Explore the vast range of titles available.

Long‐term care facility environments and the vulnerability of their residents provide a setting conducive to the rapid spread of influenza virus and other respiratory pathogens. Infections may be introduced by staff, visitors or new or transferred residents, and outbreaks of influenza in such settings can have devastating consequences for individuals, as well as placing extra strain on health services. As the population ages over the coming decades, increased provision of such facilities seems likely. The need for robust infection prevention and control practices will therefore remain of paramount importance if the impact of outbreaks is to be minimised. In this review, we discuss the nature of the problem of influenza in long‐term care facilities, and approaches to preventive and control measures, including vaccination of residents and staff, and the use of antiviral drugs for treatment and prophylaxis, based on currently available evidence.

To explore barriers and facilitators to COVID-19, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccine uptake in immunosuppressed adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). Recruiting through national patient charities and a local hospital, participants were invited to take part in an in-depth, one-to-one, semi-structured interview with a trained qualitative researcher between November 2021 and January 2022. Data were analysed thematically in NVivo, cross-validated by a second coder and mapped to the SAGE vaccine hesitancy matrix. Twenty participants (75% female, 20% non-white) were recruited. Barriers and facilitators spanned contextual, individual/group and vaccine/vaccination-specific factors. Key facilitators to all vaccines were higher perceived infection risk and belief that vaccination is beneficial. Key barriers to all vaccines were belief that vaccination could trigger IMID flare, and active IMID. Key facilitators specific to COVID-19 vaccines included media focus, high incidence, mass-vaccination programme with visible impact, social responsibility, and healthcare professionals' (HCP) confirmation of the new vaccines' suitability for their IMID. Novel vaccine technology was a concern, not a barrier. Key facilitators of influenza/pneumococcal vaccines were awareness of eligibility, direct invitation, and, clear recommendation from trusted HCP. Key barriers of influenza/pneumococcal vaccines were unaware of eligibility, no direct invitation or recommendation from HCP, low perceived infection risk, and no perceived benefit from vaccination. Numerous barriers and facilitators to vaccination, varying by vaccine-type, exist for immunosuppressed-IMID patients. Addressing vaccine benefits and safety for IMID-patients in clinical practice, direct invitation, and public-health messaging highlighting immunosuppression as key vaccination-eligibility criteria may optimise uptake, although further research should assess this.

Background and objectives The Influenza Resistance Information Study (IRIS) was initiated in 2008 to study the emergence of neuraminidase inhibitor (NAI) resistance and the clinical course of influenza in immunocompetent treated and untreated patients. Methods Patients had throat/nose swabs collected on days 1, 3, 6 and 10 for analyses of influenza type, subtype and virus susceptibility to NAIs. RT‐PCR‐positive samples were cultured and tested for NAI resistance by specific RT‐PCR and phenotypic testing. Scores for influenza symptoms were recorded on diary cards (Days 1‐10). This study focuses on influenza A‐infected cases only. Results Among 3230 RT‐PCR‐positive patients, 2316 had influenza A of whom 1216 received oseltamivir monotherapy within 2 days of symptom onset (9 seasonal H1N1; 662 H3N2; 545 H1N1pdm2009). Except for 9 patients with naturally resistant seasonal H1N1 (2008/9), no resistance was detected in Day 1 samples. Emergence of resistance (post‐Day 1) was detected in 43/1207 (3.56%) oseltamivir‐treated influenza A‐infected patients, with a higher frequency in 1‐ to 5‐year‐olds (11.8%) vs >5‐year‐olds (1.4%). All N1‐ and N2‐resistant viruses had H275Y (n = 27) or R292K (n = 16) substitutions, respectively. For 43 patients, virus clearance was significantly delayed vs treated patients with susceptible viruses (8.1 vs 10.9 days; P < .0001), and 11 (23.2%) remained RT‐PCR positive for influenza at Day 10. However, their symptoms resolved by Day 6 or earlier. Conclusions Oseltamivir resistance was only detected during antiviral treatment, with the highest incidence occurring among 1‐ to 5‐year‐olds. Resistance delayed viral clearance, but had no impact on symptom resolution.

To estimate the proportion of healthcare workers (HCWs) willing to work during an influenza pandemic and identify associated risk factors, we undertook a systematic review and meta‐analysis compliant with PRISMA guidance. Databases and grey literature were searched to April 2013, and records were screened against protocol eligibility criteria. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were undertaken using a piloted form. Random‐effects meta‐analyses estimated (i) pooled proportion of HCWs willing to work and (ii) pooled odds ratios of risk factors associated with willingness to work. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. Data were synthesized narratively where meta‐analyses were not possible. Forty‐three studies met our inclusion criteria. Meta‐analysis of the proportion of HCWs willing to work was abandoned due to excessive heterogeneity (I2 = 99·2%). Narrative synthesis showed study estimates ranged from 23·1% to 95·8% willingness to work, depending on context. Meta‐analyses of specific factors showed that male HCWs, physicians and nurses, full‐time employment, perceived personal safety, awareness of pandemic risk and clinical knowledge of influenza pandemics, role‐specific knowledge, pandemic response training, and confidence in personal skills were statistically significantly associated with increased willingness. Childcare obligations were significantly associated with decreased willingness. HCWs' willingness to work during an influenza pandemic was moderately high, albeit highly variable. Numerous risk factors showed a statistically significant association with willingness to work despite significant heterogeneity between studies. None of the included studies were based on appropriate theoretical constructs of population behaviour.

To assess the effectiveness of internal and international travel restrictions in the rapid containment of influenza. We conducted a systematic review according to the requirements of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Health-care databases and grey literature were searched and screened for records published before May 2014. Data extraction and assessments of risk of bias were undertaken by two researchers independently. Results were synthesized in a narrative form. The overall risk of bias in the 23 included studies was low to moderate. Internal travel restrictions and international border restrictions delayed the spread of influenza epidemics by one week and two months, respectively. International travel restrictions delayed the spread and peak of epidemics by periods varying between a few days and four months. Travel restrictions reduced the incidence of new cases by less than 3%. Impact was reduced when restrictions were implemented more than six weeks after the notification of epidemics or when the level of transmissibility was high. Travel restrictions would have minimal impact in urban centres with dense populations and travel networks. We found no evidence that travel restrictions would contain influenza within a defined geographical area. Extensive travel restrictions may delay the dissemination of influenza but cannot prevent it. The evidence does not support travel restrictions as an isolated intervention for the rapid containment of influenza. Travel restrictions would make an extremely limited contribution to any policy for rapid containment of influenza at source during the first emergence of a pandemic virus.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) causes a significant public health burden, and outbreaks among vulnerable patients in hospital settings are of particular concern. We reviewed published and unpublished literature from hospital settings to assess: (i) nosocomial RSV transmission risk (attack rate) during outbreaks, (ii) effectiveness of infection control measures. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, together with key websites, journals and grey literature, to end of 2012. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or Newcastle–Ottawa scale. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Forty studies were included (19 addressing research question one, 21 addressing question two). RSV transmission risk varied by hospital setting; 6–56% (median: 28·5%) in neonatal/paediatric settings (n = 14), 6–12% (median: 7%) in adult haematology and transplant units (n = 3), and 30–32% in other adult settings (n = 2). For question two, most studies (n = 13) employed multi‐component interventions (e.g. cohort nursing, personal protective equipment (PPE), isolation), and these were largely reported to be effective in reducing nosocomial transmission. Four studies examined staff PPE; eye protection appeared more effective than gowns and masks. One study reported on RSV prophylaxis for patients (RSV‐Ig/palivizumab); there was no statistical evidence of effectiveness although the sample size was small. Overall, risk of bias for included studies tended to be high. We conclude that RSV transmission risk varies widely during hospital outbreaks. Although multi‐component control strategies appear broadly successful, further research is required to disaggregate the effectiveness of individual components including the potential role of palivizumab prophylaxis.

To assess the effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors for use in rapid containment of influenza. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Healthcare databases and sources of grey literature were searched up to 2012 and records screened against protocol eligibility criteria. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed using a piloted form. Results were synthesised narratively and we undertook meta-analyses to calculate pooled estimates of effect, statistical heterogeneity and assessed publication bias. Nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and eight observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Neuraminidase inhibitors provided 67 to 89% protection for individuals following prophylaxis. Meta-analysis of individual protection showed a significantly lower pooled odds of laboratory confirmed seasonal or influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 infection following oseltamivir usage compared to placebo or no therapy (n = 8 studies; odds ratio (OR) = 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.06 to 0.20; p<0.001; I2 = 58.7%). This result was comparable to the pooled odds ratio for individual protection with zanamivir (OR = 0.23; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.35). Similar point estimates were obtained with widely overlapping 95% CIs for household protection with oseltamivir or zanamivir. We found no studies of neuraminidase inhibitors to prevent population-wide community transmission of influenza. Oseltamivir and zanamivir are effective for prophylaxis of individuals and households irrespective of treatment of the index case. There are no data which directly support an effect on wider community transmission. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013003880.

AbstractObjectivesTo derive and validate risk prediction algorithms to estimate the risk of covid-19 related mortality and hospital admission in UK adults after one or two doses of covid-19 vaccination.DesignProspective, population based cohort study using the QResearch database linked to data on covid-19 vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 results, hospital admissions, systemic anticancer treatment, radiotherapy, and the national death and cancer registries.SettingsAdults aged 19-100 years with one or two doses of covid-19 vaccination between 8 December 2020 and 15 June 2021.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was covid-19 related death. Secondary outcome was covid-19 related hospital admission. Outcomes were assessed from 14 days after each vaccination dose. Models were fitted in the derivation cohort to derive risk equations using a range of predictor variables. Performance was evaluated in a separate validation cohort of general practices.ResultsOf 6 952 440 vaccinated patients in the derivation cohort, 5 150 310 (74.1%) had two vaccine doses. Of 2031 covid-19 deaths and 1929 covid-19 hospital admissions, 81 deaths (4.0%) and 71 admissions (3.7%) occurred 14 days or more after the second vaccine dose. The risk algorithms included age, sex, ethnic origin, deprivation, body mass index, a range of comorbidities, and SARS-CoV-2 infection rate. Incidence of covid-19 mortality increased with age and deprivation, male sex, and Indian and Pakistani ethnic origin. Cause specific hazard ratios were highest for patients with Down’s syndrome (12.7-fold increase), kidney transplantation (8.1-fold), sickle cell disease (7.7-fold), care home residency (4.1-fold), chemotherapy (4.3-fold), HIV/AIDS (3.3-fold), liver cirrhosis (3.0-fold), neurological conditions (2.6-fold), recent bone marrow transplantation or a solid organ transplantation ever (2.5-fold), dementia (2.2-fold), and Parkinson’s disease (2.2-fold). Other conditions with increased risk (ranging from 1.2-fold to 2.0-fold increases) included chronic kidney disease, blood cancer, epilepsy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, thromboembolism, peripheral vascular disease, and type 2 diabetes. A similar pattern of associations was seen for covid-19 related hospital admissions. No evidence indicated that associations differed after the second dose, although absolute risks were reduced. The risk algorithm explained 74.1% (95% confidence interval 71.1% to 77.0%) of the variation in time to covid-19 death in the validation cohort. Discrimination was high, with a D statistic of 3.46 (95% confidence interval 3.19 to 3.73) and C statistic of 92.5. Performance was similar after each vaccine dose. In the top 5% of patients with the highest predicted covid-19 mortality risk, sensitivity for identifying covid-19 deaths within 70 days was 78.7%.ConclusionThis population based risk algorithm performed well showing high levels of discrimination for identifying those patients at highest risk of covid-19 related death and hospital admission after vaccination.

Nosocomial infection of health-care workers (HCWs) during outbreaks of respiratory infections (e.g. Influenza A H1N1 (2009)) is a significant concern for public health policy makers. World Health Organization (WHO)-defined 'aerosol generating procedures' (AGPs) are thought to increase the risk of aerosol transmission to HCWs, but there are presently insufficient data to quantify risk accurately or establish a hierarchy of risk-prone procedures. This study measured the amount of H1N1 (2009) RNA in aerosols in the vicinity of H1N1 positive patients undergoing AGPs to help quantify the potential risk of transmission to HCWs. There were 99 sampling occasions (windows) producing a total of 198 May stages for analysis in the size ranges 0.86-7.3 µm. Considering stages 2 (4-7.3 µm) and 3 (0.86-4 µm) as comprising one sample, viral RNA was detected in 14 (14.1%) air samples from 10 (25.6%) patients. Twenty three air samples were collected while potential AGPs were being performed of which 6 (26.1%) contained viral RNA; in contrast, 76 May samples were collected when no WHO 2009 defined AGP was being performed of which 8 (10.5%) contained viral RNA (unadjusted OR = 2.84 (95% CI 1.11-7.24) adjusted OR = 4.31 (0.83-22.5)). With our small sample size we found that AGPs do not significantly increase the probability of sampling an H1N1 (2009) positive aerosol (OR (95% CI) = 4.31 (0.83-22.5). Although the probability of detecting positive H1N1 (2009) positive aerosols when performing various AGPs on intensive care patients above the baseline rate (i.e. in the absence of AGPs) did not reach significance, there was a trend towards hierarchy of AGPs, placing bronchoscopy and respiratory and airway suctioning above baseline (background) values. Further, larger studies are required but these preliminary findings may be of benefit to infection control teams.

Background Estimates of health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and work/school absences for influenza are typically based on medically attended cases or those meeting influenza‐like‐illness (ILI) case definitions and thus biased towards severe disease. Although community influenza cases are more common, estimates of their effects on HRQoL and absences are limited. Objectives To measure quality‐adjusted life days and years (QALDs and QALYs) lost and work/school absences among community cases of acute respiratory infections (ARI), ILI and influenza A and B and to estimate community burden of QALY loss and absences from influenza. Patients/methods Flu Watch was a community cohort in England from 2006 to 2011. Participants were followed up weekly. During respiratory illness, they prospectively recorded daily symptoms, work/school absences and EQ‐5D‐3L data and submitted nasal swabs for RT‐PCR influenza testing. Results Average QALD lost was 0.26, 0.93, 1.61 and 1.84 for ARI, ILI, H1N1pdm09 and influenza B cases, respectively. 40% of influenza A cases and 24% of influenza B cases took time off work/school with an average duration of 3.6 and 2.4 days, respectively. In England, community influenza cases lost 24 300 QALYs in 2010/11 and had an estimated 2.9 million absences per season based on data from 2006/07 to 2009/10. Conclusions Our QALDs and QALYs lost and work and school absence estimates are lower than previous estimates because we focus on community cases, most of which are mild, may not meet ILI definitions and do not result in healthcare consultations. Nevertheless, they contribute a substantial loss of HRQoL on a population level.