Comparative Epidemiology of Influenza B Yamagata- and Victoria-Lineage Viruses in Households.

Influenza B viruses split into 2 distinct lineages in the early 1980s, commonly named the Victoria and Yamagata lineages. There are few data on the comparative epidemiology of Victoria- and Yamagata-lineage viruses. In 2007-2011, we enrolled 75 and 34 households containing index patients with acute respiratory illness who tested positive for Yamagata- and Victoria-lineage viruses, respectively, from outpatient clinics in Hong Kong, China. These index patients and their household contacts were followed up for 7-10 days. We examined overall risk of polymerase chain reaction-confirmed infection among household contacts and the risk of secondary infection within households using an individual-based hazard model that accounted for tertiary transmission and infections occurring outside the household. We found that for Victoria-lineage viruses, the risk of within-household infection among household contacts aged ≤15 years was significantly higher (risk ratio = 12.9, 95% credibility interval: 4.2, 43.6) than that for older household contacts, while for Yamagata-lineage viruses, the risk of within-household infection for household contacts did not differ by age. Influenza B Yamagata- and Victoria-lineage viruses have similar characteristics in terms of viral shedding and clinical illness. The mechanisms underlying these epidemiologic differences deserve further investigation.

Validation of self-swab for virologic confirmation of influenza virus infections in a community setting.

Few studies have investigated the validity of self-collected nose and throat swabs for influenza confirmation in community settings. We followed outpatients with confirmed influenza with sequential measurement of viral loads and applied log-linear regression models to the viral shedding patterns. Among 176 outpatients with confirmed influenza, the detection of virus and quantitative viral loads obtained from self-swabs was consistent with statistical predictions based on earlier and later measurements, suggesting that self-collected nose and throat swabs can be a valid alternative for virologic confirmation of influenza A or B infection in a community setting.

Comparative epidemiology of pandemic and seasonal influenza A in households.

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.

Facemasks and hand hygiene to prevent influenza transmission in households: a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available about the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical interventions for preventing influenza virus transmission. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether hand hygiene and use of facemasks prevents household transmission of influenza. DESIGN: Cluster randomized, controlled trial. Randomization was computer generated; allocation was concealed from treating physicians and clinics and implemented by study nurses at the time of the initial household visit. Participants and personnel administering the interventions were not blinded to group assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00425893) SETTING: Households in Hong Kong. PATIENTS: 407 people presenting to outpatient clinics with influenza-like illness who were positive for influenza A or B virus by rapid testing (index patients) and 794 household members (contacts) in 259 households. INTERVENTION: Lifestyle education (control) (134 households), hand hygiene (136 households), or surgical facemasks plus hand hygiene (137 households) for all household members. MEASUREMENTS: Influenza virus infection in contacts, as confirmed by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or diagnosed clinically after 7 days. RESULTS: Sixty (8%) contacts in the 259 households had RT-PCR-confirmed influenza virus infection in the 7 days after intervention. Hand hygiene with or without facemasks seemed to reduce influenza transmission, but the differences compared with the control group were not significant. In 154 households in which interventions were implemented within 36 hours of symptom onset in the index patient, transmission of RT-PCR-confirmed infection seemed reduced, an effect attributable to fewer infections among participants using facemasks plus hand hygiene (adjusted odds ratio, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.87]). Adherence to interventions varied. LIMITATION: The delay from index patient symptom onset to intervention and variable adherence may have mitigated intervention effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Hand hygiene and facemasks seemed to prevent household transmission of influenza virus when implemented within 36 hours of index patient symptom onset. These findings suggest that nonpharmaceutical interventions are important for mitigation of pandemic and interpandemic influenza. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Influenza virus in human exhaled breath: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that humans exhale fine particles during tidal breathing but little is known of their composition, particularly during infection. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a study of influenza infected patients to characterize influenza virus and particle concentrations in their exhaled breath. Patients presenting with influenza-like-illness, confirmed influenza A or B virus by rapid test, and onset within 3 days were recruited at three clinics in Hong Kong, China. We collected exhaled breath from each subject onto Teflon filters and measured exhaled particle concentrations using an optical particle counter. Filters were analyzed for influenza A and B viruses by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Twelve out of thirteen rapid test positive patients provided exhaled breath filter samples (7 subjects infected with influenza B virus and 5 subjects infected with influenza A virus). We detected influenza virus RNA in the exhaled breath of 4 (33%) subjects--three (60%) of the five patients infected with influenza A virus and one (14%) of the seven infected with influenza B virus. Exhaled influenza virus RNA generation rates ranged from <3.2 to 20 influenza virus RNA particles per minute. Over 87% of particles exhaled were under 1 microm in diameter. CONCLUSIONS: These findings regarding influenza virus RNA suggest that influenza virus may be contained in fine particles generated during tidal breathing, and add to the body of literature suggesting that fine particle aerosols may play a role in influenza transmission.

Preliminary findings of a randomized trial of non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent influenza transmission in households.

BACKGROUND: There are sparse data on whether non-pharmaceutical interventions can reduce the spread of influenza. We implemented a study of the feasibility and efficacy of face masks and hand hygiene to reduce influenza transmission among Hong Kong household members. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial of households (composed of at least 3 members) where an index subject presented with influenza-like-illness of <48 hours duration. After influenza was confirmed in an index case by the QuickVue Influenza A+B rapid test, the household of the index subject was randomized to 1) control or 2) surgical face masks or 3) hand hygiene. Households were visited within 36 hours, and 3, 6 and 9 days later. Nose and throat swabs were collected from index subjects and all household contacts at each home visit and tested by viral culture. The primary outcome measure was laboratory culture confirmed influenza in a household contact; the secondary outcome was clinically diagnosed influenza (by self-reported symptoms). We randomized 198 households and completed follow up home visits in 128; the index cases in 122 of those households had laboratory-confirmed influenza. There were 21 household contacts with laboratory confirmed influenza corresponding to a secondary attack ratio of 6%. Clinical secondary attack ratios varied from 5% to 18% depending on case definitions. The laboratory-based or clinical secondary attack ratios did not significantly differ across the intervention arms. Adherence to interventions was variable. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The secondary attack ratios were lower than anticipated, and lower than reported in other countries, perhaps due to differing patterns of susceptibility, lack of significant antigenic drift in circulating influenza virus strains recently, and/or issues related to the symptomatic recruitment design. Lessons learnt from this pilot have informed changes for the main study in 2008. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00425893 HKClinicalTrials.com HKCTR-365.