Influenza Transmission In Households Research Articles

Household transmission of influenza A and B within a prospective cohort during the 2013‐2014 and 2014‐2015 seasons

People living within the same household as someone ill with influenza are at increased risk of infection. Here, we use Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to partition the hazard of influenza illness within a cohort into the hazard from the community and the hazard from the household. During the 2013‐2014 influenza season, 49 (4.7%) of the 1044 people enrolled in a community surveillance cohort had an acute respiratory illness (ARI) attributable to influenza. During the 2014‐2015 influenza season, 50 (4.7%) of the 1063 people in the cohort had an ARI attributable to influenza. The secondary attack rate from a household member was 2.3% for influenza A (H1) during 2013‐2014, 5.3% for influenza B during 2013‐2014, and 7.6% for influenza A (H3) during 2014‐2015. Living in a household with a person ill with influenza increased the risk of an ARI attributable to influenza up to 350%, depending on the season and the influenza virus circulating within the household.

Reconstructing the household transmission of influenza in the suburbs of Tokyo based on clinical cases

BackgroundInfluenza is a public health issue that needs to be addressed strategically. The assessment of detailed infectious profiles is an important part of this effort. Household transmission data play a key role in estimating such profiles. We used diagnostic and questionnaire-based data on influenza patients at a Japanese clinic to estimate the detailed infectious period (as well as incubation period, symptomatic and infectious periods, and extended infectious period after recovery) and the secondary attack ratio (SAR) of influenza for households of various sizes based on a modified Cauchemez-type model.ResultsThe data were from enrolled patients with confirmed influenza who were treated at the Hirotsu Clinic (Kawasaki, Japan) with a neuraminidase inhibitor (NAI) during six northern hemisphere influenza seasons between 2010 and 2016. A total of 2342 outpatients, representing 1807 households, were included. For influenza type A, the average incubation period was 1.43 days (95% probability interval, 0.03–5.32 days). The estimated average symptomatic and infective period was 1.76 days (0.33–4.62 days); the extended infective period after recovery was 0.25 days. The estimated SAR rose from 20 to 32% as household size increased from 3 to 5. For influenza type B, the average incubation period, average symptomatic and infective period, and extended infective period were estimated as 1.66 days (0.21–4.61), 2.62 days (0.54–5.75) and 1.00 days, respectively. The SAR increased from 12 to 21% as household size increased from 3 to 5.ConclusionAll estimated periods of influenza type B were longer than the corresponding periods for type A. However, the SAR for type B was less than that for type A. These results may reflect Japanese demographics and treatment policy. Understanding the infectious profiles of influenza is necessary for assessing public health measures.

Effect of hygiene interventions on acute respiratory infections in childcare, school and domestic settings in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) disproportionately affect those living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to determine whether hygiene interventions delivered in childcare, school or domestic settings in LMICs effectively prevent or reduce ARIs. We registered our systematic review with PROSPERO (CRD42017058239) and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Scopus from inception to 17 October 2017 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the impact of hygiene interventions on ARI morbidity in adults and children in community-based settings in LMICs. We stratified data into childcare, school and domestic settings and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess evidence quality. We identified 14 cluster RCTs evaluating hand-hygiene interventions in LMICs with considerable heterogeneity in setting, size, intervention delivery and duration. We found reduced ARI-related absenteeism and illness in childcare settings (low- to moderate-quality evidence). In school settings, we found reduced ARI-related absenteeism and laboratory-confirmed influenza (moderate- to high-quality evidence), but no reduction in ARI illness (low-quality evidence). In domestic settings, we found reduced ARI illness and pneumonia amongst children in urban settlements (high-quality evidence) but not in rural settlements (low-quality evidence), and no effect on secondary transmission of influenza in households (moderate-quality evidence). Evidence suggests that hand-hygiene interventions delivered in childcare, school and domestic settings can reduce ARI morbidity, but effectiveness varies according to setting, intervention target and intervention compliance. Further studies are needed to develop, deliver and evaluate targeted and sustainable hygiene interventions in LMICs.

Household transmission of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 in the pandemic and post-pandemic seasons.

BackgroundThe transmission of influenza viruses occurs person to person and is facilitated by contacts within enclosed environments such as households. The aim of this study was to evaluate secondary attack rates and factors associated with household transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 in the pandemic and post-pandemic seasons.MethodsDuring the 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 influenza seasons, 76 sentinel physicians in Navarra, Spain, took nasopharyngeal and pharyngeal swabs from patients diagnosed with influenza-like illness. A trained nurse telephoned households of those patients who were laboratory-confirmed for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 to ask about the symptoms, risk factors and vaccination status of each household member.ResultsIn the 405 households with a patient laboratory-confirmed for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, 977 susceptible contacts were identified; 16% of them (95% CI 14–19%) presented influenza-like illness and were considered as secondary cases. The secondary attack rate was 14% in 2009–2010 and 19% in the 2010–2011 season (p = 0.049), an increase that mainly affected persons with major chronic conditions. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the risk of being a secondary case was higher in the 2010–2011 season than in the 2009–2010 season (adjusted odds ratio: 1.72; 95% CI 1.17–2.54), and in children under 5 years, with a decreasing risk in older contacts. Influenza vaccination was associated with lesser incidence of influenza-like illness near to statistical significance (adjusted odds ratio: 0.29; 95% CI 0.08–1.03).ConclusionThe secondary attack rate in households was higher in the second season than in the first pandemic season. Children had a greater risk of infection. Preventive measures should be maintained in the second pandemic season, especially in high-risk persons.

Household transmission of influenza in a developing country setting—South Africa, 2013

P.J. Iyengar1, C. von Mollendorf2, N. Martinson3, M. Chhagan4, E. Variava5, S. Tempia6, M. McMorrow7, M. Gambhir7, S. Cauchemez8, A. Cohen9, C. Cohen10 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, USA 2 National Institute for Communicable Diseases, Johannesburg, South Africa 3 Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA 4 University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa 5 Klerksdorp-Tshepong Hospital, North West Province, South Africa 6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pretoria, South Africa 7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, USA 8 Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom 9 CDC, Atlanta, South Africa 10 National Institute for Communicable Diseases, Sandringham, South Africa

Household transmission of influenza A and B in a school-based study of non-pharmaceutical interventions

The effect of school-based non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) on influenza A and B transmission in children's households has not been estimated in published literature. We use data from a large school-based cluster randomized trial of improved hand and respiratory hygiene measures to explore the secondary transmission of influenza A and B in households of laboratory confirmed influenza cases. Data were taken from the Pittsburgh Influenza Prevention Project, a cluster-randomized trial of NPIs conducted in ten Pittsburgh, PA elementary schools during the 2007–2008 influenza season. We estimated two measures of influenza transmissibility in households; the susceptible infectious transmission probability, using variants of the Reed–Frost chain binomial model, and the secondary attack rate. We identified predictors of ILI using a logistic generalized estimating equation model. We estimate the secondary attack rates in intervention households to be 0.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19–0.34) compared to 0.30 (95% CI 0.23–0.38) in control households. Race and age were significant risk factors for secondary ILI acquisition in this study. We found no significant differences between the transmission probabilities for infectious individuals in intervention (0.19, 95% CI 0.14–0.25), and control households (0.22, 95% CI 0.16–0.29). Similarly, estimates for secondary attack rates and transmission probabilities for households with confirmed influenza A (0.31 and 0.22) were not significantly different from estimates from households with confirmed influenza B (0.25 and 0.20). While influenza A and B are thought to have different transmission characteristics, we find no significant differences in their transmissibility within households. Though our results suggest a potential effect, we found no statistically significant effect of school-based non-pharmaceutical interventions on transmission in symptomatic children's homes.

Optimal design of studies of influenza transmission in households. II: Comparison between cohort and case-ascertained studies

Both case-ascertained household studies, in which households are recruited after an 'index case' is identified, and household cohort studies, where a household is enrolled before the start of the epidemic, may be used to test and estimate the protective effect of interventions used to prevent influenza transmission. A simulation approach parameterized with empirical data from household studies was used to evaluate and compare the statistical power of four study designs: a cohort study with routine virological testing of household contacts of infected index case, a cohort study where only household contacts with acute respiratory illness (ARI) are sampled for virological testing, a case-ascertained study with routine virological testing of household contacts, and a case-ascertained study where only household contacts with ARI are sampled for virological testing. We found that a case-ascertained study with ARI-triggered testing would be the most powerful design while a cohort design only testing household contacts with ARI was the least powerful. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that these conclusions varied by model parameters including the serial interval and the risk of influenza virus infection from outside the household.

Hand hygiene to reduce community transmission of influenza and acute respiratory tract infection: a systematic review

Please cite this paper as: Warren‐Gash et al. (2012) Hand hygiene to reduce community transmission of influenza and acute respiratory tract infection: a systematic review. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses DOI: 10.1111/irv.12015.Hand hygiene may be associated with modest protection against some acute respiratory tract infections, but its specific role in influenza transmission in different settings is unclear. We aimed to review evidence that improving hand hygiene reduces primary and secondary transmission of (i) influenza and (ii) acute respiratory tract infections in community settings. We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health and Cochrane databases up to 13 February 2012 for reports in any language of original research investigating the effect of hand hygiene on influenza or acute respiratory tract infection where aetiology was unspecified in community settings including institutions such as schools, and domestic residences. Data were presented and quality rated across outcomes according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Sixteen articles met inclusion criteria. There was moderate to low‐quality evidence of a reduction in both influenza and respiratory tract infection with hand hygiene interventions in schools, greatest in a lower–middle‐income setting. There was high‐quality evidence of a small reduction in respiratory infection in childcare settings. There was high‐quality evidence for a large reduction in respiratory infection with a hand hygiene intervention in squatter settlements in a low‐income setting. There was moderate‐ to high‐quality evidence of no effect on secondary transmission of influenza in households that had already experienced an index case. While hand hygiene interventions have potential to reduce transmission of influenza and acute respiratory tract infections, their effectiveness varies depending on setting, context and compliance.

Cochrane Review: Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in children (published trials only)

Background: During epidemics, influenza attack rates in children may exceed 40%. Options for prevention and treatment currently include the neuraminidase inhibitors zanamivir and oseltamivir. Laninamivir octanoate, the prodrug of laninamivir, is currently being developed. Objectives: To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of neuraminidase inhibitors in the treatment and prevention of influenza in children. Search methods: For this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to January week 2, 2011) and EMBASE (January 2010 to January 2011). Selection criteria: Double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing neuraminidase inhibitors with placebo or other antiviral drugs in children aged up to and including 12 years. We also included safety and tolerability data from other types of studies. Data collection and analysis: Four review authors selected studies, assessed study quality and extracted data for the current and previous versions of this review. We analysed data separately for oseltamivir versus placebo, zanamivir versus placebo and laninamivir octanoate versus oseltamivir. Main results: Six treatment trials involving 1906 children with clinical influenza and 450 children with influenza diagnosed on rapid near-patient influenza testing were included. Of these 2356 children, 1255 had laboratory-confirmed influenza. Three prophylaxis trials involving 863 children exposed to influenza were also included. In children with laboratory-confirmed influenza oseltamivir reduced median duration of illness by 36 hours (26%, P < 0.001). One trial of oseltamivir in children with asthma who had laboratory-confirmed influenza showed only a small reduction in illness duration (10.4 hours, 8%), which was not statistically significant (P = 0.542). Laninamivir octanoate 20 mg reduced symptom duration by 2.8 days (60%, P < 0.001) in children with oseltamivir-resistant influenza A/H1N1. Zanamivir reduced median duration of illness by 1.3 days (24%, P < 0.001). Oseltamivir significantly reduced acute otitis media in children aged one to five years with laboratory-confirmed influenza (risk difference (RD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.24 to -0.04). Prophylaxis with either zanamivir or oseltamivir was associated with an 8% absolute reduction in developing influenza after the introduction of a case into a household (RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05, P < 0.001). The adverse event profile of zanamivir was no worse than placebo but vomiting was more commonly associated with oseltamivir (number needed to harm = 17, 95% CI 10 to 34). The adverse event profiles of laninamivir octanoate and oseltamivir were similar. Authors' conclusions: Oseltamivir and zanamivir appear to have modest benefit in reducing duration of illness in children with influenza. However, our analysis was limited by small sample sizes and an inability to pool data from different studies. In addition, the inclusion of data from published trials only may have resulted in significant publication bias. Based on published trial data, oseltamivir reduces the incidence of acute otitis media in children aged one to five years but is associated with a significantly increased risk of vomiting. One study demonstrated that laninamivir octanoate was more effective than oseltamivir in shortening duration of illness in children with oseltamivir-resistant influenza A/H1N1. The benefit of oseltamivir and zanamivir in preventing the transmission of influenza in households is modest and based on weak evidence. However, the clinical efficacy of neuraminidase inhibitors in 'at risk' children is still uncertain. Larger high-quality trials are needed with sufficient power to determine the efficacy of neuraminidase inhibitors in preventing serious complications of influenza (such as pneumonia or hospital admission), particularly in 'at risk' groups. © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in children (published trials only).

During epidemics, influenza attack rates in children may exceed 40%. Options for prevention and treatment currently include the neuraminidase inhibitors zanamivir and oseltamivir. Laninamivir octanoate, the prodrug of laninamivir, is currently being developed. To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of neuraminidase inhibitors in the treatment and prevention of influenza in children. For this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to January week 2, 2011) and EMBASE (January 2010 to January 2011). Double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing neuraminidase inhibitors with placebo or other antiviral drugs in children aged up to and including 12 years. We also included safety and tolerability data from other types of studies. Four review authors selected studies, assessed study quality and extracted data for the current and previous versions of this review. We analysed data separately for oseltamivir versus placebo, zanamivir versus placebo and laninamivir octanoate versus oseltamivir. Six treatment trials involving 1906 children with clinical influenza and 450 children with influenza diagnosed on rapid near-patient influenza testing were included. Of these 2356 children, 1255 had laboratory-confirmed influenza. Three prophylaxis trials involving 863 children exposed to influenza were also included. In children with laboratory-confirmed influenza oseltamivir reduced median duration of illness by 36 hours (26%, P < 0.001). One trial of oseltamivir in children with asthma who had laboratory-confirmed influenza showed only a small reduction in illness duration (10.4 hours, 8%), which was not statistically significant (P = 0.542). Laninamivir octanoate 20 mg reduced symptom duration by 2.8 days (60%, P < 0.001) in children with oseltamivir-resistant influenza A/H1N1. Zanamivir reduced median duration of illness by 1.3 days (24%, P < 0.001). Oseltamivir significantly reduced acute otitis media in children aged one to five years with laboratory-confirmed influenza (risk difference (RD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.24 to -0.04). Prophylaxis with either zanamivir or oseltamivir was associated with an 8% absolute reduction in developing influenza after the introduction of a case into a household (RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05, P < 0.001). The adverse event profile of zanamivir was no worse than placebo but vomiting was more commonly associated with oseltamivir (number needed to harm = 17, 95% CI 10 to 34). The adverse event profiles of laninamivir octanoate and oseltamivir were similar. Oseltamivir and zanamivir appear to have modest benefit in reducing duration of illness in children with influenza. However, our analysis was limited by small sample sizes and an inability to pool data from different studies. In addition, the inclusion of data from published trials only may have resulted in significant publication bias. Based on published trial data, oseltamivir reduces the incidence of acute otitis media in children aged one to five years but is associated with a significantly increased risk of vomiting. One study demonstrated that laninamivir octanoate was more effective than oseltamivir in shortening duration of illness in children with oseltamivir-resistant influenza A/H1N1. The benefit of oseltamivir and zanamivir in preventing the transmission of influenza in households is modest and based on weak evidence. However, the clinical efficacy of neuraminidase inhibitors in 'at risk' children is still uncertain. Larger high-quality trials are needed with sufficient power to determine the efficacy of neuraminidase inhibitors in preventing serious complications of influenza (such as pneumonia or hospital admission), particularly in 'at risk' groups.

Influenza Transmission in a Community during a Seasonal Influenza A(H3N2) Outbreak (2010–2011) in Mongolia: A Community-Based Prospective Cohort Study

BackgroundKnowledge of how influenza viruses spread in a community is important for planning and implementation of effective interventions, including social distancing measures. Households and schools are implicated as the major sites for influenza virus transmission. However, the overall picture of community transmission is not well defined during actual outbreaks. We conducted a community-based prospective cohort study to describe the transmission characteristics of influenza in Mongolia.Methods and FindingsA total of 5,655 residents in 1,343 households were included in this cohort study. An active search for cases of influenza-like illness (ILI) was performed between October 2010 and April 2011. Data collected during a community outbreak of influenza A(H3N2) were analyzed. Total 282 ILI cases occurred during this period, and 73% of the subjects were aged <15 years. The highest attack rate (20.4%) was in those aged 1–4 years, whereas the attack rate in those aged 5–9 years was 10.8%. Fifty-one secondary cases occurred among 900 household contacts from 43 households (43 index cases), giving an overall crude household secondary attack rate (SAR) of 5.7%. SAR was significantly higher in younger household contacts (relative risk for those aged <1 year: 9.90, 1–4 years: 5.59, and 5–9 years: 6.43). We analyzed the transmission patterns among households and a community and repeated transmissions were detected between households, preschools, and schools. Children aged 1–4 years played an important role in influenza transmission in households and in the community at large. Working-age adults were also a source of influenza in households, whereas elderly cases (aged ≥65 years) had no link with household transmission.ConclusionsRepeated transmissions between households, preschools, and schools were observed during an influenza A(H3N2) outbreak period in Mongolia, where subjects aged 1–4 years played an important role in influenza transmission.

Risk Factors of Household Transmission of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 among Patients Treated with Antivirals: A Prospective Study at a Primary Clinic in Japan

BackgroundHousehold transmission of influenza can affect the daily lives of patients and their families and be a trigger for community transmission, thus it is necessary to take precautions to prevent household transmission. We aimed to determine the risks of household transmission of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza virus from an index patient who visited a primary clinic and was treated with antiviral drugs.MethodsWe followed up all the patients who were diagnosed with influenza A by rapid diagnostic test with a questionnaire or interview from July 2009 to April 2010. Secondary cases were defined as patients visiting the clinic or other clinics and being positive for influenza A by rapid diagnostic test within 7 days of onset of an index patient. Logistic regression analysis was used to explore the association between household transmission and the studied variables.ResultsWe recruited 591 index patients and 1629 household contacts. The crude secondary attack rate was 7.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.1–8.7]. Age of index patients (0–6 years old: odds ratio 2.56; 95% CI: 1.31–4.01; 7–12 years old: 2.44, 1.31–3.72; 30–39 years old 3.88; 2.09–5.21; 40 years old or more 2.76; 1.17–4.53) and number of household members with five or more (3.09, 2.11–4.07), medication started ≥48 hours from the onset of fever (2.38, 1.17–3.87) were significantly associated with household transmission.ConclusionsHousehold transmission was associated with index patients aged ≤12 years old and adults ≥30 years with children, with more than five persons in the household, and medication initiated ≥48 hours from the onset of fever among the population, in which, antiviral treatment was given to all patients. We need to warn patients at high risk of household transmission to take additional precautions.

The role of facemasks and hand hygiene in the prevention of influenza transmission in households: results from a cluster randomised trial; Berlin, Germany, 2009-2011

BackgroundPrevious controlled studies on the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) - namely the use of facemasks and intensified hand hygiene - in preventing household transmission of influenza have not produced definitive results. We aimed to investigate efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of NPI in households with influenza index patients.MethodsWe conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial during the pandemic season 2009/10 and the ensuing influenza season 2010/11. We included households with an influenza positive index case in the absence of further respiratory illness within the preceding 14 days. Study arms were wearing a facemask and practicing intensified hand hygiene (MH group), wearing facemasks only (M group) and none of the two (control group). Main outcome measure was laboratory confirmed influenza infection in a household contact. We used daily questionnaires to examine adherence and tolerability of the interventions.ResultsWe recruited 84 households (30 control, 26 M and 28 MH households) with 82, 69 and 67 household contacts, respectively. In 2009/10 all 41 index cases had a influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 infection, in 2010/11 24 had an A (H1N1) pdm09 and 20 had a B infection. The total secondary attack rate was 16% (35/218). In intention-to-treat analysis there was no statistically significant effect of the M and MH interventions on secondary infections. When analysing only households where intervention was implemented within 36 h after symptom onset of the index case, secondary infection in the pooled M and MH groups was significantly lower compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio 0.16, 95% CI, 0.03-0.92). In a per-protocol analysis odds ratios were significantly reduced among participants of the M group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.30, 95% CI, 0.10-0.94). With the exception of MH index cases in 2010/11 adherence was good for adults and children, contacts and index cases.ConclusionsResults suggest that household transmission of influenza can be reduced by the use of NPI, such as facemasks and intensified hand hygiene, when implemented early and used diligently. Concerns about acceptability and tolerability of the interventions should not be a reason against their recommendation.Trial registrationThe study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT00833885).

Influenza Transmission in Households During the 1918 Pandemic

Analysis of historical data has strongly shaped our understanding of the epidemiology of pandemic influenza and informs analysis of current and future epidemics. Here, the authors analyzed previously unpublished documents from a large household survey of the "Spanish" H1N1 influenza pandemic, conducted in 1918, for the first time quantifying influenza transmissibility at the person-to-person level during that most lethal of pandemics. The authors estimated a low probability of person-to-person transmission relative to comparable estimates from seasonal influenza and other directly transmitted infections but similar to recent estimates from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. The authors estimated a very low probability of asymptomatic infection, a previously unknown parameter for this pandemic, consistent with an unusually virulent virus. The authors estimated a high frequency of prior immunity that they attributed to a largely unreported influenza epidemic in the spring of 1918 (or perhaps to cross-reactive immunity). Extrapolating from this finding, the authors hypothesize that prior immunity partially protected some populations from the worst of the fall pandemic and helps explain differences in attack rates between populations. Together, these analyses demonstrate that the 1918 influenza virus, though highly virulent, was only moderately transmissible and thus in a modern context would be considered controllable.

Household Transmission of Influenza (H1N1-2009) in Japan: Age-Specificity and Reduction of Household Transmission Risk by Zanamivir Treatment

This study investigated household transmission data for influenza (H1N1-2009) in Japan in order to quantify the age-specific risk of infection and estimate the impact of antiviral treatment on the risk of household transmission. Among a total of 1547 households, involving 4609 household contacts, the secondary attack ratio (SAR) was estimated to be 11.4%. School children aged 5 - 18 years dominated the index cases. Age-specific infectiousness and susceptibility were highest among 0 - 4-year olds, with SAR estimated at 19.4% and 29.6%, respectively. Zanamivir treatment within 24 and 24 - 48 h of illness onset in index cases, respectively, reduced the risk of household transmission to 0.57 (95% CI 0.44, 0.73) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.38, 0.86) times that among those receiving the same treatment at > 48 h and those not receiving treatment. The preventive performance of antiviral treatment and prophylaxis should be further examined in randomized controlled trials.

Optimal design of studies of influenza transmission in households. I: Case-ascertained studies

Case-ascertained household transmission studies, in which households including an 'index case' are recruited and followed up, are invaluable to understanding the epidemiology of influenza. We used a simulation approach parameterized with data from household transmission studies to evaluate alternative study designs. We compared studies that relied on self-reported illness in household contacts vs. studies that used home visits to collect swab specimens for virological confirmation of secondary infections, allowing for the trade-off between sample size vs. intensity of follow-up given a fixed budget. For studies estimating the secondary attack proportion, 2-3 follow-up visits with specimens collected from all members regardless of illness were optimal. However, for studies comparing secondary attack proportions between two or more groups, such as controlled intervention studies, designs with reactive home visits following illness reports in contacts were most powerful, while a design with one home visit optimally timed also performed well.

Factores asociados a la transmisión a los convivientes de gripe (H1N1) 2009

A good part of the transmission of influenza occurs in the household context. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the factors associated with the index cases generating secondary cases in household. We designed an observational, retrospective, multicenter through the implementation of a telephone survey in three regions of Spain. The study population were hospitalized and outpatient cases of confirmed H1N1 (2009) reported to the surveillance units from week 44 of 2009. We calculated the secondary attack rate within the household (TAI) and confidence interval of 95%. Factors associated with household transmission were analyzed by logistic regression, calculating odds ratios and confidence intervals at 95%. the secondary attack rate was 11.3% (95% CI 9.9 to 12.7) within the household. The number of household contacts was the main factor associated with the transmission (OR: 5,02 CI95% 1,78-14,13). The factor most associated with the generation of secondary cases is the family size, being greater the larger the group of cohabiting, which is consistent with the data provided by WHO.

Surgical Mask to Prevent Influenza Transmission in Households: A Cluster Randomized Trial

BackgroundFacemasks and respirators have been stockpiled during pandemic preparedness. However, data on their effectiveness for limiting transmission are scarce. We evaluated the effectiveness of facemask use by index cases for limiting influenza transmission by large droplets produced during coughing in households.Methodology and Principal FindingsA cluster randomized intervention trial was conducted in France during the 2008–2009 influenza season. Households were recruited during a medical visit of a household member with a positive rapid influenza A test and symptoms lasting less than 48 hours. Households were randomized either to the mask or control group for 7 days. In the intervention arm, the index case had to wear a surgical mask from the medical visit and for a period of 5 days. The trial was initially intended to include 372 households but was prematurely interrupted after the inclusion of 105 households (306 contacts) following the advice of an independent steering committee. We used generalized estimating equations to test the association between the intervention and the proportion of household contacts who developed an influenza-like illness during the 7 days following the inclusion. Influenza-like illness was reported in 24/148 (16.2%) of the contacts in the intervention arm and in 25/158 (15.8%) of the contacts in the control arm and the difference between arms was 0.40% (95%CI: −10% to 11%, P = 1.00). We observed a good adherence to the intervention. In various sensitivity analyses, we did not identify any trend in the results suggesting effectiveness of facemasks.ConclusionThis study should be interpreted with caution since the lack of statistical power prevents us to draw formal conclusion regarding effectiveness of facemasks in the context of a seasonal epidemic.Trial Registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT00774774

Hand hygiene and facemask use within 36 hours of index patient symptom onset reduces flu transmission to household contacts

Commentary on: Cowling BJ, Chan KH, Fang VJ, et al. Facemasks and hand hygiene to prevent influenza transmission in households: a cluster randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:437–46.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] In recent years a number of authors have conducted systematic reviews of the effectiveness of strategies to prevent and control the spread of respiratory viruses.1,–,4 The work is important because respiratory virus infections cause considerable morbidity and mortality, especially among children in developing countries and older people, and account for much time away from work and school. There is persuasive evidence from laboratory and epidemiological studies that colds are spread mainly via large droplets (1–5 µm), which … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnn%2BIntern%2BMed%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.7326%252F0003-4819-151-7-200910060-00142%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F19652172%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-151-7-200910060-00142&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=19652172&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F13%2F2%2F44.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000270470500001&link_type=ISI

Facemasks and Hand Hygiene to Prevent Influenza Transmission in Households: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Facemasks and Hand Hygiene to Prevent Influenza Transmission in Households: A Cluster Randomized Trial