A nationally coordinated laboratory system for human avian influenza A (H5N1) in Thailand: program design, analysis, and evaluation

A comparison of clinical and epidemiological characteristics of fatal human infections with H5N1 and human influenza viruses in Thailand, 2004-2006

Background

The 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 Findings

NAIS 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).

Conclusions

In 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.

An early report from newly established laboratory-based influenza surveillance in Lao PDR

Please cite this paper as: Vongphrachanh P, Simmerman JM, Phonekeo D, Pansayavong V, Sisouk T, Ongkhamme S, Bryce GT, Corwin A, Bryant JE. An early report from newly established laboratory‐based influenza surveillance in Lao PDR. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 4(2), 47–52.

Background  Prior to 2007, little information was available about the burden of influenza in Laos. We report data from the first laboratory‐based influenza surveillance system established in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.

Methods  Three hospitals in the capital city of Vientiane began surveillance for influenza‐like illness (ILI) in outpatients in 2007 and expanded to include hospitalized pneumonia patients in 2008. Nasal/throat swab specimens were collected and tested for influenza and other respiratory viruses by multiplex ID‐Tag^TM respiratory viral panel (RVP) assay on a Luminex® 100× MAP IS instrument (Qiagen, Singapore).

Results  During January 2007 to December 2008, 287 of 526 (54·6%) outpatients with ILI were positive for at least one respiratory virus. Influenza was most commonly identified, with 63 (12·0%) influenza A and 92 (17·5%) influenza B positive patients identified. In 2008, six of 79 (7·6%) hospitalized pneumonia patients were positive for influenza A and four (5·1%) were positive for influenza B. Children <5 years represented 19% of viral infections in outpatients and 38% of pneumonia inpatients.

Conclusion  Our results provide the first documentation of influenza burden among patients with febrile respiratory illness and pneumonia requiring hospitalization in Laos. Implementing laboratory‐based influenza surveillance requires substantial investments in infrastructure and training. However, continuing outbreaks of avian influenza A/H5N1 in poultry and emergence of the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic strain further underscore the importance of establishing and maintaining influenza surveillance in developing countries.

Severe human influenza infections in Thailand: oseltamivir treatment and risk factors for fatal outcome

BACKGROUND

Influenza 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 FINDINGS

During 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe 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.

What is the optimal therapy for patients with H5N1 influenza?

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE

In a 2007 article in PLoS Medicine[10], Holger J. Schünemann and colleagues described a new process used by the World Health Organization for rapidly developing clinical management guidelines in emergency situations. These situations include outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases. The authors discussed how they developed such a "rapid advice" guideline for the pharmacological management of avian influenza A (H5N1) virus infection. The guideline recommends giving the antiviral drug oseltamivir at a dose of 75 mg twice daily for five days. In this Debate, Nicholas White argues that such dosing is inadequate, Robert Webster and Elena Govorkova say that combination antiviral therapy should be used, and Tim Uyeki reminds us that clinical care of patients with H5N1 entails much more than antiviral treatment. These issues may also apply to therapy of patients hospitalized with severe disease due to novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus infection.

Antiviral therapy for avian influenza virus (H5N1) infection at 2 Thai medical centers: survey findings and implications for pandemic preparedness

In a survey of 150 physicians from an area where avian influenza virus (H5N1) infection is endemic, practice location (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.45 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.02-26.4]) and the belief that rapid tests reliably predicted H5N1 infection (aOR, 5.6 [95% CI, 1.14-33.6]) were associated with not prescribing antiviral therapy; the belief that antiviral therapy reduced mortality was associated with prescribing an antiviral agent (aOR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.14-0.95]).