International audienceSummaryBackground Neuraminidase inhibitors were widely used during the 2009–10 influenza A H1N1 pandemic, but evidence for their effectiveness in reducing mortality is uncertain. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data to investigate the association between use of neuraminidase inhibitors and mortality in patients admitted to hospital with pandemic influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection. Methods We assembled data for patients (all ages) admitted to hospital worldwide with laboratory confirmed or clinically diagnosed pandemic influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection. We identified potential data contributors from an earlier systematic review of reported studies addressing the same research question. In our systematic review, eligible studies were done between March 1, 2009 (Mexico), or April 1, 2009 (rest of the world), until the WHO declaration of the end of the pandemic (Aug 10, 2010); however, we continued to receive data up to March 14, 2011, from ongoing studies. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data to assess the association between neuraminidase inhibitor treatment and mortality (primary outcome), adjusting for both treatment propensity and potential confounders, using generalised linear mixed modelling. We assessed the association with time to treatment using time-dependent Cox regression shared frailty modelling. Findings We included data for 29 234 patients from 78 studies of patients admitted to hospital between Jan 2, 2009, and March 14, 2011. Compared with no treatment, neuraminidase inhibitor treatment (irrespective of timing) was associated with a reduction in mortality risk (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·81; 95% CI 0·70–0·93; p=0·0024). Compared with later treatment, early treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) was associated with a reduction in mortality risk (adjusted OR 0·48; 95% CI 0·41–0·56; p<0·0001). Early treatment versus no treatment was also associated with a reduction in mortality (adjusted OR 0·50; 95% CI 0·37–0·67; p<0·0001). These associations with reduced mortality risk were less pronounced and not significant in children. There was an increase in the mortality hazard rate with each day's delay in initiation of treatment up to day 5 as compared with treatment initiated within 2 days of symptom onset (adjusted hazard ratio [HR 1·23] [95% CI 1·18–1·28]; p<0·0001 for the increasing HR with each day's delay). Interpretation We advocate early instigation of neuraminidase inhibitor treatment in adults admitted to hospital with suspected or proven influenza infection. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche

BackgroundThe impact of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) on influenza‐related pneumonia (IRP) is not established. Our objective was to investigate the association between NAI treatment and IRP incidence and outcomes in patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection.MethodsA worldwide meta‐analysis of individual participant data from 20 634 hospitalised patients with laboratory‐confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 (n = 20 021) or clinically diagnosed (n = 613) ‘pandemic influenza’. The primary outcome was radiologically confirmed IRP. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated using generalised linear mixed modelling, adjusting for NAI treatment propensity, antibiotics and corticosteroids.ResultsOf 20 634 included participants, 5978 (29·0%) had IRP; conversely, 3349 (16·2%) had confirmed the absence of radiographic pneumonia (the comparator). Early NAI treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) versus no NAI was not significantly associated with IRP [adj. OR 0·83 (95% CI 0·64–1·06; P = 0·136)]. Among the 5978 patients with IRP, early NAI treatment versus none did not impact on mortality [adj. OR = 0·72 (0·44–1·17; P = 0·180)] or likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 1·17 (0·71–1·92; P = 0·537)], but early treatment versus later significantly reduced mortality [adj. OR = 0·70 (0·55–0·88; P = 0·003)] and likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 0·68 (0·54–0·85; P = 0·001)].ConclusionsEarly NAI treatment of patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection versus no treatment did not reduce the likelihood of IRP. However, in patients who developed IRP, early NAI treatment versus later reduced the likelihood of mortality and needing ventilatory support.

BackgroundAnti-viral treatment has been used to treat severe or progressive illness due to pandemic H1N1 2009. A main cause of severe illness in pandemic H1N1 2009 is viral pneumonia; however, it is unclear how effective antiviral treatment is against pneumonia when administered >48 hours after symptom onset. Therefore, we aimed to determine how time from symptom onset to antiviral administration affected the effectiveness of antiviral treatment against pneumonia due to pandemic (H1N1) 2009.Methods/Principal FindingsA retrospective medical chart review of 442 patients was conducted in a hospital in Mexico. Subjects had tested positive for pandemic H1N1 2009 virus by real-time reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction and were administered oseltamivir. Median time from symptom onset to oseltamivir administration was 5.0 days (range, 0–43). 442 subjects, 71 (16.1%) had severe pneumonia which required mechanical ventilation, 191 (43.2%) had mild to moderate pneumonia, and 180 (40%) did not have pneumonia. Subjects were divided into four groups based on time to oseltamivir administration: ≤2, 3–7, 8–14, and >14 days. Severity of respiratory features was associated with time to treatment, and multivariate analysis indicated that time to oseltamivir administration was associated with severity of respiratory features. A proportional odds model indicated that 50% probability for occurrence of pneumonia of any severity and that of severe pneumonia in patients who would develop pneumonia reached at approximately 3.4 and 21 days, respectively, after symptom onset. Patients with a shorter time to oseltamivir administration were discharged earlier from the hospital.ConclusionsEarlier initiation of oseltamivir administration after symptom onset significantly reduced occurrence and severity of pneumonia and shortened hospitalization due to pandemic H1N1 2009. Even when administered >48 hours after symptom onset, oseltamivir showed considerable potential for reducing pneumonia. Application of these results would benefit patients affected by future influenza pandemics.

BackgroundIn addition to clinical aspects and pathogen characteristics, people's health-related behavior and socioeconomic conditions can affect the occurrence and severity of diseases including influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.Methodology and Principal FindingsA face-to-face interview survey was conducted in a hospital in Mexico City at the time of follow-up consultation for hospitalized patients with pneumonia due to influenza virus infection. In all, 302 subjects were enrolled and divided into two groups based on the period of hospitalization. Among them, 211 tested positive for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus by real-time reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction during the pandemic period (Group-pdm) and 91 tested positive for influenza A virus in the post-pandemic period (Group-post). All subjects were treated with oseltamivir. Data on the demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, living environment, and information relating to A(H1N1)pdm09, and related clinical data were compared between subjects in Group-pdm and those in Group-post. The ability of household income to pay for utilities, food, and health care services as well as housing quality in terms of construction materials and number of rooms revealed a significant difference: Group-post had lower socioeconomic status than Group-pdm. Group-post had lower availability of information regarding H1N1 influenza than Group-pdm. These results indicate that subjects in Group-post had difficulty receiving necessary information relating to influenza and were more likely to be impoverished than those in Group-pdm. Possible factors influencing time to seeking health care were number of household rooms, having received information on the necessity of quick access to health care, and house construction materials.ConclusionsHealth-care-seeking behavior, poverty level, and the distribution of information affect the occurrence and severity of pneumonia due to H1N1 virus from a socioeconomic point of view. These socioeconomic factors may explain the different patterns of morbidity and mortality for H1N1 influenza observed among different countries and regions.