Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 14 de 14
Filter
6.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 16(8): 942-51, 2016 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27061888

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary by type and subtype. Over the past decade, the test-negative design has emerged as a valid method for estimation of VE. In this design, VE is calculated as 100% × (1 - odds ratio) for vaccine receipt in influenza cases versus test-negative controls. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate VE by type and subtype. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed and Embase from Jan 1, 2004, to March 31, 2015. Test-negative design studies of influenza VE were eligible if they enrolled outpatients on the basis of predefined illness criteria, reported subtype-level VE by season, used PCR to confirm influenza, and adjusted for age. We excluded studies restricted to hospitalised patients or special populations, duplicate reports, interim reports superseded by a final report, studies of live-attenuated vaccine, and studies of prepandemic seasonal vaccine against H1N1pdm09. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts to identify articles for full review. Discrepancies in inclusion and exclusion criteria and VE estimates were adjudicated by consensus. Outcomes were VE against H3N2, H1N1pdm09, H1N1 (pre-2009), and type B. We calculated pooled VE using a random-effects model. FINDINGS: We identified 3368 unduplicated publications, selected 142 for full review, and included 56 in the meta-analysis. Pooled VE was 33% (95% CI 26-39; I(2)=44·4) for H3N2, 54% (46-61; I(2)=61·3) for type B, 61% (57-65; I(2)=0·0) for H1N1pdm09, and 67% (29-85; I(2)=57·6) for H1N1; VE was 73% (61-81; I(2)=31·4) for monovalent vaccine against H1N1pdm09. VE against H3N2 for antigenically matched viruses was 33% (22-43; I(2)=56·1) and for variant viruses was 23% (2-40; I(2)=55·6). Among older adults (aged >60 years), pooled VE was 24% (-6 to 45; I(2)=17·6) for H3N2, 63% (33-79; I(2)=0·0) for type B, and 62% (36-78; I(2)=0·0) for H1N1pdm09. INTERPRETATION: Influenza vaccines provided substantial protection against H1N1pdm09, H1N1 (pre-2009), and type B, and reduced protection against H3N2. Vaccine improvements are needed to generate greater protection against H3N2 than with current vaccines. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
Influenza Vaccines/immunology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Sentinel Surveillance , Vaccine Potency , Humans , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/immunology , Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype/immunology , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Research Design , Vaccination , Vaccines, Attenuated
7.
J Environ Stud Sci ; 5(3): 337-347, 2015.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32226708

ABSTRACT

Rarely have studies focused on the second- and third-order effects of pandemics. Limiting the disruption of critical infrastructures during a pandemic is important for the survival and health of society (i.e., electricity, water, and food) as most medical and public health responses to a pandemic depend on these infrastructures. The studies that have looked at this issue have highlighted alarming gaps in preparedness. This study used a system dynamics model to demonstrate the likely effects of a pandemic on the USA's food system. The model reveals that a severe pandemic with greater than a 25 % reduction in labor availability can create significant and widespread food shortages. The Ebola epidemic that began in 2014 has caused severe food shortages in West Africa, which are similar to the effects that this model predicts in the USA. The likely effects of the reduction in the amount of available food are difficult to specifically predict; however, it is likely to have severe negative consequences on society. The resilience of the food system must be improved against this hazard and others.

8.
mBio ; 6(2): e00137, 2015 Feb 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25698835

ABSTRACT

Available evidence demonstrates that direct patient contact and contact with infectious body fluids are the primary modes for Ebola virus transmission, but this is based on a limited number of studies. Key areas requiring further study include (i) the role of aerosol transmission (either via large droplets or small particles in the vicinity of source patients), (ii) the role of environmental contamination and fomite transmission, (iii) the degree to which minimally or mildly ill persons transmit infection, (iv) how long clinically relevant infectiousness persists, (v) the role that "superspreading events" may play in driving transmission dynamics, (vi) whether strain differences or repeated serial passage in outbreak settings can impact virus transmission, and (vii) what role sylvatic or domestic animals could play in outbreak propagation, particularly during major epidemics such as the 2013-2015 West Africa situation. In this review, we address what we know and what we do not know about Ebola virus transmission. We also hypothesize that Ebola viruses have the potential to be respiratory pathogens with primary respiratory spread.


Subject(s)
Disease Transmission, Infectious , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/transmission , Africa, Western/epidemiology , Animals , Ebolavirus/isolation & purification , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/virology , Humans , Zoonoses/transmission , Zoonoses/virology
10.
mBio ; 3(2): e00045-12, 2012.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22366820

ABSTRACT

Two recently submitted (but as yet unpublished) studies describe success in creating mutant isolates of H5N1 influenza A virus that can be transmitted via the respiratory route between ferrets; concern has been raised regarding human-to-human transmissibility of these or similar laboratory-generated influenza viruses. Furthermore, the potential release of methods used in these studies has engendered a great deal of controversy around publishing potential dual-use data and also has served as a catalyst for debates around the true case-fatality rate of H5N1 influenza and the capability of influenza vaccines and antivirals to impact any future unintentional or intentional release of H5N1 virus. In this report, we review available seroepidemiology data for H5N1 infection and discuss how case-finding strategies may influence the overall case-fatality rate reported by the WHO. We also provide information supporting the position that if an H5N1 influenza pandemic occurred, available medical countermeasures would have limited impact on the associated morbidity and mortality.


Subject(s)
Containment of Biohazards/methods , Influenza A Virus, H5N1 Subtype/genetics , Influenza A Virus, H5N1 Subtype/pathogenicity , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Influenza, Human/virology , Orthomyxoviridae Infections/transmission , Animals , Biomedical Research/methods , Ferrets , Humans , Mortality , Orthomyxoviridae Infections/virology , Pandemics/prevention & control , World Health Organization , Zoonoses/transmission
11.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 12(1): 36-44, 2012 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22032844

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza. METHODS: We searched Medline for randomised controlled trials assessing a relative reduction in influenza risk of all circulating influenza viruses during individual seasons after vaccination (efficacy) and observational studies meeting inclusion criteria (effectiveness). Eligible articles were published between Jan 1, 1967, and Feb 15, 2011, and used RT-PCR or culture for confirmation of influenza. We excluded some studies on the basis of study design and vaccine characteristics. We estimated random-effects pooled efficacy for trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) when data were available for statistical analysis (eg, at least three studies that assessed comparable age groups). FINDINGS: We screened 5707 articles and identified 31 eligible studies (17 randomised controlled trials and 14 observational studies). Efficacy of TIV was shown in eight (67%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 59% [95% CI 51-67] in adults aged 18-65 years). No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 2-17 years or adults aged 65 years or older. Efficacy of LAIV was shown in nine (75%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 83% [69-91]) in children aged 6 months to 7 years. No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 8-17 years. Vaccine effectiveness was variable for seasonal influenza: six (35%) of 17 analyses in nine studies showed significant protection against medically attended influenza in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Median monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in five observational studies was 69% (range 60-93). INTERPRETATION: Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality. FUNDING: Alfred P Sloan Foundation.


Subject(s)
Alphainfluenzavirus/immunology , Betainfluenzavirus/immunology , Influenza Vaccines/therapeutic use , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Humans , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/immunology , Influenza, Human/immunology , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Seasons , Vaccines, Inactivated/therapeutic use , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL