BACKGROUND There are few data on the comparative epidemiology and virology of the pandemic 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus and cocirculating seasonal influenza A viruses in community settings. METHODS We recruited 348 index patients with acute respiratory illness from 14 outpatient clinics in Hong Kong in July and August 2009. We then prospectively followed household members of 99 patients who tested positive for influenza A virus on rapid diagnostic testing. We collected nasal and throat swabs from all household members at three home visits within 7 days for testing by means of quantitative reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assay and viral culture. Using hemagglutination-inhibition and viral-neutralization assays, we tested baseline and convalescent serum samples from a subgroup of patients for antibody responses to the pandemic and seasonal influenza A viruses. RESULTS Secondary attack rates (as confirmed on RT-PCR assay) among household contacts of index patients were similar for the pandemic influenza virus (8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3 to 14) and seasonal influenza viruses (9%; 95% CI, 5 to 15). The patterns of viral shedding and the course of illness among index patients were also similar for the pandemic and seasonal influenza viruses. In a subgroup of patients for whom baseline and convalescent serum samples were available, 36% of household contacts who had serologic evidence of pandemic influenza virus infection did not shed detectable virus or report illness. CONCLUSIONS Pandemic 2009 H1N1 virus has characteristics that are broadly similar to those of seasonal influenza A viruses in terms of rates of viral shedding, clinical illness, and transmissibility in the household setting.
BackgroundThe presence of COVID-19 in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) is raising important concerns about effective pandemic response and preparedness in the context of fragile health systems and the pervasiveness of misinformation. The objective of this study was to gain an understanding of how COVID-19 was perceived by households experiencing extreme poverty in the Philippines. MethodsThis study was conducted in partnership with International Care Ministries (ICM), a Philippine-based non-governmental organization (NGO) that runs a poverty-alleviation program called Transform targeted towards extreme low-income households. We integrated knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) questions into ICM' s cross-sectional program monitoring and evaluation systems from February 20 through March 13, 2020. Frequencies and proportions were calculated to describe the respondents' responses, and the Kruskal-Wallis test and binomial logistic regression were undertaken to determine the socio-demographic characteristics associated with COVID-19 KAPs. ResultsIn total, 2224 respondents from 166 communities in rural, urban and coastal settings were surveyed. Although the survey was administered during the earlier stages of the pandemic, 94.0% of respondents had already heard of COVID-19. Traditional media sources such as television (85.5%) and radio (56.1%) were reported as the main sources of information about the virus. Coughing and sneezing were identified as a transmission route by 89.5% of respondents, while indirect hand contact was the least commonly identified transmission route, recognized by 72.6% of respondents. Handwashing was identified by 82.2% of respondents as a preventive measure against the virus, but social distancing and avoiding crowds were only identified by 32.4% and 40.6%, respectively. Handwashing was the most common preventive practice in response to COVID-19, adopted by 89.9% of respondents. A greater number of preventive measures were taken by those with more knowledge of potential transmission routes. ConclusionsThere is a need for targeted health education as a response strategy to COVID-19 in low-income settings, and it is important that strategies are contextually relevant. Understanding KAPs among populations experiencing extreme poverty will be important as tailored guidance for public health response and communication strategies are developed for LMICs.
Background Volunteer challenge studies have provided detailed data on viral shedding from the respiratory tract before and through the course of experimental influenza virus infection. There are no comparable quantitative data on naturally-acquired infections. Methods In a community-based study in Hong Kong in 2008, we followed up initially well individuals to quantify trends in viral shedding based on culture and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) through the course of illness associated with seasonal influenza A and B virus infection. Results Trends in symptom scores more closely matched changes in molecular viral loads measured by RT-PCR for influenza A than influenza B. For influenza A virus infections, replicating viral loads measured by culture declined to undetectable levels earlier after illness onset than molecular viral loads. Most viral shedding occurred during the first 2–3 days after illness onset and we estimated that 1–8% of infectiousness occurs prior to illness onset. Only 14% of infections with detectable shedding by RT-PCR were asymptomatic, and viral shedding was low in these cases. Conclusions Our results suggest that ‘silent spreaders’ (i.e. individuals who are infectious while asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic) may be less important in the spread of influenza epidemics than previously thought.
The presence of influenza viral shedding in patients with influenza who have very few or no symptoms reflects their potential for transmitting the virus to close contacts. These findings suggest that further research is needed to investigate the contribution of persons with asymptomatic or clinically mild influenza virus infections to influenza virus transmission in household, institutional, and community settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.