Showing posts with label NEJM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NEJM. Show all posts

NEJM: Adult-Onset Immunodeficiency in Thailand and Taiwan

image

M. fortuitum a “rapidly-growing” Mycobacterium Credit CDC PHIL

 

# 6511

 

 

Investigators at the NIH have identified an antibody suspected to be the cause of a noninfectious AIDS-like syndrome observed in Asia in recent years, one that can make people susceptible to opportunistic infections like those from nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM).

 

Mycobacteria are slender, rod-shaped bacteria commonly found in the environment throughout the world.

 

Generally divided into three groups, the most famous are the bacilli that cause cause Tuberculosis and Leprosy (Hansen’s Disease) – while the third group - responsible for NTMs - are less well known.

 

Nontuberculous mycobacterial (NTMs) infections are rarely seen among non-HIV positive (or otherwise pulmonary or immune compromised) patients, but has been observed with increasing frequency over the past decade, particularly in Asia.

 

A couple of cites from the last decade include:

J Infect. 2006;53:77–84

Emergence of disseminated infections due to nontuberculous mycobacteria in non-HIV-infected patients, including immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients in a university hospital in Taiwan.

Lai CC, Lee LN, Ding LW, Yu CJ, Hsueh PR, Yang PC.

 

Clin Infect Dis. 2007 Aug 15;45(4):421-7. Epub 2007 Jul 5.

Disseminated nontuberculous mycobacterial infection in patients who are not infected with HIV in Thailand

Chetchotisakd P, Kiertiburanakul S, Mootsikapun P, Assanasen S, Chaiwarith R, Anunnatsiri S

 

 


While some sort of immune compromising condition has been associated with these opportunistic infections, until now the mechanism behind them has been a mystery. 

 

Today, an NIH study appearing in the NEJM finds that high-titers of anti–interferon-γ autoantibodies (i.e. an antibody directed against the body’s own immune system) are associated with opportunistic infections -like NTM - in non-HIV positive patients.

 

Interferon-y (IFN-γ) – or type II interferon - is a cytokine that is a critical component of our body’s innate and adaptive immune system. Antibodies that inhibit or neutralize their function would be expected to greatly assist opportunistic infections in spreading.

 

First a link to the study, then more details from the NIH press release.

 

 

Adult-Onset Immunodeficiency in Thailand and Taiwan

 

Sarah K. Browne, M.D., Peter D. Burbelo, Ph.D., Ploenchan Chetchotisakd, M.D., Yupin Suputtamongkol, M.D., Sasisopin Kiertiburanakul, M.D., Pamela A. Shaw, Ph.D., Jennifer L. Kirk, B.A., Kamonwan Jutivorakool, M.D., Rifat Zaman, B.S., Li Ding, M.D., Amy P. Hsu, B.A., Smita Y. Patel, M.D., Kenneth N. Olivier, M.D., Viraphong Lulitanond, Ph.D., Piroon Mootsikapun, M.D., Siriluck Anunnatsiri, M.D., Nasikarn Angkasekwinai, M.D., Boonmee Sathapatayavongs, M.D., Po-Ren Hsueh, M.D., Chi-Chang Shieh, M.D., Ph.D., Margaret R. Brown, B.S., Wanna Thongnoppakhun, Ph.D., Reginald Claypool, R.N., Elizabeth P. Sampaio, M.D., Ph.D., Charin Thepthai, M.Sc., Duangdao Waywa, M.Sc., Camilla Dacombe, R.N., Yona Reizes, R.N., Adrian M. Zelazny, Ph.D., Paul Saleeb, M.D., Lindsey B. Rosen, B.S., Allen Mo, B.S., Michael Iadarola, Ph.D., and Steven M. Holland, M.D.

N Engl J Med 2012; 367:725-734 August 23, 2012

Conclusions

Neutralizing anti–interferon-γ autoantibodies were detected in 88% of Asian adults with multiple opportunistic infections and were associated with an adult-onset immunodeficiency akin to that of advanced HIV infection.

 

And more details from NIH/NIAID.

 

NIH Researchers Find Possible Cause Of Immune Deficiency Cases In Asia

Autoantibody May Cause Susceptibility to Opportunistic Infections

WHAT:


A clinical study led by National Institutes of Health investigators has identified an antibody that compromises the immune systems of HIV-negative people, making them susceptible to infections with opportunistic microbes such as nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM). In this study conducted at hospitals in Thailand and Taiwan, the researchers found that the majority of study participants with opportunistic infections made an antibody against interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma), a cell-signaling molecule thought to play a major role in clearing harmful infections. The study findings will appear online in the August 23rd issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

 

NTM are close relatives of the bacterium that causes tuberculosis and can cause severe lung disease. NTM and other opportunistic infections are common in people with immune deficiency diseases, such as AIDS, but they are rare in people with healthy immune systems. However, researchers in Southeast Asia have recently reported several cases of NTM infections in people with no known problems with their immune systems.

 

The study, led by Sarah Browne, M.D., of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Peter Burbelo, Ph.D., of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, enrolled 203 people, ages 18 to 78 years old. Of these participants, 52 had NTM infections, 45 had other opportunistic infections with or without NTM co-infection, 58 had tuberculosis, and 48 were healthy volunteers. All participants were HIV-negative.
The investigators examined participant blood samples for antibodies to cell-signaling molecules such as IFN-gamma. Eighty-eight percent of the people with NTM or other opportunistic infections had antibodies that blocked their own IFN-gamma (called autoantibodies).

 

The autoantibodies inhibited IFN-gamma function, hindering the immune system’s ability to clear infection, causing a syndrome that made these study participants more vulnerable to opportunistic infections. More work is needed to determine why people in Southeast Asia appear to be predisposed to the development of this autoimmune condition.

Because the average age of the study participants with NTM or other opportunistic infections was 50 years, the investigators speculate that these antibodies develop over time as a result of combined genetic and environmental factors. Having identified the likely cause of this syndrome, the study authors say it may be possible to treat the underlying problem by targeting the cells that make the IFN-gamma autoantibodies.

ARTICLE:
SK Browne et al. Adult onset immunodeficiency in Thailand and Taiwan. New England Journal of Medicine. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1111160 (2012).

»» Read More

FDA Statement On Azithromycin & Cardiovascular Risks

 

 

image

 

# 6334

 

 

Yesterday in NEJM: Cardiovascular Risks Of Taking Azithromycin I wrote about a study that found a `small absolute increase in cardiovascular deaths’ among patients taking the macrolide antibiotic Azithromycin when compared to a control group taking no antibiotics or with taking amoxicillin.

In response to that study, the FDA has released the following statement:

 

FDA Statement regarding azithromycin (Zithromax) and the risk of cardiovascular death

[05-17-2012] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is aware of the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, on May 17, 2012, that compared the risks of cardiovascular death in patients treated with azithromycin (Zithromax), amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin (Cipro), levofloxacin (Levaquin), and no antibacterial drug.  The study reported a small increase in cardiovascular deaths, and in the risk of death from any cause, in persons treated with a 5-day course of azithromycin (Zithromax) compared to persons treated with amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin, or no drug. The risks of cardiovascular death associated with levofloxacin treatment were similar to those associated with azithromycin treatment.  FDA is reviewing the results from this study and will communicate any new information that results from the FDA review.

 

Patients taking azithromycin should not stop taking their medicine without talking to their healthcare professional.

 

Healthcare professionals should be aware of the potential for QT interval prolongation and heart arrhythmias when prescribing or administering antibacterial drugs. (See additional information below.)

 

Azithromycin belongs to a class of antibacterial drugs called macrolides, which have been associated with cardiovascular effects; specifically, prolongation of the QT interval. Prolongation of the QT interval can lead to torsades de pointes (TdP), an abnormal heart rhythm, which can be fatal.  Azithromycin was the only macrolide examined in the published study; the study did not address other macrolide antibacterial drugs, such as clarithromycin (Biaxin) and erythromycin, regarding the potential for cardiovascular death.

 

In 2011, FDA reviewed macrolide drug labeling information related to QT interval prolongation and TdP. The WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS section of the Zmax drug label (azithromycin extended release for oral suspension) was revised in March 2012 to include new information regarding risk for QT interval prolongation, which appears to be low. The drug labels for clarithromycin and erythromycin also contain information about QT interval prolongation in the WARNINGS section. FDA is in the process of updating risk information in the drug labels for additional macrolide antibacterial drugs.

 

FDA-approved indications for azithromycin include:

  • Acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic pulmonary disease
  • Acute bacterial sinusitis
  • Community-acquired pneumonia
  • Pharyngitis/tonsillitis
  • Uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections
  • Urethritis and cervicitis
  • Genital ulcer disease

FDA will communicate any new information on azithromycin and this study or the potential risk of QT interval prolongation after the agency has completed its review.

»» Read More

NEJM: Cardiovascular Risks Of Taking Azithromycin

 

image

 

# 6331

 

 

Although it isn’t always fully appreciated, one of the `truths’ about medicine is that all drugs carry with them some risk of side effects. There is simply no such thing as a 100% safe and totally benign drug.

 

Often, adverse effects are so rare as to not show up during a drug’s clinical trials, and only become apparent after the drug has been in wide use for years.

 

It is axiomatic that anytime you take a drug, you must weigh its likely benefits against any potential health risks it may introduce. 

 

Today the NEJM has an article about the potential cardiovascular risks of taking one of the world’s most popular antibiotics; azithromycin

 

`Zith’ is a macrolide antibiotic chemically similar to erythromycin that is effective against a wide variety of bacteria. It is commonly used for middle ear infections, bronchitis, pneumonia, sinusitis and several sexually transmitted infections.

 

While generally well tolerated (and effective), known side effects include gastrointestinal difficulties (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea)  among less than 5% of those taking the drug, and more rarely, abnormal liver tests, allergic reactions, and nervousness.

 

Although some antibiotics are known to cause potentially dangerous cardiac arrhythmias, up until now `Zith’  has not been counted among them. 

 

Today’s study in the NEJM finds a small absolute increase in cardiovascular deaths during a 5-day treatment course with azithromycin compared to taking no antibiotics or with taking amoxicillin, particularly among those with cardiac risk factors.

 

Azithromycin and the Risk of Cardiovascular Death

Wayne A. Ray, Ph.D., Katherine T. Murray, M.D., Kathi Hall, B.S., Patrick G. Arbogast, Ph.D., and C. Michael Stein, M.B., Ch.B.

N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1881-1890 May 17, 2012

 

Conclusions

During 5 days of azithromycin therapy, there was a small absolute increase in cardiovascular deaths, which was most pronounced among patients with a high baseline risk of cardiovascular disease.

Before anyone starts pitching their Z-packs down the loo, the actual number of cardiovascular incidents was relatively small. And this study was a retrospective analysis of Tennessee Medicaid records between 1992 and 2006 – not a randomized control trial (RCT) - and therefore subject to a number of limitations.

 

Since the full study is behind a pay wall, for more on all of this we turn to coverage from MedPage Today:

 

Azithromycin May Up Risk of Cardiac Death

By Nancy Walsh, Staff Writer, MedPage Today

Published: May 16, 2012

Reviewed by Dori F. Zaleznik, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Action Points

  • Explain that a Medicaid database study found an increased risk for cardiovascular death, sudden death, and overall all-cause mortality associated with a 5-day course of azithromycin.
  • Note that the same findings were not true for amoxicillin or ciprofloxacin compared with controls taking no antibiotics, but there were excess deaths associated with levofloxacin.

Use of a common antibiotic, azithromycin, appears to significantly increase the risk of sudden cardiac death when compared with no antibiotic treatment, according to analysis of data from Medicaid patients.

(Continue . . . )

 

None of this makes azithromycin a `bad medicine’, but it does highlight the need to recognize and balance the risks of taking this (or any other) drug with its likely benefits. 

 

And for some patients with elevated cardiac risk factors, it may be prudent for their doctors to now consider other antibiotic treatments.

 

Although antibiotics can often be lifesaving, evidence continues to mount that their use is less benign that previously thought.

 

The CDC reports that 50% of antibiotic use in hospitals is ` unnecessary or inappropriate’, and better antibiotic stewardship is needed if we are to combat the growing threat of antibiotic resistance.

 

You’ll find the CDC maintains an excellent GET SMART ABOUT ANTIBIOTICS webpage, which provides information on the prudent use of antibiotics.

 

And for more on the potential dangers of antibiotic use (and misuse) you may wish to revisit:

 

The Other Reason Not To Abuse Antibiotics
Get Smart About Antibiotics Week
ECDC/EMEA: Joint Report On Resistant Bacteria
»» Read More

NEJM: Oseltamivir Resistant H1N1 in Australia

 

 

# 6042

image

 

A correspondence appears in today’s NEJM that provides some detailed information on a story we began to follow last August (see Australia Reports Cluster Of Antiviral Resistant H1N1); the detection of an unusual number of oseltamivir (Tamiflu ®) resistant H1N1 viruses in and around the Newcastle area of New South Wales.

 

First, a little background.

 

During 2008 and early 2009 -prior to the emergence of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic virus - the old seasonal H1N1 virus developed nearly complete resistance to the antiviral drug oseltamivir.  

 

The H1N1pdm09 virus which replaced the old H1N1 – while resistant to the older amantadines – has remained largely sensitive to oseltamivir. The concern is, that over time, this newer strain might one day develop resistance as well.

 

During the first two years, only 1%-2% of samples tested have shown the most common mutation known to convey oseltamivir resistance; H275Y, where a single amino acid substitution (histidine (H) to tyrosine (Y)) occurs at the neuraminidase position 275.

 

(Note: some scientists use 'N2 numbering' (H274Y) and some use 'N1 numbering' (H275Y))

 

Most of the resistant cases we’ve seen reported have been isolated and sporadic, with no apparent epidemiological links. They have  often occurred in patients under therapeutic or prophylactic treatment with oseltamivir, and are assumed to have been the result of spontaneous resistance. 

 

 

Which brings us to today’s report in the NEJM that looks at the:

 

Community Transmission of Oseltamivir-Resistant A(H1N1)pdm09 Influenza

N Engl J Med 2011; 365:2541-2542 December 29, 2011

 

 

What the authors found was evidence for the sustained community transmission of a resistant strain of the H1N1pdm09 virus. 

 

After analyzing viral samples pulled from 182 patients seen in emergency departments, intensive care units, and doctor’s offices in New South Wales between May and August of 2011, they found 29 (16%) carried the H275Y resistance mutation.

 

Most of the patients lived within 50km of Newcastle, and while 10 of the cases could be epidemiologically linked (2 in 4 households, 2 in a shared car trip), the rest could not.

 

Only one had been treated with oseltamivir prior to testing.

 

The good news is that while 7 of these cases were hospitalized (24%), none ended up in the Intensive care unit, and none died. This resistant strain also appears to be antigenically similar to the vaccine strain.

 

The authors recommend:

 

As winter approaches in the Northern Hemisphere, it remains important to ensure that A(H1N1)pdm09 strains from early in the season are analyzed rapidly for any indication that this transmissible oseltamivir-resistant variant has spread.

 

 

So far, this appears to be regional phenomenon, and numbers like these have not been reported in other parts of the world.

 

For more on this evolving story, you may wish to revisit:

 

WER: Update On Anti-Viral Resistant Influenza
ECDC: Risk Assessment On Australia’s Antiviral Resistant H1N1 Cluster
»» Read More

NEJM: Adjuvanted Flu Vaccine Found Effective In Children

 

image

# 5895

 

From the New England Journal of Medicine today, an analysis of 4,707 German and Finnish children aged 6 months to just under 6 years during the 2007-2008 flu season. 

 

These previously unvaccinated children were randomly assigned to 3 groups; 1941 received an adjuvanted flu vaccine, 1773 received the standard tri-valent flu shot, and 993 received no shot at all.

 

The adjuvant in question is the MF59 oil-in-water (Squalene) emulsion, which has been used in millions of adult flu vaccines in Europe since the late 1990s (it is not currently licensed for use in the United States).

 

 

The study was done to see if the adjuvanted vaccine would provide significantly better protection against influenza in young children than does the standard trivalent flu shot. Two shots – 30 days apart - were administered to both groups receiving the vaccine.

 

Oil-in-Water Emulsion Adjuvant with Influenza Vaccine in Young Children

Timo Vesikari, M.D., Markus Knuf, M.D., Peter Wutzler, M.D., Aino Karvonen, M.D., Dorothee Kieninger-Baum, M.D., Heinz-Josef Schmitt, M.D., Frank Baehner, M.D., Astrid Borkowski, M.D., Theodore F. Tsai, M.D., and Ralf Clemens, M.D.

N Engl J Med 2011; 365:1406-1416October 13, 2011

 

 

The results were impressive.

 

The adjuvanted vaccine proved 86% effective against all circulating viral strains of influenza during the 2 years of the trial, and 89% effective against vaccine-matched strains.

 

The effectiveness rates for the  standard flu vaccine, were roughly half that; 43% and 45% respectively.

 

In addition, in contrast to the standard flu shot, most of the subjects receiving the adjuvanted vaccine displayed a robust immune response after only 1 flu shot.

 

Vaccine-related adverse events were mild to moderate and similar between both vaccines. Systemic reactions, including mild fever, were slightly more pronounced in older children receiving the adjuvanted vaccine, but were generally of short duration.

 

 

The conclusion, as expressed in the abstract reads:

 

Influenza vaccine with the MF59 adjuvant is efficacious against PCR-confirmed influenza in infants and young children. (Funded by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00644059.)

 

 

While studies continue to show it to be both safe and efficacious, the use of squalene is not without some controversy. There have been attempts to link its use to everything from Gulf War Syndrome to Lupus, although no convincing evidence of such links has ever been established. 

 

The World Health Organization has this to say about Squalene adjuvants.

 

Squalene-based adjuvants in vaccines

What is squalene?
  • Squalene is a naturally occurring substance found in plants, animals, and humans. It is manufactured in the liver of every human body and circulates in our bloodstream.
  • Squalene is also found in a variety of foods, cosmetics, over-the-counter medications, and health supplements.
  • Squalene is commercially extracted from fish oil, and in particular shark liver oil. Squalene used in pharmaceutical products and vaccines is purified from this source.
Is there squalene in vaccines?
  • Since 1997, an influenza vaccine (FLUAD, Chiron) which contains about 10 mg of squalene per dose, has been approved in health agencies in several European countries. Squalene is present in the form of an emulsion and is added to make the vaccine more immunogenic.
  • Squalene is being added to improve the efficacy of several experimental vaccines including pandemic flu and malaria vaccines which are being developed.
Why is squalene added to vaccines?
  • Squalene is a component of some adjuvants that are added to vaccines to enhance the immune response.
  • MF59, an adjuvant produced by Novartis and added to the FLUAD flu vaccine, is such an example.
  • Squalene by itself is not an adjuvant, but emulsions of squalene with surfactants do enhance the immune response.
What is known about the safety of squalene in vaccines?
  • Twenty two million doses of Chiron's influenza vaccine (FLUAD) have been administered safely since 1997. This vaccine contains about 10mg of squalene per dose. No severe adverse events have been associated with the vaccine. Some mild local reactogenicity has been observed.
  • Clinical studies on squalene-containing vaccines have been done in infants and neonates without evidence of safety concerns.
Why do some people think squalene in vaccines carries a risk?
  • A few people have tried to link the health problems of Gulf War veterans to the possible presence of squalene in the vaccines these soldiers received.
  • One published report suggested that some veterans who received anthrax vaccines developed anti-squalene antibodies and these antibodies caused disabilities.
  • It is now known that squalene was not added to the vaccines administered to these veterans, and technical deficiencies in the report suggesting an association have been published.

 

 

This study was conducted before the emergence of the 2009 H1N1 vaccine, and was done during a time when the H3N2 virus was the dominant strain. This makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions on how well this adjuvanted vaccine would work against other strains of influenza, such as H1N1 and influenza B.

 

And a final note, more than 150 million doses of MF59 adjuvanted vaccines have been deployed since 1997 (100 million during the pandemic), and thus far, no evidence of safety concerns has emerged.  

»» Read More

NEJM: Emergence Of A New Bacterial Cause Of Ehrlichiosis

 

image

(Photo Credit- CDC)

# 5736

 

 

Ehrlichiosis (aka HME) is the generic name used to describe an infection that affects the white blood cells of humans and other mammals caused by several varieties of tickborne bacteria.

 

Similar to Anaplasmosis (HGA), the two are differentiated by the type of white blood cells they affect (HGA affects granulocytes and HME affects monocytes), and the bacterial cause of the infection.

 

Until recently, Ehrlichiosis has been identified with just two bacterial infections: Ehrlichia chaffeensis and E. ewingii.

 

Anaplasmosis, on the other hand, is caused by Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection.

 

 

The CDC maintains an extensive Ehrlichiosis web page, that includes epidemiological data and prevention advice.  The following map shows the incidence of Ehrlichiosis by state in 2008.

 

image

 

 

Today, the NEJM has an article that describes the discovery of a third bacterial cause of Ehrlichiosis detected first detected in Minnesota and Wisconsin in 2009.

 

Emergence of a New Pathogenic Ehrlichia Species, Wisconsin and Minnesota

August 4, 2011 | B.S. Pritt and Others

A newly discovered ehrlichia species closely related to E. muris was identified as a cause of illness in three people in Minnesota and one in Wisconsin. The syndrome is described, and the likely vector identified. Physicians need to be aware of this new ehrlichia species to ensure appropriate testing, treatment, and regional surveillance.

 

 

 

Briefly, 4 patients showing signs and symptoms of ehrlichiosis, but who did not test positive for E. chaffeensis or E. ewingii, underwent additional testing.

 

They were found to be infected by a previously unidentified ehrlichia species, which has provisionally been designated Ehrlichia muris-like (EML). 

 

Subsequently, PCR analysis of 697 Ixodes scapularis ticks collected in Minnesota & Wisconsin showed that 17 were positive for this newly discovered ehrlichia species.

 

The good news is that this bacterial infection appears to respond well to the same treatment (Doxycycline) as the other forms of ehrlichiosis.

 

The list of tickborne illnesses that one may encounter in the United States is long, and growing. As my last blog indicated (see NRDC Report: Climate Change and Health Threats) climate change may affect the size and geographic spread of many of these vector-borne diseases.

 

The CDC lists a number of diseases carried by ticks in the United States, including: 

 

  • Anaplasmosis is transmitted to humans by tick bites primarily from the blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis) in the northeastern and upper midwestern U.S. and the western blacklegged tick (Ixodes pacificus) along the Pacific coast.
  • Babesiosis is transmitted by the blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis) and is found primarily in the eastern U.S.
  • Ehrlichiosis is transmitted to humans by the lone star tick (Ambylomma americanum), found primarily in the southcentral and eastern U.S.
  • Lyme disease is transmitted by the blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis) in the northeastern U.S. and upper Midwestern U.S. and the western blacklegged tick (Ixodes pacificus) along the Pacific coast.
  • Rickettsia parkeri Rickettsiosis is transmitted to humans by the Gulf Coast tick (Amblyomma maculatum).
  • Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever (RMSF) is transmitted by the American dog tick (Dermacentor variabilis), Rocky Mountain wood tick (Dermacentor andersoni), and the brown dog tick (Rhipicephalus sangunineus) in the U.S. The brown dog tick and other tick species are associated with RMSF in Central and South America.
  • STARI (Southern Tick-Associated Rash Illness) is transmitted via bites from the lone star tick (Ambylomma americanum), found in the southeastern and eastern U.S.
  • Tickborne relapsing fever (TBRF) is transmitted to humans through the bite of infected soft ticks. TBRF has been reported in 15 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming and is associated with sleeping in rustic cabins and vacation homes.
  • Tularemia is transmitted to humans by the dog tick (Dermacentor variabilis), the wood tick (Dermacentor andersoni), and the lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum). Tularemia occurs throughout the U.S.
  • 364D Rickettsiosis (Rickettsia phillipi, proposed) is transmitted to humans by the Pacific Coast tick (Dermacentor occidentalis ticks). This is a new disease that has been found in California.

This list should help illustrate the importance of everyone becoming `tick aware’, and doing what they can to avoid exposure. 

The CDC suggests taking the following precautions:

 

Preventing Tick Bites

While it is a good idea to take preventive measures against ticks year-round, be extra vigilant in warmer months (April-September) when ticks are most active.

Avoid Direct Contact with Ticks

  • Avoid wooded and bushy areas with high grass and leaf litter.
  • Walk in the center of trails.

Repel Ticks with DEET or Permethrin

  • Use repellents that contain 20% or more DEET (N, N-diethyl-m-toluamide) on the exposed skin for protection that lasts up to several hours. Always follow product instructions. Parents should apply this product to their children, avoiding hands, eyes, and mouth.
  • Use products that contain permethrin on clothing. Treat clothing and gear, such as boots, pants, socks and tents. It remains protective through several washings. Pre-treated clothing is available and remains protective for up to 70 washings.
  • Other repellents registered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oppref/insect/.

Find and Remove Ticks from Your Body

  • Bathe or shower as soon as possible after coming indoors (preferably within two hours) to wash off and more easily find ticks that are crawling on you.
  • Conduct a full-body tick check using a hand-held or full-length mirror to view all parts of your body upon return from tick-infested areas. Parents should check their children for ticks under the arms, in and around the ears, inside the belly button, behind the knees, between the legs, around the waist, and especially in their hair.
  • Examine gear and pets. Ticks can ride into the home on clothing and pets, then attach to a person later, so carefully examine pets, coats, and day packs. Tumble clothes in a dryer on high heat for an hour to kill remaining ticks.
»» Read More

NEJM: Study On China’s H1N1 Vaccine Safety

 

 

 

# 5281

 

 

Amid the brewing controversy over the supposed link between GSK’s Pandemrix Vaccine and an increase in narcolepsy among children and adolescents in Finland and Sweden, we get different report from China which provides us with far more reassuring data.


Here, researchers looked for adverse reactions among 90 million recipients of China’s non-adjuvanted split-viron  pandemic vaccine (By comparison, Pandemrix was an adjuvanted vaccine). 

 

While some vaccine activists predicted huge increases in post vaccination Guillain Barre Syndrome, and warned that the vaccine would be `deadlier than the virus’, the reality has been quite different.

 

Researchers found no pattern of serious side effects, and no increase in Guillain Barre Syndrome.

 

In fact, the rate of GBS among those vaccinated was below the normal `background rate’ for the disease.

 

The study, led by Dr. Yu Wang - from the Chinese CDC -  collected data on adverse reactions from doctors across China.

 

89.6 million doses of H1N1 vaccine were administered, with a total of 8,067 adverse events reported; a rate of about 90 adverse reaction per 1 million shots.

 

Not all of those reactions proved to be related to the shot, and when the outliers were eliminated, only 6,552 adverse reactions were attributed to the jab, or just over 73 per million doses.

 

And of those, more than 67.8% were considered minor; not involving hospitalization, death, life-threatening illness, or permanent disability

 

Of 1,083 people with more serious reactions, 1050 (96.9%) were allergic reactions of one sort or another, likely due to the ovalbumin, thimerosal, or other ingredients of the vaccine,

 

29 other cases with more serious vaccine reactions (rate .3 per 1 million doses) had neurologic reactions, including 8 cases with Guillain–Barré syndrome (which was lower than the expected baseline rate of GBS).

 

While 10 sudden deaths were reported within 9 days of vaccination, all but one had serious pre-existing medical issues including: Coronary artery disease (5), aortic aneurysm (1), decompensated hepatic cirrhosis and liver failure (1), stroke & cerebral herniation (1).

 

The entire study was published online in the NEJM today.

 

 

Safety of Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine in Postmarketing Surveillance in China

Xiao-Feng Liang, M.D., Li Li, M.D., Ph.D., Da-Wei Liu, M.D., Ke-Li Li, M.D., Wen-Di Wu, M.D., Bao-Ping Zhu, M.D., Hua-Qing Wang, M.D., Ph.D., Hui-Ming Luo, M.D., Ling-Sheng Cao, M.D., Jing-Shan Zheng, M.D., Da-Peng Yin, M.D., Lei Cao, M.P.H., Bing-Bing Wu, M.D., Hong-Hong Bao, M.D., Di-Sha Xu, M.D., Wei-Zhong Yang, M.D., and Yu Wang, M.D., Ph.D.

February 2, 2011 (10.1056/NEJMoa1008553)

Background

On September 21, 2009, China began administering vaccines, obtained from 10 different manufacturers, against 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infection in priority populations. We aimed to assess the safety of this vaccination program.

Methods

We designed a plan for passive surveillance for adverse events after immunization with the influenza A (H1N1) vaccine. Physicians or vaccination providers were required to report the numbers of vaccinees and all adverse events to their local Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which then reported the data to the Chinese CDC through the online National Immunization Information System's National Adverse Event Following Immunization Surveillance System. Data were collected through March 21, 2010, and were verified and analyzed by the Chinese CDC.

Conclusions

No pattern of adverse events that would be of concern was observed after the administration of influenza A (H1N1) vaccine, nor was there evidence of an increased risk of the Guillain–Barré syndrome.

(Continue . . . )

 

»» Read More

NEJM: The Age-Old Struggle against the Antivaccinationists

 

 

 

# 5228

 

A perspective article today in the NEJM  by Gregory A. Poland M.D. and Robert M. Jacobson M.D. of the Mayo clinic on the long history of resistance to vaccination by activists and those fearful of their side effects.

 

While I don’t usually print them, I frequently get `drive-by’ comments to this blog by adherents to the anti-vaccine movement, mostly parroting the same tired arguments that are grounded in neither science or common sense.

 

Debating these people is largely a futile endeavor, since they dismiss all scientific evidence that doesn’t support their position as the product of the `evil’ pharmaceutical industry.   

 

As I’ve stated many times before, vaccines aren’t perfect. It doesn’t happen often, but they can, and do cause occasional serious side effects. 

 


But then, you can say the same thing about over-the-counter NSAIDs, non-Rx cold remedies, antibiotics and practically any other medicine on the shelf.

 

Overall, vaccines have an excellent safety record, and they have rightfully been called the greatest boon to public health in the last hundred or so years.

 

But despite the proven value of vaccines, anti-vaccine activists continue to disseminate injurious propaganda demonizing these miracles of modern medicine.

 

Even the British Medical Journal’s debunking of Andrew Wakefield’s studies on the supposed link between autism and the MMR vaccine hasn’t cooled their rhetoric.  If anything, it appears to  have strengthened their resolve.

 

For more on the history of this anti-vaccination crusade, read:

 

Perspective

The Age-Old Struggle against the Antivaccinationists

Gregory A. Poland, M.D., and Robert M. Jacobson, M.D.

N Engl J Med 2011; 364:97-99 January 13, 2011

»» Read More

Referral: NEJM On NDM-1 Threat

 

 

# 5149

 

 

Reports of NDM-1 (New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase-1), MRSA, Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPCs), along with other emerging resistant strains of bacteria, have received a lot of media attention of late – and deservedly so.


As Maryn McKenna so aptly described in her book SUPERBUG: The Fatal Menace of MRSA, we are facing a future with the grim prospect of having a dwindling arsenal of effective antibiotics.

 

Today, the NEJM has a long, and informative Perspective on the global threat of NDM-1 - and other resistant bacteria - by Robert C. Moellering, Jr., M.D., a Professor of Medical Research at Harvard Medical School.

 

It’s well worth checking out.

 

 

Perspective

NDM-1 — A Cause for Worldwide Concern

Robert C. Moellering, Jr., M.D.

N Engl J Med 2010; 363:2377-2379 December 16, 2010

»» Read More

Referral: NEJM Perspective On Influenza Vaccine Uptake

 

 


# 5088

 

 

 

On what is hopefully the start of a quiet Thanksgiving morning, we’ve an interesting perspective article appearing in the NEJM on the public’s distrust of flu vaccines, and ways public health agencies might try to assuage them.

 

 

Perspective

Influenza Vaccine — Safe, Effective, and Mistrusted

Katherine M. Harris, Ph.D., Jürgen Maurer, Ph.D., and Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D., M.P.H.

November 24, 2010 (10.1056/NEJMp1012333)

 
»» Read More

Results Of CPR Without Rescue Breathing

 

 

# 4766

 

 

Having performed CPR in excess of 500 times over the years, and since I was an American Heart Association and an American Red Cross CPR instructor in my distant past, I’ve watched the adoption of a `compression only’ method of CPR for laypeople over the past couple of years with considerable interest.

 

Admittedly, the removal of rescue breathing from the protocol seemed a bit counterintuitive to me.   Airway management and proper ventilation were a huge part of my EMT and Paramedic training.

 

But I understand the reluctance of bystanders to do mouth-to-mouth – particularly on strangers (which is why I  own two Ambu-bags - one for each of my first aid kits).


Despite my initial skepticism, the NEJM has published the results of a comparative study of CPR outcomes with, and without, rescue breathing that support the notion of doing compression-only CPR. 

 

At least among those who have little or no CPR training. 

 

This study was conducted in Sweden, and researchers found that the 30-day survival rate was 8.7% in the compression-only group and 7.0% in the group receiving standard CPR.

 

Excerpts from the abstract follow.

 

CPR with Chest Compression Alone or with Rescue Breathing

Thomas D. Rea, M.D., Carol Fahrenbruch, M.S.P.H., Linda Culley, B.A., Rachael T. Donohoe, Ph.D., Cindy Hambly, E.M.T., Jennifer Innes, B.A., Megan Bloomingdale, E.M.T., Cleo Subido, Steven Romines, M.S.P.H. and Mickey S. Eisenberg, M.D., Ph.D.

N Engl J Med 2010; 363:423-433July 29, 2010

Background

The role of rescue breathing in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed by a layperson is uncertain. We hypothesized that the dispatcher instructions to bystanders to provide chest compression alone would result in improved survival as compared with instructions to provide chest compression plus rescue breathing.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial of dispatcher instructions to bystanders for performing CPR. The patients were persons 18 years of age or older with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for whom dispatchers initiated CPR instruction to bystanders. Patients were randomly assigned to receive chest compression alone or chest compression plus rescue breathing. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included a favorable neurologic outcome at discharge.

 

<BIG SNIP>
 
Conclusions

Dispatcher instruction consisting of chest compression alone did not increase the survival rate overall, although there was a trend toward better outcomes in key clinical subgroups. The results support a strategy for CPR performed by laypersons that emphasizes chest compression and minimizes the role of rescue breathing.

 

(Funded in part by the Laerdal Foundation for Acute Medicine and the Medic One Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00219687.)

 

 

Doing 1-man CPR, even for a trained responder, can be difficult and quickly exhausting.  For a layperson, changing from compressions to rescue breaths and back again to compressions  can be awkward and ultimately inefficient.

 

The end result is often poor ventilation and poor circulation. 

 

Rescue breathing and trying to maintain a proper airway complicates CPR considerably, but emergency dispatchers can coach untrained bystanders to do chest compressions relatively easily. 

 


By concentrating on chest compressions alone, the layperson can keep a little oxygenated blood flowing to the brain while waiting for medics to arrive. 

 

This can help stave off brain death, which is the primary goal of bystander CPR.

 

I would urge everyone to take a CPR course, and follow up with refresher courses every few years.  Contact your local Red Cross Chapter or the American Heart Association  for training options.

 

You should be warned, however, that the `miraculous saves’ shown on many dramatic TV shows - where the CPR success rate is usually over 50% – aren’t very realistic.  

 

CPR can, and does, save lives. 

 

But the rate of success is usually 10%-15%, even under the best of circumstances.  For a sobering, but realistic appraisal of CPR’s effectiveness you might wish to read:

 

CPR: Less Effective Than You Might Think

»» Read More

NEJM: Enrolling Pregnant Women In Clinical Trials

 

 


# 4654

 

 

 

One of the more worrisome aspects going into pandemic of 2009 was the sheer lack of data on the safety of using antivirals on women who were pregnant.  

 

Public Health officials very early on had to weigh the benefits of their use during pregnancy against largely unknown risks.  Since that time, we’ve seen studies that have shown these drugs were used to good effect (see Study: Antivirals Saved Lives Of Pregnant Women)

 


In truth, the same situation exists for a wide range of drugs, since clinical trials often exclude pregnant women altogether.  

 

Clinicians are often put in the uncomfortable position of having to assume that these drugs will work in the same way, and at the same dosage, in pregnant patients.

 

Yet we know that pregnancy alters a woman’s metabolism, and down regulates her immune system.  Changes that conceivably could change the way some medications work in their bodies.

 

From the New England Journal of Medicine today we get a Perspective article on the need to enroll more women in clinical trials.  

 

This is a good article, and well worth reading.

 

Enrolling Pregnant Women in Research — Lessons from the H1N1 Influenza Pandemic

Sara F. Goldkind, M.D., Leyla Sahin, M.D., and Beverly Gallauresi, M.P.H.

»» Read More

CIDRAP On Two NEJM Pandemic H1N1 Studies

 

 

# 4637

 

 

Last night Robert Roos of CIDRAP reviewed two studies that appeared yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

 

One on the use of Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) as a prophylactic measure among military units in Singapore, and a second on the transmission of novel H1N1 among family members in Hong Kong.

 

First the CIDRAP article (follow the link to read in its entirety),  then a little discussion.

 

Studies examine H1N1 spread in military units, households

Robert Roos * News Editor

Jun 9, 2010 (CIDRAP News) – When the H1N1 pandemic influenza began hitting Singapore's military forces last summer, health officials largely arrested its spread by giving oseltamivir to everyone in the affected units, in combination with other preventive steps, according to a report released today.

 

Among 1,175 soldiers in four settings, 75 were infected before the preventive steps were taken, and only seven became infected afterward, according to the report in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The findings suggest that antiviral "ring prophylaxis," along with quick identification and isolation of infected people, can be effective in halting outbreaks in "semiclosed" settings, the researchers said.

 

In a second study, also released today by NEJM, Hong Kong researchers looked at flu in a modest-sized sample of households and found that pandemic H1N1 and seasonal flu viruses spread at about the same rate and caused illnesses of similar severity.

(Continue . . . )

 

  • Lee VJ, Yap J, Cook AR, et al. Oseltamivir ring prophylaxis for containment of 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreaks. N Engl J Med 2010 Jun 10;362(23):2166-74 [Full text]
  • Cowling BJ, Chan KH, Fang VJ, et al. Comparative epidemiology of pandemic and seasonal influenza A in households. N Engl J Med 2010 Jun 10;362(23):2175-84 [Full text]
  • Uyeki TM. 2009 H1N1 virus transmission and outbreaks. (Editorial) N Engl J Med 2010 Jun 10;362(23):2221-23 [Full text]

 

I’m going to wander a bit away from these two articles with some background, but I will come back. 

 

There are basically three uses for antivirals:

  • Treatment of those infected
  • Outbreak Prophylaxis for people who are likely to be exposed
  • PEP (Post Exposure Prophylaxis) - giving antivirals to those exposed, but not yet symptomatic to prevent infection.  

 

Treatment is pretty much self explanatory. Patients exhibiting flu-like symptoms (or who have tested positive for influenza) may be given antivirals for 5+ days to inhibit viral replication and mitigate the severity of the infection.

 

Outbreak Prophylaxis would be used to protect those at high risk of infection, such as ICU and ER doctors and nurses during a pandemic wave.  This would require a daily dose of the drug for weeks or even months.

 

PEP (Post Exposure Prophylaxis) is the U.S. equivalent of the ring chemoprophylaxis described in the Singapore study.

 

While the idea of Household PEP was floated by the HHS working group on antivirals back in June of 2008 in their Proposed Guidance on Antiviral Drug Use during an Influenza Pandemic, it was not officially endorsed.

 

In the two or three years before novel H1N1 erupted - as we watched and waited for a more severe H5N1 pandemic - the HHS built up the U.S. stockpile of oseltamivir (Tamiflu) to nearly 80 million courses (10 pills/course), and promoted the idea that hospitals and other large employers in the private sector stockpile antivirals for their staff.

 

In June of 2008, the HHS went so far as to hold a teleconference with officials from Roche Laboratories, to announce an antiviral reservation plan called RAPP, or the Roche Antiviral Protection Program  (see Roche Offers Companies Option To Reserve Tamiflu).

 

The US Strategic stockpile of antivirals, at 80 million courses, was hoped to be enough to provide treatment during a severe pandemic, but would fall far short of what was needed if Outbreak Prophylaxis or PEP was to be implemented.

 

Without adding PEP, the HHS working group determined that the number of courses of antivirals the United States needs on hand for a severe pandemic would be at least 195 million

Roughly 2.4 times more than the government had stockpiled.

In Proposed Guidance on Antiviral Drug Use during an Influenza Pandemic  the HHS working group urged that the private sector, mostly businesses - but `families and individuals as appropriate'  - stockpile the rest. 

 

This would provide:

  • 6M doses for deployment overseas to try to stop an outbreak
  • 79M treatment courses for the infected here in the United States
  • 103M courses to provide prophylaxis for healthcare and emergency service workers
  • 5M courses for outbreak control in Nursing homes, prisons, and other closed settings
  • 2M courses for people who are severely immuno-compromised

 

The authors of this HHS document point out that more than 150,000  American lives could be saved in a severe pandemic if households had antivirals available for PEP, or Post Exposure Prophylaxis.

 

To implement household PEP, however, would require another 106 million courses of antivirals, bringing the total needed to just over 300 million courses.

 

While some companies did procure antivirals for their employees, most declined.  The costs, logistics of storage and dispensing, legal barriers for dispensing prescription medications  – plus the potential liability – dissuaded many employers from participating.

 

Fortunately, the pandemic of 2009 wasn’t severe enough to require the kind of antiviral intervention envisioned by the HHS working group back in 2008. The next time, we may not be so lucky. 

 

H5N1 is still out there, and still has pandemic potential.  As are a number of other novel influenza strains.

 

The Singapore study is valuable because it proves that ring prophylaxis (or PEP) apparently can work to slow down or contain an influenza outbreak in a closed or semi-closed setting.   

 

It also bodes well for the effectiveness of Outbreak Prophylaxis among medical personnel, although there remain open questions on the wisdom of taking antivirals for weeks or perhaps months at a time. 

 

And there remain legitimate concerns that the large scale use of PEP and Outbreak Prophylaxis strategies might contribute to the creation and spread of antiviral resistant strains of influenza.

 

And to add another complication, the second NEJM study out of Hong Kong also suggested that patients infected with novel H1N1 who were treated with Tamiflu produced lower levels of antibodies than those who went untreated, opening the possibility that they might be at risk for re-infection.


Even if antiviral resistance and side effects from long-term use of these medications were not concerns, the quantity of antivirals required for large scale chemoprophylaxis, and the need to deploy and dispense them rapidly in an outbreak, remain daunting challenges.

 

Frankly, I’ve serious doubts that in this economy, and after the relatively `mild’  pandemic experience of 2009, that the private sector can ever be induced to pick up the 100 million to 200 million course `shortfall’ in this country’s antiviral stockpile.

 

So the point, at least here in the US, may be moot.

 

Besides,  even if they did make the investment in antivirals– given the concerns over potentially generating resistant flu strains -  getting the government’s green light to dispense them might  prove difficult.

  

 

All of which shows just how complicated the issues are and that there are no simple solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

»» Read More

NEJM: Household Transmission Of The H1N1 Virus

 

 

# 4203

 

A study today from the NEJM which suggests the novel H1N1 virus isn’t as easily transmissible as other novel pandemic viruses of the past. 

 

In a study of 216 households where an index case of H1N1 infection was identified, only about 13% of household contacts (about 1 in 8) came down with the infection.

 

Looked at another way, in roughly 72% of the households where a case was identified, no one else came down with the virus.   In 21% of the households, only one additional member acquired the infection.  And in only 6% of households did more than one other family member fall ill.

 

Children and teens under the age of 18 were twice as likely to catch the virus than those aged 19 to 50.  Those over the age of 50 were even less likely to fall ill.

 

For reasons that are less than clear, the rate of viral transmission in households with just two members was much higher than in households with four or more members.  

 

Excerpts from the abstract are below, but follow the link to read the entire study.

 

 

Household Transmission of 2009 Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) Virus in the United States

Simon Cauchemez, Ph.D., Christl A. Donnelly, Sc.D., Carrie Reed, D.Sc., Azra C. Ghani, Ph.D., Christophe Fraser, Ph.D., Charlotte K. Kent, Ph.D., Lyn Finelli, Dr.P.H., and Neil M. Ferguson, D.Phil.

ABSTRACT

 
Background As of June 11, 2009, a total of 17,855 probable or confirmed cases of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) had been reported in the United States. Risk factors for transmission remain largely uncharacterized. We characterize the risk factors and describe the transmission of the virus within households.

 
Methods Probable and confirmed cases of infection with the 2009 H1N1 virus in the United States were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with the use of a standardized case form. We investigated transmission of infection in 216 households — including 216 index patients and their 600 household contacts — in which the index patient was the first case patient and complete information on symptoms and age was available for all household members.

 

Results An acute respiratory illness developed in 78 of 600 household contacts (13%). In 156 households (72% of the 216 households), an acute respiratory illness developed in none of the household contacts; in 46 households (21%), illness developed in one contact; and in 14 households (6%), illness developed in more than one contact.

The proportion of household contacts in whom acute respiratory illness developed decreased with the size of the household, from 28% in two-member households to 9% in six-member households. Household contacts 18 years of age or younger were twice as susceptible as those 19 to 50 years of age (relative susceptibility, 1.96; Bayesian 95% credible interval, 1.05 to 3.78; P=0.005), and household contacts older than 50 years of age were less susceptible than those who were 19 to 50 years of age (relative susceptibility, 0.17; 95% credible interval, 0.02 to 0.92; P=0.03).


Infectivity did not vary with age. The mean time between the onset of symptoms in a case patient and the onset of symptoms in the household contacts infected by that patient was 2.6 days (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.5).

 

Conclusions The transmissibility of the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus in households is lower than that seen in past pandemics. Most transmissions occur soon before or after the onset of symptoms in a case patient.

 

 

A few caveats to this study are in order.

 

First, this study took place very early in the outbreak, essentially during the first 3 weeks of May.  

 

While it may not have appreciably changed, this is a snapshot of the transmissibility of the virus at that time.

 

Second, the data was collected by interviewing (telephone or face-to-face) family members within 7 days of an index case having been identified in their household. 

 

Illnesses that fell outside of that 7 day follow up period were not directly identified.

 

Third, reports of ILI (influenza-like illness) among family members or contacts within 7 days were assumed to have been due to exposure to the index case.

 

Testing for H1N1 wasn’t always done, and the actual chain of infection may have been other than from the index case.

 

None of which is mentioned to negate the findings of this study, but simply stated to illustrate that these sorts of studies have limitations, and those must be considered when you view the data.

 

This study does seem to suggest that compared to teenagers and children, those over the age of 18 may have some limited immunity to the virus. And that immunity appears to increase with age, becoming more prevalent in those over the age of 50.

 

The authors put it this way :

 

. . .  our findings are consistent with serologic analyses of the 2009 H1N1 virus suggesting that there are some preexisting pandemic H1N1 immune responses in the elderly; these are present to a lesser extent in younger adults but are rarely present in children.

 

Just as I was about to post this entry, I noticed that Maryn McKenna, writing for CIDRAP, has posted her summary of the report.   You’ll find it at the link below.

 

Study: H1N1 not highly contagious in households

»» Read More

NEJM: Pediatric H1N1 Hospitalizations & Deaths In Argentina

 

 


# 4191

 

 

The next time someone tries to tell you how mild, how insignificant, and how overhyped by health officials the pandemic of 2009 has been – refer them to this study which appears in the NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) which analyses the rate of hospitalization and death among pediatric H1N1 patients in Argentina over their recent flu season.

 

While novel H1N1 has not proven to be a huge killer of elderly adults, its impact on younger age groups has been substantially greater than normally seen with seasonal influenza.

 

image

 

The CDC’s tracking of pediatric deaths in the US for the year 2009 shows a huge increase in pediatric mortality.    The actual number of pediatric deaths has been estimated to exceed 1,000 this year.

 

 estimated deaths

These numbers are estimated as of mid-November, and are no doubt quite a bit higher today.

 

So it is of little surprise that an analysis of pediatric cases from Argentina would show double the normal (seasonal flu-related) pediatric hospitalizations  and a 10 fold increase in pediatric deaths.

 

 

Pediatric Hospitalizations Associated with 2009 Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) in Argentina
Romina Libster, M.D., et al.


ABSTRACT

 
Background While the Northern Hemisphere experiences the effects of the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus, data from the recent influenza season in the Southern Hemisphere can provide important information on the burden of disease in children.

 

Methods We conducted a retrospective case series involving children with acute infection of the lower respiratory tract or fever in whom 2009 H1N1 influenza was diagnosed on reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain-reaction assay and who were admitted to one of six pediatric hospitals serving a catchment area of 1.2 million children. We compared rates of admission and death with those among age-matched children who had been infected with seasonal influenza strains in previous years.

 

Results Between May and July 2009, a total of 251 children were hospitalized with 2009 H1N1 influenza. Rates of hospitalization were double those for seasonal influenza in 2008. Of the children who were hospitalized, 47 (19%) were admitted to an intensive care unit, 42 (17%) required mechanical ventilation, and 13 (5%) died. The overall rate of death was 1.1 per 100,000 children, as compared with 0.1 per 100,000 children for seasonal influenza in 2007. (No pediatric deaths associated with seasonal influenza were reported in 2008.) Most deaths were caused by refractory hypoxemia in infants under 1 year of age (death rate, 7.6 per 100,000).

 

Conclusions Pandemic 2009 H1N1 influenza was associated with pediatric death rates that were 10 times the rates for seasonal influenza in previous years.

»» Read More

NEJM: Pregnancy and Postpartum Risks Of Novel H1N1 Infection

 

 

# 4189

 

Very early on in the pandemic outbreak of 2009 it became apparent the pregnant women faced higher risks for complications than did otherwise healthy members of the general public. 

 

Intensive care units in the US, and around the world, reported roughly 6% of their admissions of H1N1 patients were of pregnant women, and we’ve seen reports that pregnant women are between 5 and 6 times more likely to die from H1N1 influenza.

 

This is, quite sadly, something that has been observed during pandemic outbreaks of the past; including 1957 and 1918. 

 

Some blogs over the past six months dealing with issues of pregnancy and influenza include:

 

Australian Study: H1N1 Hospitalized Patients
UK: DOH Urges Doctors To Reassure Pregnant Women About Vaccine
Pregnancy & Flu: A Bad Combination
Lancet Study: Pregnancy And H1N1
Branswell On Swine Flu And Pregnancy Complications

 

 

While some of these complications may be caused by structural issues (increased abdominal pressure on internal organs and the diaphragm), some of it probably comes from the mother’s down-regulated immune system, something the pregnant woman’s body does to avoid rejecting the fetus.

 

Today, in the NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) we get fresh analysis of severe H1N1 influenza infection in pregnant women . . . and postpartum women who had delivered in the previous two weeks.  

 

First however, from CIDRAP news, Maryn McKenna brings us an excellent summary of the NEJM article.

 

H1N1 poses grave risk to pregnant women, new moms

Maryn McKenna * Contributing Writer

Dec 23, 2009 (CIDRAP News) – Infection with H1N1 influenza poses a grave danger to pregnant women and those who have just delivered, and the risk increases when they do not receive antiviral treatment very rapidly, California and Atlanta researchers report today online ahead of print in the New England Journal of Medicine.

 

"This pandemic has the potential to notably increase overall maternal mortality in the United States in 2009," they write.

 

In surveillance data gathered by the California Department of Public Health between April and August 2009, early in the H1N1 pandemic, 22 of 102 pregnant and postpartum women who had been hospitalized for flu symptoms needed to be admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU), 16 were put on ventilators, and 8 died.

(Continue . . . )

 

 

Below you’ll find the link to the NEJM study. 

 

 

Severe 2009 H1N1 Influenza in Pregnant and Postpartum Women in California


Janice K. Louie, M.D., M.P.H., Meileen Acosta, M.P.H., Denise J. Jamieson, M.D., M.P.H., Margaret A. Honein, Ph.D., M.P.H., for the California Pandemic (H1N1) Working Group


ABSTRACT


Background Like previous epidemic and pandemic diseases, 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) may pose an increased risk of severe illness in pregnant women.

Methods Statewide surveillance for patients who were hospitalized with or died from 2009 H1N1 influenza was initiated by the California Department of Public Health. We reviewed demographic and clinical data reported from April 23 through August 11, 2009, for all H1N1-infected, reproductive-age women who were hospitalized or died — nonpregnant women, pregnant women, and postpartum women (those who had delivered 2 weeks previously).


<SNIP>

Conclusions 2009 H1N1 influenza can cause severe illness and death in pregnant and postpartum women; regardless of the results of rapid antigen testing, prompt evaluation and antiviral treatment of influenza-like illness should be considered in such women. The high cause-specific maternal mortality rate suggests that 2009 H1N1 influenza may increase the 2009 maternal mortality ratio in the United States.

 

(Continue . . . )

 

»» Read More

NEJM: Clinical Features Of H1N1 In China

 

 

# 4145

 

 

In one of the most in-depth studies released to date, we get a look at the clinical details of 426 laboratory confirmed cases of H1N1 infection in China from last May and June.

 

I’ve excerpted parts of the abstract below (slightly reparagraphed for readability), but follow the link to read the entire study.

 

 

Published at www.nejm.org December 9, 2009 (10.1056/NEJMoa0906612)

Clinical Features of the Initial Cases of 2009 Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) Virus Infection in China

Bin Cao, M.D., Xing-Wang Li, M.D., Yu Mao, M.D., Jian Wang, M.D., Hong-Zhou Lu, M.D., Yu-Sheng Chen, M.D., Zong-An Liang, M.D., Lirong Liang, M.D., Su-Juan Zhang, M.D., Bin Zhang, M.D., Li Gu, M.D., Lian-He Lu, M.D., Da-Yan Wang, Ph.D., Chen Wang, M.D., for the National Influenza A Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Clinical Investigation Group of China

ABSTRACT


Methods During May and June 2009, we observed 426 persons infected with the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus who were quarantined in 61 hospitals in 20 provinces.

 
Results The mean age of the 426 patients was 23.4 years, and 53.8% were male. The diagnosis was made at ports of entry (in 32.9% of the patients), during quarantine (20.2%), and in the hospital (46.9%).

 
The median incubation period of the virus was 2 days (range, 1 to 7).

 

The most common symptoms were fever (in 67.4% of the patients) and cough (69.5%). The incidence of diarrhea was 2.8%, and the incidence of nausea and vomiting was 1.9%.

 

Lymphopenia, which was common in both adults (68.1%) and children (92.3%), typically occurred on day 2 (range, 1 to 3) and resolved by day 7 (range, 6 to 9). Hypokalemia was observed in 25.4% of the patients. Duration of fever was typically 3 days (range, 1 to 11).

 


Conclusions Surveillance of the 2009 H1N1 virus in China shows that the majority of those infected have a mild illness. The typical period during which the virus can be detected with the use of real-time RT-PCR is 6 days (whether or not fever is present). The duration of infection may be shortened if oseltamivir is administered.

»» Read More