ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 continues to have a major impact on healthcare and social systems throughout the world. As the clinical and epidemiological features of COVID-19 have many parallels with influenza, it is important to ensure optimal management of both respiratory diseases as we anticipate their continued co-circulation. In particular, there is a need to ensure that effective surveillance and diagnostic capacities are in place to monitor these and other respiratory viruses, as this will underpin decisions on the appropriate clinical management of the respective diseases. As such, we propose a series of key recommendations for stakeholders, public health authorities, primary care physicians and surveillance bodies that will help mitigate the combined risks of concurrent influenza epidemics and the COVID-19 pandemic. We advocate the judicious use of influenza vaccines and antivirals, particularly among groups at high risk of complications, with healthcare workers also considered a priority for vaccination. It is likely that the increased use of emerging technologies such as telemedicine and contact tracing will permanently change our approach to managing infectious disease. The use of these technologies, alongside existing pharmaceutical strategies, will ensure that we achieve a holistic approach to the global public health measures needed to deal with the combined threat of influenza and COVID-19. Ensuring that this approach is optimal will be key as we move from a reactive pandemic response towards preparing for the long-term management of the remarkable clinical burden associated with these respiratory pathogens.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Coinfection/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Influenza, Human/transmissionABSTRACT
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the ability of Echinacea purpurea to prevent infection with rhinovirus type 39 (RV-39). Forty-eight previously healthy adults received echinacea or placebo, 2.5 mL 3 times per day, for 7 days before and 7 days after intranasal inoculation with RV-39. Symptoms were assessed to evaluate clinical illness. Viral culture and serologic studies were performed to evaluate the presence of rhinovirus infection. A total of 92% of echinacea recipients and 95% of placebo recipients were infected. Colds developed in 58% of echinacea recipients and 82% of placebo recipients (P=.114, by Fisher's exact test). Administration of echinacea before and after exposure to rhinovirus did not decrease the rate of infection; however, because of the small sample size, statistical hypothesis testing had relatively poor power to detect statistically significant differences in the frequency and severity of illness.
Subject(s)
Common Cold/prevention & control , Echinacea/chemistry , Phytotherapy , Rhinovirus , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Common Cold/drug therapy , Double-Blind Method , Drug Tolerance , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Plant Extracts/adverse effects , Plant Extracts/therapeutic use , Plants, Medicinal , Random AllocationABSTRACT
A double-blind, randomized study of inhaled zanamivir for the prevention of influenza in families was conducted. Once a person with a suspected case of influenza was identified (index patient), treatment of all other household members (contacts) > or =5 years old was initiated. Contacts received either 10 mg zanamivir or placebo inhaled once daily for 10 days. Index patients received relief medication only. In total, 487 households (242 placebo and 245 zanamivir) were enrolled, with 1291 contacts randomly assigned to receive prophylaxis. Four percent of zanamivir versus 19% of placebo households (P<.001) had at least 1 contact who developed symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza, representing 81% protective efficacy (95% confidence interval, 64%-90%). Protective efficacy was similarly high for individuals (82%) and against both influenza types A and B (78% and 85%, respectively, for households). Zanamivir was well tolerated and was effective in preventing influenza types A and B within households where the index patient was not treated.