Suchergebnisse

Abstract Background Few studies have comprehensively described tropical respiratory disease surveillance in military populations. There is also a lack of studies comparing clinical characteristics of the non-influenza pathogens with influenza and amongst themselves. Methods From May 2009 through October 2012, 7733 consenting cases of febrile respiratory illness (FRI) (temperature [greater than or equal to]37.5degreesC with cough or sorethroat) and controls in the Singapore military had clinical data and nasal washes collected prospectively. Nasal washes underwent multiplex PCR, and the analysis was limited to viral mono-infections. Results 49% of cases tested positive for at least one virus, of whom 10% had multiple infections. 53% of the FRI cases fulfilled the definition of influenza-like illness (ILI), of whom 52% were positive for at least one virus. The most frequent etiologies for mono-infections among FRI cases were Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 (13%), Influenza B (13%) and coxsackevirus (9%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of ILI for influenza among FRI cases were 72%, 48%, 40% and 69% respectively. On logistic regression, there were marked differences in the prevalence of different symptoms and signs between viruses with fever more prevalent amongst influenza and adenovirus infections than other viruses. Conclusion There are multiple viral etiologies for FRI and ILI with differing clinical symptoms in the Singapore military. Influenza and coxsackevirus were the most common etiology for FRI, while influenza and adenoviruses displayed the most febrile symptoms. Further studies should explore these differences and possible interventions.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the relative cross-protection conferred by infection with different groups of viruses through studies of sequential infections in humans. We investigated the presence of short-lived relative cross-protection conferred by specific prior viral infections against subsequent febrile respiratory illness (FRI). METHODS: Men enlisted in basic military training between December 2009 and December 2014 were recruited, with the first FRI as the study entry point. ResPlex II assays and real-time polymerase chain reaction assays were used to detect viral pathogens in nasal wash samples, and survival analyses were performed to determine whether infection with particular viruses conferred short-lived relative cross-protection against FRI. RESULTS: Prior infection with adenovirus (hazard ratio [HR], 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], .14–.44) or influenza virus (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, .38–.73) conferred relative protection against subsequent FRI episode. Results were statistically significant even after adjustment for the interval between enlistment and FRI (P < .001). Adenovirus-positive participants with FRI episodes tended to be protected against subsequent infection with adenovirus, coronavirus, enterovirus/rhinovirus, and influenza virus (P = .062–.093), while men with influenza virus–positive FRI episodes tended be protected against subsequent infection with adenovirus (P = .044) and influenza virus (P = .081). CONCLUSION: Prior adenovirus or influenza virus infection conferred cross-protection against subsequent FRI episodes relative to prior infection due to other circulating viruses.

Background: From June 22 through June 25, 2009, four outbreaks of infection with the pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus occurred in Singapore military camps. We report the efficacy of ring chemoprophylaxis (geographically targeted containment by means of prophylaxis) with oseltamivir to control outbreaks of 2009 H1N1 influenza in semiclosed environments. Methods: All personnel with suspected infection were tested and clinically isolated if infection was confirmed. In addition, we administered postexposure ring chemoprophylaxis with oseltamivir and segregated the affected military units to contain the spread of the virus. All personnel were screened three times weekly both for virologic infection, by means of nasopharyngeal swabs and reverse-transcriptase- polymerase-chain-reaction assay with sequencing, and for clinical symptoms, by means of questionnaires. Results: A total of 1175 personnel were at risk across the four sites, with 1100 receiving oseltamivir prophylaxis. A total of 75 personnel (6.4%) were infected before the intervention, and 7 (0.6%) after the intervention. There was a significant reduction in the overall reproductive number (the number of new cases attributable to the index case), from 1.91 (95% credible interval, 1.50 to 2.36) before the intervention to 0.11 (95% credible interval, 0.05 to 0.20) after the intervention. Three of the four outbreaks showed a significant reduction in the rate of infection after the intervention. Molecular analysis revealed that all four outbreaks were derived from the New York lineage of the 2009 H1N1 virus and that cases within each outbreak were due to transmission rather than unrelated episodes of infection. Of the 816 personnel treated with oseltamivir who were surveyed, 63 (7.7%) reported mild, nonrespiratory side effects of the drug, with no severe adverse events. Conclusions: Oseltamivir ring chemoprophylaxis, together with prompt identification and isolation of infected personnel, was effective in reducing the impact of outbreaks of 2009 H1N1 influenza in semiclosed settings.

Background: From June 22 through June 25, 2009, four outbreaks of infection with the pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus occurred in Singapore military camps. We report the efficacy of ring chemoprophylaxis (geographically targeted containment by means of prophylaxis) with oseltamivir to control outbreaks of 2009 H1N1 influenza in semiclosed environments. Methods: All personnel with suspected infection were tested and clinically isolated if infection was confirmed. In addition, we administered postexposure ring chemoprophylaxis with oseltamivir and segregated the affected military units to contain the spread of the virus. All personnel were screened three times weekly both for virologic infection, by means of nasopharyngeal swabs and reverse-transcriptase- polymerase-chain-reaction assay with sequencing, and for clinical symptoms, by means of questionnaires. Results: A total of 1175 personnel were at risk across the four sites, with 1100 receiving oseltamivir prophylaxis. A total of 75 personnel (6.4%) were infected before the intervention, and 7 (0.6%) after the intervention. There was a significant reduction in the overall reproductive number (the number of new cases attributable to the index case), from 1.91 (95% credible interval, 1.50 to 2.36) before the intervention to 0.11 (95% credible interval, 0.05 to 0.20) after the intervention. Three of the four outbreaks showed a significant reduction in the rate of infection after the intervention. Molecular analysis revealed that all four outbreaks were derived from the New York lineage of the 2009 H1N1 virus and that cases within each outbreak were due to transmission rather than unrelated episodes of infection. Of the 816 personnel treated with oseltamivir who were surveyed, 63 (7.7%) reported mild, nonrespiratory side effects of the drug, with no severe adverse events. Conclusions: Oseltamivir ring chemoprophylaxis, together with prompt identification and isolation of infected personnel, was effective in reducing the impact of outbreaks of 2009 H1N1 influenza in semiclosed settings.

BACKGROUND: From June 22 through June 25, 2009, four outbreaks of infection with the pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus occurred in Singapore military camps. We report the efficacy of ring chemoprophylaxis (geographically targeted containment by means of prophylaxis) with oseltamivir to control outbreaks of 2009 H1N1 influenza in semiclosed environments. METHODS: All personnel with suspected infection were tested and clinically isolated if infection was confirmed. In addition, we administered postexposure ring chemoprophylaxis with oseltamivir and segregated the affected military units to contain the spread of the virus. All personnel were screened three times weekly both for virologic infection, by means of nasopharyngeal swabs and reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction assay with sequencing, and for clinical symptoms, by means of questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 1175 personnel were at risk across the four sites, with 1100 receiving oseltamivir prophylaxis. A total of 75 personnel (6.4%) were infected before the intervention, and 7 (0.6%) after the intervention. There was a significant reduction in the overall reproductive number (the number of new cases attributable to the index case), from 1.91 (95% credible interval, 1.50 to 2.36) before the intervention to 0.11 (95% credible interval, 0.05 to 0.20) after the intervention. Three of the four outbreaks showed a significant reduction in the rate of infection after the intervention. Molecular analysis revealed that all four outbreaks were derived from the New York lineage of the 2009 H1N1 virus and that cases within each outbreak were due to transmission rather than unrelated episodes of infection. Of the 816 personnel treated with oseltamivir who were surveyed, 63 (7.7%) reported mild, nonrespiratory side effects of the drug, with no severe adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir ring chemoprophylaxis, together with prompt identification and isolation of infected personnel, was effective in reducing the impact of outbreaks of 2009 H1N1 influenza in semiclosed settings.