,000) offered by the CDC, but most of the time I don’t.

 

The same holds true for just about any illness or disease you’d care to mention. 

 

Ask the CDC how many people contracted West Nile Fever this summer, and they will tell you that (as of Nov. 20th) they had recorded  5,207 cases of West Nile virus disease in people, including 234 deaths, but that the real number may be 50 times higher.


Severe (neuroinvasive) cases are pretty easy to spot, but they estimate only 1%-3% of mild cases of West Nile Fever are diagnosed and reported.

 

If we do the math, and assume the 2654 non-neuroinvasive cases officially reported constitute between 1% and 3% of the total number of actual cases we get a range of between 250,000 and 85,000 infections.

 

The chart below illustrates the problem nicely. 

 

surveillance

 

Relying only on lab confirmed fatalities isn’t much of a solution, either. The `official’ death toll for the 2009 pandemic - as reported by the World Health Organization  - was roughly 18,000 deaths globally.

 

The WHO offered this disclaimer:

 

The reported number of fatal cases is an under representation of the actual numbers as many deaths are never tested or recognized as influenza related.World Health Organization.

 

Unfortunately, the mainstream media often reported the low official number of deaths without adequately explaining the acknowledged gaps in the data, leading many to believe that the 2009 pandemic was a damp squib.

 

In contrast, earlier this year, in Lancet: Estimating Global 2009 Pandemic Mortality, we saw a study who’s estimate found:

 

We estimate that globally there were 201 200 respiratory deaths (range 105 700—395 600) with an additional 83 300 cardiovascular deaths (46 000—179 900) associated with 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1. 80% of the respiratory and cardiovascular deaths were in people younger than 65 years and 59% occurred in southeast Asia and Africa.

 

 

With no way to accurately count cases, analysts are reduced to creating mathematical models, fueled by both hard data and assumptions, in order to extrapolate the impact of diseases on the population.

 

The old adage (well, not that old, as it is attributed to George E. P. Box, Professor Emeritus of Statistics at the University of Wisconsin) is that:

 

“All models are wrong, but some models are useful.”

 

To that I would add, that while useful, mathematical models can be extraordinarily difficult to defend.

 


It requires agreement over assumptions.  And among academics, that’s never easy to reach.

 

Going hand-in-hand with the estimates of flu deaths each year has been the purported effectiveness of the seasonal flu shot.

 

Up until about a year ago the CDC’s mantra has been for healthy adults under the age of 65, in years when the vaccine is a good match to circulating strains, effectiveness ranges from 70%-90%.

 

Despite these important qualifiers, the message often ended up being shortened in the media to the flu vaccine being `up to 90% effective’.

 

A little more than a year ago the CDC updated their FAQ on Flu Vaccine effectiveness, and as part of a much longer detailed posting, lowered their estimate of the inactivated flu shot’s effectiveness to read:

 

. . . recent RCTs of inactivated influenza vaccine among adults under 65 years of age have estimated 50-70% vaccine efficacy during seasons in which the vaccines' influenza A components were well matched to circulating influenza A viruses.

 

A number that pretty much matched CIDRAP’s finding (see A Comprehensive Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Meta-Analysis) which would be released a couple of weeks later. That analysis showed the trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) had a combined efficacy of 59% among healthy adults (aged 18–65 years).

 

So what are we left with?

 

Well, every time we get into statistics (admittedly not my strong suit) I’m reminded of the story of the statistician who drowned trying to ford a river that was, on average, only 3 feet deep.

 

Still I think we can safely draw a few conclusions.

 

Influenza-like-Illnesses (ILIs) obviously contribute to a good deal of morbidity and mortality each year. 

 

In addition to influenza, these illnesses can be caused by the metapneumovirus, parainfluenzavirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), adenoviruses, or any of the myriad Rhinoviruses (Common cold).  Among others.

 

The percentage of these illnesses that are actually due to the influenza virus varies considerably from year to year, and so only a portion of these deaths are actually `vaccine preventable’.

 

Today’s influenza vaccine, whose effectiveness is described as just `moderate’ by CIDRAP’s recent 160-page Comprehensive Influenza Vaccine Initiative (CCIVI) report, undoubtedly saves lives and reduces hospitalization, but is not the panacea that many would hope for.

 

image

 

Hence the call for better vaccines.  

 

Despite their limitations, I still get a flu vaccine each year, as I believe partial protection beats no protection any day of the week.

 

As far as the estimate of deaths from influenza are concerned, I doubt this debate can really be solved to everyone’s satisfaction. There is no single, `good’ answer when the parameters change as often as they do with influenza.

 

We live in a world driven by easily adopted memes, 10 second sound bytes, and 140 character tweets.

 

As a result, officials are often tempted to provide us with simplified, easy to digest, answers. While brevity may have many advantages, scientific precision is rarely one of them. 

 

Of course, if someone comes up with a better way to measure the number of deaths from influenza each year, I’ll feature it in this blog.  Until that happens, I’ll simply leave it as the cause of `substantial mortality’.

»» Read More

Of Pregnancy, Flu & Autism

 

image

Photo Credit – CDC

 

# 6711

 

We’ve known for a long time that influenza during pregnancy can endanger the mother, and unborn child’s life. Furthermore, it appears that pregnant women are more susceptible to influenza than are non-pregnant women.

 

Why is not exactly known, although it is theorized that the normal protections of a woman's immune system are temporarily altered to allow her to carry what is essentially a foreign body - a fetus - without rejection.

 

During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic pregnant women were six times more likely to be hospitalized than non-pregnant women (see Pregnancy & Flu: A Bad Combination). 

 

And in 2011, in BMJ: Perinatal Outcomes After Maternal 2009/H1N1 Infection we saw a study where pregnant women who were admitted to the hospital with an  H1N1 infection experienced a 3 to 4 times higher rate of preterm birth, 4 to 5 times greater risk of stillbirth, and a 4 to 6 times higher rate of neonatal death.

 

Over the past decade we’ve also seen a handful of studies tentatively linking prenatal exposure to influenza (or an influenza-like-illness) with a variety of child and adolescent development disorders

 

A few examples include:

 

 

 

 

These studies are admittedly small and less than conclusive.

 

And while they suggest an increase in relative risk over pregnancies without fever or viral infection – in terms of absolute riskthe odds that a mother’s fever or viral infection during pregnancy would result in a developmentally challenged child remains low.

 

Today, we’ve a new study appearing in the journal Pediatrics that adds, incrementally, to earlier suspicions regarding prenatal exposure to influenza and the risks of developmental disorders.

 

Researchers followed up on more than 96,000 Danish children born between 1997 and 2003. They compiled a (self reported) history of the mother’s pregnancy (including infections, fevers, and antibiotic use), and compared that to diagnoses of ASD and infantile autism among the children.

 

Autism After Infection, Febrile Episodes, and Antibiotic Use During Pregnancy: An Exploratory Study

Hjördis Ósk Atladóttir, MD, PhD, Tine Brink Henriksen, MD, PhD, Diana E. Schendel, PhD, and Erik T. Parner, PhDd

RESULTS: Overall, we found little evidence that various types of mild common infectious diseases or febrile episodes during pregnancy were associated with ASD/infantile autism. However, our data suggest that maternal influenza infection was associated with a twofold increased risk of infantile autism, prolonged episodes of fever caused a threefold increased risk of infantile autism, and use of various antibiotics during pregnancy were potential risk factors for ASD/infantile autism.

 

The two major findings were:

 

  • A twofold increase in autism among children with prenatal influenza exposure
  • A threefold increase in autism among children with prolonged prenatal fever exposure

 

It should be noted that these are relative risk increases, and once again, the absolute risk of having an autistic or developmentally challenged child after experiencing an influenza infection or fever during pregnancy is still quite low.

 

Nor does this study point to influenza (or fever) during pregnancy as being a major cause of autism.  For now, this study only suggests that these could be two of many possible causes for the disorder.

 

And this caveat: This just one study, based on a limited cohort of subjects, that relied heavily on (potentially unreliable) self-reporting of illness/fever during pregnancy.

 

Meaning that we need to approach these findings cautiously.

 

Maggie Fox of NBC News has more on this story.

 

Flu, fever linked with autism in pregnancy study

By Maggie Fox, NBC News

Doctors trying to find some of the causes of autism put another piece into the puzzle on Monday: They found women who had flu while they were pregnant were twice as likely to have a child later diagnosed with autism. Those who had a fever lasting a week or longer -- perhaps caused by flu or maybe by something else -- were three times as likely to have an autistic child.

(Continue . . .)


 

Even without this latest study, the preponderance of evidence continues to show that pregnant women – and their unborn children – are at greater risk from influenza than most people appreciate.

 

Which is why the the CDC and other public health entities continue to stress the importance of seasonal flu vaccination for pregnant women.

 

In October of 2011, in IDSA: Flu Vaccines In Pregnancy, we saw several studies presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) reaffirming the benefits and safety of maternal vaccination.

 

The CDC has synopsized these studies in:

 

Pregnancy and Influenza Vaccine Safety

 

Vaccines are drugs, and there is no such thing as a 100% safe and 100% effective drug. Even taking over-the-counter medicines entail some risks.

 

But the safety profile of flu vaccines is excellent, and serious side effects are exceedingly rare.

 

The overwhelming evidence shows that the real risk comes from the virus, not from the shot.

»» Read More