BackgroundInfluenza is often not recognized as an important cause of severe or fatal disease in tropical and subtropical countries in Southeast Asia. The extent to which Oseltamivir treatment may protect against a fatal outcome in severe influenza infections is not known. Thailand's National Avian Influenza Surveillance (NAIS) system affords a unique opportunity to describe the epidemiology of laboratory-confirmed severe and fatal human influenza infections.Methodology/Principal FindingsDuring January 2004 through December 2006, 11,641 notifications to the NAIS were investigated in 73 of 76 Thai provinces. Clinical and demographic data and respiratory swab specimens were collected and tested by PCR for influenza. Using the NAIS database, we identified all patients with laboratory confirmed human influenza (A/H3N2, A/H1N1 and Type B) infection. A retrospective medical record review was conducted on all fatal cases with laboratory confirmed influenza and from a sample of hospitalized cases in 28 provinces. The association of underlying risk factors, Oseltamivir treatment and risk of a fatal outcome were examined. Human influenza infections were identified in 2,075 (18%) cases. Twenty-two (1%) deaths occurred including seven deaths in children less than ten years of age. Thirty-five percent of hospitalized human influenza infections had chest X-ray confirmed pneumonia. Current or former smoking; advanced age, hypertension and underlying cardiovascular, pulmonary or endocrine disease were associated with a fatal outcome from human influenza infection. Treatment with Oseltamivir was statistically associated with survival with a crude OR of .11 (95% CI: 0.04–0.30) and .13 (95% CI: 0.04–0.40) after controlling for age.ConclusionsSevere and fatal human influenza infections were commonly identified in the NAIS designed to identify avian A/H5N1 cases. Treatment with Oseltamivir is associated with survival in hospitalized human influenza pneumonia patients.

BackgroundThe National Avian Influenza Surveillance (NAIS) system detected human H5N1 cases in Thailand from 2004–2006. Using NAIS data, we identified risk factors for death among H5N1 cases and described differences between H5N1 and human (seasonal) influenza cases.Methods and FindingsNAIS identified 11,641 suspect H5N1 cases (e.g. persons with fever and respiratory symptoms or pneumonia, and exposure to sick or dead poultry). All suspect H5N1 cases were tested with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for influenza A(H5N1) and human influenza viruses. NAIS detected 25 H5N1 and 2074 human influenza cases; 17 (68%) and 22 (1%) were fatal, respectively. We collected detailed information from medical records on all H5N1 cases, all fatal human influenza cases, and a sampled subset of 230 hospitalized non-fatal human influenza cases drawn from provinces with ≥1 H5N1 case or human influenza fatality.Fatal versus non-fatal H5N1 cases were more likely to present with low white blood cell (p = 0.05), lymphocyte (p<0.02), and platelet counts (p<0.01); have elevated liver enzymes (p = 0.05); and progress to circulatory (p<0.001) and respiratory failure (p<0.001). There were no differences in age, medical conditions, or antiviral treatment between fatal and non-fatal H5N1 cases. Compared to a sample of human influenza cases, all H5N1 cases had direct exposure to sick or dead birds (60% vs. 100%, p<0.05). Fatal H5N1 and fatal human influenza cases were similar clinically except that fatal H5N1 cases more commonly: had fever (p<0.001), vomiting (p<0.01), low white blood cell counts (p<0.01), received oseltamivir (71% vs. 23%, p<.001), but less often had ≥1 chronic medical conditions (p<0.001).ConclusionsIn the absence of diagnostic testing during an influenza A(H5N1) epizootic, a few epidemiologic, clinical, and laboratory findings might provide clues to help target H5N1 control efforts. Severe human influenza and H5N1 cases were clinically similar, and both would benefit from early antiviral treatment.